Mainstream Media Should Do A better Job With The News

Right-Wing media sites do not do a decent job of bringing the truth to their viewers/readers. They are nothing more than propaganda media sites. The mainstream media does a better job of reporting the truth, but sometimes they even come up short -- especially when reporting on progressive views and bills.

Here is how former Labor Secretary Robert Reich describes the shortcomings of the mainstream media:

I’m often asked how I keep up with the news. Obviously, I avoid the unhinged rightwing outlets pushing misinformation, disinformation, and poisonous lies.

But I’ve also grown a bit wary of the mainstream media –- the New York Times,Washington Post, CNN, and other dominant outlets — not because they peddle “fake news” (their reporting is usually first-rate) but because of three more subtle biases.

First, they often favor the status quo. Mainstream journalists wanting to appear serious about public policy rip into progressives for the costs of their proposals, but never ask self-styled “moderates” how they plan to cope with the costs of doing nothing or doing too little about the same problems.

A Green New Deal might be expensive but doing nothing about the climate crisis will almost certainly cost far more. Medicare for All will cost a lot, but the price of doing nothing about America’s cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system will soon be in the stratosphere.

Second, the mainstream media often fail to report critical public choices. Any day now, the Senate will approve giving $768 billion to the military for this fiscal year. That’s billions more than the Pentagon sought. It’s about four times the size of Biden’s Build Back Better bill, which would come to around $175 billion a year. But where’s the reporting on the effects of this spending on the national debt, or on inflation, or whether it’s even necessary?

Third, the mainstream media indulge in false equivalences — claiming that certain Republican and Democratic lawmakers are emerging as “troublemakers” within their parties or that extremists “on both sides” are “radicalizing each other”.

These reports equate Republican lawmakers who are actively promoting Donald Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen with Democratic lawmakers who are fighting to protect voting rights. Well, I’m sorry. These are not equivalent. Trump’s big lie is a direct challenge to American democracy.

In the looming fight over whether to preserve the Senate filibuster, the mainstream media gives equal weight to both sides’ claims that the other side’s position is radical. But ask yourself which is more radical – abolishing the filibuster to save American democracy or destroying American democracy to save the filibuster?

You see, the old labels “left” versus “right” are fast becoming outdated. Today, it’s democracy versus oligarchy. Equating them is misleading and dangerous.

Why doesn’t the mainstream media see this? Not just because of its dependence on corporate money. I think the source of the bias is more subtle.

Top editors and reporters, usually based in New York and Washington, want to be accepted into the circles of the powerful – not only for sources of news but also because such acceptance is psychologically seductive. It confers a degree of success. But once accepted, they can’t help but begin to see the world through the eyes of the powerful.

I follow the mainstream media, but I don’t limit myself to it. And I don’t rely on it to educate the public about bold, progressive ideas that would make America and the world fairer and stronger. 

I read the Guardian, the American Prospect (which, full disclosure, I helped found thirty years ago), Mother Jones, and The Atlantic. I follow several blogs (Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo, for example). I listen to the always thoughtful Democracy Now. And I subscribe to a few newsletters (I hope you like this one and spread word of it). 

But even with news sources I trust, I still ask myself: how are choices being framed? What’s being left out? What big underlying issues are being assumed away or obscured?

When our democracy is under assault from so many directions, I think we need to educate and re-educate ourselves (and our children) about how to learn what’s really going on — how to absorb the news critically. Isn’t this a minimal responsibility of democratic citizenship?

Texas Power Crisis Was Biggest Energy Story Of 2021

Morning Consult and Politico polls were conducted throughout 2021, surveying roughly 2,000 registered voters each, with 2-point margins of error.

Nearly Half Of Public Gets COVID Info From Social Media

The chart above is from a survey done by the Pew Research Center. Their survey was done between July 26th and August 8th of a national sample of 11,178 adults, with a 1.4 point margin of error. 

It shows that nearly half of Americans say they've been getting information about COVID-19 and the vaccines from social media. I find that depressing, but it explains why so many people are misinformed.

I love social media (as my Facebook friends can tell you). But it is not a good place to get news -- about COVID and vaccines or anything else. It's a great place to stay in contact with friends and associates, but much of the "news" there is little more than propaganda -- or outright misinformation.

