Hence the conundrum that FoxNews faces with its "fair and balanced" refrain. The dilemma, I suppose is, is there a better slogan; maybe drop the balanced??? The MAJOR problem arises when any news agency/reporter/humble correspondent has to deal with whoppers! I've stated this before, but I think it bears repeating. It's akin to and old saw from Mark Twain; something like: "A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is putting its socks on!"
"Whoppers", if not dealt with immediately, are able to begin their journey without so much as a dumb look from most journalists. Rebuttals, when and if finally rendered, rarely seem to carry the same weight as the original terminological inexactitude, with some rare exceptions. The journalist, if inclined, who doesn't have facts, figures, charts, graphs, etc. at his fingertips to confront the charlatan is automatically at a disadvantage. The liars know this and use it to their advantage to achieve their goal -- misleading the unwashed.
I suspect fully one third of the electorate, if they pay any attention at all, are cheering on these frauds they call their leaders. They believe as their leaders do that the ends justifies the means -- it's for the common good doncha know.
That said, we should use the information and knowldege base we gain here on FR and elsewhere and somehow concentrate our efforts in educating the people on the fence; the probably 15 - 20% of the population that doesn't have any particular axe to grind, but want to actually do what's right for the country, for themselves and their posterity. Preaching to the choir is not a bad thing because it reinforces and supports the message we need to carry to our work, church, social groups, etc.
He shows that attempting to separate "facts" from "values," whether in history or journalism, is impossible, and that "objectivity" was one response---but the other was outright bias against the "status quo," whether it was society, tradition, or whatever. In part, then, that explains the inbred liberalism of reporters.
You might carry that a step further and include editors, managers, and even owners? Without the complicity of management and, at best, the apathy of owners, the bleeding hearts would never write a news article or editorial for publication. In defense of owners, they were milking the cash cow for all it was worth - if it ain't broke; don't fix it. When the wheels started falling off, they were left without a clue why. That is, the anti-everything-good-about-America manure they had allowed their charges to spread around the country AND the world.
Ever wonder why there are two things you're not supposed to talk about at work - religion and politics?
These are absolutely irrelevant to the moguls who run these companies. Even if they say differently, they don't mind subsidizing a "progressive" news outlet at the cost of a few million a year---which they siphon from their much more profitable enterprises---if it allows them to go to their cocktail parties and golf games and appear "with it," "concerned" and not part of the "right wing" establishment. So here is an example of where Marx was clearly wrong: they constantly go against their "class interest" because they would rather fit in socially than make more money or even beat the competitors.
As for "whoppers" and "fair and balanced," what is wrong with "Truthful?" "Honest?" "Accurate?" Presenting ALL sides may include the "right answer," but it also ensures several "wrong answers" will also get an airing. Why not endeavor beforehand to find out the truth, and report ONLY that? Jesus never gave Satan "equal time."