Static that tampers with meaning
Was that tamp down static or dampen static, as in reduce its effect? Wrong recommended article. Meanwhile, back at the rant--
One network used to have the tagline fair and balanced, though I think counterweight's a more accurate term. Its bias was clearer and its presentation more contentious, so I sought news elsewhere. Another I used to accept as a source of news used the same pattern of coverage against at least two political candidates, one who won the presidency, another who didn't. The individual issues were different, and the candidates themselves were night and day (as were my votes for these people), but the coverage tended to the negative for both. The only similarity I could find between these people (apart from age, skin color, and gender) was political affiliation - the coverage got me wondering what other topics this network has presented with that sort of imbalance.
That was then, and this is now. The news aggregator I use makes comparing coverage much easier - the headlines alone show a marked difference between news outlets' presentations on the same topic, and that's without reading the article text, which I did for those I could access. (Before I continue, I should say that this isn't an endorsement of that aggregator. Recommendations aside, its time stamps have been hours to years out of date - check the screenshots, Faust*.)
A discussion on low-flow toilets turns into OMG flail pieces on nobody flushes like that what is he talking about? They're not strictly fake news, but they're more performance than information, and they bring to mind a movie scene in which one newspaper seller claims that thousands flee the scene of a recent event while his companion's reply is along the lines of "dude, pigeons." (They also bring to mind the question of how effective those toilets are on solid wastes. Aren't there dual-flows on the market? Isn't water conservation an environmental issue that y'all are so keen to support? It's like firearm legislation versus entertainer DUI all over again.)
There's no need to vote for someone or support that someone's behavior to know that this sort of coverage isn't something to associate with the words "trusted name in news." Statements that claim opinion pieces reflect the opinion of the network that publishes them are countered by the disclaimers that are there for the times when those pieces don't, but the network publishes them anyway in order to prevent an appearance of bias (whoops, too late). And at this point, for me, there ceases to be any meaning to a news network whose coverage is such that one would rather witness events for oneself than accept its broadcasts at face value.
(Not that that'll stop me from keeping an eye on it to point out different issues, like a platform for counterfeit products could do better than use such a network - and besides, doesn't it have its own media tentacle to use?)
* 5/4/20 Meph.
