The media’s reporting on the upcoming U.S. and UK elections will have significant political implications, and they must do so without bias, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.
Manipulative media are media organisations with an agenda. The best example of agenda-driven media is the Murdoch media. Murdoch outlets may claim to be producing “news”, but, like News Corp Australia did for the “No” campaign during the Voice referendum, during the U.S. and UK elections, they will be campaigning for the U.S. Republicans and the UK Conservative Party.
Source: ‘False balance’: Media has a responsibility to call out lies in U.S. and UK elections
olddogthoughts 
Seemingly long ago, mainstream journalism tended to challenge the powers-that-be in order to truly comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable in an increasingly unjust global existence.
Now, so much of it has become a profession motivated more by a regular company paycheck and frequently published name/face with stories or opinions — a buck and a byline, so to speak.
Also troubling is that mainstream news-outlet websites [The Washington Post’s, for example] are increasingly converting to ‘pay-to-say’ formats, where the reader is allowed to consume the article without charge but must buy a subscription in order to comment on the article.
Meantime, there still are reporters and editors who will (as though with big innocent fawn-like eyes) reply to accusations of subjective journalism with, ‘Who, me? I’m just the messenger.’
Whatever the news media may be, they’re not ‘just the messenger’; nor are they but a reflection of the community — or their consumer base, for that matter — in which they circulate. Perhaps such compromised or subjective journalism has become normalized.
As one who has consumed the news regularly since the late 1980s, I’d say the field of journalism has problematically become overly corporatized thus more readily externally manipulated and compromised.
LikeLike