|
Post by Chu Chu on Jan 2, 2018 20:09:05 GMT -5
That's it Lou. When the WaPo, NYT, or HuffPo criticizes a conservative I am confident your take is.................."The WaPo (and/or HuffPo, NYT) is a liberal group think echo chamber. I'll wait till I hear this from more sources than this one." You're a well educated man. I'm sure that would be your approach. The Daily Caller is a right wing version of the HuffPost. Many of the articles seem to be about the news at other outlets that they "expose". It bears no comparison whatsoever to real journalism that you must pay for, such as the Washington Post, New York Times or Wall Street Journal.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 2, 2018 23:15:34 GMT -5
That's it Lou. When the WaPo, NYT, or HuffPo criticizes a conservative I am confident your take is.................."The WaPo (and/or HuffPo, NYT) is a liberal group think echo chamber. I'll wait till I hear this from more sources than this one." You're a well educated man. I'm sure that would be your approach. The Daily Caller is a right wing version of the HuffPost. Many of the articles seem to be about the news at other outlets that they "expose". It bears no comparison whatsoever to real journalism that you must pay for, such as the Washington Post, New York Times or Wall Street Journal. I think you forgot the smiley face emoji. Unless you really think the NY Times and WaPo are “real journalism” in 2018 in which case I need a ROTFLMAO emoji.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Jan 3, 2018 13:20:24 GMT -5
I think you forgot the smiley face emoji. Unless you really think the NY Times and WaPo are “real journalism” in 2018 in which case I need a ROTFLMAO emoji. Most people do consider that the NY Times and WaPo are “real journalism”, because they are supported by their readers, hire professional journalists and maintain world wide correspondents and news bureaus at home and in foreign countries. There is simply no comparison with websites that have popped up with an agenda. I have found this graphic representation useful for understanding the voices in the news today:
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jan 3, 2018 13:37:00 GMT -5
Who produced the graphic? MSNBC which I listen to regularly should be off the charts to left and accuracy? Not so much.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 3, 2018 13:37:56 GMT -5
CNN , New York Times, and Washington Post in the sector for "Minimal Partisan Bias" You have to be kidding. They are essentially the "house organs" for the liberal DNC.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jan 3, 2018 13:38:14 GMT -5
Who produced the graphic? MSNBC which I listen to regularly should be off the charts to left and accuracy? Not so much.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Jan 3, 2018 14:48:40 GMT -5
Clearly liberalism is a mental illness BBC, NPR, NYT, WaPo, AP, Reuters, USA today "mainstream, minimal partisan bias."
That is LAUGHABLE
|
|
|
Post by Ray on Jan 3, 2018 15:26:14 GMT -5
Source: www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/And just because the chart doesn't confirm your own biases doesn't make it wrong, or laughable. I'll stop there at the risk of diverting this discussion into politics. There's a lot of info on that site, maybe worth looking at if you can put your partisan blinders aside for a few minutes.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 3, 2018 15:46:23 GMT -5
No blinders on me—an open mind and decades of experience
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 3, 2018 17:43:26 GMT -5
Two questions for those who don't consider WaPo and NYT real journalism:
1. Have you ever worked as a journalist? 2. What outlets do you consider to practice "real journalism"?
I would suggest reading about how the Post, using journalistic standards like vetting sources and getting multiple confirmations of stories, exposed that little twerp James O'Keefe's attempts to entrap them into a fake story about a new woman accusing Roy Moore of misconduct.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 3, 2018 18:33:15 GMT -5
Of course they are real journalism, it’s just that they clearly have an agenda that affects their coverage. Biased journalists also affect the public discourse by the stories they choose to cover or to not cover.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 3, 2018 20:02:23 GMT -5
Haven't seen any responses to these questions that were posed. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 3, 2018 21:15:35 GMT -5
