Fixing the News | Coleen Christie | TEDxVancouver


Translator: Ellen Maloney
Reviewer: Denise RQ My biography on my Twitter page says I am a skeptic and an optimist. I believe in science,
and infinite possibilities and that kind of sums up what I am going
to be talking about today. What a world we could live in if we were a truly informed society. A society that, by and large,
understood every facet of the social, political, environmental,
economic realities that we face everyday. Well, a news culture often indicates its potential for being truly informed. Hi, my name is Coleen Christie. I am a news anchor,
a broadcast journalist, if you will, and I am a little hesitant to say that
because I recently found out that broadcast journalists rank number six
on the list of most despised professions. (Laughter) We are just above tax auditors. That’s right, most people like tax auditors
better than broadcast journalists. (Laughter) It sort of feels like when Sally Field
made her Oscar acceptance speech, but it is the opposite;
you hate me, you really hate me. (Laughter) Not me personally,
give me a few minutes, you might. (Laughter) But at least we are doing better
than lawyers, they are at number three. That gives me hope. (Laughter) I anchor for CTV Vancouver, an affiliate
of the number one network in Canada. I got my start in news
in a rather unusual way. I started in marketing and promotion
so it gives me a unique perspective, on the business of news;
you see, I have always understood that news is a product
that needs to be sold. But it is a really important product. I grew up in a home
where news was important. My mother would pour
over the morning newspaper on the days that she was not working. She knew all of the issues,
all of the players, and she had a grade-8 education. As a family, we would watch
the nightly newscast together, and we actually paid attention. I think that because my parents
came from poverty, they were very aware of the importance
of informing us and educating us. Conversations over the dinner table
were often political, often heated. “Please pass the gravy, I cannot believe
you are such a socialist! Would you like more potatoes?”
That sort of thing. (Laughter) Yeah, back then, our choices
for news sources were a little more limited
than they are now, that is for sure, but wherever we got our news, we pretty much trusted that it would be
trustworthy and dependable. Boy! Things have changed, haven’t they? In this modern news-age,
information is power, and never has our ability to leverage
that power been more at risk. In the last ten years, there has been
a remarkable change in our news consumption habits. Due, in large part,
to the explosion of digital media. That explosion has created
more competition, and it has changed our legacy platforms,
being newspapers and televisions, and it has actually changed
what we consider “newsworthy” to be. In a recent survey – you might find this interesting – nearly 90% of North Americans said
they were “hungry for their daily news”, but get this; nearly 50% of them said
they could not trust it. Trust is an issue, and I think part of that trust issue is
wrapped up in our sense of bias in news. Yes. of course, with polarized news
organizations like Fox News on the right, and MSNBC on the left,
it is absolutely clear that bias exists, but as a journalist on the inside, I think it is an oversimplification
to say that all media is biased. In fact, I propose to you today that the problem
with media is not bias at all. The problem with news today is you. The question I put to you
is not which news you can trust, but can you trust yourself
to consume it wisely? News, in essence, is factual storytelling. Everyday, journalists attempt
to share information through stories. But let’s make something
very clear from the get-go. There are essentially
two kinds of sources for news. There is mainstream credible news,
and then there is everything else, and based on your lack of trust, the line between the two must seem
pretty blurry to you. Now of course there are exceptions.
There are always exceptions. The simplest definition of “credible news” is: information reported after
a rigorous series of checks and balances to ensure accuracy and fairness. Most people consume their news everyday without knowing that,
or even thinking about it and I think it is important
we understand the process. So for example, in television, news ideas
come from anywhere and everywhere. It is our assignment editors job
to assemble those ideas and create a potential list
of the stories that we will cover. The next step in the process
might surprise you. We actually debate and discuss
each one of those stories’ ideas. A group of highly experienced, trained, knowledgeable, diverse individuals, practically anybody in our news room
who wants to participate, weighs the news value merits
of each story. Is it something our audience wants?
Is it something our audience needs? Next, we assign stories to our reporters,
our “boots on the ground”. They go out and they find facts,
and they assemble those facts, and they provide context for the story. Yes, some stories are more complex
than others, but generally speaking, if, at the end of the day, a new story does not have
enough news value, or if it does not pass the ‘sniff test’,
it does not make it to air. That is how most news rooms
throughout the world work. For the most part, that process works. The one thing we cannot escape is the perception of bias. We fight very hard to avoid it,
