PDA

View Full Version : I am turning off the news



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2008-Sep-23, 03:34 PM
It's probably the most depressing/distressing time I've ever seen. Has the world gone nut'ser? Where are we going? What happens next? Should I care? I don't drive a car and yet I fret about the cost of oil/I don't own stocks and yet I worry about a depression. All I've got is a job that I've had for the last 28 years and a pension fund with that job....not much to lose really....less than other people...

peace and love

mahesh
2008-Sep-23, 03:39 PM
Good idea 'pups'....may be now you could watch some Marx Brothers' movies instead. And laugh a little....

In Peace!

geonuc
2008-Sep-23, 03:46 PM
I mainly have been reading science and food forums / blogs.

Much safer for the psyche. Definitely not checking on my retirements accounts.

Fazor
2008-Sep-23, 03:47 PM
Don't let the news get to you. For starters, most of what they "report" is garbage anyway. I would say their standards for "fact finding" are lax, but I'm not sure they have any standards at all. If a person says something on the street, then it's worth publishing--no need to check for accuracy.

Secondly, there's a reason all the news is depressing. Scarey or emotionally charged stories are what get viewers/readers. It doesn't mean there's nothing good going on--but those stories are "soft" and "not worth reporting".

Lastly, no matter how bad the economy gets, the LHC is going to kill us all before that's much of a problem anyway. And if the LHC fails to end life as we know it, 2012 isn't that far away. ;)

mahesh
2008-Sep-23, 04:12 PM
.....
Lastly, no matter how bad the economy gets, the LHC is going to kill us all before that's much of a problem anyway. And if the LHC fails to end life as we know it, 2012 isn't that far away. ;)

Thanks Fazor. Now you've made me seriously consider, eating my pizzas, faster!

Click Ticker
2008-Sep-23, 04:20 PM
It's probably the most depressing/distressing time I've ever seen. Has the world gone nut'ser? Where are we going? What happens next? Should I care? I don't drive a car and yet I fret about the cost of oil/I don't own stocks and yet I worry about a depression. All I've got is a job that I've had for the last 28 years and a pension fund with that job....not much to lose really....less than other people...

peace and love

Hope your pension fund managers haven't been investing in Collateralized Mortgage Obligations, Fannies, and Freddies. Might want to check into their investment policy to see (might be they are even allowed to buy stocks). No guarantees in a pension fund, just ask Enron employees.

tdvance
2008-Sep-23, 05:45 PM
The thing with the news is, they keep losing audience. The more they lose, the more they hype to get attention. That's a "local solution" in that it attracts viewers from one failing source to another, but not a "global solution" in that the total number of viewers in the "hype media" market decreases as a result.

I predict that the next "big collapse" that's the end of the world as we know it (again) will be the newsmedia.

mugaliens
2008-Sep-23, 05:57 PM
Good idea 'pups'....may be now you could watch some Marx Brothers' movies instead. And laugh a little....

In Peace!

I'll loan you my collection of Hogan's Heros...

Larry Jacks
2008-Sep-23, 06:05 PM
Local TV news often has the motto, "If it bleeds, it leads." The whole thing is about sensationalism. National news isn't much better. Instead of presenting facts, they deliver their opinion and then wonder why they lose audience. The growth of 24 hour news channels has made the situation far worse, IMO. To fill that much air time, they either hype a story to death (e.g. the missing white girl of the week) or engage in panel discussions that are little more than shout journalism. A recent opinion poll stated that at least 70% of Americans believed the news was biased. Frankly, I'm surprised the number is that low.

To a large degree, the major news media has made itself irrelevant. Instead of performing the important service of providing information (e.g. on the nature and origins of the current financial problems), they slant the coverage in terms of the political horse race. Do your own research, make up your own mind, and turn off the news. You'll sleep better at night.

Moose
2008-Sep-23, 06:18 PM
TV's crap and news is crappier. I more or less stopped watching years ago. I don't miss it much.

