Rhody
I'm a Lumberjack.
haha
Bill got more exercise chasing female employees around his desk
News broadcasts
- Thread starter simon1
- Start date
Bill got more exercise chasing female employees around his desk
The more things change...
Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 11 June 1807
- Thomas Jefferson letter to John Norvell, 11 June 1807
Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 11 June 1807
Thanks for posting this. Very much.
Quite welcome. The rest of the letter at the link is an interesting read.
Just finished enjoying it. That last paragraph had me thinking "separation of church and state" lol.Quite welcome. The rest of the letter at the link is an interesting read.
No, things ain't changed much.
shavefan
I’m not a fan
Quite welcome. The rest of the letter at the link is an interesting read.
Yes it was. Thanks x2!
Yup. It's called "False Balance".
"False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. Examples of false balance in reporting on science issues include the topics of man-made versus natural climate change, the alleged relation between thimerosal and autism and evolution versus intelligent design."
Attempting to appear unbiased, I guess.It also brings to mind the quote attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
This weekend, I tried to watch a source some tout as unbiased, Within five minutes, they had taken pure facts of a story and distorted it with spin to the point where their story became a bald faced lie. What made it particularly obvious is what they reported was not based on the facts that they led their story with.
What's the problem with that?
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
I have read that book at least six times since 1984- it becomes more true every day.What's the problem with that?
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
Rhody
I'm a Lumberjack.
True and scary
None of the three are strictly "journalists" per se. Carlson even admits this. They are pundits, "opinion-ists" if you will; in pre-broadcast times, they'd be writing columns, and not news stories.
Or worse yet - "talk show hosts".
I trained as a journalist and worked in journalism for a year before switching to music, so I'm fairly fussy about the quality of news. I'm in the UK, and the first hurdle to get over is that the BBC and other TV channels are governed by NATO politics. This became obvious during the Balkan war when statements made at 9am from the Nato press office by Jamie Shea were repeated word for word on the 1pm news ("Milosovic is defiant" etc). Friends of mine trying to get more unbiased coverage tried out a variety of different country's media and had more luck with news in Spanish and news from the block of non-aligned (NAM) countries such as India and the former Yugoslavia.
I check the news daily and "tolerate" the BBC, which is quite poor for TV news but a little better on radio. I want much better international coverage than the BBC ever offers so I go to Al Jazeera and France 24 amongst others. I should probably check out online news platforms but - call be lowbrow if you will - I like to see and hear newscasters and watch video footage.
I don't think the goal of getting good unbiased international news is easily achievable, maybe not achievable at all in purist terms. But I'm not going to pretend that most of the national news outlets, including ones like the BBC who have been smug about their rapidly falling standards, are anything other than insular, unreliable, incomplete and full of spin.
I check the news daily and "tolerate" the BBC, which is quite poor for TV news but a little better on radio. I want much better international coverage than the BBC ever offers so I go to Al Jazeera and France 24 amongst others. I should probably check out online news platforms but - call be lowbrow if you will - I like to see and hear newscasters and watch video footage.
I don't think the goal of getting good unbiased international news is easily achievable, maybe not achievable at all in purist terms. But I'm not going to pretend that most of the national news outlets, including ones like the BBC who have been smug about their rapidly falling standards, are anything other than insular, unreliable, incomplete and full of spin.
Last edited:
The same obtains here in the U.S., though news gatherers and outlets are privately held (with the exception of NPR and PBS, the so-called "educational" outlets). Piecing together the relevant facts of any news story requires the reader or viewer to spend time and intellectual effort to tease out what really happened (if anything) when learning of a "news event."
Indeed. For every spin doctor who encodes the news into spin you need an equal and equivalent decoder that decodes the news back out of spin. Trouble is even if you get to know what kind of spin to expect, you're left with the problem of filling in what's left out of the news. So you end up using 2 or 3 sources from different countries or preferably different continents.
I like the Al Jazeera format of getting 3 or 4 experts (academics, senior members of NGOs) to slug it out in the studio. Advantages are these guys are experts in their field and can go deeper than the average newscaster, and by including opposing views you get a good standard of debate.
Saw an ad for Britbox, a channel devoted to British shows, and said "I thought that was PBS."
Rhody
I'm a Lumberjack.
Its not that hard imo to obtain factual reporting
Where else will old episodes of "are you being served" be played
Don't know. Remember an incident that no one accurately reported. Didn't matter the news outlet; every single one got it wrong. That was easy to determine by reading the rather short document in question and comparing them to the news stories. It seems that not the first reporter bothered to read the document they were reporting about. It was as though they went with a summary given by someone biased or who hadn't read it, either, and hadn't bothered to fact check.
This very thing happened in another, non-political, incident. Only one reporter bothered to fact check the story. The rest reported the claim at face value. The kicker there is that the original source for that story didn't claim it actually happened, only that someone said it happened.
CBC, BBC, anything from Reuters or AP.
I don't watch broadcast TV. I cancelled satellite TV several years ago. Haven't missed it.
I don't watch broadcast TV. I cancelled satellite TV several years ago. Haven't missed it.
Similar threads