1. No 2. Can’t think of one.
Every media source is biased. Some reveal that bias much more than others. Most media sources in 2018 are extremely biased and it is painful to watch or read. It just makes me laugh that people think the ones they agree with are unbiased.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jan 4, 2018 6:48:16 GMT -5
Haven’t heard who I created this document
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 4, 2018 8:10:45 GMT -5
Two questions for those who don't consider WaPo and NYT real journalism: 1. Have you ever worked as a journalist? 2. What outlets do you consider to practice "real journalism"? OK, I'll bite. 1. Yes, for several New Jersey newpapers (and as an occasional photographer). Why does that matter? 2. The NYT is clearly "real journalism"...but I do not believe some of the reporters/editors are currently doing their jobs in a fair and balanced manner for the "Old Gray Lady." The Washington Post has a long history of editorial bias but has still seen some outstanding work from members of its staff.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 4, 2018 8:42:54 GMT -5
Not sure that journalism is any different than almost any other profession in that the ones doing it are human beings and come with their own innate biases and subjective feelings. No different than a teacher, a judge, a doctor, a cop or a manager in business. But all should be self-aware, something a great liberal arts education can help develop; be conscious of those biases; and consciously work to offset those biases. In effect, to "balance the scales". Some people and organizations do a much better job at this than others.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Jan 4, 2018 10:06:20 GMT -5
Interesting that this topic comes up as it mimics the discussion I had with some younger relatives over the holidays. They inquired about sources of info I tracked for purposes of trying to get the news without the nonsense. Here is what I provided:
On Twitter (not complete but aside from major news outlets such as WSJ et al) . . . these individuals have a meaningful emphasis on exposing corruption within the system, a topic I find fascinating and worthy of far more attention than that provided by the MSM. Charles Ortel @charlesortel Imperator_Rex @imperator_rex3 Stealth jeff @drawandstrike Bill Mitchell @billmitchellvii Sara A. Carter @saracarterdc Judicial Watch @judicialwatch Tom Fitton @tomfitton Thomas Wictor @thomaswictor
News Sources . . . OpenSecrets.org The Center for Public Integrity Government Accountability Project Judicial Watch Project on Government Oversight (POGO) Represent Us (represent.us) Shadow Government Statistics Consumer Metrics Institute Coalition for Integrity Zero Hedge Calculated Risk The Market Ticker (https://market-ticker.org/) . . . this guy Carl Denninger is absolutely brilliant Pieria (http://www.pieria.co.uk/economics) Investopedia Project Syndicate Wall Street Journal Bloomberg Financial Times
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 10:08:11 GMT -5
Two questions for those who don't consider WaPo and NYT real journalism: 1. Have you ever worked as a journalist? 2. What outlets do you consider to practice "real journalism"? OK, I'll bite. 1. Yes, for several New Jersey newpapers (and as an occasional photographer). Why does that matter?2. The NYT is clearly "real journalism"...but I do not believe some of the reporters/editors are currently doing their jobs in a fair and balanced manner for the "Old Gray Lady." The Washington Post has a long history of editorial bias but has still seen some outstanding work from members of its staff. Why does that matter? Really? Well, because there's a big difference between saying that someone is a biased journalist and that they're a fake journalist. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but when someone makes outlandish statements like that, I want to know how much weight their opinion actually carries. So if one says that a reporter or publication don't practice "real journalism," I'm interested to see if that person has any experience being a "real journalist." So when 92 admits that he has no experience in that field, it tells me that his statement that none of the publications he can think of practice real journalism isn't a very informed one. Put it this way. If I were to declare that a person with an MD doesn't practice real medicine, wouldn't you want to know what qualifies me to make that statement? But if Dr. Chu made the same statement, it would carry a lot more weight. Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 4, 2018 10:11:10 GMT -5
Fair enough and thanks for the explanation. But, the idea that one can only really judge if one has actually been in that position is a slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 10:14:49 GMT -5
Fair enough and thanks for the explanation. But, the idea that one can only really judge if one has actually been in that position is a slippery slope. Anyone can question and form opinions about the output of anyone's job. But I think you better be speaking from experience if you question the methods, process, and legitimacy of that job.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 4, 2018 10:19:14 GMT -5
OK, I'll bite. 1. Yes, for several New Jersey newpapers (and as an occasional photographer). Why does that matter?2. The NYT is clearly "real journalism"...but I do not believe some of the reporters/editors are currently doing their jobs in a fair and balanced manner for the "Old Gray Lady." The Washington Post has a long history of editorial bias but has still seen some outstanding work from members of its staff. Why does that matter? Really? Well, because there's a big difference between saying that someone is a biased journalist and that they're a fake journalist. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but when someone makes outlandish statements like that, I want to know how much weight their opinion actually carries. So if one says that a reporter or publication don't practice "real journalism," I'm interested to see if that person has any experience being a "real journalist." So when 92 admits that he'd never been a journalist, it tells me that his statement that none of the publications he can think of practice real journalism isn't a very informed one. Put it this way. If I were to declare that a person with an MD doesn't practice real medicine, wouldn't you want to know what qualifies me to make that statement? But if Dr. Chu made the same statement, it would carry a lot more weight. Make sense?