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-23, 06:18 PM
A recent opinion poll stated that at least 70% of Americans believed the news was biased. Frankly, I'm surprised the number is that low.
Really? If that number is based on Americans like you say, then it sounds more like 30% have never watched the news. :think:

Jay200MPH
2008-Sep-23, 06:32 PM
The last time I picked up a newspaper I threw all of it away except the crossword. I don't think I've watched T.V. news in years. My lifestyle is doom & gloom free.

- J

Fazor
2008-Sep-23, 06:41 PM
Really? If that number is based on Americans like you say, then it sounds more like 30% have never watched the news. :think:

Lol, I was thinking "Coincidentally, 30% answered 'what does biased mean?'"

Gillianren
2008-Sep-23, 06:44 PM
You know, I think it's the obligation of a citizen to be informed. "I don't watch the news/read the newspaper" is okay, if you're getting your news from another source. But what makes you think that source is unbiased?

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-23, 06:44 PM
Lol, I was thinking "Coincidentally, 30% answered 'what does biased mean?'"
:lol:

The news doesn't look tilted on my TV. :think:

Moose
2008-Sep-23, 07:37 PM
You know, I think it's the obligation of a citizen to be informed. "I don't watch the news/read the newspaper" is okay, if you're getting your news from another source. But what makes you think that source is unbiased?

There's nothing especially wrong with bias if it's above board and held separate from the facts. Cherry picking of facts is bad. Ignoring unwanted facts is bad. Outright fabrication of 'facts' is bad.

Being willing to recognize and admit that one is bitterly disappointed or utterly pleased by the facts has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of those facts.

The MSM lost its way ages ago.

I get a better feel for what's happening on Fark (where the bias is absolutely naked, but the facts do come out pretty quick) than I do from most other sources combined.

Disinfo Agent
2008-Sep-23, 07:43 PM
It's probably the most depressing/distressing time I've ever seen. Has the world gone nut'ser?Banquo, I hope you don't mind my saying so, but judging from your posts in the forum you have a chronically bleak outlook on life.

KaiYeves
2008-Sep-24, 02:10 AM
I don't really watch TV all that much. Too busy.

Tinaa
2008-Sep-24, 02:25 AM
To heck with the news - I'm watching Dancing With the Stars.

Abbadon_2008
2008-Sep-24, 02:32 AM
Thing is, when I want to know something, I want ALL THE AVAILABLE INFO.
Not just what's on CNN on NBC or whatever. So I read and research things on my own.

That's a dying art, IMO. People wanna be spoon-fed. They don't want to learn anything on their own.

Ivan Viehoff
2008-Sep-24, 03:29 PM
It's probably the most depressing/distressing time I've ever seen.
Think on the bright side, you can't be very old yet.

Here in Britain, those of us who are old enough conclude that so far it is nothing like as bad as any of the crises that hit regularly from about 1970 to about 1994. 1989-92 was our last house price crash, and it took a few years to recover from that. And as for what went on in the 80s (10% unemployment, violent riots against government policy redistributing from poor to rich) and 70s (electricity rota cuts owing to a coal strike, people only allowed to work 3 days a week, 28% inflation....) Before that, there was the rest of the century.

closetgeek
2008-Sep-24, 03:33 PM
Hope your pension fund managers haven't been investing in Collateralized Mortgage Obligations, Fannies, and Freddies. Might want to check into their investment policy to see (might be they are even allowed to buy stocks). No guarantees in a pension fund, just ask Enron employees.

