 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
All sources are biased. The trick is to reach across the spectrum (ie read a few different ones) to get an idea of going on.
If you only stick with one news source you are bound to be disappointed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
FOX, anything with the words "Conservative," "Family," etc. in it.
CNN makes a few blunders towards the right every now and then but it's pretty reliable IMO. Oddly I find CNBC to be a great source of nonbiased news media.
However, sources can be biased towards the left also--it's just that (1) they never try to actually hide it in my experience and (2) they don't carry as much readership.
EDIT: And you still haven't told me who your avatar chick is yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
I wouldn't call the Liberal Democrats "middle of the road". In fact, given that their membership ranges from open Marxists to centre-right former Tories it's very difficult to think of anything to call them. Other than multiple-faced power-grabbing political prostitutes, of course. |
Yes, but with that broad range don't you end up with a moderate consensus? As for the last sentence, name me one MP that doesn't fit that description.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Any of you guys ever read "The Final Call"? I think that's what it's called.
The Nation Of Islam is a truly terrible reporter of news. Even Tass was less biased.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
A range from the far left to the centre right does not make it middle of the road. It makes it center left. |
Marxist <> Far left.
Comunist 1 party dictatorship = Far Left.
Last edited by Cruddy on 07-06-2003 at 22:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
None, or all.
Certainly I think Foxnews is blatantly and openly biased, but as was already noted, all newsources are biased in one way or another. Total objectiveness is impossible.
As for the guardian, they retracted what they said about Wolfie online(and it never made it into print anyway).
Personally, I think the whole: "sorry, won;t listen to them, they are biased" strawman should itself be what is banned or openly ridiculed. If YOU can not come up with an alternative source that disproves the one you refuse to believe, then you refusal to believe is based solely on your personal prejudice and is therfore NOT any sort of arguement. After all, that is how the whole bit about the Gurdian and wolfie came up, somene checked the source material and pointed out the problem. That should be the only way to attack the source, since that is trully the only honest way to do so. Everyone here"clammors" for "unbiased news", yet is openly biased against certain sources?! Give me a break, hypocrites!
So again, if you think a source is wrong (it must be, its not what It think!), then find a countersource and make a good arguement about it, but this mindless 'strawan" of "I won;t believe them!" is both getting very old and seriously getting in the way of arguement and debate in this forum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
GePap: So, if I make a website named www.thetruenews.com, and I start publicizing things about pink unicorns on the other side of the moon, someone can freely quote me, and use me as a valid source? |
Someone is free to quote youyes. And everyone would be free to read your statements carefuly and question your news finding methods. But until they could prove you lied, they can not just ignore you, becuase by doing so they ae guilty of the same thing they accuse evryone else, of bias.
What is a bad report? Lets look at the Guardian Wolfie piece online. The reporters took a quote out of context and ran with it. BUt since they had to give the source material anyway, even to misquote, anyone who wanted to find out for themselves could go and look at the source again, and that is exactly what was done. How would yo make up a pink unicorn stry that would sound evenjournalistically plausible? Whom would you quote? What source or study would you site? Even those sources being called biased must site, give sources, so forth. Now, we are at a disadvantage, we are not all journalisst 9we have only one, I believe) and our ability to get sources is limited, but that has always been true! In theoyr, you can not trust anything you are told unless you can by your own sense veryfy it, and even then you run into the problem of it being staged, and thus some sort of Potemkin scam.
If people here want to make up a set of rules for a reports by which its relative credibility is to be established, fine. but such rles ca not be simply by the name brand of the source, which is meaningless, but by how the report is written, and what kind of documentation it gives. That is the only way to be fair and balanced and unbiased with a report, which is what everyone is claiming is what they want with their news.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2003 20:39
|