Asklemmy

Carlson and Maddow are entertainment for partisans. They hook their audiences by weaving captivating narratives out of half truths and sometimes outright lies. I've tried to get my mother off Maddow and I think she is at least taking Maddow with a grain of salt.

John Oliver also does this. I like some of his material because it brings to light an ill that doesn't get enough attention. But there have just been too many times when I have some familiarity with the subject matter and I start spotting areas where he stretches the truth.

... without "forgetting" relevant facts that can help readers build their opinion.

There does need to be some level of interpretation, though. Raw facts often lack an important "why" component that can mislead a poorly informed observer. For instance, white supremacists love to cite black crime statistics. Those statistics aren't necessarily wrong, but they need the context of centuries of racial oppression. Or comparing how much women make to how much men make. There is a significant wage gap, so some people point to that as evidence of outright sexism. But it nearly disappears once you correct for different life choices (e.g. different sectors, time off for children), so others say there should be no action. The reality lies in the middle. Society is structured in such a way as to create this wage gap. Some things are relatively simple, like maternal leave but not paternal leave. Other things are more complicated, like predominantly female sectors usually paying less. And sometimes, yes, you do run into outright sexism.

From what I understand, modern historians are much better about this. You'll see this in the approach of historians from a majority culture who are combing back through established narratives and dismantling misleading ones. But historians in the past have absolutely taken liberties to trash people or civilizations they personally disapproved of, never mind thinking through their personal biases.

If you ask this on the basis of high school textbooks being used today, I would mention that they lag far behind the practices of modern historians. Although teachers in these settings will often use primary and secondary sources to illustrate the pitfalls of relying solely on the latter and other further removed materials.

Like with the journalist question, many people take on the title without the qualifications or ethics, merely using it to promote their slant, which I will grant often makes for a more exciting story.

You living in the same universe as I do? Cuz most journalist here ain't telling the truth