Hey Spock, Sounds like Banquo's Bumble Puppy is already parked on the cliff. Somehow, I doubt parking behind the Puppy and honking the horn is helpful:doh:

It also helps to remember how dramatically our source of information has changed in the past 30 yrs. I don't know how old you are, but I was a child of the 80's and in that time, there were 5 news sources on tv, NBC, CBS, ABC, WPIX, and what ever the name of the channel was before it became Fox 5 NY. It was all local news with a small section that let us know what was going on the rest of the world. Now they have to compete with the 24 news networks and it's to the point where if a news story covers something, in my State, I think, "Wow! that's close!"
War has been going on since before every one of us was born and it will likely be going on long after we die. The economy has been going up and down since there was an economy to monitor. It's just business as usual as far as I am concerned.

tdvance
2008-Sep-24, 03:57 PM
Although there is uncertainty in the near future, currently things are still better than they were during the gas lines and high inflation and interest rates of the '70s. I remember that, though I was a child. Of course, things were worse still in the '30s during the great depression--Dad didn't live through it, but his dad did, and my dad was taught the "fear of poverty" from him. So, even today, Dad constantly worries about suddenly being poor. Which could happen (but I believe unlikely, even under the recent circumstances), but I doubt there's much to do about it in advance.

sabianq
2008-Sep-24, 04:17 PM
well. lets see,

I drive a car that runs on diesel so i really don't care what the price of gas does as diesel is very easy to make, if we ever run out of gas, i will just make my own.

the price of diesel is still over 4 bucks a gallon, but since my car gets 55 MPG on the high way and well over 40 MPG in the city, the price really does not affect me as i only fill up maybe once a month.

I own stocks but i really dont care what happens to them because i have less than a thousand bucks tied up in the market.

me and my wife own a home, but we have a 30 year fixed at just a hair over 5%

My better half has her a PhD with research in the tax field so she is pretty well insulated, I am just damn lucky to be a fed.

honestly, i seem to be more worried that the earth will get hit by a NEO (not NEO "CON" but that is debatable, rather a Near Earth Object big enough to destroy all of humanity)

but i have to say that my number one worry is the fact that my 70 year old neighbor watches fox news.

Sam5
2008-Sep-24, 06:07 PM
It's probably the most depressing/distressing time I've ever seen. Has the world gone nut'ser? Where are we going? What happens next? Should I care? I don't drive a car and yet I fret about the cost of oil/I don't own stocks and yet I worry about a depression. All I've got is a job that I've had for the last 28 years and a pension fund with that job....not much to lose really....less than other people...

peace and love


I used to work in the TV news business. Over the years I got tired of TV stations always emphasizing the bad news.

One time, for a Sunday night news show, the weekend anchor was upset because there was no state news of any local disasters, no murders, and no traffic fatalities.

If I had been in charge, I would have led the news headlines with that very story “Good News tonight! No murders or traffic fatalities in the state over the weekend!”

But, finally, the anchor searched the AP wires for anything, any disaster he could lead off the show with, and he finally came up with the headline, “Ferry boat sinks in Bangladesh, killing 85 people”.

I was outraged. We were a small area, and I doubt if anyone in our area knew anyone in Bangladesh, but that was our Sunday night lead news story.

Fazor
2008-Sep-24, 06:28 PM
Sam: Yeah, that's mind bogglingly annoying. I was in high school during the Columbine disaster. On the one-year anniversary, a lot of the local schools were getting bomb threats called in. Some worthless kids just trying to be funny; but because of the climate, a lot of parents kept their kids home from school on that particular day.

I, of course, went. The news was out covering the story. Well, at the same time, there was a student who had been diagnosed with cancer, and was going through kemo. Some students took it upon themselves to start a fund for her, and raised a very good deal of money. They approached the news crew and offered this uplifting story, but the anchor and crew flat out refused to mention it. Who wants to hear about people being good, when you can pretend that all the children might get blown up at any moment?!

Sickening, really.

Sam5
2008-Sep-24, 07:11 PM
Fazor, you are right. That's the way most news people think. And they often make more out of a story like that than there actually is to the story. They can exaggerate dangers that are not really serious at all. This frightens the public and makes them want to watch the news. But a lot of it is hype.

Larry Jacks
2008-Sep-24, 07:20 PM
One time, for a Sunday night news show, the weekend anchor was upset because there was no state news of any local disasters, no murders, and no traffic fatalities.

If I had been in charge, I would have led the news headlines with that very story “Good News tonight! No murders or traffic fatalities in the state over the weekend!”

