[NA]National News Sources[NA]

I like NPR and I'm fairly conservative on most issues. I may not always agree with the opinions but they tend to present the facts in depth and explain those opinions rationally.
 
Fox News (as opposed to their editorials and most of their talk shows), Al Jazeera, and the Christian Science Monitor are the three I find to be most objective.

I usually read The Guardian, too. It leans toward the Left, but not sickeningly; and it's usually well-researched and well-written.

Rich
 
Any of our modern news sources would be considered horribly editorial by the standards of only a generation or two ago. Even the writing style has changed to include words that indicate opinion instead of fact, in most longer articles.
 
People like stories more than facts and the market has responded to that.
 
denverpilot said:
Any of our modern news sources would be considered horribly editorial by the standards of only a generation or two ago. Even the writing style has changed to include words that indicate opinion instead of fact, in most longer articles.
Click to expand...

And the sad thing is that the reporters don't even realize it. I had this discussion with several NY Times reporters last year (in a bar, of all places). They didn't even realize how much of their own biases they were injecting into their news reporting simply by choosing certain loaded words over other, more neutral ones. Even when confronted, they usually responded with arguments like, "but it's true" to justify the use of those words, which was actually more disappointing than that they used the words in the first place.

For example, using the word "admit" rather than "acknowledge" when the issue at hand is whether someone's acknowledged act, position, policy, etc. violates some law or regulation presupposes the finding before the finding has been made. Some examples of this were in the Salvation Army case (when the organization was said to have "admitted" that some staff members and program participants were required to attend religious services), or the Catholic Charities case (in which the church was said to have "admitted" that they don't place children with gay couples).

In both of those cases, the facts of the organizations' policies were not in dispute. The question was whether those policies violated the organizations' government-funded contracts to provide services due to violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Using the word "admit" in those cases' contexts presupposed the outcomes and revealed the reporters' biases.

It's normal, of course, for people to interpret issues and events in the contexts of their own beliefs. It's not always easy to separate personal beliefs from objective facts. But that skill used to be at the very core of a journalist's craft. American journalists, as a group, do a pretty miserable job of it nowadays even when they sincerely are trying to remain objective.

Rich
 
cessna182b said:
Good suggestion - Thanks!

What I would really like to have is a news filtering application. By and large I get all news from the internet (almost never watch it on TV or listen to the radio. I quit reading newspapers years ago) - and ignore about 95% of it. Google gives you the ability to tailor the content of what you receive to your own tastes - but it doesn't go nearly far enough (IMHO). What I want is the ability to exclude specific subject matter (like Kardashian, for example), specific sources - or whole categories if I'm so inclined. Does anybody know where I might find such a service?

In related matters I am aware that forums such as this one offer various means of filtering content - but have never used them. I simply skip over subject matter or persons that I find annoying or irrelevant. The same principle applies to my consumption of "News". However, there are some parts of the "News" that I want no part of, and resent having same shoved in my face on a daily basis. So a means of excluding the unwanted portion is something I am looking for.

Dave
Click to expand...

Since posting the above I have discovered that Yahoo, like Google, provides a means of tailoring news reportage to one's preferences. You need to have a Yahoo account and be signed in to take advantage of it. Once logged in you will find that mousing over an item will bring up + and X boxes to the right of the headline. You use these to choose whether you would like more (+) or less (x) of items like the one being considered. When you do a window will open and you will be prompted to be more specific about your preferences. Having used this ability for a couple of days, I find that Yahoo
News is indeed becoming more to my liking. Wonder of wonders, you can even dump advertisements (the "sponsored" items mixed in with actual stories) that you'd rather not see. Give it a try!

Dave
 
Jim_R said:
If that logic holds, then folks like you and me control NPR's content: http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

The BBC is also publicly funded.
Click to expand...
That is very interesting. I did not know that in the UK you have to purchase a license to receive BBC TV.

In the US people can watch PBS freely, and contribute if they choose.

So BBC and PBS (and NPR) can say they are (at least partially) "publicly funded."

But public funding doesn't mean they truly are reporting on behalf of "the public." Their bias is pretty certainly going to be in the same direction as those members of the public who fund them voluntarily; however, federal monies (from all taxpayers) are also used, which seems wrong when the reporting is biased.

I used to send NPR $150 every year, until their bias became too painful, and an insult to the intelligence of listeners who want facts, not agendas. When they called to see why I no longer contributed, I told them, giving several examples of recent programs. The young man who called on behalf of NPR said, interestingly, that he agreed with me.

