[Bucco]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

You're referring to people talking ABOUT the news. You're not talking about the ACTUAL news. Yes, people will say what they want to say, and push their own agenda, and lie, and make things up, etc. etc.

But when the camera is on Mr. Smith, and it's "live" (meaning happening WHILE you are watching, not taped, recorded, and played back some other time)...

You can trust that whatever you see Mr. Smith say and do, he really IS saying and doing it. Even if Nancy Newsreporter says he never said that - you saw him and heard him say it LIVE. If Jimbob Anchorman says "yes he said that but he meant..." some other thing - you know you watched it happen LIVE, and know darned well what Mr. Smith meant when he said it.

If people would just stop talking about "people who talk ABOUT the news" and pay closer attention to the news itself, you'd have a lot less people whining about how they can't trust the media and a lot more opportunity for civil discourse.

I am always struck by newscasts being maligned and supposedly "made up" including those taped segments of a person actually saying what made it news. Of course most of those who say those things actually believe the conspiracy theories.

A writer who i find very astute, William Saletan, in his series on this kind of discussion says..

"But to make those debates productive, and to correct our country’s mistakes—failed projects, naïve policies, bad wars—we need a common standard for judging truth. That standard can’t be the Bible or identity politics. It has to be the standard we apply in daily life: evidence. If you say the election was stolen, you have to prove it in court. If you accuse a police officer of murder, your story has to withstand investigation."