Favourite News service and why?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Oct 26, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Then this
    is where I mistook him.
    Along with this:
    It's always possible that this isn't the standard rightwing "bothsides" schtick - but that's granting the benefit of the doubt.
    And it doesn't sound like a reference to the weekend gasbag cavalcade.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Free Speech TV - guys like Thom Hartmann.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I think you are just arguing with yourself. Don't watch Fox and like "sources" and don't look for drama or a conspiracy and use your head and you will generally understand what is "news". Most of what is on TV is "commentary".

    You made up the part about me implying anything about "both sides".

    The news is, the bomber was caught. Commentary is, this is what he probably was thinking, this is the kind of person that he is, maybe he was a Democrat plant, no I'll bet he is a Russian double agent, etc.

    That's not the news and anyone with a brain knows that. Many Trump followers seem to be lacking a brain. Most everyone else doesn't really have an issue understanding what was news on a particular day.

    If someone is expecting in depth journalism these days, particularly from television, unfortunately that is generally not going to be found.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Agreed. Which is why it is barely left.

    Take a look at the news stories on the NPR news politics page today. Lots of coverage of the attempted bombings; right wing news sources are downplaying that. A headline where Trump talks about the "fake news" media. NPR put it in quotes to make sure people know it's what he said, not reality. Two stories on the blue wave - again, something you don't see from right wing groups. A fact check article entitled "Trump's false claims." An article on Russia's ongoing attempts to interfere with US elections.

    Counterbalancing that are articles about Trump's attempts to lower drug prices, how he's reached out to evangelicals and how Trump and Cruz have made up.

    Now, if you read that list and said "well of COURSE they should report on factual things like Trump's lies and the blue wave - and saying Trump is trying to lower drug prices is a right wing lie!" then you may be seeing NPR from a position very far left of where it is.

    All in all, a slight left bias.
    Clueless and ignorant people exist on both sides. Their presence does not skew media bias.
    Glad you like that joke.
    And that is a characteristic of the right, because the left doesn't care much about the stock market? Because liberals are poor? I suspect Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, George Soros et al might disagree.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Or generally leaning right, after averaging in the solidly rightwing stuff - as in the omitted part of the quote.
    All of those stories are presented from a center/right viewpoint and framing, and none are presented from a leftwing viewpoint or frame, iirc - link to counterexample ?
    You actually need a majority list of "counterexamples", which would be impossible, but the search for even one would be instructive.
    * Nonsense. Plenty of righties talking about the blue wave, many of them hoping it happens. It's all over CNN.
    You appear to be defining "rightwing" as the behaviors of the extreme and the wingnut. As noted: there is a lot of room between the National Review and the center of the right/left political spectrum. NPR is in there. So is the Clinton Dem establishment.
    Of course. None of them from a leftwing viewpoint, afaik - maybe the drug price issue? Link if you can find one.
    It is a characteristic of the rightwing viewpoint, of course, to focus on the stock market - daily, front and center - and pay comparatively less and less frequent attention to various labor issues and their effects. What do wealthy liberals have to do with that? I see no reason NPR would avoid catering to the interests of wealthy people to some extent. That's their donor base.
    Meanwhile, here's the rest of that quote:
    It's the list makes the case - not any one item on it.
    I think if you are claiming Buffet and Musk for the Left, I've made my case.
    But it does make their perceptions worthless as indicators of that bias. It's not a majority vote situation - there is a reality involved.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    I mentioned A source. I sample several and dive in to some of those for deeper analysis. I hope this is similar to the means our more informed members use.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The fact that an American must find and attend to foreign news sources for information about their own country is worth noticing.
     
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    The shows I watch are produced in the US.

    And I watch the BBC-America as well.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The mainstream of American media - where people who have bought into the "avoid partisan bias" convention end up:
    https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...press-sanitize-erick-ericksons-garbage/221889

    A center/center-right capitalist with excellent credentials weighs in:
    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman
    Erick Erickson, sanitized guest on NPR, example: https://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/4707...epublicans-to-prepare-third-party-alternative

    Ok, not straight news programming - but managed and overseen by the same people, governed by the same policy, part of the news operations, a clear window into what's framing the straight news on NPR, NBC, and all points right of them.
     
  13. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    You just have to be an informed consumer. If you don't do your own homework get ready for the "fool me once..." rule to kick in.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Catch 22.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Pragmatically impossible, for most people. Being a journalist or news editor is a full time job.

    So it won't get done - but it will be claimed: Look at the people here who regard themselves as informed consumers of news, and post wingnut feed verbatim.

    Republican voters re-elected W&Cheney in 2004. That is way past the "fool me twice" stage already - and then they voted for Trump. Expecting such people to feel shame for repeatedly buying into obvious swindles and cons - or even recognize that they have done so - is foolish. If they are to be shamed, others will have to do the honors.
     
  16. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Badly phrased, sorry. Just do the fact checking no matter what the source. I followed the Watergate Hearings from Europe. The London Times put emphasis in different place than the US papers, NYT etc.
     
  17. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    PBS is easily my favorite television news program/network.
    • No commercials! That alone makes it worth it.
    • In depth coverage.
    • Lots of news and news analysis, but not a lot of editorial commentary.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Most people are caught there - 22. Their sources of "fact" are what they would have to check.

    If repetition and amplification of bs and lies is easy and has no consequences, resistance in the medium term will be restricted to
    1) a small fraction of the population with the time and intellectual resources to independently check facts in advance of events. Be their own journalists, in a sense.
    2) those able to remember what was said and compare it with subsequent events over several years - another minority fraction, and one vulnerable to media manipulation and influence.

    In the long run reality destroys bs and lies - events will not stay aligned with fantasy's forecasts forever. But that is painful, and does not necessarily rid one of the sources involved. The Iraq invasion is a classic example - and notice that fifteen years after exposure the Republican Party, Fox News, and many other "sources" involved, are still powerful, allowed influence, granted respect, relied upon for "news". The lies and bs are wreckage, but the liars and bullshitters are largely undamaged.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2018
  19. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    News?

    My doctor sends me to a specialist for it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    586
    I previously thought that the ABC was independent and balanced until ABC News 24 radio started (under Gillard) running the same 5 minute, highly political segments, every 15 minutes between 8 and 10 am. That means 40 minutes (8x5min) of one sided political claptrap in 2 hours without any balance whatsoever!

    You also may have noticed that Australia currently has a minority government in both our house of Representatives and senate.

    This means that the Australian people don't trust either of our major political parties (crooks or imbeciles or both, take your pick) and the first preference votes from our last 2 federal elections reflect this without being biased or unbalanced (last time it was the lowest since WWI for both parties, the time before it was lowest for the opposition since WWII).
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.

Share This Page