I’m not interested in arguing about whether objectivity is possible in news, just saying this distinction is important.
https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-photo-of-president-trump-dump...
an honest question, do your content police block CNN for this one article? if yes, i respect your consistency but i think CNN deserves some forgiveness. if no, why not? what is the threshold? any threshold is just A SECOND slippery slope.
> The first is an attempt to mislead people about events that have happened
i see. and who gets to decide what has happened? CNN or FOX? Google or Mozilla?
i think... show me a group capable of political objectivity, invulnerable to influence, and i can start to come around.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became...
Are you also against spam filters, virus scanners, security certificate warnings, mixed content warnings, and known malware domain click-throughs?
Which content police did I propose? I simply pointed out that you're conflating political fiction (eg George Orwell's 1984) with fake news (eg this story from "American News dot com": https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-google-crack...).
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond...
Was this video you posted from CNN fake? Was someone fabricating that or did it really happen? It's a very dumb story (and one of the reasons I don't bother with CNN), but I don't get the sense that it was fabricated.
Yes, news sources have political slants, I doubt you'll find anyone to argue with you on that one. The clickbaitization of news continues to ruin journalism, and I'd really like to reverse the trend. However, that's a different issue than the problem I pointed out with your argument.