Where do you get your news? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 01-21-2008, 07:26 PM

ok.

and i know about the guardian, dont worry.
i was just trying to figure out what the conclusion was from your post.

i'm interested in how people sort information.
it's a kind of quirk.

Ustwo · 01-21-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ok.

and i know about the guardian, dont worry.
i was just trying to figure out what the conclusion was from your post.

i'm interested in how people sort information.
it's a kind of quirk.

Back when I was more into this, I'd go to more contrary opinion publications than those I agreed with. Only after that would I look at sources that agreed with me to see how it all 'gelled' with each other.

Claim, vrs explanation, and see which made more sense, and which claims were ignored.

Intense1 · 01-21-2008, 08:32 PM

Maybe I'm naiive for asking this, but don't we all view "news" through the lenses of our own world view? If we are more left leaning in our beliefs, don't we view Fox News with a bit more skepticism? Likewise if we are more right leaning, don't we view MSNBC and CNN with more of a jaded eye?

Since when did our news outlets become so biased? Are they truly biased, or are our views so deeply entrenched that we cannot see "lack of bias" if it hits us in the face?

Sorry - that's not very intellectual. But it's something I've been wondering.....

roachboy · 01-21-2008, 10:43 PM

ustwo: actually i do the same thing. i read conservative press outlets--not very day, but i read them. probably for mirror images of why you do it.

this might explain the ongoing stalemates in arguments, though.
chess matches played in which it is ok to sneak behind enemy lines,so to speak. makes it easier to play if you already know before you write anything what the opponent is going to say, more or less.

host · 01-22-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intense1

Maybe I'm naiive for asking this, but don't we all view "news" through the lenses of our own world view? If we are more left leaning in our beliefs, don't we view Fox News with a bit more skepticism? Likewise if we are more right leaning, don't we view MSNBC and CNN with more of a jaded eye?

Since when did our news outlets become so biased? Are they truly biased, or are our views so deeply entrenched that we cannot see "lack of bias" if it hits us in the face?

Sorry - that's not very intellectual. But it's something I've been wondering.....

Since you asked, my opinion is that the present state of affairs was launched around the time of this speech:

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
Heritage Lecture #380
Something fascinating is happening within the national media.

....8) Help train the next generation. ....

.....Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."...

I think that the US news media most closely approximated the journalistic "climate" described above, during March. 2003, as the US invaded Iraq. It was a low point in journalism, and a high point in stenography, fronted as journalism....

The press, especially the white house press corps, have allowed themselves to be used as stenographers, and that should not be a liberal vs. conservative, or partisan vs. non-partisan issue:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...phy/index.html

Wednesday November 28, 2007 06:41 EST
Bad stenographers
(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

Referring to our establishment press corps as "stenographers" has become somewhat of a cliche, though it still provokes righteous outrage from "journalists." ABC News' Martha Raddatz recently learned this when she used that term to describe what most White House correspondents actually are.....

Here is a recent distortion, and it is another example of my reacting to criticism that the press has a "liberal" bias, as if I'm hearing it from someone from another planet:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0080107-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 7, 2008

President Bush Discusses Economy in Chicago, Illinois
Union League Club of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

The President: ....It turns out tax cuts have helped our economy overcome uncertainties. Economic growth yielded more revenues for our federal treasury. When you combine that with spending discipline, then that deficit is beginning to shrink, particularly as a percentage of GDP. Our deficit percent of GDP is low, relative to historic averages. It's possible to keep taxes low, grow your economy, and deal with your deficit, is what I'm trying to explain to you. ....

Compare what the president said to mainstream news coverage of his speech, and this was superior, "in depth" article, but it totally distorted recent fiscal history and increased debt accumulation, almost as much as the president did in his remarks in Chicago.

Quote:

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us
Bush says predicting economy's course not easy, says economy resilient
By JENNIFER LOVEN | Associated Press Writer
5:24 PM CST, January 7, 2008

CHICAGO - President Bush said Monday that economic indicators are "increasingly mixed," causing anxiety for many Americans. But he said the economy is resilient and the U.S. has dealt with anxiety before.

