Erebus
Member
If you think that was intentional I got another one for you.....
Which news network do you believe is most trustworthy/reliable?
- Thread starter FTF
- Start date
- Status
If you think that was intentional I got another one for you.....
Cromlech
Member
Ok guys, I realise I am not a citizen of your country, but I have watched most of your news channels.
FOX?
FOX?1? !!
Que?
I wanna know who sold you those mushrooms, and how much they cost, because they must really get you high.
Sadly, there isn't an emoticon that represents 'rolling on the floor in a puddle of my own dribble, while having convulsions caused by endless hilarity and absurdity'.
Fox news reliable and unbiased? Don't make me laugh. :banghead:
FOX?
FOX?1? !!
Que?
I wanna know who sold you those mushrooms, and how much they cost, because they must really get you high.
Sadly, there isn't an emoticon that represents 'rolling on the floor in a puddle of my own dribble, while having convulsions caused by endless hilarity and absurdity'.
Fox news reliable and unbiased? Don't make me laugh. :banghead:
:banghead: I vote for CNN.All of the above
I don't think things are that simple anymore.
To be truly informed and make an educated guess at what is going on in this country now, you need to read all the media and you should have started 50yrs. ago.
Biker is correct you can get it all on the www
I don't think things are that simple anymore.
To be truly informed and make an educated guess at what is going on in this country now, you need to read all the media and you should have started 50yrs. ago.
Biker is correct you can get it all on the www
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I'm always amused when people describe Fox as a "propaganda machine".
It's an assertion that simply doesn't hold water when the entire context of the MSM is taken into consideration as a whole.
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_geekwitha45_archive.html#111604578912571362
(If the scrollto isn't working, scroll to "When I was a kid, I studied stage magic...")
This post talks about media bias, and the illusions it creates in some depth. It comes complete with charts, graphs, pretty pictures, an links to academic studies.
Fox News is a mere 10 points right of center of the average voter on the ADA scale, and 25 points to the LEFT of your average GOP senator.
The problem is that the center of mass of the press IN GENERAL is about 15 points to the LEFT of the average voter, which creates the perception that Fox is 25 points RIGHT of this displaced "center".
--------------------------------
The simple truth and bottom line is this: If network news, ANY network news is your main source of information, you cannot claim to be an informed citizen.
In the words of Mr. Universe, network news "is a puppet show to entertain the somnambulant public".
If you don't believe me, watch a half hour news program on a regular day with a stopwatch, and classify each segment. On average, all news of substance is over and done with in the first THREE MINUTES of the broadcast, an average of 45 seconds per major story, and the rest is sports, local news, human interest and generally BS.
Being a truly informed citizen takes a preposterous amount of work and critical thinking, absorbing information from a variety of sources. It is literally an endless homework assignment.
It's an assertion that simply doesn't hold water when the entire context of the MSM is taken into consideration as a whole.
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_geekwitha45_archive.html#111604578912571362
(If the scrollto isn't working, scroll to "When I was a kid, I studied stage magic...")
This post talks about media bias, and the illusions it creates in some depth. It comes complete with charts, graphs, pretty pictures, an links to academic studies.
Fox News is a mere 10 points right of center of the average voter on the ADA scale, and 25 points to the LEFT of your average GOP senator.
The problem is that the center of mass of the press IN GENERAL is about 15 points to the LEFT of the average voter, which creates the perception that Fox is 25 points RIGHT of this displaced "center".
--------------------------------
The simple truth and bottom line is this: If network news, ANY network news is your main source of information, you cannot claim to be an informed citizen.
In the words of Mr. Universe, network news "is a puppet show to entertain the somnambulant public".
If you don't believe me, watch a half hour news program on a regular day with a stopwatch, and classify each segment. On average, all news of substance is over and done with in the first THREE MINUTES of the broadcast, an average of 45 seconds per major story, and the rest is sports, local news, human interest and generally BS.
Being a truly informed citizen takes a preposterous amount of work and critical thinking, absorbing information from a variety of sources. It is literally an endless homework assignment.
None of the above. Everyday I check out the www's of fox, cnn, two local papers in the state, bbc, drudge, powerlineblog.com, villagevoice.com, interfax, and then I kind of sort of maybe have a general rough idea of what may be going on in the world.
bg
Member
C-SPAN. Most times they keep their teeth together..
Wasn't it CNN that was part of the Tailwind scandal a few years back? The network (along with Time) created a story about the US using nerve gas to capture/kill deserters during the Vietnam War and then edited an admiral's denials so that he said it occurred?
As for the BBC, there was an interview with one of their rising stars in which he said that he was aware of an anti-American bias in the BBC; he was aware of it because it was his job to promote it.
As for the BBC, there was an interview with one of their rising stars in which he said that he was aware of an anti-American bias in the BBC; he was aware of it because it was his job to promote it.
tenbase
Member
I get my news from the intertubes, mainly Christian Science Monitor and a bunch of small web logs and forums. I also use an RSS aggregator to check out the headlines on the big networks, without having to actually visit their sites and contribute to their ad impressions. For local news I hit up the washington post website.
The big tv and print news networks are nothing more than businesses selling product to meet market demands. So there are both political and commercial forces affecting their end product.
Fox News channel has a lot of flashy "entertainment" segments which feature loudmouthed political pundits, and people frequently confuse this (often intentionally) with their news reporting, which in my opinion is pretty centrist.
Bias is ok as long as you're aware of it and calibrate your truth-o-meter to match. For example most of the weblogs I read are of a right-leaning nature...I already know the authors bias, and most likely share it...but I know the slant is there. This is much harder to do with the big networks, as who knows what their agenda is?
Honestly I find most of what passes for news insufferably boring anyway...I'd much rather talk about cars or guns or computer games.
Edit: Almost forgot to mention FARK. Intentionally misleading headlines, and forehead-slapping discussions. In other words, the best news site on the net.
The big tv and print news networks are nothing more than businesses selling product to meet market demands. So there are both political and commercial forces affecting their end product.
Fox News channel has a lot of flashy "entertainment" segments which feature loudmouthed political pundits, and people frequently confuse this (often intentionally) with their news reporting, which in my opinion is pretty centrist.
Bias is ok as long as you're aware of it and calibrate your truth-o-meter to match. For example most of the weblogs I read are of a right-leaning nature...I already know the authors bias, and most likely share it...but I know the slant is there. This is much harder to do with the big networks, as who knows what their agenda is?
Honestly I find most of what passes for news insufferably boring anyway...I'd much rather talk about cars or guns or computer games.
Edit: Almost forgot to mention FARK. Intentionally misleading headlines, and forehead-slapping discussions. In other words, the best news site on the net.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Dougb:
My point is that EVERY news outlet hides behind a facade of being "the objective, neutral press, bringing no bias or agenda to the table".
Shocker: None are!
MOST of the news outlets are tilted LEFT, some quite heavily, while very, very few are tilted right, and even then, it turns out not to be by a whole lot.
This makes claims of Fox being the one evil propaganda machine, (implying that all the other guys aren't) laughable on its face, especially when you look at the situation holistically.
Nonetheless, people will still shriek and scream about Fox as if it they had taken on Goebbels' mantle.
That's a double standard, pure and simple: Bias to the Left is OK in any magnitude, but even modest bias to the right isn't.
My point is that EVERY news outlet hides behind a facade of being "the objective, neutral press, bringing no bias or agenda to the table".
Shocker: None are!
MOST of the news outlets are tilted LEFT, some quite heavily, while very, very few are tilted right, and even then, it turns out not to be by a whole lot.
This makes claims of Fox being the one evil propaganda machine, (implying that all the other guys aren't) laughable on its face, especially when you look at the situation holistically.
Nonetheless, people will still shriek and scream about Fox as if it they had taken on Goebbels' mantle.
