The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Unbiased news source??

  1. #11
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    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.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    If you want the real unbiased truth, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ect.

  3. #13
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    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...or-obama-plan/
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  4. #14

    Default

    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
    Last edited by ALPHA-OMEGA; 09-10-2009 at 05:46 PM.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    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.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    If you want the real unbiased truth, listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck ect.
    I do when the wife is out of the house, how else would I KNOW what to believe without having to think or research.

  7. #17
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    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.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,812

    Default

    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.
    It's time we abandon our party affiliations and rather than being good Dems or good Repubs we all become good Americans. MJH345

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,322

    Default

    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.
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  10. #20
    Senior Member Bruce MacPherson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Jewell, Ore
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ALPHA-OMEGA View Post
    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.
    "The longer you let a dog go in the wrong direction the more they think they are going in the right direction" Don Remien.

Similar Threads

  1. Where's the unbiased reporting??
    By road kill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-12-2009, 02:20 PM
  2. New Duck Source
    By Jay Dufour in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2009, 11:57 AM
  3. New source for ducks!
    By brwndg/yelladawg in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2009, 09:40 AM
  4. Good news...bad news from the vet(now things are going to get fun)!!!
    By Geoff Buckius in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-03-2008, 07:30 PM
  5. Best source of Meds and supplements
    By Steve Shaver in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 12:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •