Why can I not find non-baised media? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Darkblack · 10-09-2003, 08:19 AM

I mean, I am a liberal and pretty damn far left at that but when I want news I don't want to hear what you think I want to hear I want to hear what really is fucking going on! I am so pissed at our media lately. Nothing you hear or see on the news is absolute. Why? I mean I was listening to fresh air yesterday, one of my favorite shows on NPR. She had Bill O'Reily on after having Al Franken on a couple weeks before. They had him there to promote his new book but she came right out with both guns blasting quoting Al Franken and other liberals who have said stuff about him. Now, I know Al Frankin is a comedian and O’Reily is a journalist and she holds O’Reily more accountable for what he says. I know O’Reily contradicts himself a lot and does not always put forth facts like he says he does. BUT you brought him on to talk about his book. She only asks about a few parts of the book through the interview and with those it was almost like she was trying to discredit him.

Now He did come on as he is always with a little attitude and talked down to her a bit but she should expect that. Not everyone has a peachy persona. I respect Bill a tiny bit more than I did before because he handled himself well until the very end where he stopped the interview. I thought that was immature. I would have respected him a lot more if he would have finished and then talked about it later on his show or something (which he did anyway).

I like fresh air and I like the host. I just think she screwed up this interview. If she would have first promoted his book, discussed it in a non biased manner, then later let the guns blaze I think it would have went a lot better. She had valid points she was pointing out and really was proving him wrong she just did it at the wrong time without being fair to her guest.

I just want some good news that is fair and balanced (lol) for real! I want some non-biased media that just wants to report the truth and nothing but the truth. Does this exist?

irseg · 10-09-2003, 08:25 AM

I just made the following rant on another forum about 2 minutes ago:

I love it when people use The O'Reilly Factor as "proof" that Fox News is biased. Bill O'Reilly overtly projects his views, and his whole show is pretty much "This is what we're talking about, this is what other people have to say, and this is my opinion on it". I think Fox News' actual reporting is quite neutral.

True bias happens when it gets slipped into news stories that are supposed to be objective. A good example was when the LA Times went crazy publishing unfounded rumors about Arnold Schwarzenegger groping women back in the 70s, but said nothing of allegations about Grey Davis shoving women around. Things like THAT are examples of media bias--NOT someone spouting his opinions on a show created for that purpose!

irseg · 10-09-2003, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
I mean, I am a liberal and pretty damn far left at that but when I want news I don't want to hear what you think I want to hear I want to hear what really is fucking going on! I am so pissed at our media lately. Nothing you hear or see on the news is absolute.

And that's kinda funny too. Don't you far-left liberals tend to believe that there are no absolutes? Who are you to judge what someone else things is right or wrong? That's just their own perfectly valid form of reality and you need to accept that or else you're a evil bigoted asshole.

Darkblack · 10-09-2003, 08:31 AM

The fact that his views are biased makes his show biased in his favor. I don't think his show makes fox news biased I think they way they report their news makes it biased. Just like other news stations they only report things that are in favor of their side or against their opponents. Liberal news does it too. I hate it! I want real news with fact and whole truths. Not bits and pieces to make one side look better than the other.

Darkblack · 10-09-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by irseg
And that's kinda funny too. Don't you far-left liberals tend to believe that there are no absolutes? Who are you to judge what someone else things is right or wrong? That's just their own perfectly valid form of reality and you need to accept that or else you're a evil bigoted asshole.

was that a troll or did I just not understand what you are trying to say? Mind saying it in a different way?

Mr. Mojo · 10-09-2003, 08:35 AM

There no such thing as a non-biased media.
You have to remember that no matter what news source you look to, it all boils down to one person (reporter, editor, producer and so on) and their personal bias.

So, never look to ONE source for your news, it will be slanted in some way.

I enjoy Fox&Friends in the morning, why? Because I know what I'm going to get. They admit they are conservatives. Where as CNN, and MSNBC act like they are natural - which they are not.

I listen to CNN and Fox all day – its sickening and disturbing to hear the lies and different spin both news sources vomit out. But if you watch both, you'll get both sides of the argument. And for that, I am grateful we have 2 opposing news sources rather than just depending on CNN.

Darkblack · 10-09-2003, 08:39 AM

I do that too. I listen to multiple stations and try and pick apart what they are saying. It just sucks that I have to do that.

Superbelt · 10-09-2003, 08:45 AM

I don't think Terry handled that unfairly.

First, Franken is a satirist first. And he came on to promote his book and talk about his lawsuit. And he also talked about O'Reilly's attacks on him. The book actually only had about 10 minutes of actual discussion, all the other controversy took up the rest of the hour.

