PDA

View Full Version : Unbiased news source??



dnf777
09-10-2009, 08:15 AM
There seems to be a never ending patterns of someone making a claim, it being attacked, it being supported by a reference, the REFERENCE then being attacked......on and on....

Lets hear of some people's honest idea of a NON-BIASED news source? Fox? CNN? Lehmans' News Hour? We all know where to go when we want OUR opinions and views validated, but realize they are not truly unbiased. So where are the plain, vanilla news facts reported?

I would have made a poll, but I don't know who all to include.

Hoosier
09-10-2009, 08:19 AM
I get all my news from forums.:rolleyes:

road kill
09-10-2009, 08:31 AM
I get all my news from forums.:rolleyes:
I get mine from Yardley!!;)

BonMallari
09-10-2009, 08:42 AM
Real Clear politics .com but I watch Fox news..also listen to various stations on satellite radio when I am on the road

Steve Amrein
09-10-2009, 09:18 AM
I was flipping between Fox, CNN and Msnbc the other day, they were all covering the same story because I recognized the same pictures but the reporting could not have been any different

Terry Britton
09-10-2009, 09:29 AM
There seems to be a never ending patterns of someone making a claim, it being attacked, it being supported by a reference, the REFERENCE then being attacked......on and on....

Lets hear of some people's honest idea of a NON-BIASED news source? Fox? CNN? Lehmans' News Hour? We all know where to go when we want OUR opinions and views validated, but realize they are not truly unbiased. So where are the plain, vanilla news facts reported?

I would have made a poll, but I don't know who all to include.

There is no such thing as unbiased news. Read the book, "How to Lie with Statisitics", and you will never read or listen to ANY news the same again. You will question your own brainwashing from the media of your preference.

I look at the facts, and what the economists say is best for the USA, and my beliefs for freedom and the the risks associated with freedom.

zeus3925
09-10-2009, 09:53 AM
I was listening to Minnesota Public Radio the other day and the guest interviewee, who was a journalist (can't recall the name anymore), said the objective reporting we used to get from the news media has given way to the journalism of advocacy and hype. Instead of informing, it inflames and contributes greatly to the polarization we see in the body politic. I think he was spot on.

It is really great for the profit line as you can cut reporting the staff that really can bore down to the truth. Just take a story off the wire, speculate wildly on its meaning, and call it news. There is cash in feeding the masses raw meat, but, it doesn't lend much to cool decision making needed to keep the nation functioning.

road kill
09-10-2009, 09:58 AM
Simply put, it's about generating income.

dnf777
09-10-2009, 04:14 PM
There is no such thing as unbiased news. Read the book, "How to Lie with Statisitics", and you will never read or listen to ANY news the same again. You will question your own brainwashing from the media of your preference.

I look at the facts, and what the economists say is best for the USA, and my beliefs for freedom and the the risks associated with freedom.

Read it in college as an assignment. GREAT book. But aren't economists also biased? I doubt many on this forum read and digest what Paul Krugman or Thom Freidman say!? When you say you "look at the facts"...that is my question....WHERE do you get unbiased facts? (I know, facts in and of themsevles are unbiased, but the media that delivers them often are!)

Buzz
09-10-2009, 04:19 PM
I doubt many on this forum read and digest what Paul Krugman or Thom Freidman say!?


I do! And I bet there wouldn't be too many here that would be surprised...

dnf777
09-10-2009, 04:26 PM
I do! And I bet there wouldn't be too many here that would be surprised...

I read them too. Just read Friedman's "Hot, Flat, and Crowded". Actually some of my very conservative friends at work did also, and respect his work greatly, even though he did unveil his dislike of Mr. Bush over the past few years. He and Krugman call it like they see it, and aren't especially warm to many of Mr. Obama's plans either.

Roger Perry
09-10-2009, 04:55 PM
If you want the real unbiased truth, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ect. :rolleyes:

subroc
09-10-2009, 06:22 PM
Here is what I look for in the news...a real un-biased poll.

