View Full Version : Debate: - The merging of news and entertainment and the role of bias in news today
a completely inoffensive name
03-23-2009, 08:59
This is a debate topic to be argued over these questions:
1. Do you think news and entertainment should not be merged whatsoever to provide more information or needs to be merged more to get more citizens informed and interested in current affairs?
2. Do you think media and news should be able to present itself into groups of bias for the average citizen to be able to look at the views and points of each side or should the media and news be held up to strict accountability in what it presents as entirely factual and unbiased so the average citizen can think over the raw facts and make a decision for his or herself?
3a. If you think it is ok for media and news to be biased: What or who will make sure the opinionated news we receive will still be based on facts and will not degenerate into unsupported arguments, unsupported slander attacks on the opposing side and outright lies? Should there even be someone or something to make sure it stays factual or should we just be presented with a disclaimer and take everything they say with a grain of salt?
3b. If you think that media and news should be held accountable to be 100% completely factual and unbiased: What or who will take this responsibility of holding media and news accountable? The people? Government?
I hope this becomes a productive and enlightening thread.
-ACIN
CountArach
03-23-2009, 09:37
1) I have no real problem with the merging of news and entertainment (Mainly from a freedom of speech point of view), provided we still get the real story. I really don't see that realistically happening though and as such I would prefer if they remained seperate.
2) I don't really understand what you are asking here.
3a) I think that bias is completely unavoidable in any form of reporting, because EVERYONE has their own point of views. What I have a very serious problem with is the head office of a news source telling their journalists what point of view to take. That is just plain wrong.
3b) People should keep their news accountable to them alone. Government has no place here because that just reaks of censorship.
The government should educate people so they stop watching/reading biased and overly sensationalist news.
Askthepizzaguy
03-23-2009, 14:52
All news is biased, and most of it could be considered sensationalist. Since what is in the news is selected events some human deemed important enough to write about, that is bias in and of itself. Why is something newsworthy, and something not? Only the sensational sells newspapers and gets news viewers. You will never avoid bias or sensationalism in the news.
The government should educate people so they stop watching/reading biased and overly sensationalist news.
lol, the people need to be protected from government influence into the media. The problem is not one that the goverment can solve, it is one for people to solve. Parents need to teach their kids not to watch all the garbage out there, how get past all the one sided trash out there and find real facts and sources. As much as media and politics are supposed to be seperate, they are not, and that is the truth. People need to realise that, and try to keep the two as far apart as possible by carefully choosing what they watch or contacting the media outlets. It will never be perfect, so you will still have to see through the politics. There is hardly a story out there that is not reported in a way that is dripping with one-sided politics. In the end, people just have to be smarter. The governement does not teach people how to think, it teaches them what to think. People need to seperate the two as much as possible.
The government should educate people so they stop watching/reading biased and overly sensationalist news.
Biased and oversensationalist, in who's opinion, and you want to leave that to the governherd? The press is biased and it's going to stay that way, people who can't spot bias most likely don't care about the issue in the first place.
edit, beaten to it :(
The bias debate is always tricky. Let's say you're a reporter and you see a woman walking down the street. She falls down, and a boy helps her up. Across the way there's a house on fire and seventeen beagles are burning to death. What do you report?
You report on the fire, of course. Nobody wants to hear about things that work—that's not sexy, no, they want conflict and explosions and heart-rending stories of sadness and/or triumph. And maybe boobies if they think nobody's looking.
The overwhelming media bias is toward conflict, preferably in easy-to-digest simplified form, and I can't see any government program or restructuring of the free media that could possibly do anything about it. I'm not sure anything should be done about it.
The decades-long rightwing complaint about teh liberal media? That's just working the ref. And it's surprisingly effective.
-edit-
Agree with CA that top-down institutionalized slanting of the news is a bad idea. Fortunately it's relatively rare (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News).
Sasaki Kojiro
03-23-2009, 22:54
If the news wants to be entertaining, then they should have a disclaimer. "The following show is intended for entertainment purposes". Or say so during the show. Reporting on stories that people want to know about is fine, but it should be interesting not entertaining. They also have a responsability to report the whole truth (not just the facts and "both points of view :wall: ) and avoid bias. The ideal, even if impossible, should still be the goal.