Then in the interest of fairness she actually gives Bill a forum to refute all that. That is truly being fair. She asked her questions, many of which were open ended and allowed him to talk as much as he wanted. I don't think she ever interupted him once when he was giving a speech.
She did talk about the book, and his personal life and beliefs. And did so for much longer than she talked about Frankens book or his personal life. So she went onto the real Bill O'Reilly topics which is the controversy over his lies and short temper.
He was given the chance to explain for himself. I could hear the anger rearly on, And I even did cringe at some of Terry's questions. But I think he did an admirable job up to the end where he acted like a baby and ran away.

See, it wasn't a biased interview. There is just more negative press about O'Reilly out there that had to be responded to. It is what is relevant to him.

Terry could have been biased and... cut his mike or talked over him screaming SHUT UP! SHUT UP! But she didn't. She handled herself with class and allowed him to talk.

Darkblack · 10-09-2003, 08:53 AM

Superbelt I agree with you on how Terry handled the interview. She is always very classy and never stops someone from saying something. I just think she opened up on the negative stuff to early.

Darkblack · 10-09-2003, 08:56 AM

heh super your in York? I'm in Harrisburg.

maximusveritas · 10-09-2003, 09:15 AM

Fox admits to being conservative? That's news to me. So "Fair and Balanced" is just another lie from Al Franken?

I'd recommend staying away from TV news altogether and sticking to the print media. Read the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, and Washington Post. They're the best newspapers in the country.

If you look at multiple sources, you can easily correct for individual bias and get to the truth. The problem is that most people don't have the time to do that.

irseg · 10-09-2003, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
was that a troll or did I just not understand what you are trying to say? Mind saying it in a different way?

Pretty much every leftist I've ever spoken to believes that there are no absolutes (which is kind of strange since that statement is an absolute, but I digress...).

For instance an absolutist view of a third world country's culture would be "The American way of life is obviously superior. They live in mud huts and chuck spears at animals while we live comfortable lives full of amenities and things like travel into outer space are almost trivial."

A relativist view would be "Our cultural standards are too different, what makes us happy might not appeal to them and vice versa. We aren't in any position to judge their culture or say it's better or worse than ours."

Liberals overwhelmingly tend to hold the latter view, so I thought it was ironic that you, as a self-described far-left liberal, were complaining about a lack of absolutes. That's all.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by maximusveritas

Read the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, and Washington Post. They're the best newspapers in the country.

Tne NY Time is the MOST biased, major paper in the country. CNN has far less left wing bias then the Times. The Old Gray Lady has taken a lot of black eyes lately.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-09-2003, 09:48 AM

Get as much as you can from all sources from all types of media. The truth lies somewhere inbetween. There is no such thing as un-biased. It is a ridiculous myth. No one out there believes in absolutely nothing. Everyone has a way that they believe is the correct way and it will reflect in what they report as news, and sometimes more importantly what they DON'T report as news. The search for unbiased journalism will always lead to nowhere.

Darkblack · 10-09-2003, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by irseg
Pretty much every leftist I've ever spoken to believes that there are no absolutes (which is kind of strange since that statement is an absolute, but I digress...).

For instance an absolutist view of a third world country's culture would be "The American way of life is obviously superior. They live in mud huts and chuck spears at animals while we live comfortable lives full of amenities and things like travel into outer space are almost trivial."

A relativist view would be "Our cultural standards are too different, what makes us happy might not appeal to them and vice versa. We aren't in any position to judge their culture or say it's better or worse than ours."

Liberals overwhelmingly tend to hold the latter view, so I thought it was ironic that you, as a self-described far-left liberal, were complaining about a lack of absolutes. That's all.

Well you are right. I hold the latter view. Your two examples are easy to dispute also. In example one I would say that is an opinion. Obviously superior in what way? I am sure there is no homeless in a culture that builds everyone a house out of the materials they have. They would most likely hunt, as a village providing food for everyone so there would be no hungry. They would hold festivals to entertain each other so I am sure they are happy. I would argue that our country is not obviously superior in every way.

The latter is closer to fact in that it states they are too different to make a call. I would agree.

In news I am looking for facts, all the facts. Not biased opinion or spins. Your opinion that all liberals do not believe in absolutes may hold true in some situations but as far as wanting factual news I think you may be wrong.

maximusveritas · 10-09-2003, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Tne NY Time is the MOST biased, major paper in the country. CNN has far less left wing bias then the Times. The Old Gray Lady has taken a lot of black eyes lately.

