(12-27-2019 11:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Most of the people you see talking on CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews are not journalists. "Blitzer interviewing a panel of three liberals agreeing with each other" is not a journalist reporting news. Neither is Fox and Friends or Tucker Carlson. So those examples are not as good as other media outlets like Washington Post, WSJ, The New Yorker, and many others. Less editorializing intermingled with reporting in the print media. That said, all 3 stations have a few actual journalists and I maintain that they do solid work. But we can just disagree, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

That’s where we have different opinions. The people who are not journalists don’t bother me because their biases are obvious. My problem is that the people who are supposed to be solid objective journalists aren’t. They pretend and claim to be objective, but in many subtle ways they simply aren’t—choice of words, choice of stories to cover, subtle slants in telling those stories, facial expressions, choice of photos and film footage to flatter one and make the other look bad, things like that. Watch coverage of the same event on Fox and on one of the others, and you can doubt that they are both covering the same story—and the truth usually lies somewhere in between. I tend to prefer BBC, which leans left, and the Economist, which leans libertarian, but neither of them is obsessed with Donald Trump,