Bush said it was important, in a time of economic uncertainty, to send a signal that taxes will remain low.

..."He wants to look at the data. He hasn't made a final decision," Fratto said. He wouldn't comment on the White House view of any of the stimulus ideas that have been floating around, nor would he say with whom the White House is consulting as it examines the situation.

The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the federal budget deficit had inched up in the first quarter of the current fiscal year, as growth in tax revenues slowed along with the softening economy. The budget deficit is $27 billion higher after the first three months of the 2008 budget year, which began Oct. 1, than it was after a comparable period for 2007, CBO said.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats signaled they are leaning toward developing a legislative package aimed at stimulating the economy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has asked senior lawmakers, including top tax writer Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to examine options.

"We will propose pro-middle-class, pro-growth, and pro-job creation initiatives that ensure our economy works for all Americans, not just the privileged few," Pelosi said in a statement.

Aides cautioned no firm decision has been made to go forward. For starters, any decision to use deficit-financed tax cuts to stimulate the economy would run into opposition from deficit hawks in the party. .....

In depth reporting might have included the following:

The deficit is only part of the measure of mounting debt, especially using an historical comparison, as President Bush referred to. The "deficit" refers only to the difference in the amount budgeted for federal spending in each fiscal year, ending on Sept., 30. The amount of surplus social security, collected in payroll taxes each year is spent by the federal government as it is received, and is added to total US treasury debt, but it is not factored into the annual deficit, and neither are supplemental appropriations spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the fiscal year ended Sept.30, 2000 four months before Mr. Bush took office, there was no budget deficit. There were no supplemental appropriations, and only $18 billion of surplus social security collections was spent:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np
Fiscal year ending date: ____________________________ Total US Treasury Debt

01/21/2008 __________________________________________ $9,190,316,700,166.26 $242 billion=(new debt added in last 16 weeks)
09/30/2007 __________________________________________ $9,053,975,146,155.95 $546 billion
09/30/2006 __________________________________________ $8,506,973,899,215.23 $574 billion
09/30/2005 __________________________________________ $7,932,709,661,723.50 $553 billion
09/30/2004 __________________________________________ $7,379,052,696,330.32 $595 billion
09/30/2003 __________________________________________ $6,783,231,062,743.62 $545 billion
09/30/2002 __________________________________________ $6,228,235,965,597.16 $424 billion
09/30/2001 __________________________________________ $5,807,463,412,200.06 $133 billion (Includes May, 2001 $70 billion Bush tax rebate)
09/30/2000 __________________________________________ $5,674,178,209,886.86 $18 billion
09/30/1999 __________________________________________ $5,656,270,901,615.43

http://www.treas09/30/2000__________...ebt_histo5.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

So, if you simply listened to the president's remarks in Chicago on Jan. 7, and then read the AP "news" descritpion of the CBO data on the deficit, it would seem like a small amount, and it would not contradict the president's claims in his speech. where he also stressed the misleading assertion that his tax cuts had "increased revenue", and that making them permanent and adding even more of them, would be a responsible thing to do, because "the deficit", compared to historcial "norms", is reasonable. The facts are that, at the end of his presidency, a year from now, with luck, the total US Treasury debt that Americans owe, increasing only $18 billion between 1999 and 2000, will have increased from $5,674 billion to $9,500 billion, or $3,826 billion, in just 8 years.

If you favor tax cuts, favor making existing cuts permanent, support this president, you like the news coverage, it sounds reasonable, doesn't it? When....it's actually a debt crisis, a fiscal disaster of a presidency.

Here is another example:

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n11479878

Bush's Guard record clean, White House says
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Sep 30, 2004 by Pete Yost Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Bush never was disciplined while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, never failed a physical and never asked his father or family friends for help to get him into the guard during the Vietnam War, <h2>the White House said</h2> Wednesday.

The White House answers came in response to a dozen questions submitted by the Associated Press in light of new records detailing Bush's Guard service and allegations that have surfaced this election season....