Americans are lucky in that they have many places to get real news. There are newspapers, TV, radio, and magazines that all dedicate themselves to reporting the truth. Use those sources for getting news, and use the social media for entertainment.

MSNBC Leads In Daytime Viewers For The 1st Quarter

 

The Nielsen numbers show that for the first quarter of 2021, MSNBC led all other cable shows in daytime ratings. Fox led in primetime for the quarter, although both MSNBC and CNN narrowed the gap. During the week of the January 6th insurrection, CNN led in average viewers.

Finally!!!

MSNBC has finally realized what a treasure they have in Joy Reid.

Reid has been hosting a weekend morning show on the network for a while now -- and this talented journalist is not afraid to speak truth to power.

Starting today, she is moving to primetime weekdays on the network. Her new show airs at 7:00 pm (Eastern Time).

Nine Troubling Charts About The News Media

I firmly believe that a democracy cannot survive without a free and vibrant press. But is our news industry in trouble. One trend that we already know about is the corporate ownership of the industry, and another is that most of our media is now owned by only six giant corporations. These 9 charts, from the Pew Research Center, show those may not be the only problems.

Fox Is Shut Out At The 2018 Emmy Awards

From Newsweek.

Dan Rather Responds To Sinclair Broadcasting Propaganda

(The local affiliates above are all owned by Sinclair Broadcasting.)

Right-wing (and Trump-loving) Sinclair Broadcasting has recently forced the news people at the stations they own read a corporate-approved message to their viewers. Here is journalist Dan Rather response to Sinclair's atrocious action.

Let's be clear, news anchors looking into camera and reading a script handed down by a corporate overlord, a script meant to obscure the truth not elucidate it, isn't journalism. It's propaganda. It's Orwellian. And it is on a slippery slope towards some of history's most destructive forces. These are the means by which despots wrest power, silence dissent, and oppress the masses. 

To those who say this rhetoric is hyperbolic, I submit that attacking the press as honest brokers of information has been one of the constants of this Administration and all those who normalize it. But this is not normal. This is not how the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution, that beloved First Amendment, is supposed to operate. 

Many of you by now have seen the video mashup of news employees on Sinclair-owned TV stations delivering the same talking points to their viewers. For those who haven't, I have included the link below. And a big tip of the Stetson to Timothy Burke, the video director at Deadspin, who edited the string of video clips into a powerful sequence that puts the dangers of our time into visceral relief. 

The faces of the men and women you see delivering this chilling message are befitting those of a hostage video. Maybe some of these local anchors took to it with gusto, but I believe that number is few. That's not why people are drawn to journalism. And maybe you will say that they should have refused or even resigned in protest, but I know that one can grasp in desperation for rationalizations and compromise when one feels their livelihood is at risk. That is the bet that Sinclair and its allies in media and government are betting on - that they can chip away, with small strikes of the chisel, at the bedrock of American democracy. I suspect that the vast majority of the journalists you see in this video want to be in an environment where they can do their jobs, reporting the news fairly, without favor or bias. They need our support. 

That is why it is incumbent for Americans of all political persuasions to say this is intolerable. Congress should hold hearings and call the executives of Sinclair to account, but one suspects that is highly unlikely in the current political environment. Will this spur citizens to elect representatives who recognize that this is a clear and present danger? Will enough people be outraged to bombard stations, and advertisors, with letters, phone calls, and tweets to suggest this is unacceptable? 

For now, Sinclair is trying to explain away the controversy, and they have a powerful ally in the President. But as we saw with the advertisers bailing en masse from Laura Ingraham's Fox News show after she attacked a Parkland High School student activist in a Tweet, the voice of the people still matters. If enough people speak, they cannot be ignored.

A free and independent press must be part of #WhatUnitesUs

Here is the link to the video.

77% Says Major TV & Newspapers Report Fake News

I found this survey shocking. It is a recent survey from the Monmouth University Poll -- done between March 2nd and 5th of a random national sample of 803 adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

It shows that 77% of the public says our major media outlets (TV and newspapers) report fake news -- with 31% saying they do it regularly and 46% saying they do it occasionally. Only 21% said they do not report fake news.

This was not just Trump's followers saying this. It included 61% of Democrats, 82% of Independents, and 89% of Republicans. In other words, a majority of all three political persuasions believe this.

