Unbiased news source??

[subroc]

...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]

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

[road kill]

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

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]

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]

Originally Posted by subroc
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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Now you are getting it!!

[blind ambition]

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/..._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