Yeah, it reminds me of a good old Anne Murray song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqUUQElQ8kM).

Disinfo Agent
2008-Sep-24, 07:20 PM
I have a different view on this. It's the news media's job to denounce what is wrong in the world, because that's what needs to be addressed. If you want to hear about happy things, don't look for them in the news. There are lots of other things you can watch.

Having said this, I too find it ridiculous when natural catastrophes or other disasters in faraway places, which national viewers are often powerless to affect, are inserted into the news as filler.

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-24, 07:35 PM
I have a different view on this. It's the news media's job to denounce what is wrong in the world, because that's what needs to be addressed.
Well; let me go on record as to disagree with you here. The media is to inform you and be impartial. It's your job to determine if it's wrong, given the proper facts. Nothing wrong with concentrating on bad things, but not at the cost of impartiality.


If you want to hear about happy things, don't look for them in the news. There are lots of other things you can watch.
Again; informative. If it's a cuddly little puppy born... So what, it happens all the time.
But; if someone overcomes something that normally isn't overcome, then I would like to know how.


Having said this, I too find it ridiculous when natural catastrophes or other disasters in faraway places, which national viewers are often powerless to affect, are inserted into the news as filler.
Powerless, but the efforts, and the dangers may apply.

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-24, 07:40 PM
... And they often make more out of a story like that than there actually is to the story. They can exaggerate dangers that are not really serious at all. This frightens the public and makes them want to watch the news. But a lot of it is hype.
Good example coming up tonight.
Wind storm leaves behind more than just human victims (http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=97255&catid=45)


Squirrels, birds and other wildlife abandoned, orphaned and left homeless from the storm are flooding the doors at Penitentiary Glen's Wildlife Center.
Tonight on Channel 3 News, Carole Sullivan will have more on what is being done to help these storm victims return to the wild

Uhm, yeah it was a bad storm causing lots of damage, but it didn't flatten whole ecosystems. Just a random tree here and there.

Fazor
2008-Sep-24, 07:45 PM
If I didn't know that I'd end up being a grizzled, cigar-chewing, crew-topped cheif akin to Mr. Jameson I'd have to start my own news station. :)

tdvance
2008-Sep-24, 07:47 PM
I have a different view on this. It's the news media's job to denounce what is wrong in the world, because that's what needs to be addressed. If you want to hear about happy things, don't look for them in the news. There are lots of other things you can watch.

Having said this, I too find it ridiculous when natural catastrophes or other disasters in faraway places, which national viewers are often powerless to affect, are inserted into the news as filler.

I think some of the news media think that's their job too, but I figure the customers who keep them in business (less and less all the time) would prefer the job to be to tell people what happened--and they can decide for themselves if it's wrong. I don't think being a TV personality makes one uniquely qualified to teach others moral values, and I doubt that's what the customers look to news for.

Disinfo Agent
2008-Sep-24, 07:51 PM
Well; let me go on record as to disagree with you here. The media is to inform you and be impartial. It's your job to determine if it's wrong, given the proper facts. Nothing wrong with concentrating on bad things, but not at the cost of impartiality.I don't see how focusing on what's wrong would lead to any partiality.


Again; informative. If it's a cuddly little puppy born... So what, it happens all the time.
But; if someone overcomes something that normally isn't overcome, then I would like to know how.O.K., I accept that good news about exceptional achievements are also newsworthy. However, the most important part of the media's job is to expose whatever isn't doing so well. And there is always something in need of improvement in this world. When all the news turns into cuddly little puppies and benevolent wise leaders is when we should worry, because that's a sure sign that we're being fed propaganda.



Powerless, but the efforts, and the dangers may apply.Don't get me wrong... Massive disasters like the tsunami in Southeast Asia, or Katrina, or the current credit crisis are absolutely important and newsworthy. They affect the whole world, we can all learn from how they're dealt with, and people from all over the world can potentially help in alleviating them. However, if a police arrest leads to a car chase on a highway halfway across the world, I don't really care to hear about it.

