Jensen explained that good dialogue requires people to be open to questioning their own beliefs instead of relying on simple answers people need to think criticaly and consider looking at other perspectives this can help conversations become more productive instead of just turning into arguments #so

I thought it was interesting when Cline mentioned that media bias isn't always about being liberal or conservative, but instead, bias can come from how the news is structured, for example, airing something because they know it attracts views. This can impact how people percieve events they see on the news or things thery read about #so315

Jensen talked a lot about how journalists rely a lot on official scources, because of this news may avoid different perspectives that question the system too much #so315

One idea I found interesting in Jensen's article is his argument that mainstream media isn't really "liberal" but supports the dominant ideas of society, such as capitalism and nationalism. This made me think about how news outlets often debate issues within a narrow range of opinions instead of questioning the larger systems. Should journalism change these systems to inform the public better? #so315

I always thought showing both sides meant something was fair, but after reading Nardi, I am not so sure that's always true. Sometimes forcing two sides just makes it more confusing, especially if one side isn't really supported by evidence. Maybe being fair isn't about staying neutral; maybe it's about being clear about what's actually backed by facts. #so315

Something that stood out to me is that journalism is supposed to be about the truth, but the way the media works today makes that really complicated. Kovvach and Rosenstiel discuss verification and serving citizens, but Nardi shows how even trying to seem fair can distort the truth. This made me realize that journalism isn't just about reporting facts but also about deciding how to present them. #so315

I thought the part about objectivity was interesting, as it was created to help journalists build trust and separate facts from opinions. However, it makes me wonder if being neutral all the time makes reporting less clear. Like, if something is clearly harmful or dishonest, I don't know if it makes sense to treat both sides as equals. I get that journalists want to be fair, but I feel like trying to balance everything can make it seem less clear what is actually true. #so315

Something I found interesting is that journalism isn't as simple as reporters telling us what happened. There are a lot of routines and professional rules involved, like relying on certain sources and sticking to norms like objectivity. #so315

Another main idea from the podcast I thought was interesting was how important trust in the media is. The press is supposed to question the people in power but if a lot of people stop trusting the news, it becomes much easier to ignore news they don't like. #so315

The podcast displayed how Nixon and Trump both had problems with the media however, the situation is much different today. Nixon didn't trust reporters and tried to fight back against reporters but he didn't have the same tools that Trump has today #so315