The decades-long rightwing complaint about teh liberal media? That's just working the ref. And it's surprisingly effective.
It's kinda true, but I really don't want any right-wing media that would only lead to 'you are doing it as well', neutral will do. Can't have that because the press is traditionally dominated by the left but as long as you know that nobody dies, they are at least trying to be neutral I can forgive an occasional slipup. Example, The Daily Mail, I really don't want to see anything like that here, I'll take the leftist biased press over that any time.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-23-2009, 23:13
The government should educate people so they stop watching/reading biased and overly sensationalist news.
The government should be the last to encourage this, not the first.
a completely inoffensive name
03-23-2009, 23:49
2. Do you think media and news should be able to present itself into groups of bias for the average citizen to be able to look at the views and points of each side or should the media and news be held up to strict accountability in what it presents as entirely factual and unbiased so the average citizen can think over the raw facts and make a decision for his or herself?
2) I don't really understand what you are asking here.
Do you think:
A. It is ok for media and news to be biased. This way it may be biased but you can still take the opinions and slants of each political side (from different news stations etc...) to come to a moderate conclusion for yourself.
OR
B. Media needs to held to the highest standards of truth, raw facts and no bias what so ever. This way you can make your own decision without any "tainting" from bias or slanting from each side which can slip in "half truths" to persuade you to their side.
So I take it everybody who takes issue with my last statement went to a private school then? :inquisitive:
Because I went to a public school that was more or less run by the government and I learned to be critical of everything, including the government. Weird, isn't it?
Sasaki Kojiro
03-24-2009, 01:43
So I take it everybody who takes issue with my last statement went to a private school then? :inquisitive:
Because I went to a public school that was more or less run by the government and I learned to be critical of everything, including the government. Weird, isn't it?
Your wording confused them...try:
The government should educate people so that they stop watching/reading biased and overly sensationalist news.
They thought you were saying that the government should educate people (about the news) rather than the media.
LittleGrizzly
03-24-2009, 01:44
In defense of Husar's statement the goverment through an independent body monitor the BBC and most people seem to think it is fairly good, and they always seem to fall out with the goverment... so that works pretty well...
Ill make a better post on the whole topic.... soonish...
Major Robert Dump
03-24-2009, 02:05
well, this thread has many good points and issues but the main problem with news vs entertainment is that People don't care. unless it is going to immediately affect them, and even then they just figure there is either no hope anyway so why bother or the guvment gonna take care of meh.
If you look at the sheer volume of dramas, sitcoms, celebrity news and all the other dribble vs the small, teeny, tiny number of either news programs or programs that could be called educational the contrast is staggering. People would rather be entertained than be reminded that the world sucks with news and history. People tune out politics after high school and college, and its a broad assumption to think they were tuned in before then.
While I can't blame people for not tuning in to see the president speak, what is incredible is the number of viewers who watch american idol vs the number of people watching a hyped-up news program that is supposed to be dropping breaking news bombshells. And even if they do watch the news, 3 days later they forget. The American general public is any politicians wet dream.
Papewaio
03-24-2009, 02:09
NEWS, accurate and wholesome news can be entertainment in and on itself.
Sensationalist news, is easier to put together, cheaper to make, easier to make a retraction 'Hey dude, the Elvis in a mall article was a dead giveaway that the mud we sling is a joke' and ultimately gets consumed by more people then we suspect.
As for Shock Jocks on the radio... it is the educated moralistic sector that stays listening longer then the younger anything goes barbarians. So ultimately the main customers are the people most 'outraged' because they get an emotional high out of the anger.
People read for entertainment, watch movies for entertainment, gather information because it entertains.
And people like being right. So what better way to show your intellectual and moral superiority then reading a tabloid and making comments about how stupid others are.
There are comedy programs that have news segments. There are stripping weather girls.
What I don't like is ones that pertain to be serious but are actually just a shell for entertainment or product placement.
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 02:15
The American general public is any politicians wet dream.
If I were given a megaphone and a soap box, I would never stop shouting this, and my hatred for political parties that are only concerned with power, until someone shot me dead.