but we cannot, somehow, avoid the perception of bias
in our reporting. Let me give you an example. We are accused of two things
whenever we cover an election campaign. We are accused of simultaneously supporting the incumbent
and supporting the challenger. (Laughter) It never fails. It never fails,
and of course, we are not doing either. You see, mainstream news
has no political agenda. “What?” you say. It is absolutely true. Mainstream news has no political agenda. Yes, there is right-wing
conservative news, and yes, there is its counter-balance on the left, but I am talking about mainstream media. For those of us who work in the middle, the very notion of partisan conspiracies is absolutely ridiculous. Except for that lunar landing,
that was a total fake, never happened. (Laughter) Now, of course, that is not the case with organizations
which use narrative journalism to promote a particular ideology,
a political perspective. No, and they are harder to spot these days with the proliferation
of online news sources that do not use
journalistic checks and balances and so easily can be passed
off as legitimate. And mistakes that can be perceived
as bias, can be made, but I believe they are less intentional
than you might think. And when those mistakes are made, most credible media outlets
adhere to their own self-discipline. The news media has been correcting errors
along the way for more than 100 years and whether to our general
satisfaction or not, it has to be acknowledged
that it certainly does happen. Discipline is big part of the job, but it is not exactly the toughest part
of the job for me personally. In case you did not get this already,
when I go to work in the morning, I do not have to worry
about being infected, shot, kidnapped, tortured,
raped, or executed like some of my colleagues do. Shout-out to the colleagues in the field
who risk their lives every day. (Applause) Yeah, it is a calling, it is a calling. No, I got it pretty good, considering tough day at the office
for me might be a bad hair day (Laughter) but it is not tough for me, it is tough
for you because you have to look at it. See how that works? The hardest part of my job
is keeping my mouth shut. I am not talking about afternoon meetings where my colleagues would love it
if I kept my mouth shut. No, I am talking about
when I am presenting facts, I cannot telegraph my own
personal opinions on divisive matters. I cannot let that through. I cannot risk it. As a communicator, it is my job
to help you understand the story, it is not my job
to tell you what to think. I cannot risk it, we cannot risk it. You see the truth is, mainstream media
cannot afford to take sides. I use the word “afford” on purpose. Bias is bad for business. Let me show you
how the money works on that, we will just follow the money. Our democratic society needs independet news
to keep us informed and free. And news, the news industry,
needs consumers to survive. So in television, consumers are viewers. The more viewers, the higher the ratings, the higher the ratings,
the more ad revenues. Ad revenues maintain operating budgets, operating budgets pay for journalists
to gather information to keep us free. That is how it works. Any blatant bias on our part
could potentially alienate vast numbers of our viewers. That is a bad idea. Bias is just bad business
in the news business. Some recent studies have revealed
some interesting statistics on our consumption habits. I should note that most of us
still consume our news from television. But we are branching out. A majority of North Americans now say
they consume news on multiple platforms. Still, nearly 90% of us
are consuming that news from one single news organization. So let me tell you what that looks like,
I will paint a picture for you. You are at home,
you have got the TV on to CNN, you have the tablet open to CNN’s webpage, you are following CNN’s breaking news
on your Twitter feed on your phone, and you have no social life. (Laughter) Myopic? Yeah, perhaps. Unless you have got a thing
for Wolf Blitzer. Hey, no judgment. (Laughter) Here is the ironic part though. In a survey done this year, North Americans said they feel
more informed than ever before. Well of course we feel more informed,
it feels like we are getting more news, but what we are getting
is more of the same news. It is coming at us faster and faster
and we know statistically, that our attention spans
are getting shorter and shorter. That is changing the kind
of news we want to consume. Trying to keep your attention
has never been harder. In television the average news story
is less than two minutes long. Sometimes as short as 20 seconds. Think about that. Wow. Boredom is your bias, and if we do not keep you engaged,
you are going to leave. We do not want you to leave. In television, we spend all day gathering
quality information that you can trust, even though 50% of you do not trust it. (Laughter) Your information dinner is served,
and we throw in dessert too. Oh yeah, trending videos. You know, the bizarre,
the wacky, the funny. They make it into
most major newscasts now, and they are among the top rated
segments of those newscasts. It is true. It is true. Yeah. A caution; we are very aware
of trivializing news, and we are very cautious not to. But we are competing with Jon Stewart
for goodness’ sake. (Laughter) We are dancing as fast as we can
to keep you entertained and informed so that you will stick around. But you say, “Hey, digital news gives me