Fazor
2008-Sep-24, 08:01 PM
However, the most important part of the media's job is to expose whatever isn't doing so well.

I still disagree. The news is to let the average Joe know what's going on around him--good, bad, or indifferent. Obviously, there's a threshold of "Importantness" that a story needs to meet.

The most important thing that news should be is accurate. Not biased. Not exaggeratted. Not sensationalized. Not opinionated. Just accurate.

That's not what new currently is, however. If it were me, I'd have the news be more of an evening "talk show" with a couple of good anchor people who have some brains and can carry on a conversation. That way, you don't have to worry about filling that 2 minute gap with some stupid story about how Billy cried when the ice cream truck ran out of Choco-pops. But eh, what do I know?

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-24, 08:03 PM
I don't see how focusing on what's wrong would lead to any partiality.
Well; bad wording on my part, and I'm not sure how to phrase it. But; my thought is not the bad things in a story, but the bad things that are a story. In other words, the stories are the ones that may have some opposition, or need for clarification, or potential for public opinion.

In other words, not just willy-nilly the reporter happened to be there story, or somebody called the station to whine story.

Disinfo Agent
2008-Sep-24, 08:06 PM
I still disagree. The news is to let the average Joe know what's going on around him--good, bad, or indifferent.I argue that, of those three, the bad is the most important, because it's what needs to be fixed. Perhaps one could argue that the good should also be reported when it needs support. As for the indifferent--and I would add the trivial--, why should the media report facts that are not important, and none of their viewers care about?

korjik
2008-Sep-24, 08:09 PM
Considering that the Daily Show is one of the most watched news shows, I would have to say that the network news pretty irrelevant now.

Then there is the crashing readership of big papers like, well any paper.

Heck, I tend to listen to talk radio. They are generally forced to provide some proof to their allegations.

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-24, 08:09 PM
I argue that, of those three, the bad is the most important, because it's what needs to be fixed...
Shouldn't the need be determined by the viewers instead of some tweed jacket that may have a vendetta against the current administration?


...why should the media report facts that are not important, and none of their viewers care about?
Because many people get all up in arms over things that appear one way, but the facts show them to be something else.

Disinfo Agent
2008-Sep-24, 08:11 PM
The most important thing that news should be is accurate. Not biased. Not exaggeratted. Not sensationalized. Not opinionated. Just accurate.I see exaggeration and sensationalism as a different problem, which has to do with the quality of the reporting, not so much with whether the content of the news is positive or negative.


Shouldn't the need be determined by the viewers instead of some tweed jacket that may have a vendetta against the current administration?I'm not just talking about being critical of whoever is currently in power. There is plenty to criticise in the opposition to, and that's just for starters. Life is more than politics.

Fazor
2008-Sep-24, 08:38 PM
I see exaggeration and sensationalism as a different problem, which has to do with the quality of the reporting, not so much with whether the content of the news is positive or negative.

I'm not just talking about being critical of whoever is currently in power. There is plenty to criticise in the opposition to, and that's just for starters. Life is more than politics.

Correct; I wasn't intending to lump good/bad and accurate/sensational as the same thing. What I meant was, IMHO it doesn't matter if they're reporting something good or bad, solong as they're reporting it accurately.

(Oh, and to Disinfo Agent, I added "indifferent" to the list merely because I have this weird need to always have at least three items when doing a list. You are, however, correct in that news that's "indifferent" to the audience as a whole, would be pretty worthless news. ;)).

Sam5
2008-Sep-24, 08:42 PM
Good example coming up tonight.
Wind storm leaves behind more than just human victims (http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=97255&catid=45)

Uhm, yeah it was a bad storm causing lots of damage, but it didn't flatten whole ecosystems. Just a random tree here and there.

One time I worked at a TV station where we had several reporters, and each reporter was required to do at least one story a day.

