Media outlets today seem incapable of reporting straightforward news without giving an opinion on it.
Did we ever have impartial news reporting? Or was I too naïve back then to notice the bias? (Or were news reports just more subtle?)
From the accusatory, and often asinine, ‘questions’ hurled at politicians in the street, to the selective reporting, and the trotting out of ‘expert’ commentaries from ‘our political correspondent’ (or ‘business’, ‘health’, ‘economic’, ‘foreign’, ‘royal’, etc) news media in the UK has become a muck-raking lynch-mob baying for blood.
Leading interview questions, interruptions and downright bullying are not news.
Neither are interviews of people in the street. Meant to inform us of the views of the public, we have no idea how such interviews are selected from the total number of interviews recorded. Selected by whom? And what of moderate individuals who choose not to air their views in public? Is there actually any point to bombarding us with such ‘random’ opinions other than stuffing news bulletins and furthering the views of that particular corporation?
Reasoned argument has its place in a different type of programme. I don’t want controversial news reporting; I want it to be factual and impartial.
I want to be told the day’s events; I don’t want to be told what to think.
What prompts you to turn off or stop reading?
Copyright © 2022 cathy-cade.com – All rights reserved.