Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does any major US News outlet just report the news?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Schmart View Post
    Although I'm Canadian, we can be subject to a lot of American media. A few years ago, I was curious to find some more 'balanced' news outlets outside of the obvious slants of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. and the Canadian news slants as well (CBC, CTV, Global, Globe and Mail, MacLean's, etc). Various media bias ratings sites gave some interesting results. I have been interested in Newsweek and The Economist, although I haven't fully subscribed, I pick up some of their stuff from time to time. It seems they give a decent centre-right balanced reporting. One outlet that came back as generally rated smack-dab in the middle was the Christian-Science Monitor, which I tend to read more and more. I find the magazine media overall more moderate and balanced, as opposed to newspapers (less moderate), and TV (the least moderate), hence why I pretty much avoid any TV news. I prefer analysis with a little more depth that will make me think about things, rather than just a superficial flash-in-the-pan opinion that either simply tells me what I want to hear or tries to outrage me on an emotional level. For many it's not much more than about eyeballs and ad-revenue. But that's nothing new in media. It's been going on for generations.

    Critical thinking and exploring different viewpoints is also important, as is keeping the larger political and historical context in perspective. I mean let's be honest, liberal or conservative, they're basically all a bunch of liars, corrupt to varying degrees, and both do their own parts to run up the debt. Always have and always will. It's just a matter of which political side benefits from the lies and corruption at the time. There are exceptions, but the honourable mentions are few and far between. Jaded and cynical? Perhaps But what's the point in listening to news media that just tells me that my guy/gal is slightly less of a corrupt liar than the other party's guy/gal? It's a waste to produce it and a waste to listen to it.
    I like your point of view and agree with it, but I think you are a great deal younger than I am, when I was young I realized that the news (especially TV, except for Walter) always leaned a little bit left, but now, it seems to be over the top, could it be that who the press expected and wanted to be elected in 2016 but wasn't?

    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

      I like your point of view and agree with it, but I think you are a great deal younger than I am, when I was young I realized that the news (especially TV, except for Walter) always leaned a little bit left, but now, it seems to be over the top, could it be that who the press expected and wanted to be elected in 2016 but wasn't?
      I'm probably older than you think but if you're making reference to Walter Cronkite, then ya, I'm younger From my perspective, I've always been a bit of an oddball and never fit into the stereotypical left or right wing views. Whether the media is left or right biased was always kinda irrelevant to me because they rarely expressed my views anyways. I can't speak to whether the media now is way over the top (TV especially) because I avoid so much of it, probably for the best.

      As to the results of 2016 in the US and it's connections to the media, I'm reminded of an election in my home province a few elections ago, where the opposition was widely expected (and backed by polling) to easily sweep into power, but ultimately didn't (although they did in the following election). Could've been media hype, could've been the opposition believing the hype and taking it too easy campaigning, could've been pollsters being off, could've been voters feeling one way answering a pre-election poll and feeling different on election day, could've been voter turnout, could've been a small but significant election campaign event that tipped the balance one way, etc. Maybe some of those factors played into the US 2016. I don't think those kinds of election results are all that unique either. Elections, polling, campaigns, are complicated things and a lot more nuanced than what we might think, especially now in our big-data world where we think we know everything and can put a number to everything, but life and people ain't always that simple or predictable, or at least what we think is (or want to be) predictable (or what our data shows to be predictable) isn't always where the predictability lies.

      And which press wanted which person to win? (I ask rhetorically) If a news outlet is heavily biased one way or the other, then you get camps of media promoting 'their' candidate. No doubt they will put a positive light on their side to make it seem they are the clear choice. But happens on both sides and is nothing new. Goes back a long way to pre-digital (even pre-tv) when newspapers were often clearly (and just as often corruptly) aligned with one candidate or another as their 'mouthpiece'.
      Last edited by Schmart; 09 Jun 19, 22:33.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Schmart View Post
        Although I'm Canadian, we can be subject to a lot of American media. A few years ago, I was curious to find some more 'balanced' news outlets outside of the obvious slants of CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. and the Canadian news slants as well (CBC, CTV, Global, Globe and Mail, MacLean's, etc). Various media bias ratings sites gave some interesting results. I have been interested in Newsweek and The Economist, although I haven't fully subscribed, I pick up some of their stuff from time to time. It seems they give a decent centre-right balanced reporting. One outlet that came back as generally rated smack-dab in the middle was the Christian-Science Monitor, which I tend to read more and more. I find the magazine media overall more moderate and balanced, as opposed to newspapers (less moderate), and TV (the least moderate), hence why I pretty much avoid any TV news. I prefer analysis with a little more depth that will make me think about things, rather than just a superficial flash-in-the-pan opinion that either simply tells me what I want to hear or tries to outrage me on an emotional level. For many it's not much more than about eyeballs and ad-revenue. But that's nothing new in media. It's been going on for generations.

        Critical thinking and exploring different viewpoints is also important, as is keeping the larger political and historical context in perspective. I mean let's be honest, liberal or conservative, they're basically all a bunch of liars, corrupt to varying degrees, and both do their own parts to run up the debt. Always have and always will. It's just a matter of which political side benefits from the lies and corruption at the time. There are exceptions, but the honourable mentions are few and far between. Jaded and cynical? Perhaps But what's the point in listening to news media that just tells me that my guy/gal is slightly less of a corrupt liar than the other party's guy/gal? It's a waste to produce it and a waste to listen to it.
        Newsweek and the Economist centre-right ?

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Schmart View Post
          . . . . I find the magazine media overall more moderate and balanced, as opposed to newspapers (less moderate), and TV (the least moderate), hence why I pretty much avoid any TV news. . . . .
          Guess that hearkens back to Marshall McLuhan's notions of "hot" and "cool" media.

          Maybe contemporary online social media is cooler still . . . .
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment


          • #95
            Related:

            These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X