what I want when I want it,” and that is absolutely true, scarily so. Your online habits are watched,
followed, and fed. With each click of the mouse, you leave a digital breadcrumb trail
so that you can be fed more of the same. And social media is contributing
to your bias, it really is. Since 2009, traffic to social media news sites
has gone up by 60%. A full 70% of people surveyed
recently in North America said they used social media
as a news source. I got nothing bad to say
about social media, I like it. Hey, Twitter is a fantastic tool for communicating
and for delivering breaking news. But if you are using social media
as your primary news source, you have got to be cautious
– because think about it – It is your neighbor or the person
who works next to you, who likes cat videos,
they are your news director. (Laughter) And you know what? Your editorial team on Facebook is only as good
as your friends on Facebook. So true. And on Twitter, there is no news director.
No, there really is not. # Competitive. #Sensational.
#KimKardashian. (Laughter) I am only throwing in Kim Kardashian because I am hoping
that when somebody googles her name, this TED talk comes up. (Laughter) # Shameless. You are the subjective news curator
of your world, and we know statistically that you like to get news
from people who think like you do. It is a fact. And on top of that,
being well-informed online requires more effort
and more discipline on your part. You are only going to click on the things
that look appealing to you, right? Think about it, it is
kind of like going to a buffet. You are not going to get two salads. (Laughter) But you know, you see those desserts
sitting there, they look pretty good. Nobody is watching. Take two. What the heck? We are human. We like pie. Our personal preferences feed our biases, and our personal content curation
supports them. By definition and design, digital media
gives us more of what we already like. You create your own
information playlist, if you will. It is kind of like, I do not know,
like the Songza of news. The system feeds you
more of what you want. It feels good, but how are you ever going
to be exposed to something new? How are you going to see
a different perspective? If you keep listening to 8 on the 80s, how are you going to hear
new music for goodness sake? Come on. (Laughter) Whether we realize it or not, our subconscious bias is driving
our news consumption habits, and it is keeping us less informed
than ever before. You know what? We know what happens. When our trust in media
is at an all-time low, it means that our appetite to seek out new and more varied
variety of news sources diminishes, and our biases are strengthened. We see that every day. You get camps over here,
you have got another camp over here. These guys are not listening
to these guys. They do not want to; there is no trust. It is all ego-driven, fear-based, heels dug-in, no progress. We are behaving like children except
if we were children we would be punished, but in this sense, the people
who are behaving this way, they get their own TV shows or their own constituents,
as the case may be. As artist and activist Ruben Blades
so eloquently put it, “We risk becoming the best informed society
that ever died of ignorance.” (Applause) So how do we achieve the promise
of being a truly informed society when our own personal biases
keep us locked in a feedback loop, giving us more and more of the same? What would happen if, for example, we chose a second or third news source outside of our normal consumption habits? Well more news diversity
would make us better informed, would certainly make us sound smarter, that comes in handy at weddings,
Bar Mitzvahs, TED conferences, (Laughter) but sounding smart is not the goal. That is not what this is all about. This is about freedom. And the news media
is the guardian of our freedom. We hold authority to account,
you hold us to account. You are free to choose
whatever news source you like, but if you are choosing more
of the same, is that freedom? Getting news that reinforces
your own beliefs feels good, but it is a false sense of security and one that does not promote
greater growth or deeper understanding. It certainly does not challenge
us to challenge our own views. So how do we know if we are getting
enough variety in our news diet? Well, if everything you are consuming
makes you feel great, chances are you need
to mix it up a little bit. And you know what?
The news media needs to do its bit too. We need to make news more relevant,
particularly my branch of the news. We need to help people understand why a story is important,
and how it affects them. Anybody can collect facts. We need to provide context. The old notion of, “Eat it, it’s good
for you!” just does not work anymore when one click away
there is something more tantalizing. If we lose you, we lose, and then we all lose. As iconic broadcast journalist
Charlie Rose so beautifully put it, “We learn from each other,
even when we disagree, especially when we disagree.” The more we strengthen the virtues of tolerance,
diversity, and understanding, we will have a bulwark
against the hatred and extremism that has wreaked
so much havoc in this world. So I implore you, battle your biases. Empower yourself with more diverse news. And maybe, just maybe,
we will have an informed society, a truly informed society,
and enter a new age of enlightenment. Thank you. (Applause)