That's very troubling, because a democracy depends on a free press giving them the information to make decisions. Can a democracy even survive if the people don't trust the press?

The only partially saving grace in this mess is shown in the chart below. It turns out that most people have a very loose definition of what constitutes fake news. Only a tiny minority of 25% say fake news is when the media reports facts that are not correct (including 33% of Democrats, 26% of Independents, and 15% of Republicans).

But a much larger group of 65% say fake news is not just reporting incorrect facts, but also includes the editorial decisions made on what news to report (even if the facts are correct in that reporting). And that includes 58% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans. That means that these people consider news that they disagree with to be fake news -- even if the reporting is accurate.

It shows just how partisan the divide is in this country right now. People only want to hear the news that they agree with -- and that seems to include those on both the left and the right.

I have to disagree with these people. Fake news is reporting things that are not true. Stories that are factually correct that you happen to disagree with are NOT fake news. Like it or not, media has the right to choose what stories they will report and what stories they will not report, as long as those stories are all factually correct.

I personally don't like Fox News, because they choose to report only stories that make the right look good. They have the right to do that, and while I may think it's basically propaganda, it is not fake news as long as what is reported is true. And the same can be said of the media that leans to the left.

If you don't like the editorial policy of a newspaper or TV channel, then don't read or watch that media outlet. Find some you are more comfortable with. They don't have an obligation to report only the news you like. Their obligation is only to report the truth.

The Sources Of Information For 2016 Voters

I thought you might be interested in this survey by the Pew Research Center (compiled from surveys they did between November 29th and December 12 of 4,183 adults, with a margin of error of 2.7 points). It shows where 2016 voters got their information on the presidential campaign.

Real News: Bigger Problem Than Fake News In Election

(Cartoon image is by Gary Varvel in the Indianapolis Star.)

I do think "Fake" news has become a problem, and may have affected the 2016 election, but the real news (which is supposed to be trusted) was a significantly bigger problem. Here is some of how Matthew Yglesias puts it at Vox.com:

While it’s true that fake news appears to have circulated widely in Trump-friendly corners of the internet — possibly with some assistance from the Russian government — the idea that fake news was central to the outcome of the campaign has little basis in fact. The very nature of viral fake news is that it’s mostly likely to be shared by people who have already bought into a partisan or ideological worldview, with pro-Trump fake news largely shared by Trump supporters to other Trump supporters. 

Clinton’s campaign did have a real news problem, but the problem was with the real news coverage — coverage that dwelled overwhelmingly on a bullshit email server scandal, devoted far fewer resources to investigating Trump’s shady foundation than Clinton’s lifesaving one, largely ignored Trump’s financial conflicts of interest, and almost entirely avoided discussion of the policy stakes in the campaign. 

Trump ended the campaign as he began it — unpopular and viewed as unqualified by a majority of voters, with no amount of fake news stories to puff him up succeeding in moving the needle. But Clinton, who began the 2016 cycle with reasonably high favorable numbers, saw them crater under a torrent of email stories with 45 percent of voters telling exit pollsters they were bothered “a lot” by her decision to forgo a state.gov email address, of which 86 percent voted for Trump. 

Whether journalists want to be proud or ashamed of the work done by mainstream press during the campaign is up to them, but it was perfectly normal stories in normal outlets that moved the needle in a major way — fake news was a total sideshow. . . .

While the Trump campaign was great for the fake news industry, the implication that fake news was critical to Trump’s electoral victory seems unsupported. The election was close enough that everything mattered, so it’s certainly possible that white Catholics who were duped into believing that Pope Francis had endorsed Trump swung three crucial swing states. 

But it also seems clear that the impact of fake news, whatever it may have been, was minor compared with the impact — for good or for ill — of the traditional news media.

A team of researchers working for Gallup found that what Americans heard about Clinton during the campaign was overwhelmingly information related to emails. By contrast, they found, “Americans' reports of what they have read, seen or heard about Donald Trump over this same period have been more varied and related to his campaign activities and statements.”

The stories about Clinton’s email server, the separate spate of stories about Clinton Foundation emails revealed through Freedom of Information Act requests, and the third spate of stories about emails stolen from John Podesta’s email account were not fake news. 

