Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
That, to me, is the key thing in judging journalism. Is there something concrete and provable that they're reporting on - or is just "what people say"? You can read between the lines, examine word choice and how things are phrased. Parse through it and try to differentiate the actual "facts" which are reported, as opposed to quoted opinions and how much the journalist/commentator puts their own opinions and supposition into it.
A good example of a lack of journalism is the made up controversy over the Uranium One deal.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Those facts are easy to check, and yet a false narrative was pushed in the face of contradicting facts. Why?
As for the idea that the media report on facts that some people don't like, that may be true. However, much of the criticism directed against media is also about the facts they don't report. Sometimes the facts seem highly selective which would indicate lies of omission.
Examples?
Yes, I would agree with this, although considering that most media outlets are corporate owned and generally part of huge conglomerates, which depend upon the goodwill and patronage of wealthy corporate sponsors, then certainly their "independence" can be called into question.
Journalists are not corporate owned, and most journalists take their credibility seriously. They are paid to be journalists, not shills for corporate sponsors.