We can reward good stories and media outlets by viewing and subscribing to them (and encouraging others to follow suit) and discourage bad stories and media outlets by ignoring them; thus we can begin to influence journalists» priorities by making them recognize that their readers value factual accuracy
over false balance.
Not exact matches
U suck for pulling my comments... I'm heading
over to Fox... where it is fair and
balanced... and I still stand by my comments that Islam is a
false relgion...
* Contrary to Nisbet's finding, we believe that
false balance in climate reporting persists, especially when it comes to the debate
over costs and benefits of climate action.
Studies have found
over time, there's been an improvement and
false balance has dropped.
Romm, for example, cites the phrase from the executive summary that the «era of
false balance in media coverage is
over.»
The bit in my A.T. piece was how Robert McClure (a Society of Environmental Journalists board member who had previously offered me the unsupported idea that Gelbspan's work was also documented by others) quoted Dykstra's concern
over skeptic climate scientist Patrick Michaels getting too much «
false» media
balance.
Making this a uniformity across the country would
balance out the
false beliefs and propaganda that have been put into the minds of people in our communities
over the past 50 years.