For many years I’ve said the MSM is the conscience of America.
They determine what the majority gets happy/upset about. Rarely does public opinion run counter to MSM propaganda.
And most of the MSM distortion comes by omission.
It’s become blatant, esp. TV news. With a huge illiterate population now the networks are the primary news source of the Country. Not many read newsprint, or anything for that matter.
The media will complain that they have just so many minutes and have to pick what stories to cover or how much to edit.
Of course the editor’s political leanings determine what is left out of the news shows.
First, why use the term, “the media,” when you mean nothing other than journalism? We shouldn’t fear to call out pseudo-objective journalism for what it is. The term “sophistry” is a byword for slippery argumentation, not wisdom - because “Sophists” of ancient Greece used slippery argumentation precisely because they claimed to be wise. The effect of journalists’ claiming to be objective is so like the effect of the Sophists’ claim of wisdom as to make me question whether the journalist’s claim of objectivity is actually a different claim or whether the two claims are actually logically distinct at all. Is there such a thing as “unwise objectivity,” or “unobjective wisdom?”In any event, no one can make a conscientious attempt at objectivity without being open about any reasons why they might not be objective. And since that openness is the very antithesis of claiming actually to be objective, it is perfectly clear that claiming objectivity is antithetical to making a serious attempt at objectivity.
Claims of journalistic objectivity therefore have no visible means of support - except propaganda power.