It is my hope that all people, especially young people, will decide they no longer want to be played. If news reporting can be market driven, it is up to us to gravitate to the news outlets that report honestly and neutrally.
 
Said it before and will again, the problem isn't the news, it is the people clicking on it.
The news sources you hate are that way because the people they are feeding are coming back for more.

The only agenda these outlets have is to make a profit.

Stop clicking on stuff and it will stop showing up for you to click.


I doubt A&E was all "We got to get this honey boo boo story told!"
Millions of people tuned in for that nonsense so they kept dishing it up.

News is no different.

PEOPLE: Stop clicking on the Kardashian stories.
 
cowman said:
I like NPR and I'm fairly conservative on most issues. I may not always agree with the opinions but they tend to present the facts in depth and explain those opinions rationally.
Click to expand...

+1

Everskyward said:
People like stories more than facts and the market has responded to that.
Click to expand...

+1

Becky said:
That is very interesting. I did not know that in the UK you have to purchase a license to receive BBC TV.

In the US people can watch PBS freely, and contribute if they choose.

So BBC and PBS (and NPR) can say they are (at least partially) "publicly funded."

But public funding doesn't mean they truly are reporting on behalf of "the public." Their bias is pretty certainly going to be in the same direction as those members of the public who fund them voluntarily; however, federal monies (from all taxpayers) are also used, which seems wrong when the reporting is biased.

I used to send NPR $150 every year, until their bias became too painful, and an insult to the intelligence of listeners who want facts, not agendas. When they called to see why I no longer contributed, I told them, giving several examples of recent programs. The young man who called on behalf of NPR said, interestingly, that he agreed with me.

It is my hope that all people, especially young people, will decide they no longer want to be played. If news reporting can be market driven, it is up to us to gravitate to the news outlets that report honestly and neutrally.
Click to expand...

No doubt some of the local and national programs are liberal, but do you feel this was an ongoing issue with Morning Edition and All Things Considered?
 
BBC World for news.

I watch Fox for the hot, long-legged bimbos.

I watch MSNBC when I need a dose of hypocracy.
 
You hit the nail on the head but I find myself contributing to the problem. If you go to cnn.com you'll find legit news but you'll also find the same tabloid crap that fills the enquirer. I often find myself clicking on "the 12 scariest airports", for example, and then realizing I've been sucked into a time wasting ad-fest. :mad2:

SixPapaCharlie said:
Said it before and will again, the problem isn't the news, it is the people clicking on it.
The news sources you hate are that way because the people they are feeding are coming back for more.

The only agenda these outlets have is to make a profit.

Stop clicking on stuff and it will stop showing up for you to click.


I doubt A&E was all "We got to get this honey boo boo story told!"
Millions of people tuned in for that nonsense so they kept dishing it up.

News is no different.

PEOPLE: Stop clicking on the Kardashian stories.
Click to expand...
 
noobJohn said:
I often find myself clicking on "the 12 scariest airports", for example, and then realizing I've been sucked into a time wasting ad-fest. :mad2:
Click to expand...

Number 7 really had me shaking out of fear. <- click bait
 
jhausch said:
No doubt some of the local and national programs are liberal, but do you feel this was an ongoing issue with Morning Edition and All Things Considered?
Click to expand...
If the topic is politically neutral, no. If the topic is politically bias-able, yes. Once you start noticing the bias, it becomes more apparent, like seeing a previously-hidden trail in the woods. I just got tired of a supposedly respectable source hitting constantly on the bias like dripping water. As others here have said is the solution, I stopped supporting the bias.
 
Ok. Yes. That makes sense. I don't totally disagree. Most reporters have a bias to the left. I just accept that as it is and listen with a careful ear. I still think they offer the greatest depth and breadth of reporting with the least amount of bias overall.

If you want to see a great example, listen/read the NPR/Planet Money report "Unfit for Work". Fantastic story on how a people are moving from the unemployment rolls to SSD.

As you listen to it, keep in mind that the reporters are likely quite liberal AND ask yourself what it would sound like if it was, instead, coming out of Fox or MSNBC.

It's stories like that one that keep me listening. It also gives me hope that moderates and millenials will see the result of some of these social policies and trade deals start to demand leadership.
 
AuntPeggy said:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/0...of-all-statements-made-on-fox-news-are-false/
Click to expand...