About the author

Comments

  1. Interesting topic. Alain De Botton elaborate on this and how we are bombarded with information in our everyday consumption of news. You can find his talks if you search for "The News: a user's manual".

  2. I'm totally guilty of only watching news from one channel and never watching any of the others. As a personal experiment for myself I think I'm going to start checking out other channels and other news stories, just to see what happens. I really have no real idea what others are covering. I do know that even if I watch something different, only two things could happen; either my thoughts will changed or they'll be strengthened. I'm open to see which one happens.

  3. You do not get real news from any corportate media anymore.  Very little objective or free reporting, even on the "mainstream" channels.  Have you seen how much talk and entertainment pieces have dominated most airtime now?  Also, advertisements are pervasive and not clearly differentiated from news.  She places the burden on the viewer to determine what is real news.  Also just dismisses alternative media out of hand – some of these people are true journalists.  Whatever you use to get your information, at this point it all requires the same level of scrutiny.  However I will also share that the only time I watch corporate media at this point (now that I have found trustworthy alternatives that site their sources) it when I want to see what is NOT being reported to the general population.

  4. That's totally rich coming from Coleen. Was she not here when news orgs were heavily consolidated over the years? Has she ever tried flipping the channel and not seen the same stories airing at the same time with the same talking points? I like how she slips in that the mainstream media is credible. What the mainstream does is the complete opposite of that. They set the agenda and can be bought and paid for. They lie through omission. Do you think they'd report on treaties done in secret by our federal government? Do you think they would show you anything that opposes consensus? The mainstream is wholly uniform and of one voice. She is not a broadcast journalist. She's a NEWSREADER.

  5. I'm agreeing that most media is probably without intentional bias,
    but the only way to verify this is to be SCEPTICAL of EVERYTHING.
    you need to be held to a standard, and we are that standard, if we allow ourselves to just passively digest whatever you say, and take it as gospel… this will be a very very scary world very quickly.
    and even if not now, then when someone with nefarious intentions takes over (which at some point will happen).
    look at FOX news, an example you use yourself, why should I trust you more tehn them? 
    I should trust neither listen to multiple sources and then for myself derive the truth.

    scepticism is the way. and fact checking is, and common sense is.

  6. News today is posted first on Reddit, then appears on broadcasts like CTV, CBC, and CNN about 36 hours later. Although, sometimes CTV News has items not covered by Reddit. Local news coverage is pretty decent. And if you have a local story to share, they're usually willing to share it. So if you need to be heard, send a tip to CTV news.