Papewaio
03-24-2009, 03:05
What is your aim?
a) To change people
b) Get shot dead real quick
No one reacts well to being called stupid. And it certainly doesn't make them change as anger gets in the way.
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 03:07
I just want to point out that in a post about getting shot, you asked me "what's your aim?"
Hilarious. :laugh4:
:bow:
LittleGrizzly
03-24-2009, 03:24
It isn't limited to USA public... im pretty sure every democracy is has a majority of people who are too stupid to know what is going on or who don't care...
Though i don't think stupidity is the biggest problem... with a little care and attention most people could be at least a little politically literate, hell im hardly a rocket scientist and i would wager that i know more about politics than my average british voter...
is there any democracy that has a majority well informed and caring electorate ?
is there any democracy that has a majority well informed and caring electorate ?
I think we come pretty close here
(and what a time to be working huh)
Papewaio
03-24-2009, 05:09
I just want to point out that in a post about getting shot, you asked me "what's your aim?"
Hilarious. :laugh4:
:bow:
Well you're quick on the trigger there ;) I didn't even notice my Gregoshi-esqe attempt.
The bias debate is always tricky. Let's say you're a reporter and you see a woman walking down the street. She falls down, and a boy helps her up. Across the way there's a house on fire and seventeen beagles are burning to death. What do you report?
You report on the fire, of course. I'm pretty sure that the headline would read "Boy Ignores Burning Beagles to Hit on Older Woman" :yes:
In response to several posts made on this thread, I do not see how you can say that the media is not incredibly biased toward the left when the incredible majority of news stories are extremely critical of conservatives, republicans, etc. I wish I could find it, but there was a study done that showed that something like 80-90% of all news reporters donated money to the DNC. Look at the way they fried Palin and did everything in their power to make her look like some type of right-wing nut!
Take a look for instance at the Charlie Gibson interview. He asked her:
"You said recently, in your old church, 'Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God..' Are we fighting a holy war?"
She was completely taken aback and said:
"You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote."
To which he responded:
"Exact words."
In reality, she said:
"Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country -- that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
I guess Charlie Gibson and liberals in America never learned what a dependent clause is. She was saying that they should pray that what their children was going to do was a good thing in other words, something completely different than what Gibson said. Of course Gibson did not lose his job for that (like he should have), and there was never any outrage over him taking advantage of her with that quote. Instead the media went on and on to assasinate her character with more BS like that. Meanwhile you have mental retards like Chris Matthews having a hard-on over Obama on public television, and geniouses like Matt Damon educating us on the striking connection between nuclear missiles and dinosaurs.
Look at everything else they tried to fry Palin and McCain on, like the Katie interview. Palin (as she explained several times later) was smart enough NOT to name any particular publication, because doing so would have acted as an endorsement to everyone who liked her. That was a very wise political move that most polititians (even those with many years of experience) may not have had the foresight to realise. Instead of the media praising her for it (or more appropriately, simply not doing anything about it), they proceeded to recast it in a light that made her look stupid, and fry her for it for the continuation of the election.
The media with a tiny minority of exceptions was reading from the exact same script through the entire election. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0bwhaUG-lY&feature=channel_page) is an interesting video for you from someone who saw the same stuff first hand.
Oh yeah, and I would also like to point out that the media is STILL continuing Obama's LIE that it was 'Bush's disasterous financial policies' that caused the economic crisis. Obama and McCain knew what caused it during the election, but neither of them could say it at the time. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca2_1234032281) Obama kept lying, and then when the truth was found out, the media keeps repeating Obama's lies. Sure, there were huge problems in the American and global financial system that were instrumental in bringing the crisis, but they are NOT a product of the Bush administration. Bush's policies only helped the American economy. Obama likes to say that it was Bush's policies that finally brought the 'house of cards down', when in fact it was this transfer that acted as the catalyst that brought on the crisis. It was the work that McCain suspended his campaign to do that saved the country from a complete collapse. (meanwhile Obama was in Hawaii, because they would call him if he was 'needed')
Anyone who says that the media is completely dominated by the left-wing and used as a tool for the left-wing should look a little more closely at it (and check into where they get their funding from).