They were very real stories that totally normal mainstream media organizations chose to make the focal point of their coverage of the 2016 campaign. This coverage, though extremely extensive, did an extraordinarily poor job of explaining the actual legal issue at stake in the server matter. Network television newscasts from ABC, NBC, and CBS chose to devote three times as much airtime to Clinton’s email server as they gave to all policy issues combined. The Associated Press ran a major investigative story into Clinton Foundation influence peddling that treated a meeting with a Nobel Peace Prize winner as evidence of an insidious pay-to-play scheme. The New York Times did a Clinton Foundation investigation that treated Bill Clinton successfully rescuing American hostages from North Korea as scandalous. The fact that public health experts believe the Clinton Foundation saved millions of lives, by contrast, played extremely little role in 2016 campaign coverage. . . .

The sum total of this media coverage — real stories based on editorial decisions about how to weight and present real facts — was to give the public the impression that two similarly ethically flawed candidates were running against each other in an election with low policy stakes. The reporters and editors responsible for that coverage can reasonably (if a bit absurdly) consider themselves proud of the work that led the public to that conclusion, or they can consider themselves ashamed of it. But the idea that voters were moved by fake stories about the pope rather than all-too-real ones about email servers is a preposterous evasion. 

Most Who Saw The Fake News Stories Believed Them

1. Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President, Releases Statement (Fake)

2. Donald Trump Sent His Own Plane to Transport 200 Stranded Marines (Fake)

3. FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide (Fake)

4. Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: “I Was Paid $3,500 to Protest Trump’s Rally” (Fake)

5. FBI Director Comey Just Put a Trump Sign on His Front Lawn (Fake)

-------------------------------------------------------------

6. Melania Trump’s Girl-on-Girl Photos From Racy Shoot Revealed (True)

7. Barbara Bush: “I Don’t Know How Women Can Vote” for Trump (True)

8. Donald Trump Says He’d “Absolutely” Require Muslims to Register (True)

9. Trump: “I Will Protect Our LGBTQ Citizens” (True)

10. I Ran the CIA. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton (True)

11. Donald Trump on Refusing Presidential Salary: “I’m Not Taking It” (True)

I wrote the other day about how dangerous fake news stories can be, because there are people who will believe them (and some who will act on them). But it looks like they may be even worse than I thought. That's because it seems that a lot of people, maybe even most people, simply cannot distinguish between a true story or one that is false.

Buzzfeed commissioned the Ipsos Poll to find out if people believed the fake news stories. Between November 28th and December 1st they questioned about 3,015 adults. They showed them 11 news stories at random -- asking them if they had seen the stories. Those who said they had seen the stories were then asked if the story was accurate or not (i.e., true or false).

The stories they used are listed above. The first five listed are false (fake news stories). The second six are true. As the chart above shows, most people were just as likely to believe the fake news stories as the real news stories.

To me, this proves two things:

1. Most people are either lazy or idiots -- and will believe nearly anything they read on social media without checking to see whether it is true or not.

2. Fake news stories are dangerous -- not only because some nut could use them as an excuse to hurt or kill people, but also because they could affect our elections and whether our officials are believed when trying to do their job honestly.

Fox Leads All News Outlets In On-Air Lies By Pundits

This is very depressing. Our news outlets are supposed to be telling us the truth. How can a democracy survive when those news outlets can't be trusted?

The chart above was made from the results of PolitiFact checking the truth of claims made on-air by the pundits they invite to pontificate (and usually allow them to comment without correcting any lies they tell).

The king network for falsehoods is still Fox News. About 60% of the claims made by pundits in their broadcasts are lies. This doesn't surprise me. They really aren't a news organization at all. They are a propaganda machine designed to further the aims of the right-wing and the Republicans Party (neither of which minds telling a lie to get what they want).

The real disappointment is among the other networks, who allow far too much false information to go unchecked on the airwaves. For NBC and MSNBC, the percentage of falsehoods is about 46%. On ABC and CBS, the percentage is about 34%. CNN is the leader in broadcasting the fewest lies -- about 18%.

That's too much. Even CNN, who broadcast the fewest lies, could be doing much better. Why don't they? Can you imagine such newsmen as Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite putting up with this level of false reporting?