One day one of our reporters who covered a small town could find no news in that town. The finally wound up doing a story about a dog that got hit by a car several days earlier.

Sam5
2008-Sep-24, 08:58 PM
I argue that, of those three, the bad is the most important, because it's what needs to be fixed. Perhaps one could argue that the good should also be reported when it needs support. As for the indifferent--and I would add the trivial--, why should the media report facts that are not important, and none of their viewers care about?


My opinion is that things are being "fixed" all the time, so TV news should often report the things being fixed and not always report only things that are broken.

Doing good interesting stories about things being fixed will give other people ideas about how to fix things that are currently broken.

There are always ways for creative reporters to do any kind of story that the public will be interested in.

One time I did an entire news report showing only two scenes: an opening shot of a house, then a close-up of an electric meter with the wheel turning. I went inside the house and turned off everything electrical. I didn't show any scenes of me inside the house. I just showed the wheel for the rest of the report. I narrated the report to let the audience know when I had turned things on and off in the house. To everyone's surprise, with everything electrical turned off, the wheel still turned slowly. I discovered that the door bell had a transformer that was always wired "on".

Then I plugged in different things: The refrigerator, the air conditioner, the TV, some lights, etc. But just these things one at a time.

The public got to actually see for the first time which of their appliances used the most electricity, by how fast the wheel turned. That night I went out to a place that had a TV on during the news. I think it was the waiting room of a cafe or maybe in a bar. When I said in the report, "Ok, now watch this...." I said it loud and everyone in the room turned to watch my report. Their eyes were glued to the TV screen for the full 1:30 report, and they all found it interesting and some of them started talking about it after it was over. One full news report showing just the little wheel turning. Electrical and power costs are always in the news. I did an informative report that didn't depress or frighten people, and it informed them about what caused the most power consumption in their own house.

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-25, 04:41 AM
It seems to me like we are witnessing the first stage of the collapse of western civilization.

Oddly enough I'm having difficulty caring at all. My generation is so jaded.

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-25, 12:01 PM
I'm not just talking about being critical of whoever is currently in power. There is plenty to criticise in the opposition to, and that's just for starters. Life is more than politics.
Right; I meant the comment more for example and politics seems to be a common understanding.

Gillianren
2008-Sep-25, 04:53 PM
Heck, I tend to listen to talk radio. They are generally forced to provide some proof to their allegations.

By whom? Studies have consistently shown that talk radio listeners are the least informed about the issues. (Note that this is not intended to apply to you personally; I'm not trying to insult you. Just understand your position.)

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-25, 05:28 PM
By whom? Studies have consistently shown that talk radio listeners are the least informed about the issues. (Note that this is not intended to apply to you personally; I'm not trying to insult you. Just understand your position.)
I would tend to agree with you. It also depends on the talk show. Most of the national ones that I hear tend to be overpowered by the view of the host.
Around here, we are spoiled with a very good local talk radio station. It's even been on FM since the early 70s.
I see bias in the hosts, but they are very careful in letting the people speak, give information, and even request followups from the news office.

Click Ticker
2008-Sep-25, 05:33 PM
By whom? Studies have consistently shown that talk radio listeners are the least informed about the issues. (Note that this is not intended to apply to you personally; I'm not trying to insult you. Just understand your position.)

The statement Korjik made that I disagree with is that talk show hosts are required to provide proof of their allegations. I don't think they are since they are opinion givers and not journalists. Not that journalists are required to provide any proof either. They just say they can't disclose their sources.

I would, however, like to see a link to a study that indicates talk radio listeners are the least informed about the issues. Not agreeing with the panel doing the study's opinion on the issue is not the same thing as being uninformed about the issue - although the panel might think so.

Gillianren
2008-Sep-25, 05:40 PM
I would, however, like to see a link to a study that indicates talk radio listeners are the least informed about the issues. Not agreeing with the panel doing the study's opinion on the issue is not the same thing as being uninformed about the issue - although the panel might think so.

