Racism Instigation

[Teddy Roosevelt]

I think the main problem (at least my main problem) with 'news' networks is bias, bias, and bias. They are all so biased!. They are no longer reporting news, they are making news to fit their biased agenda by means of spinning (no spin zone my butt!), twisting, half truths, out-of-context quotes and videos, etc...

I can very much understand calling FOX news "entertainment" rather than "news". But I don't think FOX has a monopoly on bias....where FOX is clearly biased towards the right, MSNBC is clearly biased toward the left. I like Rachel Maddow and I used to listen to her back during the Air America days, but she is biased too. And Fox and MSNBC aren't the only ones either.

This isn't news anymore, it's propaganda.

I agree. My dad used to tape Olbermann and Maddow for the news and after a while the only thing I could stand to watch were the "variety" segments. Olbermann especially (I can't even stand Maddow most of the time) seems like he states his opinion and then brings on one of his usual guests or an 'expert' to nod and agree with him... that's not what I want to see. A great news show in that format for me would be one where the host delivered the news in the most unbiased way possible, then allowed two people with opposing viewpoints to come on and argue their feelings for a bit before the next story... not just people agreeing with the host. This extends to such folks on the opposite end of the spectrum such as O'Reilly and Limbaugh, too.

 

[wstphal]

Very well said! :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

What he said!

 

[jpccusa]

I understand being biased, but besides that, there is "facts" vs. "BS". Shouldn't the media, specially the conservative media, filter the material to be broadcasted VERY WELL just for the sake of being reliable as news source?

 

[Nanci]

*grins* Took some digging. Had problems with my search parameters. But here ya go.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
.

This is pretty interesting. It pertains to so many things. Would I ever believe that Lance Armstrong doped? That Tesseras are hybrids? That there were no WMDs?

 

[tyflier]

All media has bias and "spin". But there is a HUGE difference between taking facts, and spinning them to fit your agenda, and completely making stuff up that never happened to create "news" that fits your agenda.

Let's not belittle the fact that Fox News is making stuff up. They aren't spinning stories and reporting biased facts. They are making stuff up. That's not news and does not deserve any Constitutional Protection, in my opinion...

MSNBC might have it's share of nut jobs and fanatics, but at least what they report actually happens, regardless of the spin they attach to it...

 

[tsst]

I understand being biased, but besides that, there is "facts" vs. "BS". Shouldn't the media, specially the conservative media, filter the material to be broadcasted VERY WELL just for the sake of being reliable as news source?

I guess that would depend on your definition of a news source. I don't consider Rush, Maddow, Hannity, Olbermann, etc to be news sources. I consider them "opinion shows" hence "The Rachael Maddow Show" and not the "The Rachael Maddow News Hour"

 

[wade]

As to why people won't acknowledge... I'm looking for the article now, but I read a recent study that showed even when people were presented with irrefutable evidence that a story they'd recently read, and believed, was wrong that they ignored that evidence and believed in the original story all the more.

The human mind can be a scary, scary thing.

Haha, take a look at this thread and you'll see plenty of exemplification of what you just said. :flames:

Indeed very scary!

All media has bias and "spin". But there is a HUGE difference between taking facts, and spinning them to fit your agenda, and completely making stuff up that never happened to create "news" that fits your agenda.

Let's not belittle the fact that Fox News is making stuff up. They aren't spinning stories and reporting biased facts. They are making stuff up. That's not news and does not deserve any Constitutional Protection, in my opinion...

MSNBC might have it's share of nut jobs and fanatics, but at least what they report actually happens, regardless of the spin they attach to it...

Indeed very scary!!

 

[jpccusa]

Chris - Yeap

Tsst - Yes, call it opinion shows, but that doesn't change the fact that they are talking about the news of the day/moment. In the case of liberal media (Colbert, Maddow, etc) any information and investigation added to the news can be double checked for veracity. As for their opinions, that's just that... their opinions, which I can filter out myself while still keeping the factual information.

So if we are supposed to name TV entertainment properly, what should FoxNEWS be called? :uhoh:

My point is that the name of the program should not matter that much.

Wade - There you are!

 

[Kels88]

Freedom of speech? Great. I support that. But false advertising is dishonest and wrong. Colbert is on comedy central, you should know what to expect.
But a news program that advertises itself as "fair and balanced," and "the most trusted" and then runs around yelling about fascism and how the current administration can be compared to Hitler's Germany...It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[wade]

JP wasn't it you just a few post ago that was talking about people not respecting the constitution or something of that nature?