That's a double standard, pure and simple: Bias to the Left is OK in any magnitude, but even modest bias to the right isn't.
xd9fan
Member
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
OOH! Thanks for mentioning Drudge, XD9Fan!
Drudge is another good example that illustrates what I'm trying to explain:
A lot of people assert that Drudge is a "right wing" propagandist, but lo and behold:
He weighs in 10 points LEFT of center on the ADA scale!
Drudge is another good example that illustrates what I'm trying to explain:
A lot of people assert that Drudge is a "right wing" propagandist, but lo and behold:
He weighs in 10 points LEFT of center on the ADA scale!
ApexinM3
Member
None of the above
I frankly do not trust any network televised news outlets though Fox is probably the least disliked by me. All media outlets have their own agendas, and therefore present the news to fit them accordingly. Somebody mentioned a "Truth-Meter" which is definately needed equipment.
My source for news has been a mixture of some of the above, coupled with weblogs from the following:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ (Publication started by William F. Buckley)
http://www.spectator.org/index.asp (Good analysis. Ben Stein writes a monthly column)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/default.asp (Good general analysis for foreign policy, social, economic)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/ (Good zine published by David Horiwitz -- crusader for academic freedom. Many foreign policy articles written by current Armed Forces brass)
http://www.city-journal.org/ (Only published quarterly, but with full archives of previous issues. By far the best political writing from a stylistic point of view. Deals primarily with social issues)
By far the best and most complete foreign policy and military analysis:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/ (Only publishes one article per day and a half though)
Best Terrorism analysis:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/
Best funny right wing blogs:
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/ (Don't read while drinking anything)
And an always amusing blog:
http://imao.us/ (Anyone familiar with the "Nuke The Moon" slogan?)
I frankly do not trust any network televised news outlets though Fox is probably the least disliked by me. All media outlets have their own agendas, and therefore present the news to fit them accordingly. Somebody mentioned a "Truth-Meter" which is definately needed equipment.
My source for news has been a mixture of some of the above, coupled with weblogs from the following:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ (Publication started by William F. Buckley)
http://www.spectator.org/index.asp (Good analysis. Ben Stein writes a monthly column)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/default.asp (Good general analysis for foreign policy, social, economic)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/ (Good zine published by David Horiwitz -- crusader for academic freedom. Many foreign policy articles written by current Armed Forces brass)
http://www.city-journal.org/ (Only published quarterly, but with full archives of previous issues. By far the best political writing from a stylistic point of view. Deals primarily with social issues)
By far the best and most complete foreign policy and military analysis:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/ (Only publishes one article per day and a half though)
Best Terrorism analysis:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/
Best funny right wing blogs:
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/ (Don't read while drinking anything)
And an always amusing blog:
http://imao.us/ (Anyone familiar with the "Nuke The Moon" slogan?)
GeekWithA.45 I really beg to differ with you here, the media IMHO is definitly leaning far to the right.I offer as proof we have lost 3 wars in the last 6 yrs. of right wing total control of Gov. and the all media paints it as, "turning a corner","the last desperate throes","there desperation is proof we are winning",etc.Could it be the media is afraid of the thugs that are in control and the american people have to pay the price with blood and treasure to preserve elitist control?
Eleven Mike
Member
Give it up, Doug B. The leftist slant of American press is no longer a controversy - it is known fact. Even the left-leaning journalists are beginning to admit it. If you have evidence that the press is biased to the right, please present it.
Most of his sources are regular media outlets, so it reflects the leftist slant that already exists. Drudge himself is to the right, but his stock-in-trade is reporting whatever he can find.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Dougb:
I'm willing to weigh any evidence you've got, but what you offer is pretty thin conjecture, that doesn't stack up against even informal content analysis, nevermind scholarly analysis coming out of UCLA.
Everytime someone asserts that _most_ of the press is biased _right_, they never seem to be able to back it up with anything solid that speaks to the _content_.