The study I read about, though I read about it in a biased source, sounded pretty well-designed. It asked factual questions about things like "who is least likely to have health insurance?" Talk radio listeners would consistently say "the elderly," all of whom are covered by Medicare in the US. You can see, I think, that it's not a matter of opinion there. (And since I read about it in a book, so a link cannot, logically, be forthcoming.)

Fazor
2008-Sep-25, 05:41 PM
Radio has the same problem as print and television media (at least in the US); they are owned by big corporations with their own political agendas. Therefore the views and opinions expressed are ofted biased towards the stance of the station.

Again, I won't say all radio shows/news programs are bad, but many of them are.

Larry Jacks
2008-Sep-25, 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
Well; let me go on record as to disagree with you here. The media is to inform you and be impartial. It's your job to determine if it's wrong, given the proper facts. Nothing wrong with concentrating on bad things, but not at the cost of impartiality.

I don't see how focusing on what's wrong would lead to any partiality.

Selecting which news stories to report and which to bury is one of many ways bias and partiality manifests itself.

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-25, 05:48 PM
Selecting which news stories to report and which to bury is one of many ways bias and partiality manifests itself.
Yes; I agree, but I'm not sure how you think it applies to what I said unless you think it had something to do with my use of focus or concentration.
I guess maybe I could clarify the focus as to having importance which could still be selected without bias.

Disinfo Agent
2008-Sep-25, 09:39 PM
Well; let me go on record as to disagree with you here. The media is to inform you and be impartial. It's your job to determine if it's wrong, given the proper facts. Nothing wrong with concentrating on bad things, but not at the cost of impartiality.

I don't see how focusing on what's wrong would lead to any partiality.

Selecting which news stories to report and which to bury is one of many ways bias and partiality manifests itself.I don't disagree, but it's impossible not to select what you report. Everyone talks about what interests them, or the people that they address. The media are no exception.

There's a lot of concern with bias these days, but perhaps that's a little misguided. Everyone has their own point of view, so everyone has a bias. The real problem is not that there are biases, it's the lack of a diversity of biases in the mainstream news.

tdvance
2008-Sep-25, 10:35 PM
By whom? Studies have consistently shown that talk radio listeners are the least informed about the issues. (Note that this is not intended to apply to you personally; I'm not trying to insult you. Just understand your position.)

Which studies? I've heard the opposite (and don't have links to the studies).

tdvance
2008-Sep-25, 10:37 PM
The study I read about, though I read about it in a biased source, sounded pretty well-designed. It asked factual questions about things like "who is least likely to have health insurance?" Talk radio listeners would consistently say "the elderly," all of whom are covered by Medicare in the US. You can see, I think, that it's not a matter of opinion there. (And since I read about it in a book, so a link cannot, logically, be forthcoming.)

ah, ok. That could be a semantics problem--is Medicare a health insurance or an entitlement?

tdvance
2008-Sep-25, 10:38 PM
The studies I've heard about in passing mentioned things like talk-show listeners can name more of the supreme court justices, for example, or congressmen/senators/executive department heads.

NEOWatcher
2008-Sep-26, 01:33 PM
I don't disagree, but it's impossible not to select what you report. Everyone talks about what interests them, or the people that they address. The media are no exception.
Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean my comment as an absolute, but there are some obvious misrepresentations that occur.

One that I see at the moment is "Big companies are bad".
Now; I agree to that to some degree, but the media runs amok with the entire idea.
Which probably goes along with...

The real problem is not that there are biases, it's the lack of a diversity of biases in the mainstream news.
I really didn't think of it that way. Interesting, bias based on everyone jumping on a bandwagon because it's poplular. I can buy that (at least in the non-political area)

By the way, part of what you quoted in response was not my comment, but an included quote in my post. I would appreciate an edit.

Fazor
2008-Sep-26, 01:35 PM
I really didn't think of it that way. Interesting, bias based on everyone jumping on a bandwagon because it's poplular. I can buy that (at least in the non-political area)

Yeah, that's a really good way to put it; "Popular Bias".