Do you have any proof of this? You can say the name "jayson blair" all you want and point at the editorial page, but that does nothing to prove or even suggest that the general news in the NY Times is any more biased than any other newspaper. The Man of the Hour himself, Bill O'Reilly, said that while the editorial page of the Times is left-wing, he trusts their news.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 10:32 AM

I've figured it out through reading it but here are a few links I just found for you.

http://www.timeswatch.org/

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030623McElroy.html

But if those don't do it for you, and I didn't look at them too critically, I would HOPE that the words of the NYT CEO in 2001 would maybe persuade you.

Quote:

He also agreed with the common assertion that the press has a liberal bias in its coverage—and rightly so, according to Lewis, as it gives underprivileged people a voice. "Journalists take seriously the notion that their job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," he said.

The times isn't only liberal biased, its PROUD of it.
The full link for the above is here..

http://www.dartmouth.edu/tuck/news/n...010_lewis.html

Any other questions?

Conclamo Ludus · 10-09-2003, 10:37 AM

The other thing to remember is that for every bias there is an equal or opposite bias. Every media outlet has a watchdog orginization that is biased in the opposite direction to keep it in check.

Here's a conservative one for the New York Times called timeswatch.org

Here's a liberal one for Fox News called O'Reilly Sucks.com

And there are plenty more that claim to be unbiased. Do a google search for media watchdogs, or something similar if you read a story that sounds too biased to be true.

oops you beat me to it!

Conclamo Ludus · 10-09-2003, 11:04 AM

Here's an interesting idea from one of those dastardly foxnews guys. I think a stopwatch approach might be the only way to do it read on (note it is an editorial):

Quote:

The Test of Time
Saturday, September 27, 2003
By Eric Burns

In the late 1970s, as a correspondent for NBC News, I was sent to Akron, Ohio to cover a story about a proposed ordinance on abortion.

A woman who is planning an abortion must notify in advance either her husband or boyfriend or her parents, depending on her age and marital status.

She must be made to understand that a fetus has human features.

She must be made to understand that aborting it might cause psychological problems for her.

It was a controversial subject then, just as a similar ordinance would be today, and before I headed for the airport, an NBC News producer took me aside and cautioned me, in so many words, to be fair and balanced.

I’ll do my best, I said.

Let me give you a pointer, he said. After you finish your shooting, after you get the protesters and the prayer vigils and the city council meeting, and after you do your interviews with people on both sides of the issue and start putting your piece together, take out your stopwatch.

What for? I asked.

Time the sound bites, he said. Then, when you edit the story, make sure that the total time of the bites in favor of the ordinance is as close as possible to the total time of the bites against it.

I thought about that for a minute or so. Well, I said, I suppose that would be fair, but it’s also pretty simple-minded, don’t you think?

Listen, Eric, the producer replied. You’re doing a TV report, not a book-length essay. You can’t get into all the nuances and ramifications. What you can do is give each side a hearing, and leave the rest up to the viewers. Fair and simple-minded might not be the best combination in the world, but it’s better than unfair. When thoroughness isn’t possible, settle for balance.

If I remember correctly, my pro-ordinance sound bites were within two seconds or my anti-ordinance sound bites.

I’ve thought of my experience in Akron in recent days because of all the controversy about coverage of the war’s aftermath in Iraq. It is possible for journalists to do stories about the deaths of American soldiers and make the situation seem bleak. It is possible for journalists to do stories about schools being rebuilt and make the situation seem hopeful. What does not seem possible is for a single report, or even a single news program, to present both sides of the issue, the gloomy and the hopeful, which they should do in measures as equal as possible.

I do not mean to suggest by this that an American soldier’s death and an Iraqi classroom’s reconstruction are stories of the same magnitude; I find the former far more of a tragedy than the latter is a triumph.

But I also believe that if both stories were presented in roughly equal amounts of time, viewers could decide for themselves about the costs of our ongoing struggle. They could weigh the violence against the rebuilding and make up their own minds.

Recently, Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., a Vietnam veteran and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, paid a visit to Iraq. He noted, in so many words, that something good is happening every day and something bad is happening every day. But he fears that American journalists are overemphasizing the bad; he refers to “the harm done by our media. I’m afraid it is killing our troops.” He goes on: “The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.”

Perhaps he overstates the case. Perhaps not. But if ever there were a time for fairness in reporting, it is now; if ever there were a place, it is Iraq.

It might be a good idea to take out the stopwatches again.

Eric Burns is the host of Fox News Watch, which airs Saturdays at 6:30 p.m. ET/3:30 p.m. PT and Sundays at 1:30 a.m. ET/10:30 p.m. PT, 6:30 a.m. ET/3:30 a.m. PT, and 11 p.m. ET/8 p.m. PT.

