Oh God, no, please do not say.
The “We are at least honest about our intentions” is a thin layer of varnish about “we say what we want to influence the public opinion, and whether what we say is really true, or totally true, that doesn’t make us crack.”
I find it finer when people do a crack or it really is true.
In principle, the ‘ old ‘ media (newspaper, TV, Radio) is known for their signature.
NOS Journal is to the left of the middle, RTL Journal to the right of the middle.
In newspapers it is also clear.
The only ‘ place ‘ where that is less obvious is the Internet.The source can be anyone.
The idea is that you let the facts speak as much as possible, but that is tricky.For example, Erdogan says that the prices of fresh vegetables go through the roof, because the wholesalers are terrorists, say profiteers. Western economists say that Erdogan has let the inflation run out of hand. If you follow the vision of the economists, then Turks will say that the NOS is anti-Erdogan.
The weird thing is, that both sides are right.The average Dutch journalist finds Erdogan a demagogue and a dictator and that sounds through the reporting, but that of those economists is also true. Prices are rising because Erdogan has not managed the economy well.
But should you say now that you find Erdogan a wrong man and therefore let the facts and interpretations of independent specialists sail?That is going to be very far. The tricky thing is that from our perspective someone is badly involved if he helps democracy to soap and closes journalists. This is ingrained with every Dutch journalist. This stems from the idea that we find our system and our way of doing superior. People would also not pick it up if Erdogan was put down as a very competent, friendly leader.
Trump is also such a case.The majority of Americans are quite happy with him, but the Dutch find him nothing. This has created a tendency to follow all his policies very critically and to emphasize his absurd sides. In Reality, his policy does not differ so much from that of other Republican presidents. Even denying the link between CO2 and climate warming is not so strange. Also Bush Junior said he would never pursue policies that would discourage the use of cars. He found that in violation of American culture.
There are all sorts of prejudices in Dutch news and current affairs programmes, but this is not to be avoided.I think that modding is the best solution.
The background to the question seems to be that the questioner has the conviction that the Dutch media are not objective and must be transparent about their political preference.Objectivity and truth are goals that one can or cannot pursue. At Breitbart, one does not pursue these goals and is the published part of a struggle in the arena of public opinion, where all publicity resources are lawful. It is clear that there is a lot of subjectivity in the choice of Things to be published, but that does not mean that we have to take a walk with the facts. The Volkskrant and allegiance will be inclined rather than the Telegraph in their articles to pay attention to the horrible situation in which many refugees are, but that does not mean that they can just as well suck these stories out of their thumb. Being transparent about the political preference does not preclude you from striving for objectivity and truth. If facts do not matter anymore then the public domain ends up in a struggle for power-that you see happening now in the USA and the United Kingdom. The Media are part of the public debate but must remain far away from a situation where the truth is subordinate to political goals.
And what opinion should it be?Most major news organizations are more diverse than many people think. Do you then announce the view of the reader, the directing, the writer, the correspondent, or the photographer, or cameraman?
Objectvitieit is an illusion.Each newspaper and Ormoep has a certain signature and the ideology determines what they write and broadcast. The citizen just wants to be able to choose.
Good idea.The problem is that the Dutch do not seem to be so very inclined to consume those “Breede-cakes” otherwise we would already do it massively (well, it is 2019).
So rather not.When I feel like Sic-fi stories I prefer to read something from Asimov.
Indeed, I think that is good.
The USA is very heavily polarized.I would even go so far as to have at least two different countries. One is democratic, the other Republican. The separation is so deep that the two each have their newspapers and TV networks and they serve almost exclusively their own group. In doing so, some have unleashed the pursuit of realistic messaging. The most pronounced examples of this are Breitbart and Fox News, both Republican and virtually uncritical supporters of Trump.
Quality papers (we would say) if the New York Times and the Washington Post do pursue real-world reporting and also have a number of Republican columnists, which also means ‘ the other side ‘, but of course much less.
I do not think that we should go on the side of Breitbart and Fox News, which, as has been said, have completely unleashed the pursuit of realistic reporting.Moreover, these two are the only source of news for many Americans. One of the reasons for this is that many of their readers/viewers are low-educated and therefore not sufficiently able to see through. The same situation would probably also emerge in the Netherlands, we already see a strong tendency for polarization in the Netherlands. This will erode and undermine democracy.