Vuk
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 10:21
If I ever need to debate someone with very different views, I'll know where to look, Vuk.
:bow:
I think however that if we were to continue with this line of thinking, we would be derailing the thread.
If I ever need to debate someone with very different views, I'll know where to look, Vuk.
:bow:
I think however that if we were to continue with this line of thinking, we would be derailing the thread.
lol, I rarely debate online anymore due to serious time constraints. :( Because of that when I debate, I am careful to run only one debate at a time. I do not know how my post is out of line with the rest of the thread though, as it is about media bias.
And don't worry Pizzaguy, I got lots of friends whose views are the exact opposite of mine. :P (I got several muslim friends and one who believes in absolute communism, imagine that, lol.) I am a polite debator who lives by the golden rule, attack the message, not the messenger. (something the media has to learn)
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 10:37
There were points about media bias, but I felt it was steamrolling into an anti-liberal speech.
To be fair, Fox News was merely an arm of the Bush administration, so there's plenty of bias to go around for both political parties. As such, I feel a one-sided complaint about bias, and especially when most of the message is an anti-liberal speech, is less about bias and more about liberals.
However, your post qualifies as being technically on-topic. I have friends with opposing views too. Look at me and Rhyfelwyr.
There were points about media bias, but I felt it was steamrolling into an anti-liberal speech.
To be fair, Fox News was merely an arm of the Bush administration, so there's plenty of bias to go around for both political parties. As such, I feel a one-sided complaint about bias, and especially when most of the message is an anti-liberal speech, is less about bias and more about liberals.
However, your post qualifies as being technically on-topic. I have friends with opposing views too. Look at me and Rhyfelwyr.
lol, you misunderstand my post. It was not an anti-liberal speech, it was an anti-liberal media post. (ei, a post against media bias)
And about Fox, Fox News is the farthest thing from straight right-wing (though it is definately a lot more conservative). Also, the news of Fox is a drop in the bucket compared to the main media out there. Also, it is important to point out the WAY that it is reported. Fox News gives their own opinions and is selective about who they interview, etc. Liberal media persons such as Gibson though, directly lie about people, take things completely out of context, twist people's words, etc. If they are truely correct in their beliefs, why do they need to do this? For proof of this, just look at the past election. What I posted is just a few examples of the dirty tactics of political assasination that the left-wing media uses all the time. Fox News openly and honestly call into question Obama's character several times, and offered evidence for their beliefs, without twisting his words or lying about him. Why did they not do that with Palin? Why did they have to lie about her, twist her words, etc? Why does Gibson still have a job after that?
EDIT: as to the overwhelming bias toward the left, just look at the # of conservative major media outlets you can count to liberal ones. You could probably count more than 20 major leftwing media outlets to the 1 conservative one. (that evil Fox News :P Personally the only guy on Fox who I like is Hannity. I think he is pretty darned good, and I like how well he researches all his things)
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 11:16
Must... resist... responding....
Must... take.... tranquilizers.... :clown:
LittleGrizzly
03-24-2009, 11:44
Fox News openly and honestly call into question Obama's character several times, and offered evidence for their beliefs, without twisting his words or lying about him.
Yeah those terrorist fist jabs were a major concern for a while back there...
You should come to Britian and enjoy a right wing dominated press!
Or not enjoy as the case is for me....
1. Do you think news and entertainment should not be merged whatsoever to provide more information or needs to be merged more to get more citizens informed and interested in current affairs?
I think for some/most people, the news would be far to boring without a little... 'jazz' so i can understand the slight merger and i guess if people start getting a little news in rather than none at all its better than nothing....
2. Do you think media and news should be able to present itself into groups of bias for the average citizen to be able to look at the views and points of each side or should the media and news be held up to strict accountability in what it presents as entirely factual and unbiased so the average citizen can think over the raw facts and make a decision for his or herself?
It may be nice to have some liar score... stories that are completely overblown and hardly based on any truth at all could be branded as lies, you could then give a score based on this... for example you could have a 75% liar rate for Daily Mail on immigration stories... you then now whenever the Daily Mail mentions immigrants its quite likely lies based on nothing at all...
The story would have to have high levels of lies to be branded a lie otherwise just a little bias or a mistake could take a perfectly accurate story across as a lie...
