I am an Aussie, so I am unfamiliar with USA News services ( politics) other than what I have picked up over time. In Australia I typically only use national, independent , Government funded news services for reliable and balanced reporting. ABC and SBS. (world news especially) To be honest I have been disappointed with what I have seen in the USA. What USA national news services do you recommend to any one seeking a reasonably true image of what's happening in the USA? How do we put the Super-man/woman back into Clark Kent/Lois Lane? ( Truth , Justice and the American way) It seems that good investigative journalism is a thing of the past. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Care to discuss?
NPR is pretty good. The Wall Street Journal isn't bad. NPR leans slightly left and WSJ slightly right, so taken together they are fairly unbiased. AP and Reuters are both fairly unbiased, but are more reactive than investigative. No one wants that any more. They want the news that fits the right spin, justice for the other guy and the white, male American way.
NPR stays right of center (also a bit authoritarian) and has for decades now; (evidence? the prevalence of "bothsides" viewpoints - a rightwing schtick and Republican rhetorical tactic - along with the job-for-life status of David Brooks) the WSJ has traditionally (and famously, in some circles) been "liberal" in its hard news section, but so far to the extreme corporate authoritarian right editorially that it includes significant outright batshit on the editorial page - the crazy is common there, and increasingly so since 2007 when Murdoch bought the formerly independent newspaper. It's like it's trying to become a fascist house organ, of a kind, but reality keeps jerking its leash. That odd split-brain tradition - an apparent artifact of the WSJ needing to stay reasonably close to physical reality in its news hole, with big money on the line - is eroding these days. The cray-cray is spreading into the news hole at WSJ - as predicted by the libtards, when Murdoch took over. You can see it in the climate change coverage, for example. For balance, locating an "unbiased" center, one would need some news source well to the left of NPR. Suggestions include foreign news sources like Reuters or BBC or Al Jazeera, or some of the major scientific magazines such as Nature or Science or even Scientific American.
We look at PBS once in a while, particularly because their international news is informed by BBC; most of the time, it's CBC (in Canada) but I have sometimes been disappointed in them. Honestly? I get most of my USian news from Stephen Colbert or John Oliver - and sometimes a poster named 'toucana' on another forum.
Right there is your problem. honesty doesnt buy you the big mansion and flash cars and prostitutes and Guns.
wrong again ! honesty is just rain on the parade of endles celebrity wanna-be oligarchs seeking to promote their own facist ideology. (yeah PBS are the only real authentic news chanel left in the usa, though if one of the trumpsterdivers reads this they will probably attack them)
I have been watching the WSJ for a couple of years, watching not reading as I don't feel it is worth subscribing to. It appears to pander to social media trends and always with a pro-(w)ightwing agenda. It's hard news is consistently in favor of the Republican Party and opinion pieces of which there are far too many ( social media pandering) are almost always pro-Trump. (Trump apologists) However as you have suggested , I agree, the WSJ attempts to put on a credible face that is center right ( money focus) as it tries to hide it's more extreme political positioning and agenda. Another thing, "fact news" is rare with little to no genuine investigation. As such I treat it as a "Gossip" rag that provides a great insight into the problems facing credible news services in the USA and world wide. NYT is similar. Too many opinions and not enough factual reporting. Fancy blog sites is about as good an assessment you will get from me. Using/claiming "Anonymous sources, high ranking officials etc" only further destroys credibility in such a hostile environment. ===== There is no doubt that news services are going through a difficult and challenging transition phase, where maintaining income streams vs credibility becomes a battle ground. Journalism is struggling as a profession and no doubt we shall see more of it yet until that transition is completed. Thus pandering to social media (popularity) becomes a huge temptation. I tend to think any media outlet that runs strict fact based reporting with little opinion will ultimately be more successful. q. When Trump screams fake news has any one ever bothered to ask him and report his response, exactly what news he is referring to? Can he support his allegation? Has any one asked him to support his allegation of fake news?
i think that is likely the previous era, news paper sales. now its all online and money is not made off selling to the reader, the money is made off selling to the sellers who advertise. this is a monumental shift in reality. this allows them to go complete flying cow sized bat-shit crazy
The key is Honor. Honoring your self, your word, your community etc. and honesty, with self and others is a big part of it.
is a loaded culturaly nepotistic word. while i may agree with the psychological ethos of your etherial metaphour, i dissagree with it as a term used by ordinary people as it becomes an entirely different word and meaning. its like saying "we all know what is best for america because we see who the majority of the people voted for, so its time people got honest and honoured the flag and its democracy" its hard to have a sensible complex discussion with crazy and brain washed people.
