JohnGalt wrote: I did not know that Air America was still around.The results of this poll are surprising to me since it apparently contains more Dems than Reps. Most Democrats i know think that FOX news is the official channel of the Anti-Christ.
My bad, I was just referencing the local station that plays all the liberal talk radio folks, may not be air America any more.
my satalite package does not include fox news, soi just ignore it... now that the election is over, I get most of my news from Wally's posts.
Something I noticed with some of you...you are confusing news with opinion. If you are trying to get news from Sunday morning interview shows, you're severely misguided. A news program is "World NewsTonight" or "Fox Report". It ain't "Hannity & Colmes" or (heaven help us) "The Daily Show", yet I know a lot of people who use Stewart and Colbert to form their opinions.
Bernie Goldberg wrote an excellent book about his experiences working in network news simply titled "Bias". It's an easy read, and worth picking up on Ebay. If this thread interests you, you will enjoy the book.
neon4891 wrote: ... I get most of my news from Wally's posts.
Now THAT's fair and balanced. Wally covers weirdos and perverts equally. 
I really hope nobody gets their news from The Daily Show, it's humor, nothing more. The show is presented for maximum lulz and nothing else, getting news from there is as bad as learning physics from Wile E. Coyote.
The Christian Science Monitor is a really good news site, they're Christian in name only...
Oh, and I got a perfect score on my exam so staying up late paid off I can't say anything more or the Microsoft black helicopters will come after me.
I guess since FOX is blatant rather than underhanded in their bias it leads folks to trust 'em. 
I also have noticed that it's OK to be lefty biased but not righty. Hmmm.
Thanks for the tip on Christian News Monitor. I really thought it was Christian views cloaked in a news site. I'll give it a read.
Fox is still right wing guys. They're were shilling so hard for Bush I'm surprised he didn't take a job there once he was booted from the White House. While they may report all the news it's still from one perspective and the comments are def'ly tinged with bias. I'm not saying any other news outlet is less biased to the left or right. Again, "Fair and balanced" is insulting to anyone who has a brain.
In an effort to be "fair and balanced" I know NPR is biased on some reports. They are impressive for reporting both sides of an issue as well but often, if not always, end the story on a leftist note. I've heard, and seen, Fox do the same. Does that make NPR "fair and balanced"?
Hannity, Rush, Oberman, Matthews, Colbert, Stewart, O'Reily are all ENTERTAINERS, they have about as much accuracy as Don Rickles at a Celebrity roast.
The guys who try to report the news (Shep. Smith/ Anderson Cooper) are forced to deal with fluff stories to attract ratings. ( Hot chick killing baby in FLA/ Terry Schivo/ Latest bimbo of the month)
Real news ended once the stations decided that news programing needed to be a profit center. Now instead of telling us what we need to hear, they tell us what they think we want to hear.
The only solution I can see it to get your news from many different sources and try to wade through the B.S.
Where is Ron Burgundy when you need him?
Jensenman, I think it depends on the company your in. I hear people complaining about liberal news bias all the time, especially in this thread. E36 M3, it's been a major strategy of the GOP.
As for news vs. entertainment, yes you are correct Joe. Pundits are entertainers, you might argue that they are clowns. The problem is that people hear facts or an opinion and it just becomes part of their common knowledge. They tend to forget what the source is. We are also social animals and absorb others opinions easily. My experience is that it takes a lot of effort to think about things critically, be informed, and be persuaded by evidence.
That Obama voters are stupid video has an example of this. When they asked them who said that they could see Russia from their house they said Palin. Of course this is a terrible example because it is a trick question and I think even people who had never encountered the Tina Feye impersonation would have answered the same way. But, you get the idea.
I dunno, I'm more an Edward R. Murrow type.
Tell you what I have noticed: ever since Nixon went down for Watergate, every President is the target of all kinds of news investigations and it's because Woodward and Bernstein won Pulitzers and got rich. Every hotdoggin' reporter out there wants to write the next 'All the President's Men'.
Joe Gearin wrote: Real news ended once the stations decided that news programing needed to be a profit center. Now instead of telling us what we need to hear, they tell us what they think we want to hear. The only solution I can see it to get your news from many different sources and try to wade through the B.S.
Totally agree, and why I can't stand TV news. News hour on PBS is alright though.
seann wrote:Joe Gearin wrote: Real news ended once the stations decided that news programing needed to be a profit center. Now instead of telling us what we need to hear, they tell us what they think we want to hear.Totally agree, and why I can't stand TV news. News hour on PBS is alright though.
I agree completely. TV News is worthless. A couple of sentences and an image or video.
Joe Gearin wrote: Hannity, Rush, Oberman, Matthews, Colbert, Stewart, O'Reily are all ENTERTAINERS, they have about as much accuracy as Don Rickles at a Celebrity roast. The guys who try to report the news (Shep. Smith/ Anderson Cooper) are forced to deal with fluff stories to attract ratings. ( Hot chick killing baby in FLA/ Terry Schivo/ Latest bimbo of the month) Real news ended once the stations decided that news programing needed to be a profit center. Now instead of telling us what we need to hear, they tell us what they think we want to hear.
