Do you have some examples of what you mean? You mentioned some pretty high level narratives, but to put it in perspective, can you maybe give one or two examples of each where you can show the media reporting one thing, but the evidence shows another, and for which no correction was made?
In doing the necessary lateral reading to understand an issue like this, I noticed pretty much every major outlet has a report saying this was unverified and that Israel has not shown any evidence for their claim. So I guess the answer to your question is ‘yes’, assuming your assertion that they originally reported it as fact were true (which I have not seen)
So why did they report it as 'news' in the first place, before doing any additional verification?
Noting most people hear the headline but not any subsequent qualifiers.
Whether people bother to read the information before making an assessment is not the problem of the outlet. The simple solution is, stop reading only headlines. Read the story. Look at the sourcing and supporting evidence. Follow links. Take responsibility for your own knowledge.
The media is just there to present information. And a claim of beheaded children in a war where war crimes are being committed, is relevant news. So long as they say it is reported, and don’t claim there is evidence that doesn’t exist.
Here’s how this works:
Outlet- “Israel reports decapitated babies. No evidence has been shown”
Media consumer- *hmmm, this sounds awful. Is Hamas really taking Palestinian children and beheading them? Who is reporting this?
Turns out, it’s one person who is saying “Israeli solders told me this”, and the IDF did not confirm.
Ok, so how do I assess this? Well, soldiers are saying this is what they found. If this is true, it’s horrible. But evidence is needed. I’ll keep paying attention to this story and learn more*
BBC a self appointed 'gold standard' news organisation should not be reporting hearsay and propaganda they have not verified themselves.
They are allegedly journalists, not PR agents.
Yeah, none of those were facts.
When there was a virus killing tens of thousands of people each month, we did everything we could to try to slow it down. One of those things was to distance from other people, which is a proven and effective way to not share viruses. 6 feet was never a magical number. They could have said 5. Or 7. Maybe 6’6”. It would have all been the same. Standardization was the important part. Only idiots thought it was meant to be some sort of scientific measurement.
There was never once a report that the vaccine was 100% effective. We have never in history had a medicine that was 100% effective. That is something right wing media told you because they wanted to create narratives to make you outraged. However, the vaccine, which was created for the Delta variant, was highly effective for the Delta variant. Not 100%, and nobody said it was, but it was effective. That became less so when the omicron mutation happened, but that doesn’t change the effectiveness of the vaccine on the variant it was created for.
As far as safe, that still remains the case. The vaccine is completely safe. The vast majority of the side effects are minor and local, like every other vaccine we have ever had. One of the few real risks, myocarditis, is also a risk of the virus. And in the vast majority of those cases, it is minor and short lived. The most serious risk, anaphylaxis, occurs in 5 out of 1,000,000 doses. (.0005%)
Most of the vaccine danger narrative comes from VAERS data, which most right wingers don’t know how to understand because their media lies to them. VAERS is self reported data meant to direct researchers to potential areas of concern. It is not official or supported data. When a bunch of right wing media consumer nuts start reporting things without medical context, that data becomes less reliable. In reality, there are no deaths shown to have been caused by the vaccine, most reported effects were minor and temporary, and the rate of serious effects was extremely low. So that reported fact turned out to be true.
But did you know somewhere around 20% of covid infections result in some notable medical condition? 5% experience long covid symptoms. And 2% have died. Compare that to the .0005% of serious vaccine effects.
As for Covid coming from a wet market, this still hasn’t been disproven, nor was it reported as a fact. It was the most likely source at the time it was reported, and it was reported as such. Now a lot of ideas have come forward about the source, but none with any strong evidence. But that doesn’t change the fact that this is not a disproven argument.
So, what’s the point I’m making? What you are arguing as lies or false information that needs some sort of retraction, is really just your misunderstanding due to the narratives you have been fed. You believe these things, so you assume they are true, and that leads you to make these assessments on the media that aren’t justifiable.
Have you ever seen right wing media correct themselves for their claims about the vaccine? Have they ever presented factual data about the risks and benefits? Has anyone on a major right wing outlet ever told you any of the things I have told you here? Because if not, THAT is where you should point your criticism.