You seem to be suggesting that if one has never been a journalist, he/she might not be qualified to draw conclusions on who is a real journalist, in the same way that someone who is not a MD cannot determine if someone with an MD practices real medicine. Here's what I see as a fallacy in your argument: I don't have a medical degree, but if I went to a physician who told me, say, to treat a broken leg by running three miles or pneumonia by taking a swim in the Atlantic in January I'd conclude, despite having no MD degree, that the doctor was not practicing real medicine. In like fashion, even though I have not been a journalist, I can tell that some of the ludicrous crap that I read, see, and hear is not real journalism. I need not have worked for a major newspaper, radio station, or tv station to draw that conclusion in some cases. However, maybe the issue is "good vs bad journalism" not "real vs not real journalism"
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jan 4, 2018 10:25:08 GMT -5
Why does that matter? Really? Well, because there's a big difference between saying that someone is a biased journalist and that they're a fake journalist. Maybe it's the ex-journalist in me, but when someone makes outlandish statements like that, I want to know how much weight their opinion actually carries. So if one says that a reporter or publication don't practice "real journalism," I'm interested to see if that person has any experience being a "real journalist." So when 92 admits that he'd never been a journalist, it tells me that his statement that none of the publications he can think of practice real journalism isn't a very informed one. Put it this way. If I were to declare that a person with an MD doesn't practice real medicine, wouldn't you want to know what qualifies me to make that statement? But if Dr. Chu made the same statement, it would carry a lot more weight. Make sense?
You seem to be suggesting that if one has never been a journalist, he/she might not be qualified to draw conclusions on who is a real journalist, in the same way that someone who is not a MD cannot determine if someone with an MD practices real medicine. Here's what I see as a fallacy in your argument: I don't have a medical degree, but if I went to a physician who told me, say, to treat a broken leg by running three miles or pneumonia by taking a swim in the Atlantic in January I'd conclude, despite having no MD degree, that the doctor was not practicing real medicine. In like fashion, even though I have not been a journalist, I can tell that some of the ludicrous crap that I read, see, and hear is not real journalism. I need not have worked for a major newspaper, radio station, or tv station to draw that conclusion in some cases. However, maybe the issue is "good vs bad journalism" not "real vs not real journalism"That's why I said there's a big difference between declaring someone to be a biased journalist vs. a fake journalist. When it comes to spotting crap stories, I find some of the most effective methods to be seeing how many sources are cited, whether they're named or anonymous, and whether or not other publications confirm a story after it's broken (related to your example, like getting a second opinion from a different doctor who hopefully tells you not to run three miles on a broken leg). For example, when the story about Roy Moore's alleged underage harassment first broke, the prudent thing to do was wait until other publications investigated as well and see if they reached the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Jan 4, 2018 10:27:40 GMT -5
Is there bias within major media outlets? Enormously so. Why is that? Like any other business, the media are keenly aware of their source of funding and protective of that.
Two prime examples:
1. A journalist from Bloomberg informed me that she could not write in the form/fashion that would most effectively pursue the truth because it would lead to exposing major financial firms and high powered execs within those firms. As a result, her articles were typically watered down. 2. In January 2009, I brought hard hitting real evidence of a major financial fraud ($300bln) to two journalists at the WSJ. I provided my verified source of info to the journalists and we went back and forth over the next two to three weeks before they told me that "they could not get the green light from their editors to pursue the story." I was blown away by that fact and it opened my eyes to how deep and widespread the managing of the news flow is/must be. The journalists themselves were clearly distraught as they badly wanted to pursue the story. Why didn't the WSJ pursue? The story would have exposed real corruption within our major banks and financial regulators as well.
Interestingly enough, I crossed paths with a journalist from Bloomberg a few months later and he did pursue and follow through on the lead/story although not to the extent that I would have deemed appropriate. This confirmed in my mind that there is real journalism that goes on in our nation but it is often heavily influenced by real bias as well.
I do think that high quality investigative journalism is almost dead. The economics of running a rigorous and well staffed investigative effort has regrettably led to a decline and virtual extinction of this breed of journalist. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 4, 2018 10:36:49 GMT -5
With print journalism on life support in many areas, it should not be surprising to find this in newspapers today. It is disappointing, but not a surprise, since selling papers is what matters...far less important is the accuracy of what is said in those papers.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Jan 4, 2018 12:08:05 GMT -5
Great discussion, everyone. This is the source of the media bias chart: www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.comI do not ask my sources of news to be unbiased. Rather, I expect a point of view as inherent, and i try to understand it. Broad based, real journalism will tend to look left leaning to those on the right, simply because they do not adhere to the right wing agenda of what stories to harp on or the right wing talking points. Just tune into Hannity or Brietbart or Daily Caller to see what I mean. Right now, paying for your news is a radical and revolutionary act, in keeping with the constitution and the finest traditions of our country. I support the news I consume, and urge all of you to do the same, and not rely on the free Internet sources. When it is free to you, the agenda is from someone else. You are the product they deliver to the real boss. If you want to actually be exposed to an actual, activist Democratic, left leaning point of view that has become insanely popular over the last year with young people especially, I recommend the Podcast "Pod Save America", hosted by 2003 Holy Cross Alum, and former Obama speechwriter, John Favreau. Also on the program are other Obama alumni: Dan Pfeiffer, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor. They host and interview journalists and politicians with an advocacy bent, and the results are often very entertaining and informative. You can subscribe on the Apple or Google store, or at: crooked.com/podcast-series/pod-save-america/
|
|