Here is a direct quot from the article:


The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/10/cnn-poll-double-digit-post-speech-jump-for-obama-plan/

ALPHA-OMEGA
09-10-2009, 06:23 PM
entered for start of thread dnf777




My wife.

She likes to do research and to pick apart what people say and why. Also what they hear and how it is interpreted by them from the original (going in the ear) statement.

I told her that I liked to watch FOX so I could have a heads up on the next political attack and to know what not to believe. She said that I should not believe everything I heard on the networks or the INTERNET. I told her again thats why I watch FOX, to make it easy on me. If they said it then I did not Need to check it out, it was either false somewhere from the git-go or they slanted it to bring out some strong emotion like hate or loathing or seething ridicule.

Not believing me and saying that I was speaking with bigotry about FOX, I told her to watch for a week and tell me how accurate and truthful they are. She took notes, researched original sources, many while they where broadcast unedited, then replayed the FOX programs as needed to recheck.

And what was the results of her researching? She told me the I could not watch FOX with her in the house. That even if she heard them from another room, the thought of what they are doing had started to make her sick to the stomach. This I can attest to, I would flip it to FOX and within a minute she would call from the other room for me to either turn it off or tell her to leave the house. I asked her how she new what I was watching and she said it as how the words where put together, the inflections used in dialog, and subliminals... something about below perception feeling or vibrations that she felt whenever FOX was on. One other thing, she did the same when I was watching CNN and HLN a few times but said I could watch them, it was only one tenth as bad. She also said my first impression was correct, If its on FOX, then there is almost certainly something wrong in the message.

I do think that I could have a more peaceful life now if I had not wasted all that money on Her Psychology Degree.

As to the other Network, they tend to be more accurate but still need to be checked out at source. One thing I have seen so far is that if it has been on somewhere else twice, then its apparently OK to rebroadcast. This includes stuff on or from Fox venues.

Another thing I am not to sure of but Fox seems to actually be the source of many questionable items and not just the initial point of reporting.

Am I a FOX hater, I do not think so but they do save me a lot of research time if I am in a hurry.



SEMPER FI

ALPHA-OMEGA
09-10-2009, 06:35 PM
I was listening to Minnesota Public Radio the other day and the guest interviewee, who was a journalist (can't recall the name anymore), said the objective reporting we used to get from the news media has given way to the journalism of advocacy and hype. Instead of informing, it inflames and contributes greatly to the polarization we see in the body politic. I think he was spot on.

It is really great for the profit line as you can cut reporting the staff that really can bore down to the truth. Just take a story off the wire, speculate wildly on its meaning, and call it news. There is cash in feeding the masses raw meat, but, it doesn't lend much to cool decision making needed to keep the nation functioning.

Been this way for years. Competing with INTERNET and reality television and the National Inquirer of cable networks coupled spreading the $$$$$ thinner and thinner to more and more outlets.

ALPHA-OMEGA
09-10-2009, 06:42 PM
If you want the real unbiased truth, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ect. :rolleyes:

I do when the wife is out of the house, how else would I KNOW what to believe without having to think or research.

YardleyLabs
09-10-2009, 07:06 PM
Here is what I look for in the news...a real un-biased poll.

Here is a direct quot from the article:





http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/10/cnn-poll-double-digit-post-speech-jump-for-obama-plan/
That's actually true for almost all Presidential and political speeches. Most people opposing the politician will simply not tune in at all. What makes it interesting is the relatively high percentage of independents. That is the group Obama is actually trying to reach.

Franco
09-10-2009, 07:42 PM
Actually, the national news media is now taking a page from the sports section.

Sports journalist have long incorporated bias into thier reporting. First, they cater or tell folks in the biggest media markets(cities) what they think will keep them listening longer. Next, they are very biased for thier favorite team(s).

News Reporting is just now catching up.

