The Case for Nightly Broadcast News

Discussion in 'International Current News & Events' started by kogneto, Mar 28, 2010.

  1. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    Long story detailing the apparent inconsistency between Cable and Broadcast news

    I agree that cable news should be more like broadcast news of old, but then I think back and 15 years ago and the most important thing in my life was 2nd grade :ignore:
     
  2. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    The two best 'improvements' would be to go back to that inefficient and slow system of "Checking the facts" and to ask their questions of true experts in the field, NOT the self-styled 'experts' that pander to the Liberla Agenda..... ;)

    I've seen 'news' reports that bear NO resemblance to reality.
     

  3. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    The problem with the media is bias. The "media" is made up of people who filter all "news" through their own education, experience and worldview. Because of this they can't even identify with much of the "news" going on around them. I mean, really, when was the last time you saw an unbiased report on anything? I quit watching 60 Minutes years before we quit watching network TV afte they ran and segment on guns and crime. I had been skeptical prior to that even because of a segment done on auto-repair ripoffs. I had extensive experience and knowledge in both fields and they couldn't even identify the firearms properly. Because of these "revelations" I then began to doubt their relevance in anything they had reported on. After all, if they were that ignorant about guns yet pretended some expertise why should I believe they new what they were talking about on any other subject?

    Of course we then have contrived footage of gas tanks blowing up with the help of model rocket engines, trout dying in poluted mountain streams then the photographs were found to be old Forest Service file photos that were completely irrelevant to the story. They still haven't learned since they keep doing this stuff.

    I also wrote editorials for a local newspaper (when I lived in Kansas) and the paper's editor and I became friends. Politically we were exact opposites. He made no apology for the way things were done in the news business and admitted that there was no such thing as an unbiased story. He even admitted that the conservative stories were out there but would never see print in his paper. He even showed the stories/headlines as they came through their computer, pointing out those that wouldn't be printed in most papers.

    In my opinion the internet has been the best thing to happen in history when it comes to news. At least you can get both sides of a story. Something that won't happen on network TV. (As the author of the article pointed out, even the "debate" type news programs are nothing but a dog-n-pony show with a stacked deck.)

    The world would be better without them.
     
  4. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    You are spot on! I had long known of their bias, but the real 'epiphany' for me as to the total dishonesty and 'agenda-driven bias' of the Main Stream Media was the utterly sloppy, lackadaisy and plain dishonest 'reporting' that went on during the "Beltway Killer" event a few years back (Muhamed & Malvo - I refuse to sully the profession of 'Sniper' by associating it with these heartless murderers.
    The inaccuracies, incorrect assumptions presented as facts, the utterly incompetent "Experts" they called up to give their uneducated 'opinions' again presented as fact - it was sickening. And the naive public ate it like candy..... :scratch

    I too look more at the Internet News, checking both sides and usually finding the facts somewhere in the middle. Both sides have their agendas and bias, and it sorely shows.
     
  5. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    I'm with you up until you say that only one side is using "self-styled" experts

    Interestingly enough that's a very popular idea right now in determining how people interpret their world. Jacques Derridas, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Jürgen Habermas wrote extensively on Hermeneutics (how we interpret the world around us) and it's actually more likely that we interpret the world based on our own past, i.e. we bring our own interpretations into what we read and hear so objectivity is lost once it hits our brain. We bring more to the table than what is presented. That's why when you're reading something like

    WHAT


    WORD


    COMES


    ...


    You probably thought "next" or "after" or any number of finishes to that sentence. It doesn't necessarily matter what that word is for the purpose of this, but it shows that there are an infinite number of ways to interpret things (who can really say, "we have finally come to a conclusion on what this or that really means, and no further discussion can be had on the subject")

    When you're reading or in most cases watching, you enjoy hearing things that reaffirm your beliefs. If you don't like Fox/MSNBC and you then watch MSNBC/Fox you have a basic assumption that you're not going to like what you hear. That's because both are pandering to a specific base audience. But when you watch a show that you like, it reaffirms your greatest hopes and fears, or maybe just makes sense to you, and it's crazy to think that someone else could draw such diametrically opposed viewpoints.

    Now this doesn't mean there are only 2 viewpoints in the world. I know you all know this but for the lurkers who don't post, hear me now, we are more than just coke or pepsi.

    What I'm trying to get at is when you say the "media" is made up you really should say the "human mind" is made up this way.
     
  6. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    I agree with the above, I used to watch Bill O'riley but one day I realized he was a closet liberal in many ways, he is not pro gun, he avoids making any statements about his beliefs while not really telling any truths when talking about guns... He's a sheep in wolfs clothing.

    When you really look at it you come to realize that all the TV programing is owned and controlled by the same people who allow a few would be conservative shows for the ratings, I've watched Glenn Beck and while his message comes across he comes across like a wimp most of the time... all those guys just seem to me to be filling a time slot.

    I'd like to see an O'Riley type show with somebody like Col. North , I will admit to liking Ann Coulter , but would love to see Clair Wolff get a spot on TV..she would say it like it is...

    I'll admit to never having liked Rush much, but I do like Hannity..

    There are no Balls in the new's business they are all owned by the PTB who control all media except a few radio stations and the internet and God knows they would if they could...

    I used to love reading the World Net Daily, but it changed.. like somebody cinched the purse strings a bit ... to get their attention ?

    Places like this site and many others seem to have more truth then all the media combined except all we are doing is repeating what we hear else where... hopefully more truth then fiction..

    Trust what you see , doubt everything you hear , have a plan... trust damn few...
     
  7. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    But the media is made up of mostly liberal minds who spout mostly liberal drivel. Most people probably do have certain prejudices when they hear or see that impact their comprehension. The problem of a prejudiced media is that people are given only one side of the equation. That's not reporting, its indoctrination. The idea behind free speech in the Bill of Rights is that people would be allowed to hear all of the information and therefore their decisions would be somewhat balanced. One of the first things a dictator does is shut down conflicting views. They KNOW what happens when people are given both sides of an issue and they don't want people to think. They want them to obey.

    Can you imagine the outcry if at a trial only the prosecution is allowed to speak? Would any jury be able to give an impartial judgment if they only heard the prosecution's side? Yet for years the liberal media has given the public only one side of the issues.

    We had some friends from Chicago visit one summer and my wife took them to pick huckleberries in the mountains. She had her 357 mag. with her because bears like huckleberries too. We learned later that they were scared spitless of the handgun. Why? Their only experiences with guns were the reports they heard on the news. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR BARAK the OBAMANATION. They were "educated" by the liberal media. They've never been exposed to other side of gun ownership. If we had known while they were still here I'd have taken off work and we'd have done some shooting just to ease their irrational, media inspired fears of those evil guns.

    The media bears much of the responsibility for the mess this country is in today. They fed people lies and half-truths and we are paying the penalty for it now.
     
  8. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    No, I did NOT say "ONLY"......

    But with the vast majority of the MSM being Liberal, their agenda is pushed more into the public eye and ear.
    Big reason I look at BOTH sides when checking 'news' and try to winnow the chaff from the nuggets of knowlege. Usually the truth is somewhere between those two rabid extremes. But it does often seem that CNN and MSNBC have more "worms in the bucket"......
     
  9. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    you're omission of a conservative agenda, or any other agenda that might be on the docket, says this

    I'm not trying to pick a fight, trust me we will never reach a consensus on who is "right" and who is "wrong" because our viewpoints (how we were raised, our ideals, our goals) are too separate. Everyone's viewpoint is. What the MSM, or what should be referred to as Cable Media, does is pander to the base level intelligence, trolling for gut reaction over logical analysis.

    What I'm trying to get across is that this is all part of the plan. Get america broken up into two super-simplified categories (coke or pepsi) that is based solely on subjective reasoning. Cram as much hearsay, rumors, and propaganda down their throat and tell them that the other side is made up of crazy people trying to do what they themselves are already doing.

    This is not a liberal agenda, or a conservative agenda, or anything other than a corporate agenda meant to make us scared consumers, and this won't change anytime soon.
     
  10. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    I don't know that free speech is really the issue here. It's not as though the government is setting up it's own news agencies, or closing down news agencies. I agree MSNBC does slob on their knob on most issues, but FNC was doing the same exact thing during the Bush years.

    If we truly lived in a dictatorship that wanted blind submission and servitude you'd see interment camps for journalists, state-sponsored news agencies, and a much more positive outlook on America's status as a superpower. Instead their is an incredibly critical eye taken to every move made in the government. As soon as there's a whiff of scandal, or deception, or subversion, you have wall-to-wall coverage on what it means politically/economically. You also have full access to press conferences and tough questions being asked of both major parties. And you'd be hard pressed to find a news outlet willing to say our nation isn't in dire straights. Dictatorships need you to believe that nothing is wrong, not that we're on the brink of economic collapse, or that our infrastructure is literally falling apart.

    I think WE bear as much, if not more, for actually swallowing the pill Cable News has given us. We stopped forming our own opinions and started substituting our ideas with talking points. We put on the blinders of easy-immediate-access and now march lockstep with whatever the talking heads tell us.
     
  11. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    The problem with one-sided media coverage is informed choice. If you don't have all of the information available how can you make a rational "choice?" The media does tend to make excuses for poor behavior on the part of their favorites. Look at the double standard used for Clinton's sexual pandering. Can you imagine what the media would have done if either of the Bush presidents engaged in such behavior? Even Obamanation's birth records.

    But the main problem is with other issues such as gun control, reverse discrimination (which is still discrimination), promotion of sexual deviancy,, so-called "hate-speech" and a myraid of other social issues promoted by the media. If you are given only one side that is censorship. Perhaps not by government decree but by omission.

    Look at Obamanation's reaction to the recent Supreme Court's decision on political advertising. Do you really believe there is no desire for government censorship? The court case wasn't about foreigners trying to sway elections. It was about organizations such as the NRA trying to get the word out regarding candidates up for re-election.

    Not to mention that I haven't seen a new program that actually promotes real thought. 99 percent are just sound bites. Silly little quotes, quite often taken out of context. The real reason the main stream media is having problems is because of the internet and talk radio. Two places where you can still get exposure to the other side of issues. The media is in trouble because the light has been turned on and exposed them for what they are.

    "I think WE bear as much, if not more, for actually swallowing the pill Cable News has given us. We stopped forming our own opinions and started substituting our ideas with talking points. We put on the blinders of easy-immediate-access and now march lockstep with whatever the talking heads tell us."

    As far as us being responsible that's true to a point. If people are given reliable information and exposed to both sides of an issue then refuse to engage their brains it is their fault for making poor decisions. However, if they are only given one side or, worse yet, the other side is portrayed as bumbling idiots through carefull editing (you know, intentionally misrepresenting the opposition) then who is the guilty party?

    I'm not opposed to the mainstream media but I have a difficult time feeling sorry for them. They've brought it upon themselves.
     
  12. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    Not to belabor the obvious, but the "Liberal" and "Conservative" sides, while often seeming to run inthe same circles, and neither is truly what we need, the "Liberals" are a far more 'evil' entity - not necessarily for their 'agenda' as a political party - but the whole pelosi/reid/obama combine is absolutely evil, as I personally see it. They have far exceeded their mandate as a mere political party - they seek true total control over us. Thus, their control of the MSM is near total, with the exception of FOX News and a few other independents. This is why they want their opponents silenced.
    I am neither Democrat or Republican - I consider myself a Conservative Independent - and am willing to listen to both sides to try to piece together a true picture of what is going on. Newspapers lost their objectivity long ago, and now the broadcast/cable media is the same. All are simply tools of one side or the other.
    But the Liberals are - in my mind - the GREATER of the evils facing us today.
     
  13. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    Because getting it on with your aid is worse than taking america to war? Twice?

    Right but that is what it does. It allows elections to be swayed by which side has the most money. You aren't supposed to be able to buy elections, it breaks with the geist (spirit) of the law.

    I agree :surrender:

    So long as you realize some of the networks do it more than others.
     
  14. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    You're evidence for this total takeover is that MSNBC and CNN don't support the republican/conservative party like Fox does? Also are you likening Fox to "other independents"? If anything they don't want their opponents silenced, there's way more money to make if you have something to argue about and form a panel of experts to debate.

    Conservatism is a major idealogy of the Republican party, and a majority of "independents" are just republican's who don't like Steele.

    I like that you use the word "evil" as if they are unequivocally evil. I wonder if this follows a similar vein in America's history or if it's a recent development. This idea that an opposing political party is "evil" in the most sincere meaning of the word. Would you really listen to someone you honestly thought was "evil"? How far would you take it? If you're willing to listen to both sides, knowing the other side is "evil," would you advocate talks with Ahmadinejad? Would you advocate talks with Al Qaeda?

    Which newspapers do you read? More major papers or local papers? Who's the target audience of the paper? Are they the college educated or more rural? People read into text a lot of what they want but demographics also affect what kind of information is presented and the level of complexity with which it's presented. I disagree that broadcast has lost it's objectivity. I do agree cable sold it's soul for ratings.
     
  15. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    It's always quite difficult to discuss a subject with someone who constantly takes one's words out of context or incorrectly. Ah well - I never took 'debating', so don't know the 'rules' and tactics......
    I haven't taken newspapers for years. They devolved into useless biased drivel. Even the comics became politicised.
    I broke with the Republican Party because I realised they are simply "Democrat Light" these days. Steele may be an ***, but he's of little consequence.
    The Democrat Party in itself I don't categorise as particularly 'evil', only it's current leadership - pelosi and reid (lowercase intended). pelosi hated George Bush to the extent her EVERY action was taken in direct opposition to him - regardless of whether it was warranted or not, good or bad for We The People. Looking at her career, this isn't surprising. Much of the failure of the GOP has been due to her machinations to demonise them, and Bush. This past election showed the extent to which the GOP was totally marginalised and impotent. When an entire Party commits what I personally consider to be High Treason - yeah, I can only categorise them by way of their leadership as 'evil'.
    I hope that as the American People throw off the Koolade Daze and begin to awaken that we will see the rise of a true Third Party, more attuned to what We The People really want and need.
    However, as for the last few decades, we have the best Government that foreign interests can afford....... :rolleyes:
     
  16. SaskBound

    SaskBound Well-Known Member

    95
    0
    Interestingly, a couple of clearly conservative posters here feel the media has been taken over by liberal interests, while it appears that the liberal posters are convinced that the media has been taken over by conservative interests.

    I can't contribute much to that discussion, as I have not had a television in over ten years, and I know for a fact that I select reading material that conforms to my own existing biases. Just wanted to make the observation that each 'side' seems to think the 'other side' is out for total media control...

    I think I would be more interested in 'the news' if I didn't have to buy two different papers in order to get a balanced opinion...
     
  17. sailaway

    sailaway Well-Known Member

    1,922
    0
    All I want is the actual facts and then I will draw my own conclusions.:confused:
     
  18. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    I also quit the "TeeVee" age about 10 years ago so I don't understand what all the hubbub is about, and, of course being a Canadian, I don't follow US politics, so I only get what is talked about via forums as to the problems within the political-zone of the US.

    Something that I didn't realize is that the US is a two-party system where here in Canada we have a 3 or 4 strong major parties and several more that are virtually un-heard of (local / provincial parties) that have almost no say in parliament ...


    Easier said than done, there my friend.
     
  19. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    I watch little enough TV that I have never gotten cable or satellite TV - can't justify the cost. So I am on 'rabbit ears'..... :D
    The local stations aren't TOO vehemently 'liberal', though they do let it slip on occasion. I get most of my 'news' online, but again the usual disclaimers certainly apply!
    When I check in on FOX online news, they can go either way - sometimes left and sometimes (more often) right. The other MSM outlets tend to be much more "Left Leaning". Once in awhile I check the more "Right Wing" sites, but they get really 'out there' at times. :nuts:

    So far, NO "news" source here in the US seems truly non-biased. Sometimes it seems we can get the facts more from foreign sources - THAT is truly galling..... :rolleyes:

    Myself, I'd like to vote a Libertarian ticket, but sadly they are even more fractious than the main parties. They split themselves on the most mundane policy differences. So, they can't seem to get a realistic platform built.