Originally Posted by casual observer

I disagree that factual information upsets people. What upsets people is the editorializing of the facts and also the subjective decisions of producers to highlight some facts while dismissing others.

I'll go again to the definition. Upsets:
• Make (someone) unhappy, disappointed, or worried.

I, and most people I know, are upset by both terror events, and scientific news of climate change research. I don't see how it is up to you to say what upsets other people and what doesn't.

If I editorialized that fact by saying it is evidence of her inherent poor judgement and lack of fitness to be President, that would be potentially offensive and not news worthy. That should be left up to the consumer.

It is left to the consumer, in this case the airport concession. They decided to put the news on a screen in the airport. They were not coerced.

Additionally, if I produce the news for a media outlet and I choose to air only factual information that shows Hillary Clinton in a negative light and choose to omit factual stories that show her in a positive light, it is not the individual facts that are upsetting. It is the disingenuous selectivity of facts packaged as objectivity that is upsetting.

Perhaps factual selectivity is upsetting to you, but not to everyone. By definition, a business that upset everyone would quickly lose customers and run out of money. If you disagree, you might benefit from providing a new source of programming and minting money.

The goal of producers should not be to tell a story or make a difference, but to do their best job at transmitting facts in an objective way and letting viewers come to their own conclusions.

Since you say networks are not providing a good balance of negative and positive facts, are you going to be arbiter of the number of positive and negative facts that are provided?

Objectivity is not just about the adjectives used to describe fact, but a critical assessment of why certain facts are promoted while others are ignored.