What choice do we have? I know experts think they have the means that we don't, but they accept a set of premises about what news should be, that lead us to news that#
Accepts that the US had to go to war with Iraq, and doesn't question the assumption that there were WMDs and probably nukes in their arsenal. #
Shows endless clips of Trump rallies as if that was news. #
Asks ridiculous uninformed questions about Hillary Clinton's emails. #
States conventional wisdom among reporters as fact.#
Assumes the Trump story is pretty much Watergate, when it's clearly not.#
Where reporters are all trying to get a prize or a raise, trying to catch politicians in gotchas, and filtering out all the politicians who just want to get shit done.#
Endlessly analyzes what today's events mean for the 2020 election, when the answer is not one thing. #
The news orgs that report this way would be rated highest by the experts, no doubt. But we need news to be better. It's the one thing I agree about with Trump supporters. The standard "trusted" news attaches to ideas that they won't let go of. And reports on non-news endlessly. Can we rate that kind of stuff way way down?#
We need a lot from news that they aren't giving us, because they do everything they can to not listen to the users. If Facebook really wants to do this, don't listen to the experts on this, they answer the wrong questions, imho. Find a way for the users to decide. I know they don't trust us, but we're all we got. #