Marvin S
09-10-2009, 08:11 PM
I get my news watching the ticker. For reasonably factual reporting I read Forbes, American Spectator, National Review & Kiplingers Weekly Business newsletter. For people whom I listen to the list is quite small, Thomas Sowell, Michael Barone & Steve Forbes mostly. I read a lot of different stuff, even the lefties articles occasionly have a tidbit of useful info, it is with their conclusions & solutions that I disagree as they all too often prove to be devoid of thought & consequence.

Bruce MacPherson
09-10-2009, 09:41 PM
entered for start of thread dnf777




My wife.

She likes to do research and to pick apart what people say and why. Also what they hear and how it is interpreted by them from the original (going in the ear) statement.

I told her that I liked to watch FOX so I could have a heads up on the next political attack and to know what not to believe. She said that I should not believe everything I heard on the networks or the INTERNET. I told her again thats why I watch FOX, to make it easy on me. If they said it then I did not Need to check it out, it was either false somewhere from the git-go or they slanted it to bring out some strong emotion like hate or loathing or seething ridicule.

Not believing me and saying that I was speaking with bigotry about FOX, I told her to watch for a week and tell me how accurate and truthful they are. She took notes, researched original sources, many while they where broadcast unedited, then replayed the FOX programs as needed to recheck.

And what was the results of her researching? She told me the I could not watch FOX with her in the house. That even if she heard them from another room, the thought of what they are doing had started to make her sick to the stomach. This I can attest to, I would flip it to FOX and within a minute she would call from the other room for me to either turn it off or tell her to leave the house. I asked her how she new what I was watching and she said it as how the words where put together, the inflections used in dialog, and subliminals... something about below perception feeling or vibrations that she felt whenever FOX was on. One other thing, she did the same when I was watching CNN and HLN a few times but said I could watch them, it was only one tenth as bad. She also said my first impression was correct, If its on FOX, then there is almost certainly something wrong in the message.

I do think that I could have a more peaceful life now if I had not wasted all that money on Her Psychology Degree.

As to the other Network, they tend to be more accurate but still need to be checked out at source. One thing I have seen so far is that if it has been on somewhere else twice, then its apparently OK to rebroadcast. This includes stuff on or from Fox venues.

Another thing I am not to sure of but Fox seems to actually be the source of many questionable items and not just the initial point of reporting.

Am I a FOX hater, I do not think so but they do save me a lot of research time if I am in a hurry.



SEMPER FI

Why don't you just shoot us some examples. I'm sure your wife must have kept some of her notes. Maybe just three, that shouldn't be too hard for a bright guy like you.

subroc
09-11-2009, 04:07 AM
...What makes it interesting is the relatively high percentage of independents...

If you say so. In my view what makes it interesting is the clear bias in the poll and it being presented as an honest result.

Mike Noel
09-11-2009, 09:44 AM
entered for start of thread dnf777




My wife.

She likes to do research and to pick apart what people say and why. Also what they hear and how it is interpreted by them from the original (going in the ear) statement.

I told her that I liked to watch FOX so I could have a heads up on the next political attack and to know what not to believe. She said that I should not believe everything I heard on the networks or the INTERNET. I told her again thats why I watch FOX, to make it easy on me. If they said it then I did not Need to check it out, it was either false somewhere from the git-go or they slanted it to bring out some strong emotion like hate or loathing or seething ridicule.

Not believing me and saying that I was speaking with bigotry about FOX, I told her to watch for a week and tell me how accurate and truthful they are. She took notes, researched original sources, many while they where broadcast unedited, then replayed the FOX programs as needed to recheck.

And what was the results of her researching? She told me the I could not watch FOX with her in the house. That even if she heard them from another room, the thought of what they are doing had started to make her sick to the stomach. This I can attest to, I would flip it to FOX and within a minute she would call from the other room for me to either turn it off or tell her to leave the house. I asked her how she new what I was watching and she said it as how the words where put together, the inflections used in dialog, and subliminals... something about below perception feeling or vibrations that she felt whenever FOX was on. One other thing, she did the same when I was watching CNN and HLN a few times but said I could watch them, it was only one tenth as bad. She also said my first impression was correct, If its on FOX, then there is almost certainly something wrong in the message.

