[turtle]

BTW, the parts you have seen/heard are all curated by the media. Hence my asking if you've spoken with him personally. How many times does the media misrepresent people with their own words by omitting things that don't fit their agenda? The fact is you can't take any media source at face value.

An example might be a quote from the President/Senator (past or current) with an unflattering picture attributed to the text. The image might be four years old and irrelevant to the text, but it gives a visual representation that can't be denied to direct/guide the reader's opinion.

The media is a master of manipulation for their agenda and ratings. Sure they might be your only source of information, but you have to understand that giving you the facts isn't their goal, it is to gain more money from advertising via ratings and viewers. Truth in media is a back burner to income for the stockholders.

[Matsu]

So what's better, watching nothing at all or sampling enough things with a reasonably good expectation of representative value? If we look at sources, it's not that hard to have a reasonably good filter. Perfect? no. Leaving out punditry and sticking to reporters is a good start, but generally requires that people read. In this case we have his testimony before the court, and recorded interviews, unless you believe these were deep-faked?

Ironically, in recent years, there's far more media manipulation on the American "Right/Far-right" than on the American "Left" or even American "Mainstream" (which is basically "Right-leaning"). Many of the independent media sources currently en-vogue on the Right are even worse offenders of distortion/manipulation, outright liars, and craven click chasers who've learned to exploit algorithms for views and profit (Brietbart, Newsmax, the cesspool of regional and syndicated radio, etc).

These people want you to believe that media outlets like the BBC, AP, Reuters, NPR, PBS, CBC, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Walrus, Politico, Foreign Affairs, The Christian Science Monitor etc... are not credible or useful because they may have opinion or implicit distortions, but by orders of magnitude they have less distortion than anything popular on the Far Right. My list, far from exhaustive, doesn't even delve into scholarly publication, this is news across a range of media formats and viewpoints: left, right, long-form, reportage, print, web, radio, and TV, and I could add quite a few more if I really thought about media that is trustworthy and reliable*...

*I'd even include major network reporting (not opinion or analysis) as generally reliable with the caveat that it's sometimes important to understand the institutional biases of the place, indeed any source, including my quick list above.

I have my own thoughts of course, but I believe that if the average American/Canadian turned off the "socials" and consumed just one story per day from one of the above sources, then political divisions would be far less polarizing, simply because people would know more. People who know more tend to have a greater tolerance for disagreement and debate. The other thing I would say, is that I would re-organize the way young people learn about current events - they don't have the tools to understand distortions and, thanks to technology, they have become unwitting participants in distortion. I'd start them on a diet of only long-form journalism and documentary, so they get a better feel of considered analysis and not reactionary messaging.

[Dr. Bobsky]

Matsu: the folks who tend to say that the media is hiding the truth, cherry pick which media they consume to match their desired world view. Burying their heads in bullshit and feeling smug about it.