"👎" to the John Oliver reference. His "reporting" is as biased as it gets. His show is written in a style that convinces the subconscious to accept presented arguments without engaging any serious logical scrutiny. Just try to remember if at any point during any of his broadcasts you actually analyzed the subject of his monologues, rather than simply furthering the thought-process that he was laying out for you. Chances are that you never have because it's written to be persuasive (obviously) and only incidentally informative. Sadly, I know this is precisely what many people now believe "journalism" to be...
Validity of claims is one thing. Validity doesn't equal truth or objectivity. "Fake news" includes cases where the presented claims may be technically valid, but the "lie" exists in the omission of inconvenient claims which would invalidate the intended message of the story. The use of certain agreeable facts to drive a greater agenda rather than inform the viewer. Style is related, as it is the method through which a presenter can evoke a particular response in the viewing subject and entice the mind to follow along and be guided. This sort of psychological manipulation is common in people, beginning from childhood. In advanced forms, you have the con man or other such subversive entity, who has mastered the art of manipulation.
John Oliver hosts a late night talk show and he is primarily a comedian. He is not a journalist so your commentary on journalism seems misplaced on this point.
what are you trying to say? That given he is comedian, his reporting is less credible or audience should receive his stories less seriously or what? Given that he throws a joke from time to time, does it mean that it's less reporting and more comedy?
> That given he is comedian, his reporting is less credible or audience should receive his stories less seriously or what?
As he is primarily known as a comedian, there is no way to confuse him as a journalist doing "news reporting". This calibrates the critical thinking dial in my brain.
> Given that he throws a joke from time to time, does it mean that it's less reporting and more comedy?
Have you watched the show? The joke to content ratio is very high.
you are confusing jokes with fiction. It is possible to tell true story with additional jokes there and there without fiction. And I think here is confusion - for me Last Week Tonight seems like serious show which tries to do a lot of research to present some facts to audience in entertaining way.
I would say that hacker news is actually a fairly objective aggregator. It's also participatory, which hopefully checks bias at some level. But, as this isn't television... it's not a valid example, in response to your question. Also, hacker news isn't ad-supported, which is nice.
But there is still bias here. Bias in the stories submitted, in that they're skewed toward the I interests of white male 20-30 somethings. Not a lot of diversity of opinion and point of view here, which is another way of saying prevailing bias.
PBS is pretty good, despite attempts by the right to brand them as liberal. Watching the PBS News Hour, you can almost see the anchors gritting their teeth as they give equal respect to guests spouting right-wing fabrications, but they still do it to remain as neutral as possible.
Probably not a universally unbiased source, but I think that many sources occasionally engage in objective reporting. I also think that number is probably decreasing in these times...
