When you read any mainstream publication do you believe the entirety of the report / article? Or do you sift through it and assume that it has factual information within it but probably is skewed in favour of the narrative of said publication?
I think all publications have their share of truth including the Mail, the Independent and the Guardian but I am always suspicious (with all of them no matter which leaning) as to the way they present the story.
You can see the same story in several publications and if you read through it you would end up with a different resulting viewpoint because each one will ignore some facets that would counter their narrative.
It isn't the Orwellian nightmare that you suggest. Merely that you have to be able to read a story and not soak up the narrative each publication is trying to present with the way they present their story.
Breitbart and others like it (left and right) are labelled as post truth which is not true at all. Like all publications and TV media as well as facebook there is truth in the story but the use of exaggeration as well as suppressing some key context makes the interpretation of the news different to the reader.
Key at the moment is the downplaying of "good news" since Brexit in terms of a lot of the financial "pointers". One side is downplaying everything and actually looking for things to say "ahah, look" where the other side is saying "look it's all rosy." The context is ignored and the real interpretation is somewhere in the middle of "yes the pointers are good BUT......."
At the moment the economists and those who want to push the picture of something around the corner are so focused on the Brexit doom angle that they are fatally ignoring the fact that consumer credit is rising dangerously and we could be facing another bust very soon. Nothing to do with Brexit that one but a recession could well hit us sometime soon because people are going mad on credit again.
This is nothing new and you could say it is actually not being biased. Like a football fan seeing a perspective through glasses tinted to your viewpoint however many media organisations add to that tint by purposefully ignoring context that may make their "argument" less convincing.
It is not the medias job to decide which news should be suppressed like the Cologne incidents. They should be reporting all news. I have no problem with them taking issue with any viewpoint that tries to paint the whole muslim community because of such incidents but they MUST report the news and not select what they want us to know and what they don't because that is the very same as they accuse right wing sensationalists like Breitbart of.
Thanks for reply.
No to the point in bold. I'm well aware of an agenda. If people are honest, if they have a side, they would rather read what is more palatable to their 'mainly' held views. I was genuinely wondering if there is such an outlet (website perhaps) that offers balance as oppose to the binary press.
I choose not to read the Mail/Express as its fairly immediately vile to many humans that don't share the same religion/skin colour or weird sentiment about how Britain used to be. I'm sure I'm not the only one.