Link to page

Killconey · 10-09-2003, 02:03 PM

This pretty much agrees with what most people have said, but whenever I'm writing an article or paper about a subject I look at as many different news sources as possible. One thing that I've found that works is if you take one incident and research it from mainstream news, then move on to extremely liberal sources and finish up with extreme conservative sources. While the activists may think that they are disagreeing with each other, the articles actually end up painting a big picture of what is really going on.

The only drawback to this is that it doesn't really work on a casual level. I have no answer for that.

ARTelevision · 10-09-2003, 06:22 PM

There's no such thing as "objectivity".
Humans are subjective beings.
Objectivity is an ideal.
Your position is very idealistic.
But the world of events is real.

Reporting is interpreting.
Why does this bother you so much?

fishin · 10-09-2003, 06:26 PM

There is simply no way to present news in an unbiased way, especially if there is any sort of analysis at all. That is why, I think, Fox News Channel is by far the best and most "fair and balanced" news channel out there. They recognize this and always show both sides of the same coin-- as opposed to other networks, papers, who present only the liberal viewpoint/agenda.

maximusveritas · 10-09-2003, 08:03 PM

Ustwo:
That article at independent.org was a joke. The timeswatch site has a lot of info, but most of it was just a recap of the day's stories that they didn't like, but no evidence that the Times has any more bias than any other news organization. You could do the exact same thing for all of them as Conclamo Ludus pointed out.

Also, in regards to your post about the Times CEO, one of the first things you should learn in looking for the truth is to look for the direct quote, not the writer's words. In no way can you reasonably construe his statement to mean that the Times is proud of having a "liberal bias".

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 08:17 PM

Laugh max, you can see what you want to see.

Its obvious nothing I could produce would convince you. The CEO WAS quoted, but no not every word. Saddly transcripts to everything people say tend to not be available. Maybe if I got every writer at the NYT to email and say 'Here I am, I am biased' you might be swayed but I doubt it.

Dibbler · 10-09-2003, 08:34 PM

I'd given up on American news and listened to BBC World for the international news. They always seemed to just read the news and left the opinion out. Sometimes I watch Fox News. I don't think they're all that conservative as long as you stay away from that Hannity guy. He's just a Rush wannabe...

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 09:01 PM

Dibbler durring the Gulf war II the BBC was so biased against the war that they stopped watching it on UK ships.

Also Hannity IS a Rush wannabe, thats clear and obvious, and thats why Fox isn't biased. Because he clearly STATES he is a conservative, and is speaking his opinion based on it, its not a problem. Its the ones who pretend to be non-biased while spinning stories to fit their agenda ane beliefs you need to worry about.

Dibbler · 10-14-2003, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Dibbler durring the Gulf war II the BBC was so biased against the war that they stopped watching it on UK ships.

Also Hannity IS a Rush wannabe, thats clear and obvious, and thats why Fox isn't biased. Because he clearly STATES he is a conservative, and is speaking his opinion based on it, its not a problem. Its the ones who pretend to be non-biased while spinning stories to fit their agenda ane beliefs you need to worry about.

Yes, I've heard the BBC is very biased anymore. I used to listen to them up to a couple of years ago. It seems that as soon as NPR picked them up for US broadcast that they really started to become more of a liberal talkshow than a news broadcast. Must be that NPR liberal money.

I hope you weren't talking about O'Reilly. I think he speaks for every American except for New Yorkers and Californians. (Hope I don't offend too many of you.) I feel he covers topics that the rest of the nations citizens have been discussing for years and ignored by the network press.

mml · 10-14-2003, 10:48 AM

The reality is that we are fortunate enough to have freedom of the press. The difficulty is that we are fortunate enough to have freedom of the press. People and organizations are free to interpret the news as they see fit. In addition, as many have already said, people have innate, internal, personal biases that will effect their story selection and interpretation. So if you consider that we are free to choose to cover the stories we want and free to skew them as we want and the fact that even when we try not to be biased we often do so unintentionally, finding an unbiased report is virtually impossible. So, read as much as you can, listen to and watch as much as you can, and try to sift out the "truth".

Freedom is messy and difficult, as it should be.

Xell101 · 10-14-2003, 11:03 AM

Bias sells.

Lies are frequent as well, I'm not sure if it would be wise to give examples but when talking to my sister or her fiance (both are in the military, one has been out in the middle east for upwards of a year) I hear lots of little comments, parts of stories, or just random parts of dialouge that contradict what the media tells you, the media also leaves lots of stuff out.

OFKU0 · 10-15-2003, 08:44 AM

My cousins husband used to be a senior foreign correspondent for a major media outlet in the middle east namely Isreal,Lebanon and Jordan.The stories of censorship not only from those governments but also from his employer were out of this world.

