News is what is published near in time to event being reported. Obviously the reliability and validity of what is reported changes over time as more information becomes available and as more perspective is applied to it. It is ultimately the job of the receiver to make sense of it relative to herself. News gatherers, presenters have no responsibility beyond what seems to work in whatever culture their function is embedded. There is no ultimate inherent responsibility for those publishing and shaping what is reported.
News freedom has effects on what a society does in terms of relations with others which seem to be more inclusive overall. Polarized, controlled news both assists conformity and divides us from them. Those outcomes are contradictions in social behavior, but, that seems to be the case.
That job of the news target who is usually someone impacted at some level by the information is to understand the content for what it is and to make use of what is received relative her existence.
Certainly the job of the socially inclusive tending consumer in a controlled news market is tested by the news in terms of getting through life.
To suggest otherwise is irresponsible.
Just another day is some decision algorithm's paradise.
As one trained in the news business I emphasized clear verified representation of what I gather and report. What you get of my biases are those mostly shaped by my training as a report, just as it is when you read one of my scientific papers of my biases shaped as an experimentalist. Since there are authorities guiding my work in both domains I subscribe and am subject to creeds from both areas that are mainstream for each discipline. You need know no more than that unless you want to be one or the other.
If the consumer of my science and reporting can't handle the news without applying some aid for her to process I suggest more education and practice or more attention to what are her responsibilities.
Otherwise go ahead and believe that Obama is, uh, a Muslim.
