Unbiased news source??

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-10-2009, 03:26 PM
dnf777

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz

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.
09-10-2009, 03:55 PM
Roger Perry

If you want the real unbiased truth, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ect. :rolleyes:
09-10-2009, 05:22 PM
subroc

Here is what I look for in the news...a real un-biased poll.

Here is a direct quot from the article:

Quote:

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...or-obama-plan/
09-10-2009, 05:23 PM
ALPHA-OMEGA

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
09-10-2009, 05:35 PM
ALPHA-OMEGA

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeus3925

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.
09-10-2009, 05:42 PM
ALPHA-OMEGA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Perry

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.
09-10-2009, 06:06 PM
YardleyLabs

Quote:

Originally Posted by subroc

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...or-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.
09-10-2009, 06:42 PM
Franco

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.
09-10-2009, 07:11 PM
Marvin S

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.
09-10-2009, 08:41 PM
Bruce MacPherson

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALPHA-OMEGA

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.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page