TED Conversations

John Moonstroller

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Have our National News Media outlets become simple propaganda machines, feeding us a one sided version of the news?

“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.” ~ Wikipedia

Fox News claims to be an impartial, national news outlet, with the duty to bring to the audience, the impartial news, news representing the real nature of the event, without introducing bias or partiality.

CNN and the other News outlets are also socially designated to give us non-biased news as it occurs. Today, our national news outlets fail to give us an impartial report of events without trying to persuade us that their interpretation of the event is the proper perspective in which to view the reports and A/V (audio/video) footage.

Many people have turned to the Social Media outlets on the Internet to search for the truthful news, without all the slanted fanfare. Sometimes we get lucky and find a source but the social media are also biased, perhaps more so, than the National sources.

It’s getting harder to find the truth of how our global social frame work is evolving, what it is becoming and how we are affected by it’s evolution. Most News outlets are owned by an individual or organization. It sometimes appears that these owners have an agenda to instill an attitude towards a country, their people and their way of life or a particular political affiliation.

Is it impossible to find truth in reporting in our society today? Has Fox News become a mouthpiece for the republican party and CNN a mouthpiece for the Democratic party? What about the other news outlets, are they also working with an agenda that helps to slant the News towards their perspective or is it all about raking in the audience and making the bucks?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 6 2012: Bias is bias. It doesn't matter where it comes from...a news outlet, a website, or an individual.

    I agree with Pat...the major news networks are not reporting unbiased news anymore. There is big money in aligning your news show with a segment of the population. When CNN started the news-network phenomena, you would aee a 30-minute recap of major world news events every half-hour, 24-hours a day. Unless something new and MAJOR happened, you could watch CNN Headline News for 5 hours and nothing would change. Today, over half of their 24-hour programming is not "news" at all. It is a series of 30-minute or 1-hour segments of somebody telling you what you should think, under the guise of "analyzing" the "story" for you. FOX News is no different.

    And I agree with Fritzie also. Most "news" today is meaningless. OctoMom gave birth how many years ago? Why do I need to know she just did her first "stripper pole performance" at a new job? That's not really a life changing experience for me, nor one of humanity's most pressing issues.

    Today, if you want to get factual information that MEANS something, you have to search for it. But just like you feel you may not be able to trust "The News" programs today, you can NOT blindly place your trust in just anyone else. So, what do you do?

    Eventually, you have to trust someone. In my life experience, the most trustfull people are the RECOGNIZED experts in their fields. This doesn't mean that just because one Republican or one Democrat says his fellow peer is "right" makes it "right". Look for outside unbiased organizations for your references. Someone who has received a Nobel Prize is probably trustworthy AND knowledgable about what they are talking about. Consumers Reports will be unbiased in telling you if an advertiser's claims about their product is "trustworthy".

    Remember...propaganda is ineffective against a person if they have reasonably ACCURATE evidence against it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.