  7. Neil Postman was correct in "Amusing Ourselves To Death": "news" isn't really news – it's entertainment.  So there is a real sense in which Coleen Christie tells the truth about where the money comes from, and why viewers consume "mainstream media news."  But what she reports as a factoid, Neil Postman laments.

    Coleen complains, at the beginning, of "news" being simultaneously accused of supporting the incumbent and the challenger – of leaning "left" and "right" at the same time.  The reason this happens, contra her protestations, is because the list of "allowable opinions" among infotainers can fit on a 3×5 card.  And it turns out that both Hillary Clinton's and Chris Christie's (or Jeb Bush's) opinions fit on that card – and any alleged difference turns out only to be a matter of minor degrees.  If anyone wants to challenge the entire system – if anyone wants to play a completely different game, why, that simply isn't allowed in infotainment.

    If she were correct – that there is no bias – then all kinds of really interesting conversations should be able to take place in the "news."  But as it is, we can debate whether we should bomb country A, or country B, but a principled, non-aggression, anti-war stance does not appear on the 3×5 card of allowable opinion.  We can argue about whether taxes should be 40% or 35.5% of annual income, but the idea that taxation is legalized theft also does not appear on the 3×5 card of allowable opinion.

    I would encourage anyone reading this to ask why there is a 3×5 card of allowable opinion to begin with.  Who created it?  Who gets to regulate it?

  8. This is nonsense! Of course any type of media group, no matter how big or small, can be paid off with certain "regulation" in return. This whole speech is just trying to convince people that it's not so. Plus I don't like how she uses a patronizing tone. She's talking though as if she's talking to kids or low IQ people. Hmm, maybe that's who she's trying to get in their head?!

  9. When Coleen Christie stares to the ground with her eyes and when she also shakes her head from left to right when she speaks at this Ted Talk, well that can't be trustworthy. It's a classic example of not telling the truth.

  10. She is a very bad actor working for the Globalists that control her and her entire industry. She and this message are both disgusting!

  11. Oh what sham! you can tell when there is a bucket full of it! don't waste your time with this one, just look for Sharyl Attkisson ted talk video on Astroturf: she shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

  12. 6 min into your BS and had to waste my time to discredit the moral matrix high ground that you think you stand on. Go get a job that you can wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say I am not working for Satan no more.

  13. The real proplem lies in the fact that news is considered as a "product", a consumable, from then on with a quite elastic "ethic" (when money is the end goal…). And that problem has become very deviant since the so-called "media concentration" in a few hands during the 1990-80's (an expression for hiding the true nature of it : a monopolistic leverage so as to manipulate people much more effectively, leaving a feeling of consensus when there's none).

  14. What is meant by the term ‘at the end of the day’, ‘news value’, ‘sniff test’ (06:59 to 07:10), there are up front biased perceived values, which you may not share with her. Perception of basis, she carefully delineates the perception without any denial of the basis. What are her values, she's admitted that they will affect which stories she will and will not cover. But it's all your fault, because you don't trust her and her values. Blatant bias, ie. they carefully cover and conceal their bias(11:53) . Bias is bad business, especially when you're caught. Now with 'False News' and 'Bullying', they have a license to censor anything they don't think passes the 'sniff test'. Like she said they will keep you entertained, not informed.

    Mainstream news does have a agenda, to make money for the corporations that own them, the word is synergy. Since the beginnings of this country journalist/news has always had a basis or agenda. Back to Jefferson and the ‘National Gazette’. You are the what’s being sold. The advertisers determine to a great degree what will be reported and what will not be reported as well as who owns the news agency. No journalist is honest, most support only Globalist politicians. Wake up the divide is not RightWing vs LeftWing, it’s Nationalist vs Globalist Neo Feudalism. ……………………………………………………………………

    Whatever………………………………..