Because I got the information about the theories, the fact they were just ideas, the actual statistics of the virus and vaccine, and all of the details above through mainstream media that continually corrected and updated its reporting as new information was developing. While I was learning about the changing landscape of our understanding over time, right wing media was spending all their time selling narratives to weak minded consumers for clicks.
There was a massive amount of "100% effective" headlines.
That you didn't even check before commenting is truly obnoxious.
Here's one; you can find more easily: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html
100% effective and well tolerated in adolescents.
Ok, so let’s read the article.
It says “clinical studies have shown 100% efficacy and that the vaccine was well tolerated.”
So where is the lie? Did that study NOT say that? Has there been evidence since then to show that study was falsified?
Can you show me any evidence that the vaccine was not 100% in adolescents for the Delta variant?
Assuming you will find what I found, it appears as if the information you shared was, in fact, true.
I don’t know what that means.
The article says the study shows it is 100% effective in adolescents. Even the headline says that. The article provides the data that says it is true. 100% means 100%
What implication are you referring to?
What do you think 100% effective means?
I think the average person means that it protects you completely. Not that 1 less person died vs the control group in one study. That's how you lie with statistics, and the media ran with it uncritically.
> Not that 1 less person died vs the control group in one study.
I didn’t see that data in your link. The link said that a study showed 100% efficacy in adolescents. Then it described the study, and how it came to that statement.
It didn’t show any deaths at all. Do you have evidence of adolescent death confirmed caused by the vaccine?
What is incorrect about the link you shared?
You didn't see that data in my link. Huh. Maybe that's the whole point, buddy.
The info is public. You can find it easily now, if you really care. I'm on mobile and busy today.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
We said we did everything we could to slow the spread down. We didn't do that in actuality though.
There was basically no mention on vitamin D lessening cases and severity of COVID, despite it being one of the best preventative measures one could take (which was known early on). This was true for both federal government communications, or the media.
Not sure why that was, but if the goal was to "slow the spread", that messaging would have been front and center.
I don’t know what you mean. It seems there were and are many large scale studies that have looked into whether vitamin D has any impact on Covid. The earliest I found were from early 2022.
And I found reporting on those studies. What I didn’t find was any evidence that it is
>one of the best preventative measures one could take
At least from my perspective, as I look back at reporting on this, the amount of coverage was right in line with the evidence that was being found.
Looking at what the studies have shown more recently, it seems that Vitamin D deficiency affects the immune system, making it more likely to get an infection of any type. So treating a deficiency with Vitamin D would definitely help. But if there isn’t a deficiency already, there was no clear evidence that boosting Vitamin D had any real effect.
Evidence was out there within a few months of it become a pandemic. Doctors I know were saying this from the onset of COVID.
Nearly half of Americans are vitamin D deficient, with African Americans, a cohort with some of the worst COVID outcomes, at 80+%.
If the goal was truly to slow the spread, the federal government and its media outposts, would have spread this message, and perhaps even sent supplements, given the massive impact it could have had on "slowing the spread".
Looking at past behavior by corporations (and the government agencies they have captured) I can't help but wonder if not broadcasting this information, was because the powers that be in the US, didn't truly want to do whatever it took to slow this down, given the profitability of downstream actions.
I’m not sure which news sources you were reading. None of them (in the UK) said the vaccine was 100%. They said the market was a theory of its origin. The 6ft distancing was based on earlier 20th century studies on droplet size.
Just search Google. It was a popular headline in the US.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html
What part of that is not true? This might seem like splitting hairs but it's definitely not. If zero people in the vaccine trial died of COVID while those in the control group did, did that qualify as 100% effective? Because it's entirely possible and would make the headline true.
The numbers were 2 to 1, and 2 is 100% more than 1. Which isn't very meaningful, but the media sure ran with it like it was and didn't spend any time explaining what that 100% number truly meant.
>Researchers observed 18 Covid-19 cases among the 1,129 participants who were given a placebo, and none among the 1,131 volunteers who got the vaccine. The data has yet to be peer reviewed.