Most of the time, they eventually get to the assertion is that the press is owned by people with right wing agendas implying that they exert some influence on the content. This is a topic of dispute to begin with, (given that the press is actually owned by the stockholders, which means anyone with a mutual fund or a 401K. Even major stakeholders have to deal with the board of directors) and a red herring in any event, because the topic is the _content_ of the press, not who owns it.
Once folks actually start counting and classifying column inches, they generally go, "oh", and mumble a bit.
Buy an array of papers, start reading articles, and honestly start identifying and classifying the bias.
I'm willing to weigh any evidence you've got, but what you offer is pretty thin conjecture, that doesn't stack up against even informal content analysis, nevermind scholarly analysis coming out of UCLA.
Everytime someone asserts that _most_ of the press is biased _right_, they never seem to be able to back it up with anything solid that speaks to the _content_.
Most of the time, they eventually get to the assertion is that the press is owned by people with right wing agendas implying that they exert some influence on the content. This is a topic of dispute to begin with, (given that the press is actually owned by the stockholders, which means anyone with a mutual fund or a 401K. Even major stakeholders have to deal with the board of directors) and a red herring in any event, because the topic is the _content_ of the press, not who owns it.
Once folks actually start counting and classifying column inches, they generally go, "oh", and mumble a bit.
Buy an array of papers, start reading articles, and honestly start identifying and classifying the bias.
one of the big problems with news networks are their wannabe celebrity newscasters and 'journalists/reporters'. our government isn't the only organization that needs rethinking when it comes to term limits. i suggest that we enact legislation that requires all major news sources to set 1 month limits on every reporter and newscaster they have. that way they'll be no clambering up the career ladder and embarrassing pursuits of celebrity at the expense of simply reportaing what is going on. if we're lucky, it will destroy the news industry entirely, and we can get on with more air time for 'dancing with the stars'.
Ironically, your "proof" is self defeating. According to my own experiences in Iraq we are not losing the war, and the handful of people I know who've gone to Afghanistan say things are even more successful there.
Strangely enough, even while in-country we could watch the Fox and CNN reporters talk about all the Iraqi civilians who despise America, then later that same day conduct a psychological operations assessment on a village of over 10, 000 when there were only 6 of us, and be greeted with open arms.
DBabsJr
Member
Anybody read Amy Goodman's book Exceptions to the Rulers? In it, one of the claims that she makes is that the media bias comes from the way access to the powerful is not necessarily available to every journalist equally. Those that will support the interviewee's opinions get better access. Go against them and you are shunned. She argues that the media needs to be freed.
I'm paraphrasing without the book in front of me, though.
Interesting read...especially since I read it right after reading 1984 for the first time.
I'm paraphrasing without the book in front of me, though.
Interesting read...especially since I read it right after reading 1984 for the first time.
xd9fan
Member
OOHHH there geekwitha.45, Just listing where I go to get my news, not really aware of the other topics being throw around on this thread.
If anybody can list me an objective new source.....I would love to hear it.
Unfortunately, like books on history.......Its hard finding truth knowning authors have bias towards certain agendas.
If anybody can list me an objective new source.....I would love to hear it.
Unfortunately, like books on history.......Its hard finding truth knowning authors have bias towards certain agendas.
GTSteve03
Member
Who cares?
Print is dead, network news ain't far behind.
Get with the picture and get your news from the www, like Biker said. You'll find yourself becoming much more informed on the world and less a product of some big corporate "spin machine."
Print is dead, network news ain't far behind.
Get with the picture and get your news from the www, like Biker said. You'll find yourself becoming much more informed on the world and less a product of some big corporate "spin machine."
'Card
Member
I generally go with NPR. They're the only organization left (that I'm aware of) that routinely chooses substance over sensationalism, and that matters more to me than political bias.
I know what my political opinion is (conservative). I'm not so insecure that I need to listen to news that simply tries to reinforce my existing beliefs (Fox).
I know what my political opinion is (conservative). I'm not so insecure that I need to listen to news that simply tries to reinforce my existing beliefs (Fox).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked