2 edits
I'm not surprised at CNN for what they did in bringing in
Democratic supporters to question the Republican
candidates without disclosing it up front, I have heard it
called the Clinton New Agency before, but now I'm
wondering how true that really is? I don't think it matters
who you support in either party if it appears that CNN was
pushing one side over the other in one debate, what else
were they doing? Even in the Democratic debates were
they favoring one Candidate over another in subtle, but
deliberate ways as well?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe way I see it, no matter what country you're in, or what election it is, don't rely on domestic sources of information. Find an international edition of a foreign paper. That'll give you the most balanced reporting on it you'll find. Why? Well, they don't benefit from either or winning, certainly not in a tangible enough sense to affect reporting. My suggestions would be The Guardian, and for European affairs, The Herald Tribune. Though geberally the Guardian is an excellent source given its great comments section which will often have both sides of an argument page to page.
I'm not surprised at CNN for what they did in bringing in
Democratic supporters to question the Republican
candidates without disclosing it up front, I have heard it
called the Clinton New Agency before, but now I'm
wondering how true that really is? I don't think it matters
who you support in either party if it appears that CNN was
pushing one side o ...[text shortened]... ere
they favoring one Candidate over another in subtle, but
deliberate ways as well?
Kelly
Originally posted by agrysonThe Herald is okay. I've always liked the Hindustan Times, also. Nothing could be further from fair than the al-Gaurdian or the Beeb. Well, except Sky maybe.
The way I see it, no matter what country you're in, or what election it is, don't rely on domestic sources of information. Find an international edition of a foreign paper. That'll give you the most balanced reporting on it you'll find. Why? Well, they don't benefit from either or winning, certainly not in a tangible enough sense to affect reporting. My sugg ...[text shortened]... en its great comments section which will often have both sides of an argument page to page.
Originally posted by agrysonNo news organization outside of the Middle East sides with terrorists more often that the al-Gaurdian.
I only catch glimpses of the worst exploits of both from time to time, I avoid watching them. al-Guardian may be unfair, I did secifically mention the comments section...
I did notice you mentioned it only for its comments. You get full credit for having a brain on that one.
Originally posted by MerkJust so I know, why do you believe Fox is bad? I'm sure you have
Correct.
Believe it or not, It's been my experience that Sky is worse than Fox.
reasons, but I cannot think of a single American major news outlet
I trust completely and CNN would be the worst of the bunch in my
opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayProbably because you're a conservative Republican evangelical. You might protest that you are independent, but effectively you're Republican.
Just so I know, why do you believe Fox is bad? I'm sure you have
reasons, but I cannot think of a single American major news outlet
I trust completely and CNN would be the worst of the bunch in my
opinion.
Kelly
Therefore, Fox seems reasonable and CNN seems like a hack source.
If you were a left-wing liberal Democrat you'd find CNN somewhat biased and Fox obscenely biased.
Personally, I think CNN is better than Fox. Fox is openly a Republican news box. CNN isn't openly in the Dem's pockets. They just have educated journalists/editors, and educated journalists/editors tend to be left-leaning Dem's so a slight bias may appear.
At least CNN tries to be a news organization. Fox is all about targeted affinity. Pick a side and play to your market. Smart business plan actually given they were the big underdog when they started.