It doesn't matter how many resources get checked,if the story is based on little or no fact it will have legs since most people don't even know what the truth is anymore concerning most everything.

Case in point; especially in the print media since video is not a factor,watch how on any given day an opinion columnist will state a personal opinion,or hypothesis if you will,then at a later date see how another writer picks up the opinion and relays it as fact.In time it becomes very interesting how recycled non facts make it into the realm of fact.Once something gets repeated enough,it becomes unquestionable and it is very big business and profitable for those who benefit from it at every level imaginable.

Ustwo · 10-15-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dibbler
I hope you weren't talking about O'Reilly. I think he speaks for every American except for New Yorkers and Californians. (Hope I don't offend too many of you.) I feel he covers topics that the rest of the nations citizens have been discussing for years and ignored by the network press.

O'Reilly is very good and he hammers everyone on both sides. Because he does call liberals on their BS though he gets called a biased conservative. Liberals don't try to defeat the message, only the messanger.

Xell101 · 10-15-2003, 04:27 PM

I can't relaly find a specific problem anyhow, society itself seems horribley broken.

DukeLeto · 10-18-2003, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
O'Reilly is very good and he hammers everyone on both sides. Because he does call liberals on their BS though he gets called a biased conservative. Liberals don't try to defeat the message, only the messanger.

As a liberal myself, I must dispute that assertion. I admit that I am a small sample, but I certainly attempt to keep personal feelings out of my argumentation. In matters of stating the facts, there will always be some room to interpret or to frame them in such a way that one's preferred interpretation of events is the one that seems most obvious. It is the core of FACT, however, that must remain untouched--and I see many more entirely spurious rumors spread by Republicans about Democrats (though I am no stalwart friend of the Democratic party) than vice versa. One example would be the infamous assertion by Al Gore that he "invented the Internet." This never happened. In context, it is clear that he was claiming credit for helping Internet development get the funding it needed. This is not opinion or subjective analysis, it is Fact--and the "liberal" media repeated Republican deceptions on this subject throughout the 2000 campaign. I provide only the first example to come to mind. There are many others.
In the same vein, the reaction of an author/pundit/news personality to being corrected speaks volumes about their professionalism and journalistic integrity. Most professionals, when they erred, were once grateful for an opportunity to set the record straight. It used to be important for their credibility. Sadly, it is more common nowadays for an erstwhile "journalist" to continue arguing against indisputable factual opposition, and suggest that the facts themselves are nothing more than spin. Failing this, facts are often completely ignored when they are inconvenient. This sort of disingenuity issues far more often from reactionary journalists than from progressives, in large part because reactionaries (to date) have used more bogus information in their works than progressives. This is clearly proven by numerous fact-checking organizations that review both liberal and conservative works.
I believe, like Sherlock Holmes, that it is fatal to theorize in advance of the facts. When I view the mass media as a whole, I find that it has so thoroughly discarded this ideal that the "news" it presumes to spread among the public is scarcely deserving of the name. This applies equally to "liberal" institutions like the NYT and avowedly conservative ones like the WSJ. All news media have developed a distaste for fact-checking that disgusts me, and should offend anyone (opinion!) who cares a whit about the scientific process and a general dedication to the truth. It seems that the extra time and expense of actually making certain that a story is true is less important than whether it is a good (read: profitable) story.

Sorry about the length. Much to respond to here.

boris · 10-18-2003, 09:59 AM

i agree with mr. mojo. you cant rely on one source. billy o has his own agenda and he doesnt let anyone have a foot in the door if they disagree with him. darkblack, read frankens new book. it is an eye opener.

MSD · 10-18-2003, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Tne NY Time is the MOST biased, major paper in the country. CNN has far less left wing bias then the Times. The Old Gray Lady has taken a lot of black eyes lately.

I wouldn't say that it's the most biased, but rather the most biased newspaper that is widely read and believed. It upsets me that people will take whatever news organizations tell them as fact. I'm ultra-liberal, and the NYT bias bothers me a lot. My contentness withThe satisfaction of hearing someone agree with me is offsetby the realization that people are being brainwashed into thinking something instead of making their own choice. I'd rather debate with someone with an opposing opinion than be backed up by a zombie.

I can't find an unbiased source of news, but what I can do is recognizxe bias from whatever side it's coming from.

Astrocloud · 10-18-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
Why can I not find non-baised media?

I think it's because you aren't spelling it right for your search engine... it's non-biased not non-baised.

Hope that helps

Astrocloud · 10-18-2003, 03:52 PM

BTW

There is a very good book which is a defense of Objectivity... meaning that when people claim that nothing can be objective or that everything is subjective.... This book defends the idea that people can be objective.

