[Goose]

My point: let's stop blaming news organizations for covering the news. Save the outrage for news organizations that don't cover the news or hide facts or present easily check-able lies as if they were facts. We all know how that goes.

While I mostly agree with the points you made, I think you are ignoring the important problems that exists in deciding what is news. For instance, it is impossible to report what all "experts" think, there are too many of them. It is often a matter of opinion who is a "legitimate" expert. It is also clear that the choice of what to report is partly based on who will watch. It may be that 80% of the experts say "X is not a threat", while 20% say "X is a threat". The first is not interesting, the second is. Reporting only the second is biased, but that is often what will happen.

[Goose]

My point: let's stop blaming news organizations for covering the news. Save the outrage for news organizations that don't cover the news or hide facts or present easily check-able lies as if they were facts. We all know how that goes.

While I mostly agree with the points you made, I think you are ignoring the important problems that exists in deciding what is news. For instance, it is impossible to report what all "experts" think, there are too many of them. It is often a matter of opinion who is a "legitimate" expert. It is also clear that the choice of what to report is partly based on who will watch. It may be that 80% of the experts say "X is not a threat", while 20% say "X is a threat". The first is not interesting, the second is. Reporting only the second is biased, but that is often what will happen.