It is because the networks, all of them, are now corporate-owned entities -- dedicated to making money rather than reporting the news. In the past, a network would allow its news division to lose money -- and they would make up the loss in their entertainment division. They did this because they thought the reporting of the news (the truth) was an important function of broadcasting services. That is not true anymore. Now news must take second -lace to making money (and reporting the corporate view of the news).

We should all be worried about this -- at least those of us who treasure our democracy. An educated public is necessary to the survival of a democracy -- and our news outlets, who should be telling us the truth, are instead failing to correctly inform us. They should be ashamed -- and we should be ashamed for allowing it to continue.

Are The Cable News Networks Telling You The Truth ?

Are the cable news networks telling you the truth. That's a valid question, because they are supposed to be doing exactly that. Unfortunately, none of them do it all the time. Their greatest failing is in letting the pundits they have on say anything they want -- and they don't challenge them when they tell obvious lies.

The chart above is from PunditFact (last updated in January). It shows how many pundit statements, statements that go unchallenged, on the three cable news networks are true or false. Sadly, none of the three do an exceptional jobs of delivering the truth to their viewers.

CNN does the best job -- with 53% truth and 26% false statements. On MSNBC, the ration is 34% to 41% -- and on Fox, the ratio is 22% to 58%. If you count the Half-truths as falsehoods (which they really are), then the false statements climb to -- CNN (47%), MSNBC (65%), and Fox (77%). That's abysmal.

How are we supposed to sustain a democracy when the purveyors of news allow so many false statements?

The Blizzard (And Media Coverage)

(This photo of the East Coast blizzard is from CNN.)

The residents of the Texas Panhandle (unlike people in other parts of Texas) understand how difficult it can being in a blizzard can be. We experience them intermittently ourselves. So I empathize with the residents of the nation's East Coast, who are experiencing a particularly bad blizzard. I hope all of you East Coast residents can stay safe, and are inconvenienced as little as possible. You are in my thoughts.

Doesn't it seem strange though (and very convenient) that when cable news networks cover an event like this (and like the shootings in Charleston, Paris, and San Bernardino), no newsworthy event ever happens in the rest of the world? How does this happen? Do the cable news networks send out a "bat signal" to the rest of the world, asking them to cease all activities that could be deemed newsworthy?

Of course, I am joking. But it does seem to me that the cable networks could do a better job of covering these events without ignoring the rest of the world's news. Am I being unreasonable? I'd love to know what you readers think.

Is The Media Telling The Truth Or What Will Get Viewers ?

(This caricature of the current Democratic candidates is by DonkeyHotey.)

The Republican race for their presidential nomination has been pretty volatile. There have been several different leaders in the polls. The current flavor of the month is Donald Trump, and he may or may not remain the leader. This is the kind of thing the media loves, because it gets viewers to tune in to see what is happening now in the race.

The Democratic race is far different. Hillary Clinton started out with a huge lead, and she has maintained that huge lead over all her competitors (still with double the national support over her nearest competitor, Bernie Sanders). So why is all we seem to hear from the news networks, especially the cable networks, that Clinton is losing support?

The answer is that the truth (that Clinton maintains a huge lead) is not exciting to them. They don't think it will get them viewers. They don't think people will tune in to hear that a race is static -- and that there has been no real change for several months. And they might be right. But does that give them the right to give viewers an impression that is simply not true?

There was a time in this country when networks didn't expect their news shows to be money-makers. They made their money off their entertainment shows, and considered their news shows to be a community service -- happy if they just came fairly close to breaking even. But that time is gone. Now the networks, both cable and broadcast, expect to make money from every minute of air time.

That is the reason we get less real news and more "fluff" pieces, and it is the reason they are willing to give a false impression to their viewers -- because that is what they think will increase their viewership, and more viewers equals more money.

The truth is that the Democratic race has changed very little over the past few months. Clinton still has around 50% support, while her closest competitor has around 25% -- and if that changes by a point or two from poll to poll, that's not real news. But the networks will jump on every little change, whether it is significant or not, because profits is more important than truth to them (and especially to the giant corporations that own them).

That is not a good thing, but it is a sad reality of how low our news networks have fallen.