The book is called "The View From Nowhere" by Thomas Nagel -of the NYU philosophy department.

Dibbler · 10-18-2003, 07:41 PM

From what I've heard and read NPR is mainly paid for by the US government. If I'm wrong, let me know. Please don't mention fundraisers though, that's a pretty small percentage of the whole.

NPR should be very unbiased since it's paid for by all of us. I remember when George Bush Sr. wanted to cut funding for NPR they suddenly moved to the middle and it was a great news source. Then when Clinton became prez things moved back to the left and since, have never looked back. That whole organization needs to be cleaned up or forced to split from the government. They wouldn't last long with no federal or state support.

DukeLeto · 10-20-2003, 02:13 PM

Dibbler, you're a bit off with the budgeting for NPR. Bush I didn't just want to cut funding, almost the entire gov't subsidy for NPR was eliminated. And moving to the middle doesn't mean that it got better; it just got toothless. Now they accept sponsorships (read: ads) from groups that represent "clean coal" energy and other fabrications. Asking impertinent questions of self-important people is something every news outfit should be doing.

elfuq · 10-20-2003, 07:30 PM

Can I highly recommend BBC News just to see how another country does it right.

10-09-2003, 08:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	Why can I not find non-baised media? I mean, I am a liberal and pretty damn far left at that but when I want news I don't want to hear what you think I want to hear I want to hear what really is fucking going on! I am so pissed at our media lately. Nothing you hear or see on the news is absolute. Why? I mean I was listening to fresh air yesterday, one of my favorite shows on NPR. She had Bill O'Reily on after having Al Franken on a couple weeks before. They had him there to promote his new book but she came right out with both guns blasting quoting Al Franken and other liberals who have said stuff about him. Now, I know Al Frankin is a comedian and O’Reily is a journalist and she holds O’Reily more accountable for what he says. I know O’Reily contradicts himself a lot and does not always put forth facts like he says he does. BUT you brought him on to talk about his book. She only asks about a few parts of the book through the interview and with those it was almost like she was trying to discredit him. Now He did come on as he is always with a little attitude and talked down to her a bit but she should expect that. Not everyone has a peachy persona. I respect Bill a tiny bit more than I did before because he handled himself well until the very end where he stopped the interview. I thought that was immature. I would have respected him a lot more if he would have finished and then talked about it later on his show or something (which he did anyway). I like fresh air and I like the host. I just think she screwed up this interview. If she would have first promoted his book, discussed it in a non biased manner, then later let the guns blaze I think it would have went a lot better. She had valid points she was pointing out and really was proving him wrong she just did it at the wrong time without being fair to her guest. I just want some good news that is fair and balanced (lol) for real! I want some non-biased media that just wants to report the truth and nothing but the truth. Does this exist?

10-09-2003, 08:35 AM	#6 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	There no such thing as a non-biased media. You have to remember that no matter what news source you look to, it all boils down to one person (reporter, editor, producer and so on) and their personal bias. So, never look to ONE source for your news, it will be slanted in some way. I enjoy Fox&Friends in the morning, why? Because I know what I'm going to get. They admit they are conservatives. Where as CNN, and MSNBC act like they are natural - which they are not. I listen to CNN and Fox all day – its sickening and disturbing to hear the lies and different spin both news sources vomit out. But if you watch both, you'll get both sides of the argument. And for that, I am grateful we have 2 opposing news sources rather than just depending on CNN. __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

10-09-2003, 09:48 AM	#14 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Get as much as you can from all sources from all types of media. The truth lies somewhere inbetween. There is no such thing as un-biased. It is a ridiculous myth. No one out there believes in absolutely nothing. Everyone has a way that they believe is the correct way and it will reflect in what they report as news, and sometimes more importantly what they DON'T report as news. The search for unbiased journalism will always lead to nowhere. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

10-09-2003, 10:37 AM	#18 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	The other thing to remember is that for every bias there is an equal or opposite bias. Every media outlet has a watchdog orginization that is biased in the opposite direction to keep it in check. Here's a conservative one for the New York Times called timeswatch.org Here's a liberal one for Fox News called O'Reilly Sucks.com And there are plenty more that claim to be unbiased. Do a google search for media watchdogs, or something similar if you read a story that sounds too biased to be true. oops you beat me to it! __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

10-09-2003, 02:03 PM	#20 (permalink)
Killconey Crazy Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.	This pretty much agrees with what most people have said, but whenever I'm writing an article or paper about a subject I look at as many different news sources as possible. One thing that I've found that works is if you take one incident and research it from mainstream news, then move on to extremely liberal sources and finish up with extreme conservative sources. While the activists may think that they are disagreeing with each other, the articles actually end up painting a big picture of what is really going on. The only drawback to this is that it doesn't really work on a casual level. I have no answer for that. __________________ Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

