A hypothetical media question. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

A hypothetical media question.


I would.
  0% (0)
I wouldn't.
  94% (17)
Some of the time, but not always.
  5% (1)


Total Votes : 18
(last vote on : 8/25/2010 3:32:56 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message

DarkSteven -> A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 7:03:14 AM)

Conservatives have long railed against the media for being too liberal, as long as liberals have railed against it for being too conservative...The premise is that each would prefer media that is slanted to their own viewpoint.

If there were a device that would filter the media so that the reporting matched your own viewpoint, would you use it?



StrangerThan -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 7:20:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Conservatives have long railed against the media for being too liberal, as long as liberals have railed against it for being too conservative...The premise is that each would prefer media that is slanted to their own viewpoint.

If there were a device that would filter the media so that the reporting matched your own viewpoint, would you use it?



The device already exists. It's called the brain. Read the threads. To the left, no one on the left is ever wrong. To the right, no one there is ever wrong either.

And the media is biased. I voted for Bush in 2000. Honestly, I didn't follow politics much then and couldn't have stated the differences between Bush and Gore in the least other than the R above one name, and the D above another. The choice was mostly based upon the fact that I was tired of watching the endless parade of ethical crap surrounding Democrats scroll across my TV screen. By 2004, the RNC didn't have enough money in their vaults to buy my vote for him. I'm one of those types of people who can agree on the need for an action but don't lie to me about the reasons. Between 2004 and 2008, I was strongly anti-Bush, anti-conservative, and anti-Republican. During that time, I know where I went to read and watch my news, and it was no where that evidenced any support for the man. So I clung to places like yahoo, which ran a daily body count of the day, to ABC, NBC, CNN and now laughably, CBS. I held the same notion of FOX news that you'll read here so often now, e.g. one of disdain.

I hold them all in disdain now. Not being able to see the bias in them, to me, points to your bias. I went from reading and watching one criticism after another, interviews that asked hard questions to a plurality of feel-good moment types of reporting and questions that often, I swear to God, have to be framed to leave the person on the other side in the best light possible.

Having been a reporter for several years, I find it honestly disgusting.



brokedickdog -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 7:34:50 AM)

I prefer accuracy or, dare I say it, the truth. Only by having the truth can I make informed decisions. Spin or agenda doesn't cut it.



KatyLied -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 8:52:48 AM)

I would not use it.  My son's approach is that he listens/reads media that is liberal and conservative because he wants to hear all views on the matters.  I stick to more liberal outlets because I find conservative views beyond my tolerance level.  



rulemylife -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 9:04:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

I hold them all in disdain now. Not being able to see the bias in them, to me, points to your bias. I went from reading and watching one criticism after another, interviews that asked hard questions to a plurality of feel-good moment types of reporting and questions that often, I swear to God, have to be framed to leave the person on the other side in the best light possible.



So, I have to ask.

You can tell me in all honesty, and managing to keep a straight face, that you find Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer to be as biased as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?






servantforuse -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 9:09:47 AM)

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are certainly biased, as are Keith Olberman and Chris Mathews.



StrangerThan -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 9:14:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

I hold them all in disdain now. Not being able to see the bias in them, to me, points to your bias. I went from reading and watching one criticism after another, interviews that asked hard questions to a plurality of feel-good moment types of reporting and questions that often, I swear to God, have to be framed to leave the person on the other side in the best light possible.



So, I have to ask.

You can tell me in all honesty, and managing to keep a straight face, that you find Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer to be as biased as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?






Don't strain yourself too hard. I didn't realize we were discussing the degree of bias as opposed to say, bias itself. What I find is this, the people you mention from Fox are outwardly biased. Those on the left more subtly or perhaps subversively so.

Don't jump into this with too many feet rule unless you've worked in the media yourself. Bias runs deep and often is accomplished by word choices rather than outright claims. Of the two, I find the most insidious the former rather than the latter. At least from the latter, I can easily assess the intent.

Shrug, again, seeing it only on one sides points to your bias.



rulemylife -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 9:20:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Conservatives have long railed against the media for being too liberal, as long as liberals have railed against it for being too conservative..



I think you are trying to create an equality that doesn't exist.

Do you ever remember anyone complaining about "liberal media bias" before Fox News went on the air and started telling their listeners that it existed?

You have to give Murdoch credit though, it was a brilliant marketing move and in keeping with his usual style of tabloid journalism.







Lucylastic -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 9:26:57 AM)

There is only one thing I would like to give murdoch but Im not willing to suffer the consequences so it remains an ugly thought



JstAnotherSub -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 9:54:05 AM)

I kind of use something now.  I make sure the tv never stops on Fox news.



rulemylife -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 9:55:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan


Don't strain yourself too hard. I didn't realize we were discussing the degree of bias as opposed to say, bias itself. What I find is this, the people you mention from Fox are outwardly biased. Those on the left more subtly or perhaps subversively so.

Don't jump into this with too many feet rule unless you've worked in the media yourself. Bias runs deep and often is accomplished by word choices rather than outright claims. Of the two, I find the most insidious the former rather than the latter. At least from the latter, I can easily assess the intent.

Shrug, again, seeing it only on one sides points to your bias.



I see it differently.

The subtle bias tends to be unintentional.  It is difficult for anyone to be completely objective.

The blatant bias, especially in FOX's case, is corporate policy.

As far as working in the media, you should be able to easily recognize the inductive fallacy in that statement.