The problem with that article (other than that its tone reveals its author's own substantial biases) is that as most people do, it confuses Fox's news coverage with their talk shows, which are more properly categorized as commentary, editorial, or even entertainment than news. Most (not all) of the talk shows carried by Fox are hosted by Conservatives, and neither the hosts nor the network would deny that.

The Fox network itself has a conservative editorial stance, too; but again, that's not the same thing as bias in reporting. I haven't noticed any bias in their reporting of news stories (as opposed to editorial content or commentary).

I've also asked numerous liberal friends to find examples of news stories on Fox that were inaccurate due to bias, and none have ever been able to show me any. In fact, most of the examples my liberal friends have shown me not only are commentary rather than news (which illustrates their own lack of sufficient media literacy to differentiate between the two), but quite often are excerpts from programs that Fox neither owns nor even carries as syndicated content. They simply assume that any Conservative commentator must work for Fox News, as if no other broadcasters would lower themselves to carrying conservative-leaning content.

Rich
 
AP is suffering a common malady among far left tools, FOX derangement syndrome, which is often accompanied by Bush Derangemnet Supyndrome and of the origin.
 
jhausch said:
Ok. Yes. That makes sense. I don't totally disagree. Most reporters have a bias to the left. I just accept that as it is and listen with a careful ear. I still think they offer the greatest depth and breadth of reporting with the least amount of bias overall.

If you want to see a great example, listen/read the NPR/Planet Money report "Unfit for Work". Fantastic story on how a people are moving from the unemployment rolls to SSD.

As you listen to it, keep in mind that the reporters are likely quite liberal AND ask yourself what it would sound like if it was, instead, coming out of Fox or MSNBC.

It's stories like that one that keep me listening. It also gives me hope that moderates and millenials will see the result of some of these social policies and trade deals start to demand leadership.
Click to expand...
I have listened to NPR produced programs much more in the past few years since I have gotten into podcasts, and many that I enjoy, including Planet Money, are from NPR. You can argue about whether or not NPR is biased but the programs I listen to don't contain all the emotional hand-waving and baiting from both sides which happens in many other places.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Very frustrated. I guess I could just wean myself off it altogether. But it seems a reasonable person should stay apprised of the world around him/her.
I am almost sickened by some sources of online news.
Let's stay out of SZ, but discuss good sources of news.

Here are the problems I am seeing:
It seems like you have to choose "I want to hear seriously left-leaning news" or "I want to hear conservative, right-leaning news" when you pick a source.

That, plus: What is this latest trend of delivering news solely with the intent of directing your opinion about something. The titles often say it all; they present the info in such a way as to indicate "if you don't think this way, you're all washed up". Huffpost is the absolute worst. I read it for entertainment but they rarely present facts...its their one-sided standpoint on a topic. It pains me to think of people out there who are without the mental strength to see the difference, gobble that trash up like it is the only way. Fox is not without its faults in this regard too.

OK, it's SZ no denying it. But compassionate, non-hardliner, non-partisan people seek alternatives!
Click to expand...

You will definitely only frustrate yourself reading HuffPo. I've personally never read, nor would I consider doing so. Same goes for the NY Daily News and Post, both partisan, hysterical nonsense (same goes for MSNBC and Faux News, for the most part; they both have honest brokers working there, but it's like bringing a glass of water to a forest fire). I personally subscribe to Sirius radio just to hear the BBC news. When I was a kid I remember probably 2/3's of the news broadcast (nightly news) was world affairs, and it didn't have to involve the U.S. to make the cut. Now there is 1% world affairs. I always get a kick of out U.S. news outlets discovering some problem in the world that the BBC news has informed me about weeks or even months ago.

Anyway, BBC news is a great source for international news. I'm also a fan of PBS new in the U.S. I also read the NY Times, the Economist, and several foreign language publications (my mother tongue is German).
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I've learned to not trust anything.

Once you realize how bad most reporting is on aviation topics you should realize that reporting is at least as bad/inaccurate on every other topic, most of which are far less cut-and-dried than aviation.
Click to expand...

It is definitely important to take things you read with a grain of salt and inform oneself. I constantly look for primary sources of information as opposed to someone reporting to me.
 
SkyHog said:
CNN ****es me off because their videos autostart and that "feature" cannot be disabled. Love or hate 'em, at least Fox News allows you to disable that
Click to expand...

If you're using Firefox get a flashblocker add-on.
 
MAKG1 said:
You mean like when Yahoo reproduces The Onion as though it were real news?

