That I can agree with wholeheartedly; the problem of story selection (most events are not reported at all, a few are printed in the body of the paper, and very little makes the front page above the fold - and all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, human beings decide which is which) assures that "fair and balanced news" is in the eye of the beholder.. . . I need a television news network that's more competent and truthful than it is "fair and balanced", (3) and anyone who can't appreciate that deserves to be misinformed.
Here is where I have a problem; a journalist may competently do his story selection according to given criteria, but those criteria impose a perspective on his product which no amount of truthfulness will alter.The standard criteria of journalism, such as "'Man Bites Dog' rather than 'Dog Bites Man'," "If it bleeds, it leads," and the implicit criterion of "You can't report what you don't know yet" (Duh!) and "Always insinuate your superior objectivity and virtue as compared to the subject you are writing about" impose a leftist slant on the news. A slant which can only be openly acknowledged and discussed in opinionated discussion in which the participants are selected with a view toward "balance" and "fairness." Or, better yet, in openly conservative (as a leftist would have it) commentary to balance the leftward slant which inheres in superficial, negative, arrogant "straight news" reporting due, fundamenatally, to the need to attract an audience.
BTTT