I do think that I could have a more peaceful life now if I had not wasted all that money on Her Psychology Degree.

As to the other Network, they tend to be more accurate but still need to be checked out at source. One thing I have seen so far is that if it has been on somewhere else twice, then its apparently OK to rebroadcast. This includes stuff on or from Fox venues.

Another thing I am not to sure of but Fox seems to actually be the source of many questionable items and not just the initial point of reporting.

Am I a FOX hater, I do not think so but they do save me a lot of research time if I am in a hurry.



SEMPER FI

You have bigger issues if you let you wife tell you what you can or can not watch on TV brother;) My wife would never tell me I could not watch a particular news program, nor would I impose a silly restriction like that on her.....and my wife had 3 degrees and is in Mensa:p:p:p

road kill
09-11-2009, 10:15 AM
You have bigger issues if you let you wife tell you what you can or can not watch on TV brother;) My wife would never tell me I could not watch a particular news program, nor would I impose a silly restriction like that on her.....and my wife had 3 degrees and is in Mensa:p:p:p
They evidently prefer to watch the "NEWS" were the reporters discuss the warm tingly feelings they get up their legs when "the Obama" speaks!!;)

unbiased regards!!

YardleyLabs
09-11-2009, 10:23 AM
If you say so. In my view what makes it interesting is the clear bias in the poll and it being presented as an honest result.
The report that I read was very explicit in stating that it was a poll of people who listened to the speech (as opposed to those who didn't) and that the people watching the speech were much more likely to be Democrats and much less likely to be Republicans than the general population. What about that is dishonest? Given that the purpose of the poll was to find out if the speech was linked to any change in positions of those who watched it, how else would you suggest that they structure and report the study? Where is the conspiracy?

subroc
09-11-2009, 11:25 AM
Originally Posted by subroc http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=497485#post497485)
If you say so. In my view what makes it interesting is the clear bias in the poll and it being presented as an honest result.



The report that I read was very explicit in stating that it was a poll of people who listened to the speech (as opposed to those who didn't) and that the people watching the speech were much more likely to be Democrats and much less likely to be Republicans than the general population. What about that is dishonest? Given that the purpose of the poll was to find out if the speech was linked to any change in positions of those who watched it, how else would you suggest that they structure and report the study? Where is the conspiracy?


The story had all the neat little caveats and addendums; however the poll itself did not. The headline to the article did not reflect those points either. The implication is that the nation was swayed by the speech. Also, the article speaks to the disparity of republicans to democrats in the third paragraph yet it doesn't really explain that disparity until the very last.

If you can’t see the distinction between the headline and the truth or the bias, that is OK. It is there and it is clear.

BTW, here is a story claiming unmoved:

http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/1227586.html

TXduckdog
09-11-2009, 11:47 AM
There seems to be a never ending patterns of someone making a claim, it being attacked, it being supported by a reference, the REFERENCE then being attacked......on and on....

Lets hear of some people's honest idea of a NON-BIASED news source? Fox? CNN? Lehmans' News Hour? We all know where to go when we want OUR opinions and views validated, but realize they are not truly unbiased. So where are the plain, vanilla news facts reported?

I would have made a poll, but I don't know who all to include.


Wall Street Journal is about as objective as I can find.

BonMallari
09-11-2009, 02:55 PM
if you go to www.realclearpolitics.com they have links to everything from the WSJ to the liberal Huffington post. You can decide who and what you want to read .its unbiased in the fact that it shows both sides and lets you decide whose op ed articles you want to read

Hew
09-11-2009, 05:00 PM
I was listening to Minnesota Public Radio the other day and the guest interviewee, who was a journalist (can't recall the name anymore), said the objective reporting we used to get from the news media has given way to the journalism of advocacy and hype. Instead of informing, it inflames and contributes greatly to the polarization we see in the body politic. I think he was spot on.
Based on what you're saying about the interview, I think he was spouting some self-serving hoo-haw.