  15. This Canadian government news reader is either delusional or lying, when she says, "mainstream news has no political agenda." She goes on to assert her perch "in the middle," meaning she's among the objective, priestly, arbiters of truth, who see their jobs as helping us "to understand the story," but never "to tell you what to think." Truthfully, she says "bias is bad for business." In a way, she is reaffirming my suspicion about the dominant media: "Deny deny deny any bias and pretend to be above the partisan snark. They don't do it for the public good, but do it for their profits. The spoils go to "news" outlets that are best at conning the public into believing they really are in the "middle." She pleads with reasons why the public must believe her words, but fails to recognize that the public is judging them by their actions. Early on, she said something I actually agree with: "The problem with media isn't bias at all. The problem with news today (pause) is you." Yes! I'm the idiot if I let myself believe these mere mortals are any more honest or ethical than anybody else. They ALL have human bias and if the 2016 Brexit, Colombian plebiscite, and Presidential election taught us anything, it showed us how out of touch those in the "mainstream media" really are. [Bonus: She even naively claimed "at Twitter, there is no news director."] Bottom line: viewer beware. We're all being played. Our job is to sniff out the truth among all their spin.

  16. This woman and the stuff she comes up with here is truly absurd. On just one point alone about left and right politics in the news. In fact, there is no 'right' and 'left' news. It is all 'right' and part of the neo-liberal/conservative agenda. Of course she thinks there is no bias in the news, it's pretty obvious she's a completely invested in, unreflexive component of the very corporate machine she's trying to describe, and it's also pretty obvious from her whole 'show' here that she defines her very existence and status from it.

  17. I was at the DNC this year. I saw Bernie win the elected delegate vote. I then saw the corporate pepper super delegates trash that. I saw the Bernie delegates walk out. I saw them join a massive protest outside where people were chanting : Hell NO DNC, We won't vote for Hillary"… I then heard are lying trash news say the Democrats were united. It wasn't spin.. it was a lie.

  18. Hey she's right about being followed – Thanks WIKILEAKS and Edward Snowden for telling us about that. Start using duckduckgo.com – it's totally anonymous and doesn't track you.

  19. Sorry, once she blamed the public and not the news agencies she lost me.

    There is an inherent bias in the media, it's matters of tone of reporting, use of inflammatory language in their reporting when the person doesn't fit their ideological belief system so they frame it in a way to make that person look bad.

    Once the media realizes they are indeed the problem, maybe we can get the news media fixed and they'll simply report the facts without any bias one way or the other.

  20. The MSM is the one you can trust ???????????????? Is she really selling that ? Really ??
    Guess she thinks we are more stupid then we are seen as !

    This is a voice for the OWG Elite Globalists !

    They really must be getting desperate to put their TV news hosts out there to brainwash the masses.

    She is not too good at this mind molding !

    Everything is in truth (real truth) opposite to what she is selling here !

    Only soft brains will fall for this crap !

    Risk tier lives to bring us the "news" ??
    They have not gone out in the real field for many years !
    All "on site" reporting is done on green screen !

    Guess she is out of touch and has not seen CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS and ABC in America.
    All of the Fake News.

    She hammers the Independent news online (they are not allowed on the govt controlled TV air waves) into the ground. When THAT is the REAL TRUE news to those who are awake !

    =============================

  21. Ad ratings are declining for most medias except for sports events I believe because news stories have to be sensationalized. This ad rating has screw the average person. It is not the same as the main media revenue would have been paperboy collections, monthly fees and some advertising. Then television and advertising both become supplimented as a public utility. Then came cable T.V.; it started out without advertising and changed to accept advertising which even included advertising for law firms. Advertising is the source that has ruined the media because it fetched larger salaries and billionaire investors.
    This Colleen Christi is right about one thing; perception of a viewer. The viewer can't tell when the media is lying or reporting in a way to direct their thinking. Playing these media mind games is still sensationalism just like they are playing with Pres Trump.