Clinton & Trump Are Candidates Most Mentioned On News

Publicity is the life-blood of a political campaign, and the more coverage a candidate gets through the news media, the less critical it is to have huge amounts of money to spend on campaign advertising. As the chart above (from Television Campaign Tracker) shows the "winners' of being mentioned by the news media are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Is that really good? Much, if not most, of the mentions have been negative for Clinton and for Trump. Considering that, I think it shows the strength of both candidates that they both still hold large leads in their respective primary races.

Some might say that any mention, even negative ones, are good -- but I'm not at all sure I buy that. There have been times in the past when negative publicity on the news programs have killed campaigns.

Sanders supporters have been complaining loudly that their candidate doesn't get his fair share of coverage. But I wonder if they'd really like to have an enormous amount of negative coverage. I suspect they'd then be complaining about how that large coverage was still unfair.

The charts below show the percentage of news media mentions by each candidate in their own party race.

Fox News Is The Most Untrustworthy Cable News Network

Pundit Fact (by the Tampa Bay Times) checks the accuracy of statements and claims by the "talking heads" and pundits that appear on the three cable news networks (candidates and government officials are excluded). The then research those claims and rate them as to their truthfulness. Here is their rating system:

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

The chart below shows the latest findings of the networks throughout this summer. Once again, Fox News leads all three networks in the false claims they allow, and are last in the claims that were true. CNN has the most true claims and the least false one. MSNBC falls in the middle.

But while Fox News is the worst, none of the three networks are as good as they should be in telling the truth, and in confronting false claims.

25% Of Public Relies On The Network Telling The Most Lies

Politifact.com has updated their information regarding how truthful the pundits featured on the cable news networks were. Their latest figures are for the month of September of 2014. They examined the claims made by each networks pundits, and rated them as true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, and pants on fire (outrageously false). Their results are shown in the chart above.

It seems that nothing much has changed. Fox News is still the network featuring the pundits that tell the truth the least and tell falsehoods the most. CNN is the most reliable network when it comes to telling the truth and telling the fewest falsehoods -- and MSNBC falls between Fox and CNN. This explains why Fox viewers are the least informed viewers on the facts (as has been shown by several studies).

That would be bad enough, but a survey done last April by the Public Religion Research Institute of 1,538 adults in the U.S. shows an even more troubling fact. That survey shows that a shocking 25% of all Americans trust Fox News to give them accurate facts (the highest percentage of any news organization).

That's right. Fully one-quarter of the population trusts the network that lies the most to give them accurate information (see chart below).

The Left & Right Trust/Mistrust Different Media Sources

There was a time in this country when national news was given to Americans by only three TV sources -- CBS News, NBC News, and ABC News. And these three sources did a pretty good job of bringing the facts to the public about what was happening in this country. Liberals and conservatives had differing views on how to solve the nation's problems, but both sides were basically operating from the same set of facts -- and that dealing with the same set of facts helped to encourage cooperation and compromise for the good of the country.

That is no longer the case. As we have seen from the last few years of watching our congressional politicians, cooperation and compromise have been tossed out the window. Why has this happened? I believe one of the major reasons is that liberals and conservatives are no longer operating from the same set of "facts". Their are more media sources available now, and some of those sources are not as interested in facts as much as propaganda.

The charts I exhibit here clearly show that. They were taken from a survey by the Pew Research Center that was done between March 19th and April 29th of this year. It surveyed a random national sample of 2,901 adults, with a 2.3 point margin of error (5.5 points for only conservatives and 5 points for only liberals).

Note that liberals and conservatives no longer get their information from the same sources. Liberals get their information from a variety of sources, ranging from liberal to moderate. On the other hand, conservatives get their information from only a few sources, all of them pumping out the same right-wing propaganda (some of which, like Fox News, has even gone to court to establish their right to lie to their viewers). So, while liberals get their facts from a variety of trusted sources, conservatives get only right-wing propaganda because that is all they trust.

It is no wonder that the two sides can no longer cooperate and compromise -- because they not only have different ideologies, but they are not even operating from the same set of "facts". And one side, the conservatives, no longer operate from facts at all (but from spoon-fed propaganda).

This needs to change, or this country will continue to be gridlocked far into the future. I think we could start by requiring the media to tell the truth (and punishing them when they lie). Canada does that, and there's no reason why this country couldn't do it too. Everyone is entitled to their own ideology, but no one is entitled to their own set of "facts". Facts must be true, or they are meaningless.