StrangerThan -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 10:08:06 AM)

There is no fallacy rule.

I grew up in a fundamentalist household. I am quite familiar with how manipulation of thought occurs on both levels and honestly believe the subtle is the most dangerous.

Nor do I believe it is by any means, unintentional.

To make my stance on that clearer. Outright bias will draw two sets of viewers, those in agreement, and those looking for ammunition to use against it. Subtle bias attempts to manipulate thought and perception while promising objectivity. To put that in simple terms for the simple, one is promoting an agenda. The other is lying to me by the very fact its mouth, or pen is active.

Funny you mention Blitzer, I posted something about him months ago. CNN gets the majority of my viewing time since its the one usually running in airports. I don't watch any of them at home. In airports, you are sort of held captive by boredom and lack of options. He interviewed the president in the segment I was watching. Fawning is an apt description.





rulemylife -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 10:34:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

There is no fallacy rule.

.... To put that in simple terms for the simple, one is promoting an agenda.




Of course there was a fallacy, it's called argument from authority.

I don't know your background and don't really care.  Just because you tout yourself as an expert in the field doesn't mean what you say is correct.

But I see we have graduated to ad hominem in the latest post with your "simple terms for the simple" statement.

Did you learn anything about either of those while getting your degree in journalism?  Which you of course have....... right?

But hey, it's been fun attempting to have a conversation with you.

Buh-bye, buh-bye now.



StrangerThan -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 11:21:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

There is no fallacy rule.

.... To put that in simple terms for the simple, one is promoting an agenda.




Of course there was a fallacy, it's called argument from authority.

I don't know your background and don't really care.  Just because you tout yourself as an expert in the field doesn't mean what you say is correct.

But I see we have graduated to ad hominem in the latest post with your "simple terms for the simple" statement.

Did you learn anything about either of those while getting your degree in journalism?  Which you of course have....... right?

But hey, it's been fun attempting to have a conversation with you.

Buh-bye, buh-bye now.


I have no degree in journalism, rule. I do however have somewhere between 40 and 50 publishing credits that range across national, regional and local outlets. My time as a reporter was freelance, which means i mostly worked story boards rather than news. Here and there I wrote news copy but preferred stories I actually found interesting, like.. oh, learning to hop trains with hobos, hanging out with a coven, following street folk around. I was the editor of a small fiction journal for a year or so.

But I forget, reality has less sway with many on the left than actually being there. Forgive me that lapse.

As far as simple for the simple, it comes from having your words twisted into everything they're not and watching some, not naming names, take them off on tangents that exist for the sole purpose of still allowing them to drivel without debating a bigger question that has gotten away from them.

Shrug, but you believe what you want.



DomKen -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 11:30:18 AM)

I've long been a consumer of news and views from across the political spectrum. Is there bias in story choices and in how stories are written? Of course. It's part of human nature and it inevitably balances out in good media outlets. The Chicago Tribune has a well established track record of a conservative editorial staff which certainly affects the content of the paper but they also present the facts of the stories with as little bias as possible. This is why the paper is held in high regard on both the left and the right while outlets like FNC and the Washington Times that are pervasive in their bias are held in contempt by all but those who are true believers.



Sanity -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 1:02:38 PM)




Thats not even close to reality ken - FOX NEWS is the most trusted name in news.

Heres a Google link for the Google challenged (I know youre out there [;)]):




quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've long been a consumer of news and views from across the political spectrum. Is there bias in story choices and in how stories are written? Of course. It's part of human nature and it inevitably balances out in good media outlets. The Chicago Tribune has a well established track record of a conservative editorial staff which certainly affects the content of the paper but they also present the facts of the stories with as little bias as possible. This is why the paper is held in high regard on both the left and the right while outlets like FNC and the Washington Times that are pervasive in their bias are held in contempt by all but those who are true believers.



DCWoody -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 1:12:02 PM)

There are already such systems in place, and most everyone uses them....that's just how advert funded news media works.



DomKen -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 2:35:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity




Thats not even close to reality ken - FOX NEWS is the most trusted name in news.

Heres a Google link for the Google challenged (I know youre out there [;)]):




quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've long been a consumer of news and views from across the political spectrum. Is there bias in story choices and in how stories are written? Of course. It's part of human nature and it inevitably balances out in good media outlets. The Chicago Tribune has a well established track record of a conservative editorial staff which certainly affects the content of the paper but they also present the facts of the stories with as little bias as possible. This is why the paper is held in high regard on both the left and the right while outlets like FNC and the Washington Times that are pervasive in their bias are held in contempt by all but those who are true believers.


Read the study. Only true believers, cons, trust Fox. Everyone else holds it in contempt.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/fox-leads-for-trust.html



Sanity -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 3:08:49 PM)


The lead sentence from the article you linked to:

quote:



Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.



Whose side are you on ken? [:D]



DomKen -> RE: A hypothetical media question. (8/24/2010 4:09:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The lead sentence from the article you linked to:

quote:



Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.



Whose side are you on ken? [:D]



Might try reading a little further
quote:

Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.


quote:

For Democrats the numbers are a complete opposite- a majority trust all of ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC while only 30% have faith in Fox News. Continuing the trend in our polling over the last few months that independents hate everything, a plurality of them distrust all five outlets we looked at.

More than half surveyed do not trust FNC and when the GOP isn't included it is the least trusted source. As a matter of fact the crosstabs are quite telling.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875