http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1385834-this-is-the-state-of-media-do-you-see-a-problem/

The problem is ... USA? None of these things happen in my country.
Also, cable here provides channels from europe, south america and asia. Its not like you are forced to watch fox news and cnn. Or are you?

Who gives a crap? Knowing I don't watch half of these things, I feel more informed than half of the people wherever I go to.

Excellent point here.

I get all of my news off of comedy websites, from here, hear it from family and friends, or don't at all.

Don't even have TV.

I just get my news off of Google News. I have personal results turned off (otherwise it'd just be long lists of furry and My Little Pony stuff ). That and a few blogs that I read that cover the political gamut.

But, seriously, there's a whole lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt contained in that infographic. Plus, newspapers are pretty much dead, having been eclipsed by television and the Internet as news sources.

There are some bad Internet sites as well though. I have never, in my entire life come across something so profoundly ignorant and racist as the Vanguard News Network. They are dedicated to hating on Jews and African-Americans. It makes me sick.

It's incredible, people are taught to hate. Then racism becomes a disease of the mind.

Then anything made by any company sell immediately. Bet you give these "big corporations" oodles of your money, hypocritically.

What is it with people making horrid assumptions about anyone they know nothing about?

When you know next to nothing about someone all you can do is assume. What you assume depends on you though.

There are educated guesses...and there's that.

I rather like 100+ year old editions of Punch magazine. Philosophically, nothing changes. Only different issues and players and devices. Humanity marches onward. What me worry?

Calling me a hypocrite would only work if it was me personally who was propping up the capitalist system. As it happens, if I stopped my involvement in the capitalist economy nothing would change.

Apart from that I'd almost certainly be dead soon.

The suggestion that anti-corporate protesters should stop buying things from corporations is blatantly blind to the facts; capitalism is totalising.

And in any case, though I did say "capitalism is the problem" I didn't say "capitalism should be dismantled and something else rebuilt from the ground up". It is a huge problem - it engenders huge inequalities, injustices and distortions of truth, and ruins millions of people's lives. Systemically. But acknowledging that doesn't automatically subscribe me to the Morning Star and necessitate that I join the revolution as soon as it happens. I haven't advocated any solution, because I don't know the solution to the world's ills, I just pointed out an obvious problem.

So stop putting words in my mouth and making yourself look hysterical.

Just shoot every journalist, producer, director, CEO, Chairman etc you see and the problem will go away....-ish

I don't forsee any negative consequences for this, but instead of the simple solution why not a elaborate and overthought out plan? One that involves you becoming a journalist and working for the newspapers. You then on purposely maked spalling and gammatically mistakes on the wording you writed in the papers. It wouldn't be long before the outraged general publich turned away in hoorror.

Disgusted at the state of the media people would abandon news and idle gossip in place for what I like to call relevant conversation. Think Oblivion NPC conversation in real life. Now thats progress.

I haven't played that. Think Skyrim conversations?

Also I fear indoctornation, best keep my distance and wear the tinfoil hat at all times!

For web searches, my first port of call is https://duckduckgo.com/.

I suppose my primary sources of news are RSS feeds from The Guardian and Al Jazeera, with the BBC providing some miscellaneous pieces (and I have to agree that the current state of the BBC's reporting is a bit disappointing). I've been meaning to find some more, but I'm lazy.

I used to read the Grauniad, but its tendency to be biased rather put me off. You can substitute the names of all of the other papers in that sentence and it's still true, which is why I've given up reading the news. You'd think that with them becoming decreasingly relevant they'd actually try for a selling point such as being honest and impartial, but I guess an aversion to those qualities is in most journalists' genes.

I like mrs robinson.

And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson

I prefer media from out of country, since everyone in Canada has a warped view of the true state of the country and it's ignorant citizens are being veiled by the media. So why not get a perspective from an outside view?

The way I see it, The Guardian shows less bias than the average rag, and the fact that it is owned by a trust (which is tasked with keeping the paper independent) makes it a little more trustworthy than, say, Newscorp (which almost definitely takes advantage of its power to influence people). If I may http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/harold-evans-leveson-murdoch-times a Guardian article...

So, yes, the G may have a bias these days. But at least they still have some journalistic integrity, and they claim that various things (such as political support) are dictated by internal staff discussions, rather than being passed down from high above . And I suppose that papers which are idealistic enough to be independent these days are naturally going to have a leftish leaning.

What alternatives are there? I admit that I haven't gone to much effort to look, but good newspapers are increasingly rare. There are a few internet-only news sites, too, but I'm not sure how many of them are good. Blogs provide an alternative, but you have to be even more careful in picking them, since it's quite easy for them to stray into being opinion rather than journalism, and there are plenty out there which end up being part of a self-reinforcing loop -- blog 1 posts something, blog 2 posts something based on blog 1, blog 3 posts something based on blog 2.... then blog 1 posts something based on blog 42...

Really this whole thread is rather ridiculous.

All news sources are biased in some way. Politically, topically, etc. This cannot be escaped, as all the reporting is done by humans, who make judgments about what is important and what is not important. If it is done via a team effort, groupthink and other team issues can easily arise. Even if we put diametrically opposed individuals onto a team, eventually some sort of bias will appear. Some networks and news programs have become more known for their bias (I'm sure I don't need to name them - fill in the blank based upon your own political leanings), but, again, people themselves are biased for and against different topics and viewpoints.

The whole idea of journalistic integrity is a good one - report what you know, try to avoid bias as much as possible, protect confidentiality of sources, etc - but it is a constant struggle between what is known to be true (a fuzzy concept, certainly) and what is believed to be true. It isn't helped by the fact that network and cable TV subscribe to the idea of heavily opinionated news.

For sure.

News to me is this: today a man died of a heart attack.

This is biased news: a bad man died of a heart attack today.

Which is why societies views generally remain the same, the media is bias where it knows it will have majority support.

Yep. People will stick with what news stations and sites they identify with or because it tells them what they want to hear.