  22. The blatant bias is protected by FCC regulations that keep "Main Stream Media" a monopoly, and insulated from failure. (I'm not sure what that equals in Canada.)

  23. after watching news for the last year, there is no way that anything you say could convince me that bias does not exist in newsrooms

  24. This woman is absolutely confused. "The media is the guardian of our freedom. We hold authority to account, you hold us to account." The news media did NOT hold authority to account. They sold out. That's why people started seeking alternative forms of news on social media by journalists who weren't willing to remain censored or drowned out by the media complex that is whoring for the political class.

  25. If this speaker had seen side and rear views of herself before walking on stage, I believe she would have made other clothing choices LOL

  26. Oh it's are fault now that you are lying bought slaves of the elite … main stream media is bought and owned by the Elite .. this woman is a very BAD LIAR ……!

  27. Saying it's the audience's fault is amazing.
    How condecendent can you get?
    Do not question we know what we are promoting.
    Traditional News Media is going the way Drive In Cinema went.
    By the time they go on line (TV) every one know the news.
    It's no longer news it's their own interpretation of hold news.

  28. She gave away her bias when she stated "the more we strengthen the virtues of tolerance, diversity, and understanding, we will have a bulwark against the hatred and extremism that has wreaked so much havoc in this world."

    With that one sentence, she revealed her deeply held core belief that it is her job to work to conform the world to her utopian vision. I don't know a single leftists that does NOT think like this. So here she is giving a 22 minute speech about how she must be unbiased only to close it with a statement disclosing her bias. She doesn't even realize that her bias toward that utopian goal influences everything she, and the other 90% of the media, say and how they report the news.

    BTW… there is no inherent virtue in diversity. Why? Because suggesting diversity is a virtue ignores the individual person's character and replaces it with their race or religion or any other group identifier as the most important aspect of a person. Diversity is NOT a virtue, and it is not a worthy pursuit for it's own sake.

  29. She tries…but is grossly simplistic in her efforts. To consider Faux news as credible due to being "mainstream" ignores bias of the oligarch funding it and the ideology involved. She may be a good anchor, but horse race reporting no longer cuts it. "Alt. Facts" must be confronted or Democracy is lost.

  30. I'm not feeling this shit. I automatically picked up my phone. Its like she's lying and covering that up with jokes. She sounds as genuine as Bill O' Reily

  31. She keeps referring to mainstream media as the savior that resides in the middle but my truth does not seem to be able to find that middle. I think she is trying really hard to repair the dismal reputation of a fallen profit making industry. And yes, I am biased and I do change the channel as soon as I hear something I don't like. Reason: bad taste in the delivery of news, REALLY bad taste. All I see is anger, bias, etc etc…..

  32. whow! she's believing what she says – brainwashed MSM – telling all the made up stories day by day year by year
    but she stand for it very professional

  33. Oh yeah, i got it. So its me the problem, its me that have to oh-so-educately make the difference between the bad news and the good news.
    What a liar this person is, they debate, they think….but it just so happens that those facts and stories and contexts….all end up in a single opinion all across the media.
    Its not a matter of bias, its a matter of all media saying the exact same thing all the time.
    Yet they all state they have no political agenda….yeah, lets forget what we see with our own eyes and believe this woman that is trying to convince us that what we see is not what we see, we just misunderstand it.
    Its discipline we lack, in order to "understand" , and oh her colleagues that risk their lives to bring us stories about…..erm…about…what exactly?
    This woman blatantly lies about independent news, lies about non bias.
    This woman is trying to tell us that we see is not what we see.

  34. Pretty pathetic attempt to salvage an irrelevant medium. and to quote Charlie Rose given his current dismissal… Pretty sad and dismissive to blame viewers. Speech can't be from the heart if she is reading from the prompter just like the news narratives.. gorgeous liar.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *