The "Real" News?
 

Have a look at this preview/introduction:
http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php

Now this is an interesting concept. A worldwide independent news network that isn't funded by advertising and isn't susceptible to the same political pressures as other news outlets. They're selling journalistic integrity here, but is it for real? I'm looking forward to this. I'll be checking out the featured interviews they have there so far.

What do you think? Will they be all about the facts? Personally, I think this might have the potential to be a Daily Show but without the humour: brutal honesty with journalistic responsibility. Let's hope they don't blow it.

Democracy Now is unique. We'll see if that stays the same after the Real News.

It could go either way. Something like this is just as easily coruptable as anything else. More importantly, you consider the daily show a good place for real news?

I'm worried about the idea of The Daily Show without humor....like hockey without the puck.

I think I'll donate... I need to look at the site more, but I like the ideas he speaks of.

Strictly speaking, The Daily Show isn't a news source. That said, it doesn't mean it is inherently worse than the news sources we do have available. (That's not a plus for The Daily Show, but a terrible, outrageous minus for the rest of our news.)

Summary: Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions

http://people-press.org/reports/images/319-14.gif

Well, its my fault I didn't elaborate at all. I didn't mean to say that the daily show didn't have real news on it. And its a good show. Funny. But to imply its the place to get the real straight dope is... so wrong its scary. Its got a quite a decent bias on it. Of course they all day, its almost refreshing that the daily show doesn't really seem to hide it to much. If you wanna be informed you should watch the daily show every day... and also the factor

I suppose you have a point, but it is important to recognize the huge difference between comedy, and serious bias in journalism. The majority of people watching a daily show broadcast arent really there for the news, its just a fringe benefit that is included in the package. I myself, actually do watch Bill and a few others when something Big is going on to see the Spin in action, and I temper it with research and a healthy dose of comedy to wash it all down.
Mostly I will watch John and Colbert to relax and laugh....but I do admit I enjoy the fact it is not "mindless" comedy, and forces me to think on occasion between the giggles. When I actually want something close to bland and informed facts, I watch the BBC or listen to NPR.

What worries me is the large number of people relying on the Factor as the "REAL NEWS"....and simply sucking in the negativity it projects.

Woah. They just ramped this up to beta. Tons more content now. Nearly daily, apparently. I suggest checking it out.

it looks like the site is intended to focus on issues relating to social justice
so far i haven't watched anything

No matter where you go, there will be some sort of bias or, at the very least, the perception of bias. There is no corporate hand to guide their opinions, but in the end, their opinions will likely shine through, if not in how they report the news, then in which stories they choose to report. That's why you can't rely on only one source for all of your news if you want it unbiased.

The Gore Vidal interviews are excellent. I'm still looking at the rest.

I'm just starting to look at it, but I want to go on the record before I do as saying that "non-commercially-funded" news outlets whose owners and promoters tout as bias-free are typically a source of unapologetic, blatant liberal bias. This liberal bias is often stronger than the conservative bias in the mainstream media like Fox News, and that's on a scale based on left of center, not left of average (which is distinctly to the right.)

Mr. SD, the term "liberal" is formally defined in a positive way. It is conservatives that have succeeded in turning the term into a perjorative. My two cents, and worth every penny.

This is a valid point, but the "liberal" bias I refer to is a negative. These media outlets tend to take any anti-establishment stance; any anti-US stance; any pro-left-wing economic stance; and any pro-minority stance; regardless of the surrounding circumstances and frequently with disregard for any valid opposing viewpoints.

I listen to WBAI New York, a Pacifica radio station, which is viewer-supported and free of advertising and corporate sponsorship. While they report on issues such as workers' rights, political dissidence, and a plethora of other topics that would never be cast in a positive light in the mainstream media, they take it to the extreme. Anything Bush says or does is torn apart regardless of merit (even on the rare occasion that he says something deserving of praise.) Hosts sing the praises of the Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro regimes, completely ignoring or dismissing the downsides of both. Any world leader, scholar, or vocal activist who criticizes US policy is trumpeted as a hero without a discussion of the merits of the criticism or the policy. Anytime a young black man is killed by police, it is blown up into a racial issue and cited as yet another case of police brutality and discrimination, even if the victim was a violent criminal, and in some cases when he was threatening police or bystanders. A recent hot issue is universal healthcare, which they will have you think is only opposed by neo-fascists who want the lower and middle classes to starve to death.

I'd rather listen to "independent" and "real" news rather than the drivel and bullshit that spews from the mainstream outlets, but because they cover what corporate interests won't. To claim that a media outlet is free of bias is dishonest, only by acknowledging the ubiquity of bias can we overcome it. Balance opposing interests, give each side of an issue equal time for presentation and equal time for response and discussion. understand that people will criticize and accuse that which they disagree with. Encourage discussion and a marketplace of ideas. Just don't try to tell me that a new source is unbiased or perfectly neutral, because without radical change to both reporting and human nature, it's not possible.

I think the main angle for this network is to report on things that others won't, and ask the questions that others are afraid to. A little less filtration, so to speak. Sure there will be bias, it's unavoidable, but at least it won't be as bad as the filters you get with corporate media conglomerates.

My bias tells me this has to be a good idea - I, too, hope they don't blow it.
The number of potential issues might be a limiting factor.

i have to agree with mr. self-desctructor guy that this site seems like it has a left-wing bias. however, i dont mind that in that i also have a left-wing bias -- hell, after watching the last seven years of right-wing governance, who wouldn’t? but the funny part is, geniune information of the sort this station will provide isn’t hard to find -- you can get good coverage from democracy now or c-span or on the net from a thousand other places -- but too many people continue to rely on cable news, my guess is it’s because they dont WANT to become informed. they feel sorta obligated to watch some news so they dont look apathetic, but their heart isnt in it.

i think everyone has a bias but it IS possible to have reasonably objective news coverage, i think, not that anyone (outside of c-span, maybe) does it -- the reporters have to police themselves and honestly try to convey facts dispassionately and that has to come from inside, yanno? you cant make a reporter approach his/her job honestly... they have to do it themselves.

I agree with Mr. Tia I don't think that there is any possible way to eliminate all biases in the news.

To me they are just selling activism. Activist journalists are to me, the worst kind. These are people who want to be a journalist to 'make a difference' and in so doing bring all of their biases and agendas to bear, full force.

I'd love a 'facts only' news program, but at best you can only learn to sift the facts from the fluff, the bias, and the BS.

Would you call asking questions that others won't ask activism? And would you say that is bad?