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...itics/war_room
AP embarrasses itself over Guard story

At this point, it's possible the White House could tell reporters that George W. Bush earned a Purple Heart during the Vietnam War and the press would simply print it as fact. That's how badly the press has fallen down on the National Guard story. Clearly spooked by the recent controversy at CBS over the questionable memos "60 Minutes II" used for its story on Bush's National Guard service, the press has essentially abandoned the Guard story, despite the fact obvious unanswered questions remain about Bush's mysterious military service. Worse, when it is forced to address the issue, the press has simply morphed into stenographers, dutifully recording every absurd answer the White House gives and completely ignoring the established facts from Bush's own military record.

The latest, most egregious example came in yesterday's Associated Press story, which declares from the very outset, "President Bush never was disciplined while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, never failed a physical and never asked his father or family friends for help to get him into the Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House said Wednesday."

The key, of course, is the final phrase, "the White House said." What else is the White House going to say? And why is it news that the White House once again repeated its National Guard talking points? The actual news was that for the fourth time since February when White House aides told reporters it had released "absolutely everything" about Bush's' service, it once again came up with yet another document. In this case it was a copy of Bush's resignation in 1974.

Elsewhere, the AP simply let the White House roll out whopper after whopper:

-- "The White House said Bush fulfilled his Guard duty completely, even after ending his pilot's career to go to Alabama to work on a political campaign."

"After ending his pilot's career" makes it sounds as though Bush fulfilled his obligation. The fact is, in April of 1972 with 770 days remaining of flight obligation, Bush simply refused to fly again. The AP failed to mention that.

-- "Bush believed he was going to work in a "non-flight capacity" in Alabama and fulfilled his commitment doing administrative tasks, the White House said."

Of course "Bush believed he was going to work in a "non-flight capacity.'" Despite owing the military years more in flight duty, Bush specifically requested a transfer to an Alabama Guard unit that had no planes. The AP failed to mention that.

-- "The president's written evaluations demonstrate a good record as a pilot; the pay and points records demonstrate his complete fulfillment of his obligations; and the records demonstrate that he followed the proper procedures and worked through the chain of command to receive approval to perform equivalent duty in Alabama," the White House said."

First of all, Bush received no "written evaluations" for 1972 and 1973 because he showed up for duty so infrequently his commanders couldn't rate him. The AP failed to mention that.

Secondly, "proper procedures" for a transfer to Alabama required Bush to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling, that he receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit, sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander, receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general, and receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves. Bush did none of those things. The AP failed to mention that.

-- "The [White House's] answers also addressed why Bush skipped a required physical in the summer of 1972, prompting the termination of his pilot status. "The president was transferring to Alabama to perform equivalent duty in a non-flying capacity, making a flight physical unnecessary," the White House said."

Guard regulations made it perfectly clear that every member had to take an annual physical, regardless of whether they were flying or not. The AP failed to mention that.....

Intense1 · 01-22-2008, 01:50 AM

My apologies - I shouldn't have asked the questions I did.

host · 01-22-2008, 03:30 AM

Intense1, I included examples of poor journalism by news sources which a good many pre-judge as having a "liberal bias".

The point of my examples is, that it is that there is no such thing that can be pre-judges about the reporting of the white house press corp members who work for the major "on air" networks, or who work for the Washington Post, NY Times, or for the Associated Press.

The notion of a "liberal bias" was drummed into people's perspectives, as in my first example, in the 1992 speech given by Brent Bozell III. His organization labeled the major media as "liberal", and then did "research" that tracked every instance where, in it's determination the media displayed liberal "bias". This "Op" had several effects...income for Bozell's"projects", as he was able to sell his "research" to the media and to aligned political and PR outlets.

The media reacted by moving more in a direction of operating simply as "stenos", writing or filming "he said", "she said" "news pieces", and filing them as "stories"....."reporting".

A segment of the population who were sold on the idea of "liberal media bias", turned away from suspect major news media sources for news, toward sources "filtered" with a conservative, ideological bent, an alternate, but smaller information universe, where it exists today. Brent Bozell developed his own presence in this universe, www.cnsnews.com . Drudge was an early and significant player in this transition.