Which is why it speaks to the quality of people surveyed in this report, when they list a bunch of entertainers as news sources they can trus.
Who the heck did they actually survey, anyway?
IMHO Walter Cronkite a was the last true news journalist.
And he was followed up by the quintessential left wing news whore, Dan Rather.
Funny thing about Rather is that the left wing seems to dislike him almost as much as the right.
Tim Baxter wrote: Funny thing about Rather is that the left wing seems to dislike him almost as much as the right.
One of the most conservative people in our office loved to listen to Rather on election night. I absolutely could not stand it.
[Quasi-rant]
I was discussing the role of news media with a friend the other day. I think the phrase "Fair and Balanced" has taken over in our culture and has distracted from the true purpose of news. Being "fair and balanced" sounds good initially, and it's become the way we judge "good" news media.
A good news source should first be Objective. It should be accountable. It should be impartial.
News outlets have to make a judgement call of what will be valuable to their audience. That's going to mean including some information and ignoring others. Nobody's perfect.
I do prefer news sources that give you more information from more sources, and give you the opportunity to look more closely at their sources, if you're so inclined.
I also hate that people talk about "the media" like it's a big, monolithic, single entity. "Media" is plural. There are lots of media sources. They aren't all affiliated with each other. Even a single news outlet will have different individuals with different opinions and biases. To refer to them all as "the media", and give sweeping statements about the bias of "the media" is more absurd than referring to "the auto industry" as though it were a single unit.
Maybe I'm just contrary (wouldn't be the first time), but I think one of the biggest failures of "the media" has been the 20th century obsession with "objectivity". In practice, it means giving equal time to side A and side B, even if one side is lying through their teeth or is just plain stupid. To give the opposing sides equal weight simply legitimizes dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise.
I'm far more interested in news sources that seek "truth", whatever that may be and whereever it may lie. Those are few and far between, since seeking truth is hard work and not particularly beneficial for long-term health (see Socrates, et al).
Given the dearth of good news sources, I'd prefer they just go ahead and be biased, but be up-front about it. At least then its clear what filter I'm getting my news through.
Tim Baxter wrote: Maybe I'm just contrary (wouldn't be the first time), but I think one of the biggest failures of "the media" has been the 20th century obsession with "objectivity". In practice, it means giving equal time to side A and side B, even if one side is lying through their teeth or is just plain stupid. To give the opposing sides equal weight simply legitimizes dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise.
I think we're saying the same thing, but using different terms.
I always figured that "objective" meant presenting news as factually accurately as possible, with the least amount of distortion from personal values. That's not the same as presenting "both sides" for every story.
What you're talking about was what I was calling "balance" that news sources are obsessed with.
"Congress critter from Party A got caught taking bribes to shape legislation. Quick, find me a story of a Congress critter from Party B doing something ethically questionable so that we can balance our coverage!"
Or are you saying that "the media" has forgotten how to be objective and tries to settle for being "balanced"?
Tim Baxter wrote: Maybe I'm just contrary (wouldn't be the first time), but I think one of the biggest failures of "the media" has been the 20th century obsession with "objectivity". In practice, it means giving equal time to side A and side B, even if one side is lying through their teeth or is just plain stupid. To give the opposing sides equal weight simply legitimizes dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise. I'm far more interested in news sources that seek "truth", whatever that may be and where ever it may lie. Those are few and far between, since seeking truth is hard work and not particularly beneficial for long-term health (see Socrates, et al). Given the dearth of *good* news sources, I'd prefer they just go ahead and be biased, but be up-front about it. At least then its clear what filter I'm getting my news through.
Good point. This has especially been a problem with reporting science. Mistaking fairness for objectivity. I refrain from giving examples for fear that the thread will spiral quickly off topic.
I'm not exactly sure the motive for this way of reporting. I assumed it in part was because of a misunderstanding of the philosophy of science and sociology of the scientific comunity.
Salanis wrote: I also hate that people talk about "the media" like it's a big, monolithic, single entity. "Media" is plural. There are lots of media sources. They aren't all affiliated with each other. Even a single news outlet will have different individuals with different opinions and biases. To refer to them all as "the media", and give sweeping statements about the bias of "the media" is more absurd than referring to "the auto industry" as though it were a single unit.
But don't the Jews control all the media?
Tim Baxter wrote: Funny thing about Rather is that the left wing seems to dislike him almost as much as the right.
Maybe that's because he's too crazy for the far wing of either party? 
I mean, how many people get to be the subject of an REM song over their craziness?
mtn wrote: Owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch endorsed Barack Obama.
He's a shrewd business man, that's all. He saw a void in the 24 hour news race and filled it.
Salanis wrote:Osterkraut wrote: But don't the Jews control all the media?No. The Stonecutters do. They do!
I hear they made steve guttenburg a star.
You'll need to log in to post.