10-09-2003, 08:25 AM	#2 (permalink)
irseg Junkie Location: Florida	I just made the following rant on another forum about 2 minutes ago: I love it when people use The O'Reilly Factor as "proof" that Fox News is biased. Bill O'Reilly overtly projects his views, and his whole show is pretty much "This is what we're talking about, this is what other people have to say, and this is my opinion on it". I think Fox News' actual reporting is quite neutral. True bias happens when it gets slipped into news stories that are supposed to be objective. A good example was when the LA Times went crazy publishing unfounded rumors about Arnold Schwarzenegger groping women back in the 70s, but said nothing of allegations about Grey Davis shoving women around. Things like THAT are examples of media bias--NOT someone spouting his opinions on a show created for that purpose!

10-09-2003, 08:31 AM	#4 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	The fact that his views are biased makes his show biased in his favor. I don't think his show makes fox news biased I think they way they report their news makes it biased. Just like other news stations they only report things that are in favor of their side or against their opponents. Liberal news does it too. I hate it! I want real news with fact and whole truths. Not bits and pieces to make one side look better than the other.

10-09-2003, 08:39 AM	#7 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	I do that too. I listen to multiple stations and try and pick apart what they are saying. It just sucks that I have to do that.

10-09-2003, 08:45 AM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I don't think Terry handled that unfairly. First, Franken is a satirist first. And he came on to promote his book and talk about his lawsuit. And he also talked about O'Reilly's attacks on him. The book actually only had about 10 minutes of actual discussion, all the other controversy took up the rest of the hour. Then in the interest of fairness she actually gives Bill a forum to refute all that. That is truly being fair. She asked her questions, many of which were open ended and allowed him to talk as much as he wanted. I don't think she ever interupted him once when he was giving a speech. She did talk about the book, and his personal life and beliefs. And did so for much longer than she talked about Frankens book or his personal life. So she went onto the real Bill O'Reilly topics which is the controversy over his lies and short temper. He was given the chance to explain for himself. I could hear the anger rearly on, And I even did cringe at some of Terry's questions. But I think he did an admirable job up to the end where he acted like a baby and ran away. See, it wasn't a biased interview. There is just more negative press about O'Reilly out there that had to be responded to. It is what is relevant to him. Terry could have been biased and... cut his mike or talked over him screaming SHUT UP! SHUT UP! But she didn't. She handled herself with class and allowed him to talk.

10-09-2003, 08:53 AM	#9 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	Superbelt I agree with you on how Terry handled the interview. She is always very classy and never stops someone from saying something. I just think she opened up on the negative stuff to early.

10-09-2003, 08:56 AM	#10 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	heh super your in York? I'm in Harrisburg.

10-09-2003, 09:15 AM	#11 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Fox admits to being conservative? That's news to me. So "Fair and Balanced" is just another lie from Al Franken? I'd recommend staying away from TV news altogether and sticking to the print media. Read the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, and Washington Post. They're the best newspapers in the country. If you look at multiple sources, you can easily correct for individual bias and get to the truth. The problem is that most people don't have the time to do that.

10-09-2003, 06:22 PM	#21 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	There's no such thing as "objectivity". Humans are subjective beings. Objectivity is an ideal. Your position is very idealistic. But the world of events is real. Reporting is interpreting. Why does this bother you so much? __________________ create evolution

10-09-2003, 06:26 PM	#22 (permalink)
fishin Crazy	There is simply no way to present news in an unbiased way, especially if there is any sort of analysis at all. That is why, I think, Fox News Channel is by far the best and most "fair and balanced" news channel out there. They recognize this and always show both sides of the same coin-- as opposed to other networks, papers, who present only the liberal viewpoint/agenda. __________________ liberals rule. phhtt.

10-09-2003, 08:03 PM	#23 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Ustwo: That article at independent.org was a joke. The timeswatch site has a lot of info, but most of it was just a recap of the day's stories that they didn't like, but no evidence that the Times has any more bias than any other news organization. You could do the exact same thing for all of them as Conclamo Ludus pointed out. Also, in regards to your post about the Times CEO, one of the first things you should learn in looking for the truth is to look for the direct quote, not the writer's words. In no way can you reasonably construe his statement to mean that the Times is proud of having a "liberal bias".