Not news. My province just elected a fathead premier who's on a rampage of demolishing every progressive and green initiative taken by his predecessor and stomping all over the working class. They probably will anyway. Funding's already been cut; it's so tight now, PBS is running infomercials in prime time. On the up-side: afaik, they didn't get a pipe-bomb in the mail - presumably because they've been so very, very careful to remain neutral.
Hasn't been my experience. They generally take a pretty liberal view on issues like taxation, immigration and work towards poverty reduction. Yep. And my right wing friends find FOX News to be pretty centrist, maybe slightly right of centrist. They think that perhaps the National Review would be the best definition of an unbiased center. It all depends where you are looking from.
Like anything, it is a term open to abuse. I empathize with your despair. Without the intent to honor what you value, your values are meaningless. An oath of office is worthless if there is no intent to honor it. A handshake is useless with out honor. Like wise a signature. All systems/institutions of government were intended to be managed by honorable persons. Honor and the desire to honor is a key character trait, the value of which is not to be underestimated IMO.
But not a solidly leftwing one. And if you score the extremes, the batshit righties are fairly frequent (Dinesh D'Souza, say) as well as the hardcore Right "respectable" media wing (the parade of NeverTrumpers hawking books, say) while batshit lefties are so little evident they are hard to name. Net score - leaning toward David Brooks. That direction is called "right". Clueless and ignorant people exist - that isn't news. Please. That joke is attributed to Abe Lincoln: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" There is a physical, factual, reality involved. There are specific attributes of leftwing vs rightwing political views, there are easily observed propaganda memes specific to the left or right (the "bothsides" one, the "true conservative" one), and so forth. It ain't rocket science. Look, I like NPR, sort of. They trouble themselves to fact check, they keep the human interest factor within bounds most of the time, some of the music is good - but they don't lean left. They just don't. They lean right. The stock market report is front and center. They bothsides everything. They hire David Brooks. They refer to Obamacare as "socialist" and support for it as a leftwing stance. They report on Trump as if he marked a radical change in the Republican Party. They report the consequences of bad things done by specific political agents acting in specific rightwing corporate interests as if they were the weather, no fault, just happened somehow. And so forth - long, long list. There's a lot of territory left of the National Review that isn't left of center. Example: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/26/6611...hasnt-when-it-comes-to-the-flint-water-crisis Example: https://www.npr.org/books/titles/13...m-conservatives-chronicle-their-political-jou
It's not hard to get what "news" there is. Usually that's the first 5 minutes of a "news" show. The rest is editorializing. If you are in agreement with their views, it's easy enough to watch but it's not really "news" at that point. As long as you are discerning enough to stay away from the obviously partisan sites, you can easily get the news. Once they start explaining it to you...it isn't news any longer. A guy was mailing bombs. They caught him. That's the news.
that qualifys them as bat-shit crazy. the affordable care act is a regulatory preface to a private contract. no different to making a driver licence and then expecting people driving trucks to require one, even if they are really really really good drivers. the socialist version would be to remove the private contract and assign the health care to the individual without contract. that said there is little to be gained by discussing basic mathamatics to those who claim all numeracy is evil magic witchcraft.
Yes. And it does become stupefyingly tedious, too, listening to one voice after another stumble over versions of "We don't know anything, but we can speculate until the cows come home." (Have you noticed how many news announcers seem to have been trained in the Ted Baxter School of Broadcasting?)
So "Who, What, Why, When, and Where" is - how do the Republicans put it - no longer operative. I doubt you would bother attending to such an empty facade of journalism. The world as sand - disconnected and chaotic events, even the attempt to make sense of them or report them in a context is a waste of time at best and a violation of journalistic objectivity too often - is not the real world. The essential problem with reporting the world as disconnected chaos is that it is false. The events of the world are not, in fact, disconnected - and where they are chaotic, there are reasons for that. The subsidiary problem is that it is impossible in practice. There will be a default context - some existing interpretation or frame for hearing of a man mailing bombs. To report the Magabomber as another in the same category as the Unabomber would be false. To report the poisoning of Flint by a malfunctioning water supply system without providing a context - who, what, why, when, and where - is to fail to report the news. And the immediate problem with false reporting of that kind is that we face a rise of fascism, a fascist political movement, in the US - and fascism feeds on chaos, on breakdown and vandalism and the suspension of reason. Power takes over when reason is discarded. Such reporting is not politically neutral, in the US right now. If you recall, the corporate honchos who bought Ms Moore's TV station kept Brian Anderson Steve Bret Eric Ted (took a minute) and fired the competent. Prescient. We can't say we weren't warned.
I don't believe that's what Seattle had in mind. I think he was referring to the "explanations" which center on everybody-and-his-nephew's opinion, recorded and repeated endlessly, without any further solid information or analysis by a competent, knowledgeable observer. That doesn't happen during on-the-crisis-edge reportage; it doesn't happen until the weekend digests or public tv panel shows.
