Peter Jennings Quotes

If you're keeping yourself in the bubble and only looking at your own data or only watching the TV that fits your agenda then it gets boring.

We have more information than ever before, and it is harder to avoid actually seeing what the other side is saying. Yes, we in Business insider focus on publications that we feel speak to us, but that is the same way it was 20 or 100 years ago. In the US, two million people have subscribed to the New York Times and many more millions think it is a terrible, liberal paper they would never read. We can choose to put ourselves in a bubble of only people who agree with us, but in the digital world there are many more ways of saying "Hey, here is something you might want to consider".

I think, though, that people will read into a reporter's story a bias that they want to see in a reporter.

As people's opportunities to succumb to confirmation bias increases online - only seeking out information that confirms their prejudices - ignorance, extremism and close-mindedness have continued to rise unabated.

People are getting cynical about the news. It doesn't seem like there's one place to watch where you get the straight dope. You watch the channel that proves your point.

There's nothing you can't prove if your outlook is only sufficiently limited.

People of a certain political view tend to read material of only that point of view … except to cast contempt on the other points of view.

We now have access to so much information that we can find support for any prejudice or opinion.

If you only talk to people who agree with you, it’s easy to believe that you’re in the majority.

We live in an age where people can not only choose their own sources, but they can choose their own facts.

Conservatives watch Fox News and read 'Breitbart.' Liberals watch MSNBC and read 'HuffPost.' When we agree, it's the truth; when we differ, it's fake news.

To exist in an echo chamber and only talk to people with whom we agree is fruitless.

There's so much to consume that it's very easy to read a headline in the news outlets that you subscribe to that you maybe support and go 'This is how I feel.'

Part of the problem is that if anybody has a gut reaction about an issue, they can go online and have it backed up. That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media - because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it's often misleading.

Whenever journalism students ask me what they should be doing, I say that if you're on social media, you should be following a ton of people that you don't necessarily agree with just to get their perspectives.

If you go to certain cable news shows, you're generally going to hear the viewpoints that you already have reported back to you. I think there's no harm in that.

I think there is a danger when it comes to fake news because there is some fake news out there, but there's also a danger when you only hear back to you the beliefs you already have.

This is in a nutshell, this is what's wrong with our media, and we see that really played out full in this election [2016], where this is undoubtedly the most toxic election that we've had in - certainly in my lifetime.

If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.

People are consuming the news that is comfortable for them, not necessarily the news that is real or that they need to know.

In short, we derive support for our preferred conclusions by listening to the words that we put in the mouths of people who have already been preselected for their willingness to say what we want to hear.

Hell must be a place where you are only allowed to read what you agree with.

We listen to those whom we know to be of the same opinion as ourselves, and we call them wise for being of it; but we avoid such as differ from us.

There is no man so blind as one who has made up his mind.

People would believe propagate, spread rumors or conspiracy theories in order to protect their own system of denial.