What seems to be missing in these conservative niche offerings, is what Glenn Greenwald at the salon.com link in my last post, described and supported so well. The NY Times and WaPo both pay "ombudsmen", or "readers' representatives" to serve on their news staffs, and to investigate and respond to criticism of biased and inaccurate reporting. In addition, the two newspapers issue retractions,and actual apologies for failing to "ask questions",for accepting comments as fact from "unidentified senior government or military officials". They question reporters' editors in an effort to challenge them to set a higher journalistic standard for the minimum "proof" they will accept from a reporter before a quote or fact is allowed inclusion in a news piece.

The things that Greenwald described, are not about liberal or conservative reporting, they are designed to make reporting as accurate as possible.

Did you read the critique of the AP article segment, in the lower part of my last post, about the reporting on president Bush's TANG service, in the early 1970's? If you could get past the subject matter, and regard the questions that the AP reporter should have asked, as the critique pointed out, a much more accurate article, or one less equivocal, could have been crafted and distributed, as REAL reporting to AP member newspaper's readers.

This is the problem today. Basic tenets of journalism are not followed. If an article is supported by "the WHITE HOUSE SAID", then it is not reporting. I can go to whitehouse.gov each day, and retrieve that kind of PR, myself.

If we could all try to take an article apart, as the Bush TANG service articleis taken apart, it does not really matter where we seek out our news. All of us using the same criteria would lead us to all abandon the sites that offer more filtered material and opinion, than information obtained by journalists asking challenging questions, and writing with a bias towards the most consistant and plausible sources and explanations that they are sincerely able to obtain.

I picked the examples I used in my last post, because I don't find articles by ombudmen working for other news sources, and I don't find examples of journalists unfairly reporting in major news media outlets, the details of the war, the president, or the growing federal debt, in an unfavorable way.

No one at the NY Times or WaPo is reporting that paying off the national debt and reducing taxes were the two cornerstones of the president's platform in the 2000 campaign, and now he is irresponsible to continue to promote one without the other, or that the war correspondents at the NY Times have long and troubling histories of reporting what government officials tell them is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

If it were not for the NY Times readers representative, and my own knowledges of "national debt", aka "US treasury debt", vs. budget deficits, news sources would have me convinced that we can have permanent tax cuts, added to new tax cuts, fight a long war, and still cut "our deficit" in half, much sooner than architects of the deficit cutting plan, predicted.

If that is the news that you want to let into your world, that may be suitable for you. You and I, though, will have nothing to discuss, because we are not on the same plain, as far as what we "know", and where and how we seek and analyze information.

Intense1 · 01-25-2008, 12:39 AM

But as far as I can see, nobody wanted anyone's take on which media outlet was liberal or conservative - the topic of the thread was "WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR NEWS?"

I apologise for my thread-jacking question. Please, carry on!

01-21-2008, 07:26 PM	#41 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok. and i know about the guardian, dont worry. i was just trying to figure out what the conclusion was from your post. i'm interested in how people sort information. it's a kind of quirk. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-21-2008, 08:32 PM	#43 (permalink)
Intense1 Crazy Location: Music City burbs	Maybe I'm naiive for asking this, but don't we all view "news" through the lenses of our own world view? If we are more left leaning in our beliefs, don't we view Fox News with a bit more skepticism? Likewise if we are more right leaning, don't we view MSNBC and CNN with more of a jaded eye? Since when did our news outlets become so biased? Are they truly biased, or are our views so deeply entrenched that we cannot see "lack of bias" if it hits us in the face? Sorry - that's not very intellectual. But it's something I've been wondering..... __________________ (none yet, still thinkin')

01-21-2008, 10:43 PM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ustwo: actually i do the same thing. i read conservative press outlets--not very day, but i read them. probably for mirror images of why you do it. this might explain the ongoing stalemates in arguments, though. chess matches played in which it is ok to sneak behind enemy lines,so to speak. makes it easier to play if you already know before you write anything what the opponent is going to say, more or less. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-22-2008, 01:50 AM	#46 (permalink)
Intense1 Crazy Location: Music City burbs	My apologies - I shouldn't have asked the questions I did. __________________ (none yet, still thinkin')

