30 Oct 08
Originally posted by bbarrThis is, of course, true but taking a range of items across different sources, you can get a vague idea of what might really be happening. However I feel blatantly supporting a particular candidate during the run up to an election is irresponsible if you wish to call yourself a news source rather than a magazine.
The choice of facts to report is itself a political and economic decision. If FOX spends days rehashing William Ayers, and MSNBC spends days "reporting" on Palin's wardrobe, they are just giving us facts. But this selection of facts reveals a political bias motivated by economic reasons, since large media outlets are pretty good at tailoring their content to ...[text shortened]... uld go about selecting from an overwhelming barrage of facts which to pass on to the public?
For me, it makes a news source no better for judging what the issues are in an election that the party web sites.
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by WheelyIsn't Fox News the most viewed news channel in the US? Perhaps media in the US aren't trying to be objective because it's not financially viable.
This is, of course, true but taking a range of items across different sources, you can get a vague idea of what might really be happening. However I feel blatantly supporting a particular candidate during the run up to an election is irresponsible if you wish to call yourself a news source rather than a magazine.
For me, it makes a news source no better for judging what the issues are in an election that the party web sites.
30 Oct 08
Anybody who doesn't think Olbermann, Chris "Obama made my legs tingle" Mathews, Newsweek, The Atlantic and a host of others aren't in the bag for Barry, is fooling themselves.
Ladies and gentleman, it's perfectly reasonable to support Obama and admit that the above media outlets/personalities are in the bag for your candidate.
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoYeah i agree with you... on this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/oct/20/uselections2008-usa
Barack Hussein Obama, has the majority of newspapers and media in general on his side, and the ones that are not supporting either candidate are often accused of being ''fascist'' (as in the case of Foxnews).
Is it really a fair election?
The L.A. times is witholding information that WOULD cost him the election... not could.. WOULD.
edit: This is a dagger to the heart of U.S. journalism.
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey are private organizations with no real regulation other than those that apply to the entertainment industry and via the courts (e.g. libel). Moreover, they are becoming increasingly commercialized so what sells will trump what is truly important. Edward Murrow is turning in his grave.
This is another fact which intrigues me. Why do Americans mistrust the media so much?
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by generalissimoSling all the mud you want Mr. Right wing looney. The G O P's little wild west show is over
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/oct/20/uselections2008-usa
Barack Hussein Obama, has the majority of newspapers and media in general on his side, and the ones that are not supporting either candidate are often accused of being ''fascist'' (as in the case of Foxnews).
Is it really a fair election?
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by MrHandNewspapers all over the world are private corporations, that doesn't explain the disproportionality.
They are private organizations with no real regulation other than those that apply to the entertainment industry and via the courts (e.g. libel). Moreover, they are becoming increasingly commercialized so what sells will trump what is truly important. Edward Murrow is turning in his grave.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLeftists are more politically motivated while conservatives are more into making money. Although media is not a huge money making venture, it is a very powerful propaganda tool. It isn't surprising to me that the left would be more likely to invest their money into a propaganda outlet.
Newspapers all over the world are private corporations, that doesn't explain the disproportionality.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by WheelyWell, it's the editorial board and not the news room that issues the endorsements. Do you have a good reason to think that the editorial board exerts undue influence on either the selection of stories or their content?
This is, of course, true but taking a range of items across different sources, you can get a vague idea of what might really be happening. However I feel blatantly supporting a particular candidate during the run up to an election is irresponsible if you wish to call yourself a news source rather than a magazine.
For me, it makes a news source no better for judging what the issues are in an election that the party web sites.
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraUhhh... because the goal of the media is to make money off of stories. The easiest way to make money is to tell people what they want to hear. People eat it up, they love being told they are right! So instead of promoting scientific inquiry, and applying philosphy to the candidates (actually thinking critically about the opposing viewpoints without letting opinions get in the way), they puff them up with bs on both sides and tell each side what they want to hear. Your candidate is good and the other one is bad.
This is another fact which intrigues me. Why do Americans mistrust the media so much?
Thanks to this, no-one knows what they should think of the "latest news story" because they can't sort the truth out from the bs.
So you have three schools of thought as a result.
Those on one side who believe what they're fed. (Conservatives)
Those on the other who believe what THEY have been fed. (liberals)
And those who don't know what the hell they should believe because it's all contaminated with the hate of both sides for eachother, and the love of both sides for their own. (anyone who strives to seperate themselves from party politics)
No-one can be sure of anything, because the experts all contradict eachother...and even when they agree, how can you believe people who have been compromised in the past?! But this is all a result of humanness anyway and there's no way to change it since we are all imperfect. Utopia can't exist.