I've never understood the point of aggregators. They don't seem to add any value at all.
Click to expand...

Except to their own bottom lines. It's called ad revenue :D
 
RJM62 said:
The problem with that article (other than that its tone reveals its author's own substantial biases) is that as most people do, it confuses Fox's news coverage with their talk shows, which are more properly categorized as commentary, editorial, or even entertainment than news. Most (not all) of the talk shows carried by Fox are hosted by Conservatives, and neither the hosts nor the network would deny that.

The Fox network itself has a conservative editorial stance, too; but again, that's not the same thing as bias in reporting. I haven't noticed any bias in their reporting of news stories (as opposed to editorial content or commentary).

I've also asked numerous liberal friends to find examples of news stories on Fox that were inaccurate due to bias, and none have ever been able to show me any. In fact, most of the examples my liberal friends have shown me not only are commentary rather than news (which illustrates their own lack of sufficient media literacy to differentiate between the two), but quite often are excerpts from programs that Fox neither owns nor even carries as syndicated content. They simply assume that any Conservative commentator must work for Fox News, as if no other broadcasters would lower themselves to carrying conservative-leaning content.

Rich
Click to expand...

They quite openly said that they were looking for bias in commentary and opinion. That is the foundation of the study. So, they were looking at the commentary for all the sources they studied. Therefore, Fox commentary is rife with misinformation. Fox quite openly agrees that they have the right to disregard the truth in their commentary. So, if you want the truth, you cannot rely upon the "Fox News" channel.
 
AuntPeggy said:
They quite openly said that they were looking for bias in commentary and opinion. That is the foundation of the study. So, they were looking at the commentary for all the sources they studied. Therefore, Fox commentary is rife with misinformation. Fox quite openly agrees that they have the right to disregard the truth in their commentary. So, if you want the truth, you cannot rely upon the "Fox News" channel.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone expect to find absolute, factual truth in what is openly called "opinion" or "commentary"?

When Rachel Maddow starts blowing B.S. on MSNBC, I certainly don't listen with the expectation that she could (or should) be fact checked to the Nth degree. Same with Hannity.

When one of them says "Obama sucks", they don't mean it literally. They use hyperbole and exaggeration to make their points. That's the basis of "infotainment", and is why they are successful.

You want hard news? There's about 15 minutes of hard, factual news that happens around the world on an average day, and Fox News reports it verbatim at the top of the hour. The other 18 hours must be filled with....something.

Which is why a 24 hour news channel is (mostly) an enormous waste of bandwidth.
 
AuntPeggy said:
They quite openly said that they were looking for bias in commentary and opinion. That is the foundation of the study. So, they were looking at the commentary for all the sources they studied. Therefore, Fox commentary is rife with misinformation. Fox quite openly agrees that they have the right to disregard the truth in their commentary. So, if you want the truth, you cannot rely upon the "Fox News" channel.
Click to expand...

If it's opinion and commentary, then by definition it's open to whatever interpretation you like; which means that the article itself is meaningless, as well.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
If it's opinion and commentary, then by definition it's open to whatever interpretation you like; which means that the article itself is meaningless, as well.

Rich
Click to expand...

Rich, your posts are the epitome of truth in opinion. You don't need to misstate the facts to make your point, nor do you do it. Not so with many of the opinion pieces one hears or sees from the opinion pieces on TV or blogs. The study that I posted fact-checked the facts in those pieces. If they were to fact-check what you write, then the numbers would be way above 50%.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Rich, your posts are the epitome of truth in opinion. You don't need to misstate the facts to make your point, nor do you do it. Not so with many of the opinion pieces one hears or sees from the opinion pieces on TV or blogs. The study that I posted fact-checked the facts in those pieces. If they were to fact-check what you write, then the numbers would be way above 50%.
Click to expand...

Why thank you, Peggy. :)

In the interest of forthrightness, however, if I were being paid to peddle diatribe, I might not be so honest. :confused:

Rich
 
Do we know how trustworthy the fact check sites are?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Do you have an example of inaccurate data on snopes?
Click to expand...

I used to save links to thinks snopes reported that turned out false, but when the old broad died, and I had to buy a new one, I lost all those old links.

It's been my experience that if you look hard at key topics, you find a strong pro-hilary bias.

I remember one though. About eight years ago, snopes claiming hilary was a very dedicated baptist, but when I looked for the sources of their report, it was from asking a hilary campaign worker the question and repeating the answer as if it was true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top