So mail in your complaints of fake news and biased censorship because EQUAL TIME was repealed by Reagun 1984

Yup, just what we need, federal regulations controlling what we get to read, hear, see.......

The people reporting the news have changed and it seems most of them have a political agenda be it one way or another way or other ways. You have to take everything now-a-days with a huge grain of salt. I don't watch the major news channels anymore because of the political agendas. I'm not a fan of any of them either.

When I was a young sprog, the TV stations would only have "Breaking News!" splashed over the screen for real things, like assassinations and huge events. Now, CNN, for example, has "Breaking News!" just about every five minutes, for every half-baked rumour, minor nothing story, or beat up report. At some point news stopped being about reporting information about the world, to become infotainment. Sad.

I'm curious. What is your premise based on? Local TV news? Cable news? Newspapers? Which?

There's only one way to turn them off . . . Turn them off. I stopped going to the circus years ago.

Probably because most people don't have a high opinion of state run media. As previously mentioned the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution covered this idea already. Unfortunately I can't come up with an alternative to just using your gray matter to filter the facts from the bullshit from multiple conflicting sources in your news intake.

A helpful tool that I implement when I absorb news from any professional source is to remember that; no matter what slant to the news you prefer (they all have a slant), always remember that they are first and foremost a business. They are in business to make money for their shareholders by selling advertising to their sponsors. Any facts, value, and/or entertainment that you get from what they provide is purely secondary to their bottom line. (No matter what they tell you in their tag line.)

As such they have researched what manner of "news" output brings in the most ears & eyeballs. They collect this data, then sell it to their advertisers based on how many ears & eyeballs their data suggests will hear & see their ads. Facts are provided in just the right dose to appear to have some credibility. But the facts can not be allowed to get in the way of a "good story." Because these "good stories" are geared towards inspiring your fears and outrage. Scientific data shows that these emotions control most peoples interest and decision making. That means that you will eagerly consume their media to find out more information about what teased fear or outrage activated your interest.

Of course PBS is mostly state funded media, they are supposed to be objective. But that doesn't mean squat if they can't keep the lights on. So they are smart enough to only implement the methods described above to the minimum that they can get away with.

The only way that I could see an purely objective news source succeeding in this world; would be if it were independently funded by some philanthropist billionaire that was obsessed with objective facts and the truth. If this news source could produce with no need for advertising or profit for that matter, it just might have a chance. Turns out though, that the truth is mostly not entertaining and it rarely confirms anyones biases. It would be the least heard or seen news source out there.

Even then though, you would have to consume this media with skepticism too. After all, who watches the watchmen?

The media is already legislated - it's called the first amendment.