10-09-2003, 08:17 PM	#24 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Laugh max, you can see what you want to see. Its obvious nothing I could produce would convince you. The CEO WAS quoted, but no not every word. Saddly transcripts to everything people say tend to not be available. Maybe if I got every writer at the NYT to email and say 'Here I am, I am biased' you might be swayed but I doubt it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-09-2003, 08:34 PM	#25 (permalink)
Dibbler Psycho Location: Initech, Iowa	I'd given up on American news and listened to BBC World for the international news. They always seemed to just read the news and left the opinion out. Sometimes I watch Fox News. I don't think they're all that conservative as long as you stay away from that Hannity guy. He's just a Rush wannabe...

10-09-2003, 09:01 PM	#26 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Dibbler durring the Gulf war II the BBC was so biased against the war that they stopped watching it on UK ships. Also Hannity IS a Rush wannabe, thats clear and obvious, and thats why Fox isn't biased. Because he clearly STATES he is a conservative, and is speaking his opinion based on it, its not a problem. Its the ones who pretend to be non-biased while spinning stories to fit their agenda ane beliefs you need to worry about. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-14-2003, 10:48 AM	#28 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	The reality is that we are fortunate enough to have freedom of the press. The difficulty is that we are fortunate enough to have freedom of the press. People and organizations are free to interpret the news as they see fit. In addition, as many have already said, people have innate, internal, personal biases that will effect their story selection and interpretation. So if you consider that we are free to choose to cover the stories we want and free to skew them as we want and the fact that even when we try not to be biased we often do so unintentionally, finding an unbiased report is virtually impossible. So, read as much as you can, listen to and watch as much as you can, and try to sift out the "truth". Freedom is messy and difficult, as it should be. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

10-14-2003, 11:03 AM	#29 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	Bias sells. Lies are frequent as well, I'm not sure if it would be wise to give examples but when talking to my sister or her fiance (both are in the military, one has been out in the middle east for upwards of a year) I hear lots of little comments, parts of stories, or just random parts of dialouge that contradict what the media tells you, the media also leaves lots of stuff out. Last edited by Xell101; 10-14-2003 at 11:14 AM..

10-15-2003, 08:44 AM	#30 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	My cousins husband used to be a senior foreign correspondent for a major media outlet in the middle east namely Isreal,Lebanon and Jordan.The stories of censorship not only from those governments but also from his employer were out of this world. It doesn't matter how many resources get checked,if the story is based on little or no fact it will have legs since most people don't even know what the truth is anymore concerning most everything. Case in point; especially in the print media since video is not a factor,watch how on any given day an opinion columnist will state a personal opinion,or hypothesis if you will,then at a later date see how another writer picks up the opinion and relays it as fact.In time it becomes very interesting how recycled non facts make it into the realm of fact.Once something gets repeated enough,it becomes unquestionable and it is very big business and profitable for those who benefit from it at every level imaginable. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

10-15-2003, 04:27 PM	#32 (permalink)
Xell101 Junkie	I can't relaly find a specific problem anyhow, society itself seems horribley broken.

10-18-2003, 09:59 AM	#34 (permalink)
boris Upright	i agree with mr. mojo. you cant rely on one source. billy o has his own agenda and he doesnt let anyone have a foot in the door if they disagree with him. darkblack, read frankens new book. it is an eye opener.

10-18-2003, 03:52 PM	#37 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	BTW There is a very good book which is a defense of Objectivity... meaning that when people claim that nothing can be objective or that everything is subjective.... This book defends the idea that people can be objective. The book is called "The View From Nowhere" by Thomas Nagel -of the NYU philosophy department.

10-18-2003, 07:41 PM	#38 (permalink)
Dibbler Psycho Location: Initech, Iowa	From what I've heard and read NPR is mainly paid for by the US government. If I'm wrong, let me know. Please don't mention fundraisers though, that's a pretty small percentage of the whole. NPR should be very unbiased since it's paid for by all of us. I remember when George Bush Sr. wanted to cut funding for NPR they suddenly moved to the middle and it was a great news source. Then when Clinton became prez things moved back to the left and since, have never looked back. That whole organization needs to be cleaned up or forced to split from the government. They wouldn't last long with no federal or state support.

10-20-2003, 02:13 PM	#39 (permalink)
DukeLeto Upright Location: Minneapolis	Dibbler, you're a bit off with the budgeting for NPR. Bush I didn't just <i>want</i> to cut funding, almost the entire gov't subsidy for NPR was eliminated. And moving to the middle doesn't mean that it got better; it just got toothless. Now they accept sponsorships (read: ads) from groups that represent "clean coal" energy and other fabrications. Asking impertinent questions of self-important people is something every news outfit should be doing. __________________ "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine

10-20-2003, 07:30 PM	#40 (permalink)
elfuq Insane Location: San Francisco	Can I highly recommend BBC News just to see how another country does it right.