I haven't really looked into the original topic of the reported racism, nor do I intend to. If you are surprised by inaccuracy of news programs then you haven't been paying attention. The only person on the news who is trying his best to tell the truth is the Weather Man. Everyone else has a product to sell.

I think anytime you start talking about censorship or telling news programs what they are and are not allowed to say you are headed for serious trouble. I think what happened with this lady is very sad but I would not for one second condone censoring any program or for that matter even talk about changing the name of programs to make it imply something other than news.

Look at the grocery store tabloids. Everyone on the planet knows the are entirely fiction, yet people still buy them and quote them. You find some news shows to be credible and some to be outrageous. What is more likely is some of them agree with your thinking and others do not. That doesn't make either one of the the devil.

 

[jpccusa]

Wade, perhaps you misunderstood my post(s), but I never said the media should to be censored/controlled.

I wish the media would censorship themselves (see my OP) so false information would not be spread so easily. It is just like checking snopes before forwarding a chain email.

 

[wade]

Yes, call it opinion shows, but that doesn't change the fact that they are talking about the news of the day/moment. In the case of liberal media (Colbert, Maddow, etc) any information and investigation added to the news can be double checked for veracity. As for their opinions, that's just that... their opinions, which I can filter out myself while still keeping the factual information.

So if we are supposed to name TV entertainment properly, what should FoxNEWS be called? :uhoh:

If we tell one news group we don't like what they are saying so they are no longer allowed to use the term "News".......

Quite frankly, I find watching the news to be insulting to my intelligence. I hate the feeling that I am being manipulated. I hate the negativity. They paint the whole world with black. I quite watching the news 10 or 15 years ago. I find it somewhat interesting when people complain that this program or that program is biased. ........ You think??

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Chris - Yeap

Tsst - Yes, call it opinion shows, but that doesn't change the fact that they are talking about the news of the day/moment. In the case of liberal media (Colbert, Maddow, etc) any information and investigation added to the news can be double checked for veracity. As for their opinions, that's just that... their opinions, which I can filter out myself while still keeping the factual information.

So if we are supposed to name TV entertainment properly, what should FoxNEWS be called? :uhoh:

My point is that the name of the program should not matter that much.

Wade - There you are!

JP... Colbert is a comedy show... it's not meant to be taken seriously at all...

 

[jpccusa]

Renaming Fox News was more of a rhetorical question.

How do you keep track of what is going on in the world and around you Wade (besides reading threads on CS.com, of course)? Do you think that reading news is any different than watching it?

And for the record, I have no problems with shows being biased... I have a problem with shows, specially "News," spreading rumors and false information. News should be VERIFIED information, and if the information and/or information source can't be verified, then that should be stated/displayed. (Big red banner that reads "unfounded information" instead of "breaking news" would be great... LOL)

 

[jpccusa]

JP... Colbert is a comedy show... it's not meant to be taken seriously at all...

Like I said, I use filters to discern facts from opinions/comedy. I am aware Colbert and Stewart are comedy shows. I don't dismiss what they have to say solely because of that. I just find them to deliver the message in a funnier way, if you will.

 

[ceduke]

I like my solution: Don't own a TV!

 

[charlie1]

Shouldn't Fox News check the veracity of the information they broadcast?

Rachel Maddow shred them to pieces on tonight's show here, and here.

So I take it you believe and agree that those that voice opposition to the ruling elite are racist and liars then? I also take you have independently researched these stories to find out for your self that they are false?

 

[Shiari]

So I take it you believe and agree that those that voice opposition to the ruling elite are racist and liars then? I also take you have independently researched these stories to find out for your self that they are false?

And, of course, you have already done the same? Cast not stones in glass houses....

 

[charlie1]

And, of course, you have already done the same? Cast not stones in glass houses....

I guess that is in the eye of the beholder isn't it. I don't subscribe to the race baiting but I guess you do. I don't refer to one form of visual propaganda to refute another. Maddow is a joke as is here side Oberman. When they can have an honest debate without gratuitously squawking racism then maybe I will take them seriously.

The smell of sheep makes me sick.

 

[Shiari]

I guess that is in the eye of the beholder isn't it. I don't subscribe to the race baiting but I guess you do. I don't refer to one form of visual propaganda to refute another. Maddow is a joke as is here side Oberman. When they can have an honest debate without gratuitously squawking racism then maybe I will take them seriously.

The smell of sheep makes me sick.

Actually, I haven't even watched the videos. I'm making more of a point along the lines of those two articles I linked about how people will believe what they already believe, even when presented with other evidence. Congrats, you're a sheeple too now.