Neutrality is not a realistic goal. In fact, the idea that neutrality is the goal has just resulted in more shrill commentary as each side claims their position is more neutral (i.e more truthful).
Humans aren't neutral. The way we interpret events isn't neutral. It is difficult to be brief or put this down to any one event/cause but, ultimately, media is just a reflection of what people want.
Weakening bonds between people in society, an education system that teach facts over nuance (this is interesting, lots of lawyers in politics in the US which generally builds a culture that permits resonable disagreement...hasn't happened), low levels of respect for other people, etc.
Neutrality is not realistic though, and isn't required. Res
I didn't ask for the source to be perfectly neutral, just "mostly neutral." I'm pretty sure I won't make the best choices all of the time, but I still strive to make good choices.
Furthermore the idea of a neutral source comes from TFA; I was merely trying to point out that, even if such a source were to emerge, there doesn't appear to be a stable equilibrium in which that source can persist to exist and be trusted.
Humans aren't neutral. The way we interpret events isn't neutral. It is difficult to be brief or put this down to any one event/cause but, ultimately, media is just a reflection of what people want.
Weakening bonds between people in society, an education system that teach facts over nuance (this is interesting, lots of lawyers in politics in the US which generally builds a culture that permits resonable disagreement...hasn't happened), low levels of respect for other people, etc.
Neutrality is not realistic though, and isn't required. Res