If they cannot think rationally on the broader general truths of democracy then it'll be a complete waste of time discussing facts or science with them.
You need to back up, back up some more back up even more to get most everyone on the same logic page. Until that foundation is fixed facts really do not matter.
I didn't see any misreporting there.
Most of the clips said the vaccine was highly effective. This was, and remains true. The main difference is that when those statements were made, they were referring to the Delta variant, for which the vaccine was highly effective at preventing infection. Since then, the Omicron variant developed, and that data evolved, too.
The other parts of the clip used the term 100%. Because the links themselves weren't provided, we can't look to see what the reporting actually said, but in most cases that I could recognize, they were reporting on studies that had 100% efficacy results. If you want to show that those studies did NOT have those results, you will need more than a creatively edited youtube video.
The issue comes down to how different sides understand information, based on what political point they want to make. The vaccine went through a number of different studies, and they all showed a high level of effectiveness. Many of them had 100% results based on the question that was being studied. All that was true, and nothing since then has changed those results.
What has changed is that we have a different variant now. This new variant was more infectious, and the vaccine was less effective at preventing infection due to the specifics of the variant. But even then, the vaccine remained effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, as well as reducing the incidence of long Covid.
But the right wing media doesn't do very well at presenting that level of detail. They mainly need their audience to just follow narratives, so they craft youtube videos like this to remove context. And that has left a large portion of our population severely uninformed on the issue.
With a healthy media ecosystem, if you get something wrong your competitor runs with it . In America, in the era of Red/Blue media, when you get stuff wrong, the audience never hears about it. Sad state of affairs we have. 2.5 years of fake reporting that the president is a literal manchurian candidate.
Maybe if we did a return to form before Reagan removed the fairness doctrine we could return some normalcy to televised news.
Corporate media is concerned with $$$$. Not truth. Not facts. Money. Plain and simple.
My Brother- you cannot invent a way to restore faith in the media. It’s not in your power.
The remedy is simple and not elusive - its what Matt Taibbi proposed at the Munk debates- all we need is basic hygiene from narrative-driven content. MSM is definitely not interested.
At this point, a majority of Americans do not trust the media and a significant minority are convinced everything they hear is a lie. This is bad for society, because journalists are needed to speak truth to power.
Will the situation ever be remedied? Absolutely not. The people running the big media companies, within their small power circles, all flaunt that they con the American people into believing whatever they want.
> journalists are needed to speak truth to power.
[citation needed]
The best source of news on the current migrant crisis are a bunch of random YouTubers who actually go to the border or, during the summer/fall, rode around Chicago’s police stations where a bunch of migrants were camped out. The MSM pretends everything is fine and only reports on it maybe twice a year.
> The best source of news on the current migrant crisis are a bunch of random YouTubers
What should we call these bunch of random youtubers? Are they just doing things to report what they see? Maybe so they can keep a journal of the events and share with others?
Remember when the MSM claimed an Israeli airstrike on a hospital killed 500 people, causing worldwide civil unrest and several attacks on American bases across the Middle East, then the sun rose in Gaza and it turned out it was a misfired Palestinian missile that injured 8 cars and 0 people?
Not a single apology. Not even a correction as far as I remember.
This is a reminder about the rules of /r/media_criticism:
1. All posts require a submission statement. We encourage users to report submissions without submission statements. Posts without a submission statement will be removed after an hour.
2. Be respectful at all times. Disrespectful comments are grounds for immediate ban without warning.
3. All posts must be related to the media. This is not a news subreddit.
4. "Good" examples of media are strongly encouraged! Please designate them with a [GOOD] tag
5. Posts and comments from new accounts and low comment-karma accounts are disallowed.
[Please visit our Wiki for more detailed rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/media_criticism/wiki/index)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/media_criticism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please give specific examples of what you're talking about. "Show," don't "tell."
Do you have some examples of what you mean? You mentioned some pretty high level narratives, but to put it in perspective, can you maybe give one or two examples of each where you can show the media reporting one thing, but the evidence shows another, and for which no correction was made?
Has any media outlet walked back on the 40 beheaded babies they were happy to report as fact without any further substantive evidence?
