Post

I think it's important to keep in mind that 💰-based journalism tends to have built-in mechanisms for all kinds of spin and/or information hiding. This is useful when considering not just what we are reading, but how and why it managed to get in front of our eyes. The following list, while not complete, serves to highlight some of the filtering going on:

The advertisers extend yea/nay force directly to the owner / publisher / board with 💰
The owner / publisher / board extends yea/nay force downwards to the editors and reporters
The editors extend yea/nay force downward to the reporters and the stories
The reporters extend yea/nay force to the choice of stories
The editors apply tone force to the stories
The reporters apply tone force to the stories
The reader's reactions apply force upwards and this will slowly but strongly moderate the tone of the stories as the nature of the audience makes itself clear to the journalistic enterprise.
In some enterprises, the political correctness of a story will affect selection and tone
In other enterprises, backing agendas will affect selection and tone
The nature of the story - for example, "if it bleeds, it leads" can force other stories out, because drama=💰 and there's only X amount of time/energy to cover this or that, and advertisers primarily pay for eyes, and journalism, unfortunately, almost always devolves to a 💰-counting undertaking.

Long story short, the news that reaches us may not be the news that is most important to us, the coverage that highlights the details we should really know, or even remotely even-handed. All those pressures and factors are there almost all of the time, in almost all of the news.

On top of this, we may harbor various biases that are based on misinformation, social indoctrination (the long resistance to LGBT is one example of a source of this, as is the so-called "drug war"), and dogma from from various sources.

IMHO, much thinking is called for. My observation is that there isn't nearly enough thinking being done by many. 😠