Originally Posted by casual observer (Post 2366573)

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.

Originally Posted by aldonite7667 (Post 2366579)

I worked at (flew for) CNN. They are full of $hit and they know it and said it.

Originally Posted by bay982 (Post 2366593)

If you want to maximize objectivity, I recommend public television, which accepts significantly less advertising money-and offers minimal advertising time-in order to pursue the most editorially free content possible. Additionally, public television makes a point of publicly starting conflicts of interest. This is significantly different than major networks. There is no such thing as complete objectivity​, humans aren't robots. Peer review independently funded science is the best we can do, and we're not always going to like the answers.

Originally Posted by bay982 (Post 2366593)

If you want to maximize objectivity, I recommend public television, which accepts significantly less advertising money-and offers minimal advertising time-in order to pursue the most editorially free content possible. Additionally, public television makes a point of publicly starting conflicts of interest. This is significantly different than major networks. There is no such thing as complete objectivity​, humans aren't robots. Peer review independently funded science is the best we can do, and we're not always going to like the answers.

Originally Posted by bay982 (Post 2366597)

Your reply is lacking any substantive quality and does not in any way address the facts that I provided.

Originally Posted by casual observer (Post 2366604)

Let me ask you an honest question. I'll respect your answer. If the Koch brothers bought the rights to run the ATL airport concession and decided to swap CNN with Fox News. And you personally knew many Delta customers that were offended by the partisan nature of Fox.

Your position would be: Well, that's just the way it is. You fly in ATL you're just gonna have to sit through some Fox. ?

People don't have any say in the matter?

Originally Posted by bay982 (Post 2366641)

Personally, and it isn't of much consequence, I think Fox News is terrible for human beings. My guess is that were someone to do a study, the result would show that Fox lies at the "infotainment" end of the information spectrum, the opposite end from public television in terms of fact based reporting with minimum partisan commentary.

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76 (Post 2366647)

I suppose CNN and MSNBC are beacons of honesty and nonpartisanship then, right?

I mean Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews speak gospel along with Jake Tapper while those rabble rousers Bret Beier and Chris Wallace keep spouting hateful messages for the deplorables...

Originally Posted by bay982 (Post 2366641)

Personally, and it isn't of much consequence, I think Fox News is terrible for human beings. My guess is that were someone to do a study, the result would show that Fox lies at the "infotainment" end of the information spectrum, the opposite end from public television in terms of fact based reporting with minimum partisan commentary.

Were it in the Atlanta airport, I would--again, personally--hope that people would complain, and that the airport concession would change it. Would that happen? Probably not. Would I be disappointed? Yes. Is there anything else I could do about it? Not really. So here I am on APC trying to share my opinion with other educated people in some small way.