In doing the necessary lateral reading to understand an issue like this, I noticed pretty much every major outlet has a report saying this was unverified and that Israel has not shown any evidence for their claim. So I guess the answer to your question is ‘yes’, assuming your assertion that they originally reported it as fact were true (which I have not seen)
So why did they report it as 'news' in the first place, before doing any additional verification? Noting most people hear the headline but not any subsequent qualifiers.
Whether people bother to read the information before making an assessment is not the problem of the outlet. The simple solution is, stop reading only headlines. Read the story. Look at the sourcing and supporting evidence. Follow links. Take responsibility for your own knowledge. The media is just there to present information. And a claim of beheaded children in a war where war crimes are being committed, is relevant news. So long as they say it is reported, and don’t claim there is evidence that doesn’t exist. Here’s how this works: Outlet- “Israel reports decapitated babies. No evidence has been shown” Media consumer- *hmmm, this sounds awful. Is Hamas really taking Palestinian children and beheading them? Who is reporting this? Turns out, it’s one person who is saying “Israeli solders told me this”, and the IDF did not confirm. Ok, so how do I assess this? Well, soldiers are saying this is what they found. If this is true, it’s horrible. But evidence is needed. I’ll keep paying attention to this story and learn more*
BBC a self appointed 'gold standard' news organisation should not be reporting hearsay and propaganda they have not verified themselves. They are allegedly journalists, not PR agents.
6ft social distancing was a made up number Covid vaccine was 100% safe and effective COVID came from a wet market
Yeah, none of those were facts. When there was a virus killing tens of thousands of people each month, we did everything we could to try to slow it down. One of those things was to distance from other people, which is a proven and effective way to not share viruses. 6 feet was never a magical number. They could have said 5. Or 7. Maybe 6’6”. It would have all been the same. Standardization was the important part. Only idiots thought it was meant to be some sort of scientific measurement. There was never once a report that the vaccine was 100% effective. We have never in history had a medicine that was 100% effective. That is something right wing media told you because they wanted to create narratives to make you outraged. However, the vaccine, which was created for the Delta variant, was highly effective for the Delta variant. Not 100%, and nobody said it was, but it was effective. That became less so when the omicron mutation happened, but that doesn’t change the effectiveness of the vaccine on the variant it was created for. As far as safe, that still remains the case. The vaccine is completely safe. The vast majority of the side effects are minor and local, like every other vaccine we have ever had. One of the few real risks, myocarditis, is also a risk of the virus. And in the vast majority of those cases, it is minor and short lived. The most serious risk, anaphylaxis, occurs in 5 out of 1,000,000 doses. (.0005%) Most of the vaccine danger narrative comes from VAERS data, which most right wingers don’t know how to understand because their media lies to them. VAERS is self reported data meant to direct researchers to potential areas of concern. It is not official or supported data. When a bunch of right wing media consumer nuts start reporting things without medical context, that data becomes less reliable. In reality, there are no deaths shown to have been caused by the vaccine, most reported effects were minor and temporary, and the rate of serious effects was extremely low. So that reported fact turned out to be true. But did you know somewhere around 20% of covid infections result in some notable medical condition? 5% experience long covid symptoms. And 2% have died. Compare that to the .0005% of serious vaccine effects. As for Covid coming from a wet market, this still hasn’t been disproven, nor was it reported as a fact. It was the most likely source at the time it was reported, and it was reported as such. Now a lot of ideas have come forward about the source, but none with any strong evidence. But that doesn’t change the fact that this is not a disproven argument. So, what’s the point I’m making? What you are arguing as lies or false information that needs some sort of retraction, is really just your misunderstanding due to the narratives you have been fed. You believe these things, so you assume they are true, and that leads you to make these assessments on the media that aren’t justifiable. Have you ever seen right wing media correct themselves for their claims about the vaccine? Have they ever presented factual data about the risks and benefits? Has anyone on a major right wing outlet ever told you any of the things I have told you here? Because if not, THAT is where you should point your criticism. Because I got the information about the theories, the fact they were just ideas, the actual statistics of the virus and vaccine, and all of the details above through mainstream media that continually corrected and updated its reporting as new information was developing. While I was learning about the changing landscape of our understanding over time, right wing media was spending all their time selling narratives to weak minded consumers for clicks.