"The objective reporting we used to get..." Ha. He meant to say, "In the good old days our opinions, errr....the news we reported, was accepted without question." Walter Cronkite was once considered the most trusted man in America. As if he had no ulterior motives, bias or agendas. Right. The Walter Cronkite who claimed that Karl Rove conspired with Osama bin Ladin to defeat John Kerry in the '04 elections is the same guy who we trusted us to give us the unvarnished truth about Vietnam?!?! What a bunch of freakin' rubes we were. How many other Dan Rather "fake but accurate" news stories were manufacted by so-called "objective journalists" until the power of the internet caught up with them? Good riddance to them all. I'll take muckrakers like Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Ann Coulter and Michael Moore any day of the week over Cronkite, Rather, Murrow, et al. We're an infinately better informed people now than in the golden (as in urine colored) days of journalism.

road kill
09-11-2009, 05:45 PM
If you want the real unbiased truth, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ect. :rolleyes:
Now you are getting it!!:D

blind ambition
09-11-2009, 06:52 PM
Based on what you're saying about the interview, I think he was spouting some self-serving hoo-haw.

"The objective reporting we used to get..." Ha. He meant to say, "In the good old days our opinions, errr....the news we reported, was accepted without question." Walter Cronkite was once considered the most trusted man in America. As if he had no ulterior motives, bias or agendas. Right. The Walter Cronkite who claimed that Karl Rove conspired with Osama bin Ladin to defeat John Kerry in the '04 elections is the same guy who we trusted us to give us the unvarnished truth about Vietnam?!?! What a bunch of freakin' rubes we were. How many other Dan Rather "fake but accurate" news stories were manufacted by so-called "objective journalists" until the power of the internet caught up with them? Good riddance to them all. I'll take muckrakers like Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Ann Coulter and Michael Moore any day of the week over Cronkite, Rather, Murrow, et al. We're an infinately better informed people now than in the golden (as in urine colored) days of journalism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/walter_cronkite_vietnam_and_th_1.html

I suggest you revisit his famous broadcast again to see if historical fact has not supported his original on air comments. Journalists are seldom qualified as clairvoyants, however Walter Cronkite certainly had clear vision with his post Tet appraisal of the US involvement in Vietnam

Hew
09-11-2009, 07:26 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/walter_cronkite_vietnam_and_th_1.html

I suggest you revisit his famous broadcast again to see if historical fact has not supported his original on air comments. Journalists are seldom qualified as clairvoyants, however Walter Cronkite certainly had clear vision with his post Tet appraisal of the US involvement in Vietnam
Hmmm...I suggest you revisit the link you just offered as its indictment of Cronkite is scathing. But thanks for helping my argument. ;-)

blind ambition
09-11-2009, 08:23 PM
Hmmm...I suggest you revisit the link you just offered as its indictment of Cronkite is scathing. But thanks for helping my argument. ;-)


I didn't link for the editorial, just for the man's words. I thought you would read and focus on what he had said if my source was one of which you may approve:p There is no revising history on this issue, Tet was the turning point of the Vietnam war, Cronkite didn't miss the mark by far, well except that you can't really refer to the outcome as a stalemate. BTW, the past 34 years sorta put paid to the veracity of that old Domino theory, eh?


Among his comments (http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change%20--Cronkite.html) were these:

Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw.


It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. (Emphases added)

Hew
09-11-2009, 09:19 PM
I didn't link for the editorial, just for the man's words. If that's the case then if I could be so bold as to offer a rhetorical tip... you might not want to link an article that refutes the points you're trying to make (i.e. that Cronkite was right about Vietnam). I thought you would read and focus on what he had said if my source was one of which you may approve:p There is no revising history on this issue, Tet was the turning point of the Vietnam war, Cronkite didn't miss the mark by far, well except that you can't really refer to the outcome as a stalemate. You seem all torn up about that, too. America needed some comeuppence, didn't we? BTW, the past 34 years sorta put paid to the veracity of that old Domino theory, eh? It sure did. The post-war bloodbath in Vietnam and the killing fields of Cambodia, combined with an extensive and continued American presence in the region put a halt to communist expansionism in that neck of the world.


