16 Sep 04
Originally posted by bekiekeSounds like they developed an agenda and used their soup box to
Whatever happened to the network that at one time had as it's primary spokesman the man who was considered by many to be the most trusted man in America, Walter Cronkite?
promote it, instead of dealing with facts and news without spin.
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by bekieke
Whatever happened to the network that at one time had as it's primary spokesman the man who was considered by many to be the most trusted man in America, Walter Cronkite?
What did happen to the network ? Could you please explain this issue in short for the non-US debaters ?
16 Sep 04
2 edits
Sorry, I forgot to mention that this is in response to KellyJayWell, the news media are a business like any other, so they show what increases viewership and thus attracts advertising. If people know this, and can watch the news with this in mind, I don't see much of a problem.
The same goes for the common accusation that newspapers in America exhibit 'liberal bias'. This could very well be true, but apparently liberl bias sells newspapers, so as long as people aren't slaves to every piece of information they get, this is not a problem. If you want objective, well-rounded news, the best thing is to read several newspapers and pay attention only to objective facts. Since most proper spin comes from choosing what facts to print, quantity can help fight this, even if it all has the same bias.
EDIT As I recall, the 'liberal bias' bit of the above was pointed out to me in a conversation with goldfish1; that idea lives and dies with him, but I agree.
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by royalchickenIs there actually a liberal bias? I've seen plenty of conservative bias, especially on the cable news services (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) but no liberal bias. Perhaps I'm so liberal that I just can't tell; maybe it's a fish and water type thing. Can anybody give me some more evidence of liberal bias in the mainstream media (other than this Rather fiasco, of course)?
Well, the news media are a business like any other, so they show what increases viewership and thus attracts advertising. If people know this, and can watch the news with this in mind, I don't see much of a problem.
The same goes for the common accusation that newspapers in America exhibit 'liberal bias'. This could very well be true, but appare ...[text shortened]... choosing what facts to print, quantity can help fight this, even if it all has the same bias.
16 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI don't know if there is; I don't think there is. I don't watch TV, but read the New York Times, sometimes the Boston Globe, very occasionally the Wall Street Journal, and the Portland (Maine; formerly the Boston) Phoenix. These all seem reasonably unbiased, though this varies from article to article very slightly.
Is there actually a liberal bias? I've seen plenty of conservative bias, especially on the cable news services (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) but no liberal bias. Perhaps I'm so liberal that I just can't tell; maybe it's a fish and water type thing ...[text shortened]... n the mainstream media (other than this Rather fiasco, of course)?
I'm just saying that any bias, liberal or conservative, is justified, with the exceptioin of Cal Thomas, because he is Saddam Hussein in looks and politics 🙄.
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrI believe it was Bill O'Reilly on Fox who complained that some eastern newspaper (The New York Times, I am 95% sure) put the Abu Ghraib Prison story on page 1 for X days in a row. I have forgotten the value of X, but it was well up in double digits--like maybe 25 or 30. In his opinion (an opinion on the right, to be sure), that was complete overkill, and they were keeping it on their front page just to get in their licks on the president.
... Can anybody give me some more evidence of liberal bias in the mainstream media (other than this Rather fiasco, of course)?
16 Sep 04
3 edits
Originally posted by royalchickenThe news media has and plays sides like everyone else, they are more
Well, the news media are a business like any other, so they show what increases viewership and thus attracts advertising. If people know this, and can watch the news with this in mind, I don't see much of a problem.
The same goes ...[text shortened]... on with goldfish1; that idea lives and dies with him, but I agree.
subtle then most but they do setup things to favor one side over the
other. It isn’t that this is some evil conspiracy, they are simply people
like everyone else. One of my biggest examples of this was Clinton's
healthcare debate. During one portion the Canadian healthcare system
was the subject, there was a complaint of long waiting periods for
needed surgeries, they went to the audience for a response. The
person they went to was a young woman maybe in her early 30s, her
response was that timing issues were due to paperwork. The network
immediately went to a prepared piece on paperwork that lasted 3 to 4
minutes. The subject was changed and they did not on the air any
discussion on waiting periods that Canadians have for surgeries. The
timing was perfect, the subject was avoided. The way they did it had to
be have been planned, they had that paperwork piece setup to run as
soon as they wanted to run it, the timing was impeccable to say the
least. We are after all dealing with people, and we all know what farts
they can be at times.
The only reason why this stood out to me was a chess player I knew
from the internet had a heart problem in Canada, he was waiting and
died on line playing chess at a chess site we used to play at. So the
subject was something I really wanted to hear about, and when it was
brought up but not addressed I was upset, and I was more upset that
no one during the debate brought the subject back.
Kelly
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by royalchickenIf you think the Times is unbias then we have completely different
I don't know if there is; I don't think there is. I don't watch TV, but read the New York Times, sometimes the Boston Globe, very occasionally the Wall Street Journal, and the Portland (Maine; formerly the Boston) Phoenix. These all seem reasonably unbiased, though this varies from article to article very slightly.
I'm just saying that any bias ...[text shortened]... ified, with the exceptioin of Cal Thomas, because he is Saddam Hussein in looks and politics 🙄.
views on what is and is not bias.
Kelly
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderI believe I was very specific in my post on what I was referring too,
Could you please explain, KellyJay, if the Canadian health care system is so inefficient and if people are dropping like flies in line, why their life expectancy is higher and their infant mortality rate is lower than in our more efficient health care system?
and I don't believe I gave any responses one way or another on
what was good or bad about it overall. I did however say someone I
played chess with died while waiting, and the subject was avoided.
I did say that I wanted the subject talked about and it was avoided.
Kelly
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you would prefer I'll start a different thread on why the USA needs a national health care system like every other Westernized country has had for at least 50 years. I find this present thread not too revealing; assuming CBS news rushed to judgment on the Bush NG letters (which is likely) last I checked nobody got killed because of it; unlike the rush by some news media to believe that Iraq had a whole s**tload of WMD's!
I believe I was very specific in my post on what I was referring too,
and I don't believe I gave any responses one way or another on
what was good or bad about it overall. I did however say someone I
played chess with died while waiting, and the subject was avoided.
I did say that I wanted the subject talked about and it was avoided.
Kelly
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderI believe the jury is still out on those WMDs, but todate if the verdict
If you would prefer I'll start a different thread on why the USA needs a national health care system like every other Westernized country has had for at least 50 years. I find this present thread not too revealing; assuming CBS news rushed to judgment on the Bush NG letters (which is likely) last I checked nobody got killed because of it; unlike the rush by some news media to believe that Iraq had a whole s**tload of WMD's!
were read today it would be that they didn't have any. For all we know
they are in some other country. I don't believe the US needs a
national health care system, but an over haul in insurance since that
is why I believe the cost have gone up. I more than likely not enter
into the health care system debate. It is an important debate, but
not one I have strong views on.
Kelly
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you're going to be reasonable it's not going to be any fun at all!! I believe that what used to be journalism in the US has now fallen into try to rush the "best" story into "print", whether it's rue or not. CBS does it; Fox does it: The New York Times, etc. Does that say something about us or something about the people who run the media or both?
I believe the jury is still out on those WMDs, but todate if the verdict
were read today it would be that they didn't have any. For all we know
they are in some other country. I don't believe the US needs a
national health care system, but an over haul in insurance since that
is why I believe the cost have gone up. I more than likely not enter
into t ...[text shortened]... ealth care system debate. It is an important debate, but
not one I have strong views on.
Kelly
16 Sep 04
Originally posted by no1marauderI believe your right there too! Due to the need for speed of what is
If you're going to be reasonable it's not going to be any fun at all!! I believe that what used to be journalism in the US has now fallen into try to rush the "best" story into "print", whether it's rue or not. CBS does it; Fox does it: The New York Times, etc. Does that say something about us or something about the people who run the media or both?
called a news cycle they can be under the gun; however, that is not
the case with the Bush documents if I'm correct. That story was and
is news no doubt about it, but it was one they were investigating, they
had in place checks and balances that were suppose to check and
double-check their facts and they bypassed that. Now it appears
someone forge a government document (felony if I'm correct) to
influence a US Presidential champion. A serious charge if true, and
that alone was news worthy, but taking those documents and running
with them like they were true. Well, someone either had his or her
head up another part of the human anatomy, or worse yet it was a
planned calculated risk. Personally, I believe it was stupidity and
someone wanted it to be true enough to believe it no matter what,
simply because it was bad news about Bush that alone justified it.
Kelly