Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I had some kind of fake Vietnamese soup with noodles that was excellent.  I want to try the real thing some day.

I rarely watch the news, but when I do, I usually watch Newsy which proudly claims to be anti-partisan, and I think they generally live up to that standard.

Admittedly, they orient themselves towards my generation, and their main reporters and anchors are all between 20-40 years old. I even saw one of them on a dating site (she didn't match with me).... If you watch and get an impression that they lean liberal, I would understand that, though.

While accepting your basic points as valid, and without using the "mainstream" term, it is worth noting that most in the media were very uninterested in reporting on the sexual escapades of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and Epstein's oft-time guests like Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, and perhaps even our sitting POTUS.  After years (decades, even) of turning a blind eye to the whole situation, they finally reported on Weinstein and Epstein, but the boys on the guest list have mostly escaped further scrutiny.
The media, in general, have earned the distrust which most Americans feel for them.
Have you ever known a mediot who got the story so wrong so often that you felt safe in taking the default position that whatever he/she said, it was probably not true?

I mean, I think there would be a gap between being uninterested and unable to break those stories. If they were simply uninterested, someone with an axe to grind would be throwing out all sorts of facts. 

I think if the media has earned such distrust, it's because of a complex web of reasons because I think in some ways the media has changed less than people thing. It's had holes and blindspots for a long, long time (I've been reading a book about how a tyrant in NY was mostly unchecked because of an adoring media). But I think some of the distrust stems from the fact that these days we have an attitude that it's easier (and more enjoyable) to be highly cynical about something than have faith in something. And it's very hard to have a middle ground approach, like "I think some things are true, but have to be guarded and need to take a breath at every spicy headline or blood boiling thing I read because there's just so much out there in the world."

As for a mediot, I don't know if I have, and I suppose I'd need more specificity in the question. Is it an opinion babbler? What's the nature of the repeated incorrect thing? And how much do they talk? Like if they get two high-profile things wrong, I'll be skeptical of high-profile things. But if they're a news reader and they say "the governor said X tonight" and then I get video of the governor saying X, I'll probably believe that. 

I use the serious eats recipe, and it's really good.

Pho (and most soups) are tough because of my wife's poultry allergy. We have to trust that places aren't using chicken stock, and that there's no cross contamination.

That's the only reason I make pho. It's delicious, but it ends up somehow costing MORE than what I spend for it at restaurants.

I've tried that one and a dozen more.  I'm a good cook.  But my attempts simply don't compare.

My local pho place really is that good, better than any I've ever had in LA, SF, Houston (they have a very large Vietnamese population), and even France (which has a huge Vietnamese population).  I've never been to Vietnam so my comparison must end there.

And it's definitely cheaper to buy it than to make.  Which is why I hit the point where I just gave up and let the pros take care of me.

Like I said, that's not really the norm.  I can make a lot of things better than "the best" commercial places.  But pho simply isn't one of them, so I stopped bothering to try.

 If you watch and get an impression that they lean liberal, I would understand that, though.

One's perceptions in general of how some news site leans is a reflection of one's perceptions.  I know some right wingers on the A51 site here who think Fox News has been taken over by liberals.  I have liberal friends in Cincinnati who think CNN is way too far right.

I think the best way to get a reasonably balanced view of what is afoot is to use a variety of news sources, note which lead story is not covered by the others, and note which stories get the most attention.  The difference of course is stark.  Whether you think one or the other is R or L reflects your attitudes more than "reality", whatever reality might be.

I try to read Le Monde when in France, mostly for practicing my poor French.  Their articles about the US are .... almost entirely negative, very negative.  The perception of the US by your average French person about the US is "interesting".  At times, they will voice opinions, by educated people, that just leave me agape.

I'm not usually left agape.

The media, in general, have earned the distrust which most Americans feel for them.
Have you ever known a mediot who got the story so wrong so often that you felt safe in taking the default position that whatever he/she said, it was probably not true?

Generally, I have distrust for a lot of the media, but it's more based on the fact that almost everything in the world is very complex and nuanced, and they're barely able to understand the surface layer which they have to explain to readers, and do it in a 30 second soundbite or a 350 word article. 

Most true experts in a field are in that field, not leaving that field to be a journalist covering it, so by definition the journalists almost can't be experts on what they're writing about. As such I take most media sources to merely be jumping-off points, to which I need to go research the rest myself and draw my own conclusions.

Michael Crichton has a good take on it:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

enough about eating stuff and on to more important topics

https://www.foxnews.com/science/covid-cure-california-biopharmaceutical-coronavirus-antibody-breakthrough

man wouldnt this be nice if true

Yeah... I hope it holds up.

Sad that my first instinct was to go and try to figure out whether Sorrento Therapeutics were a bunch of cranks... But they look legit.