01-22-2008, 03:30 AM	#47 (permalink)
host Banned	Intense1, I included examples of poor journalism by news sources which a good many pre-judge as having a "liberal bias". The point of my examples is, that it is that there is no such thing that can be pre-judges about the reporting of the white house press corp members who work for the major "on air" networks, or who work for the Washington Post, NY Times, or for the Associated Press. The notion of a "liberal bias" was drummed into people's perspectives, as in my first example, in the 1992 speech given by Brent Bozell III. His organization labeled the major media as "liberal", and then did "research" that tracked every instance where, in it's determination the media displayed liberal "bias". This "Op" had several effects...income for Bozell's"projects", as he was able to sell his "research" to the media and to aligned political and PR outlets. The media reacted by moving more in a direction of operating simply as "stenos", writing or filming "he said", "she said" "news pieces", and filing them as "stories"....."reporting". A segment of the population who were sold on the idea of "liberal media bias", turned away from suspect major news media sources for news, toward sources "filtered" with a conservative, ideological bent, an alternate, but smaller information universe, where it exists today. Brent Bozell developed his own presence in this universe, www.cnsnews.com . Drudge was an early and significant player in this transition. What seems to be missing in these conservative niche offerings, is what Glenn Greenwald at the salon.com link in my last post, described and supported so well. The NY Times and WaPo both pay "ombudsmen", or "readers' representatives" to serve on their news staffs, and to investigate and respond to criticism of biased and inaccurate reporting. In addition, the two newspapers issue retractions,and actual apologies for failing to "ask questions",for accepting comments as fact from "unidentified senior government or military officials". They question reporters' editors in an effort to challenge them to set a higher journalistic standard for the minimum "proof" they will accept from a reporter before a quote or fact is allowed inclusion in a news piece. The things that Greenwald described, are not about liberal or conservative reporting, they are designed to make reporting as accurate as possible. Did you read the critique of the AP article segment, in the lower part of my last post, about the reporting on president Bush's TANG service, in the early 1970's? If you could get past the subject matter, and regard the questions that the AP reporter should have asked, as the critique pointed out, a much more accurate article, or one less equivocal, could have been crafted and distributed, as REAL reporting to AP member newspaper's readers. This is the problem today. Basic tenets of journalism are not followed. If an article is supported by "the WHITE HOUSE SAID", then it is not reporting. I can go to whitehouse.gov each day, and retrieve that kind of PR, myself. If we could all try to take an article apart, as the Bush TANG service articleis taken apart, it does not really matter where we seek out our news. All of us using the same criteria would lead us to all abandon the sites that offer more filtered material and opinion, than information obtained by journalists asking challenging questions, and writing with a bias towards the most consistant and plausible sources and explanations that they are sincerely able to obtain. I picked the examples I used in my last post, because I don't find articles by ombudmen working for other news sources, and I don't find examples of journalists unfairly reporting in major news media outlets, the details of the war, the president, or the growing federal debt, in an unfavorable way. No one at the NY Times or WaPo is reporting that paying off the national debt and reducing taxes were the two cornerstones of the president's platform in the 2000 campaign, and now he is irresponsible to continue to promote one without the other, or that the war correspondents at the NY Times have long and troubling histories of reporting what government officials tell them is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan. If it were not for the NY Times readers representative, and my own knowledges of "national debt", aka "US treasury debt", vs. budget deficits, news sources would have me convinced that we can have permanent tax cuts, added to new tax cuts, fight a long war, and still cut "our deficit" in half, much sooner than architects of the deficit cutting plan, predicted. If that is the news that you want to let into your world, that may be suitable for you. You and I, though, will have nothing to discuss, because we are not on the same plain, as far as what we "know", and where and how we seek and analyze information. Last edited by host; 01-22-2008 at 03:35 AM..

01-25-2008, 12:39 AM	#48 (permalink)
Intense1 Crazy Location: Music City burbs	But as far as I can see, nobody wanted anyone's take on which media outlet was liberal or conservative - the topic of the thread was "WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR NEWS?" I apologise for my thread-jacking question. Please, carry on! __________________ (none yet, still thinkin')