------------

blind ambition
09-12-2009, 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by blind ambition http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=497870#post497870)
I didn't link for the editorial, just for the man's words. If that's the case then if I could be so bold as to offer a rhetorical tip... you might not want to link an article that refutes the points you're trying to make (i.e. that Cronkite was right about Vietnam).Might I be so bold as to suggest that such advice would only be useful if one could be certain ones opposite in debate would not dismiss information provided if they did not like it's source, as I stated, I thought you might take the time to re-read Cronkite's words during that evening's broadcast, if you were comfortable with the site referenced. I didn't expect you to just lap up the pre digested editorial opinions on the subject, I thought you might read Walter's own words and form ones unique to yourself. I thought you would read and focus on what he had said if my source was one of which you may approve:razz: There is no revising history on this issue, Tet was the turning point of the Vietnam war, Cronkite didn't miss the mark by far, well except that you can't really refer to the outcome as a stalemate. You seem all torn up about that, too. America needed some comeuppence, didn't we? Dear sir, no one needs cumuppance, and to suggest so just moves us further from the discussion at hand. I do not know how you can devine my feelings but setting that aside, I asure you I am not torn up over the issue, I just wanted to point out that Cronkite's statement of prognostication as to how the Vietnam war would end might be the only point one could refute in light of historical fact. BTW, the past 34 years sorta put paid to the veracity of that old Domino theory, eh? It sure did. The post-war bloodbath in Vietnam it is with deep regret that most civil wars end in the same manner and the killing fields of Cambodia, combined with an extensive and continued American presence in the region put a halt to communist expansionism in that neck of the world. Hardly the apocalypse presented by the theory's proponants though, is it?
I know you have Google as you have remarked to others on this forum as to their need to avail themselves of it's services, try this search; "america vietnam trade"...have a sandwich, then get back to us with the fruits of your labours, then we'll chat intelligenty about the validity of the Domino Theory, the evils of communism, etc.

Hew
09-12-2009, 01:00 AM
Hardly the apocalypse presented by the theory's proponants though, is it?
I know you have Google as you have remarked to others on this forum as to their need to avail themselves of it's services, try this search; "america vietnam trade"...have a sandwich, then get back to us with the fruits of your labours, then we'll chat intelligenty about the validity of the Domino Theory, the evils of communism, etc. My, but you've got all the truly interesting rhetorical angles covered. First you make an argument and provide a link that refutes your own argument.

Then you move on to attempting to argue that because something didn't happen (apparently every Domino in Asia falling to communism) it was never going to happen (despite the fact that it was indeed in process).

And then you make it a perfect trifecta of inanity by contending that because we now trade with putatively communist countries 20 years after the end of the Cold War that expansionist communist countries weren't all that bad at the height of the Cold War (all those millions of their own people they killed in the process aside, apparently).


________________________

blind ambition
09-12-2009, 01:29 AM
________________________

Here on the left coast it's late and I am tired, unless you are on the road and away from your Florida time zone....or, livin' on reds, vitamin C and...you know, you must be feelin' sleepy too. Have a good night.

Hew
09-12-2009, 01:42 AM
Here on the left coast it's late and I am tired, unless you are on the road and away from your Florida time zone....or, livin' on reds, vitamin C and...you know, you must be feelin' sleepy too. Have a good night.
Crystal meth. But it doesn't make me a bad person.

'Nite.

ducknwork
09-14-2009, 02:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090914/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsmedianewspaperstelevisioninternet_200909 14154704
________
Gsx1400 (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_GSX1400)