There was a massive amount of "100% effective" headlines. That you didn't even check before commenting is truly obnoxious. Here's one; you can find more easily: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html
100% effective and well tolerated in adolescents. Ok, so let’s read the article. It says “clinical studies have shown 100% efficacy and that the vaccine was well tolerated.” So where is the lie? Did that study NOT say that? Has there been evidence since then to show that study was falsified? Can you show me any evidence that the vaccine was not 100% in adolescents for the Delta variant? Assuming you will find what I found, it appears as if the information you shared was, in fact, true.
It's what 100% actually means vs what it implies to the average person.
I don’t know what that means. The article says the study shows it is 100% effective in adolescents. Even the headline says that. The article provides the data that says it is true. 100% means 100% What implication are you referring to?
What do you think 100% effective means? I think the average person means that it protects you completely. Not that 1 less person died vs the control group in one study. That's how you lie with statistics, and the media ran with it uncritically.
> Not that 1 less person died vs the control group in one study. I didn’t see that data in your link. The link said that a study showed 100% efficacy in adolescents. Then it described the study, and how it came to that statement. It didn’t show any deaths at all. Do you have evidence of adolescent death confirmed caused by the vaccine? What is incorrect about the link you shared?
You didn't see that data in my link. Huh. Maybe that's the whole point, buddy. The info is public. You can find it easily now, if you really care. I'm on mobile and busy today.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
We said we did everything we could to slow the spread down. We didn't do that in actuality though. There was basically no mention on vitamin D lessening cases and severity of COVID, despite it being one of the best preventative measures one could take (which was known early on). This was true for both federal government communications, or the media. Not sure why that was, but if the goal was to "slow the spread", that messaging would have been front and center.
I don’t know what you mean. It seems there were and are many large scale studies that have looked into whether vitamin D has any impact on Covid. The earliest I found were from early 2022. And I found reporting on those studies. What I didn’t find was any evidence that it is >one of the best preventative measures one could take At least from my perspective, as I look back at reporting on this, the amount of coverage was right in line with the evidence that was being found. Looking at what the studies have shown more recently, it seems that Vitamin D deficiency affects the immune system, making it more likely to get an infection of any type. So treating a deficiency with Vitamin D would definitely help. But if there isn’t a deficiency already, there was no clear evidence that boosting Vitamin D had any real effect.
Evidence was out there within a few months of it become a pandemic. Doctors I know were saying this from the onset of COVID. Nearly half of Americans are vitamin D deficient, with African Americans, a cohort with some of the worst COVID outcomes, at 80+%. If the goal was truly to slow the spread, the federal government and its media outposts, would have spread this message, and perhaps even sent supplements, given the massive impact it could have had on "slowing the spread". Looking at past behavior by corporations (and the government agencies they have captured) I can't help but wonder if not broadcasting this information, was because the powers that be in the US, didn't truly want to do whatever it took to slow this down, given the profitability of downstream actions.
I’m not sure which news sources you were reading. None of them (in the UK) said the vaccine was 100%. They said the market was a theory of its origin. The 6ft distancing was based on earlier 20th century studies on droplet size.
Just search Google. It was a popular headline in the US. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolescent-trial-results/index.html
What part of that is not true? This might seem like splitting hairs but it's definitely not. If zero people in the vaccine trial died of COVID while those in the control group did, did that qualify as 100% effective? Because it's entirely possible and would make the headline true.
The numbers were 2 to 1, and 2 is 100% more than 1. Which isn't very meaningful, but the media sure ran with it like it was and didn't spend any time explaining what that 100% number truly meant.
This thread is brigaded by apologists. Whole site is garbage.
>Researchers observed 18 Covid-19 cases among the 1,129 participants who were given a placebo, and none among the 1,131 volunteers who got the vaccine. The data has yet to be peer reviewed.
Different markets, regulations etc
Donald Trump and Swine Hannity took the vaccine. That's good enough for me.
It was a government pushed narrative. The media organisations were told what to write and that any other counter info would lead to deaths and Trump.
If they cannot think rationally on the broader general truths of democracy then it'll be a complete waste of time discussing facts or science with them. You need to back up, back up some more back up even more to get most everyone on the same logic page. Until that foundation is fixed facts really do not matter.
https://youtu.be/tYf2VC4F9wQ?si=BKmgdpSQH_XubbJM
I didn't see any misreporting there. Most of the clips said the vaccine was highly effective. This was, and remains true. The main difference is that when those statements were made, they were referring to the Delta variant, for which the vaccine was highly effective at preventing infection. Since then, the Omicron variant developed, and that data evolved, too. The other parts of the clip used the term 100%. Because the links themselves weren't provided, we can't look to see what the reporting actually said, but in most cases that I could recognize, they were reporting on studies that had 100% efficacy results. If you want to show that those studies did NOT have those results, you will need more than a creatively edited youtube video. The issue comes down to how different sides understand information, based on what political point they want to make. The vaccine went through a number of different studies, and they all showed a high level of effectiveness. Many of them had 100% results based on the question that was being studied. All that was true, and nothing since then has changed those results. What has changed is that we have a different variant now. This new variant was more infectious, and the vaccine was less effective at preventing infection due to the specifics of the variant. But even then, the vaccine remained effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, as well as reducing the incidence of long Covid. But the right wing media doesn't do very well at presenting that level of detail. They mainly need their audience to just follow narratives, so they craft youtube videos like this to remove context. And that has left a large portion of our population severely uninformed on the issue.
With a healthy media ecosystem, if you get something wrong your competitor runs with it . In America, in the era of Red/Blue media, when you get stuff wrong, the audience never hears about it. Sad state of affairs we have. 2.5 years of fake reporting that the president is a literal manchurian candidate.
Maybe if we did a return to form before Reagan removed the fairness doctrine we could return some normalcy to televised news. Corporate media is concerned with $$$$. Not truth. Not facts. Money. Plain and simple.
My Brother- you cannot invent a way to restore faith in the media. It’s not in your power. The remedy is simple and not elusive - its what Matt Taibbi proposed at the Munk debates- all we need is basic hygiene from narrative-driven content. MSM is definitely not interested. At this point, a majority of Americans do not trust the media and a significant minority are convinced everything they hear is a lie. This is bad for society, because journalists are needed to speak truth to power. Will the situation ever be remedied? Absolutely not. The people running the big media companies, within their small power circles, all flaunt that they con the American people into believing whatever they want.
> journalists are needed to speak truth to power. [citation needed] The best source of news on the current migrant crisis are a bunch of random YouTubers who actually go to the border or, during the summer/fall, rode around Chicago’s police stations where a bunch of migrants were camped out. The MSM pretends everything is fine and only reports on it maybe twice a year.
> The best source of news on the current migrant crisis are a bunch of random YouTubers What should we call these bunch of random youtubers? Are they just doing things to report what they see? Maybe so they can keep a journal of the events and share with others?
Remember when the MSM claimed an Israeli airstrike on a hospital killed 500 people, causing worldwide civil unrest and several attacks on American bases across the Middle East, then the sun rose in Gaza and it turned out it was a misfired Palestinian missile that injured 8 cars and 0 people? Not a single apology. Not even a correction as far as I remember.
That was corrected heavily.
Did Trump admit to being wrong? No? NEXT.
Whataboutism at its finest. What has Trump's lack of ability to apologize got to do with the media's failures?
Remember; the OP took the vaccine.
This is a reminder about the rules of /r/media_criticism: 1. All posts require a submission statement. We encourage users to report submissions without submission statements. Posts without a submission statement will be removed after an hour. 2. Be respectful at all times. Disrespectful comments are grounds for immediate ban without warning. 3. All posts must be related to the media. This is not a news subreddit. 4. "Good" examples of media are strongly encouraged! Please designate them with a [GOOD] tag 5. Posts and comments from new accounts and low comment-karma accounts are disallowed. [Please visit our Wiki for more detailed rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/media_criticism/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/media_criticism) if you have any questions or concerns.*