3b. If you think that media and news should be held accountable to be 100% completely factual and unbiased: What or who will take this responsibility of holding media and news accountable? The people? Government?
I think the best way to handle this would be an independent body which could give warnings or fines for extreme lies, its impossible not to let a little bias or get one or two bits wrong... but something like the daily mail... im slightly forgetting the story... i think it was some immigrant who apparently sacrificed a goat... complete rubbish... not even close to being accurate!
Thats the kind of stuff which would warrant fines and warnings, it would have to be ott lies to ensure it wasn't an honest mistake or a little bias...
CountArach
03-24-2009, 11:44
EDIT: as to the overwhelming bias toward the left, just look at the # of conservative major media outlets you can count to liberal ones. You could probably count more than 20 major leftwing media outlets to the 1 conservative one. (that evil Fox News :P Personally the only guy on Fox who I like is Hannity. I think he is pretty darned good, and I like how well he researches all his things)
LOL!? Left-wing bias!? Are you joking!?
If the US media were truly left-wing I would still be reading the New York Times...
LittleGrizzly
03-24-2009, 11:47
I suppose it depends whose definition of left wing we use... to vuk im sure most of the major news orginisations are to the left of him... unsurprisingly they are a decent bit to the right of you... hard to get a non subjective judgement on this...
Democrats aren't really considered left wing by most outside the U.S... just less extreme conservatives...
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 11:59
Would I be blowing anyone's mind if I reminded them that modern US and UK "conservative" versus "liberal" values are not that different from one another, and are both very closely related brances of the overall philosophy of liberalism?
The extremes are totalitarianism and anarchy, not conservative or liberal. On the political scale, conservative and liberal are so close together, they often overlap, and I doubt very many people here can define properly either term without incorporating their own viewpoint.
Would I be blowing anyone's mind if I reminded them that modern US and UK "conservative" versus "liberal" values are not that different from one another, and are both very closely related brances of the overall philosophy of liberalism?
The extremes are totalitarianism and anarchy, not conservative or liberal. On the political scale, conservative and liberal are so close together, they often overlap, and I doubt very many people here can define properly either term without incorporating their own viewpoint.
Nope, the USA left really has nothing to do with liberalism, it's completely a different place. Euro liberalism is libertarian, firmly on the republican (non-religious) right
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 12:12
I'd pull you aside in a different thread to debate that, if you'd be willing. I think you're wrong and I can prove it using widely-recognized definitions.
I'd pull you aside in a different thread to debate that, if you'd be willing. I think you're wrong and I can prove it using widely-recognized definitions.
Widely used definitions, that would be USA and European definitions which are totally different, I don't know how the American left got labelled as being liberals. American liberals are Keynians, euro-liberals don't believe in broken windows.
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 12:27
I'll use any collegiate dictionary printed in the US or the UK. You pick.
And, this is off-topic now. Request we continue in a different thread.
I'll use any collegiate dictionary printed in the US or the UK. You pick.
And, this is off-topic now. Request we continue in a different thread.
Euro-liberalism = USA libertarianism? If you want to take that on, good luck.
Personally the only guy on Fox who I like is Hannity.
... and this tells us everything we need to know about where you're coming from. Down with the well-established liberal bias of Wikipedia! Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) FTW!
... and this tells us everything we need to know about where you're coming from. Down with the well-established liberal bias of Wikipedia! Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) FTW!
A very intelligent and well thought out post that did a stellar job of tackling all my points and presenting your evidence. Thank you for your wonderous example of what a post in a debate thread should look like Sir Moderator. :2thumbsup:
*insert sarcasm here*
KukriKhan
03-24-2009, 14:44
There are comedy programs that have news segments. There are stripping weather girls.
NakedNews.com (http://www.nakednews.com/) , a Canadian outfit with the least-biased slant on international news in their copy; o'course, who actually listens to the words?
I decided about 15 years ago that bias in news reportage being apparently unavoidable, I'd just as soon they wear it on their sleeves, so I know where they're coming from, than try to achieve some distant, never-perfect "just the facts, Ma'am", 'fair and balanced' impartiality. Especially the visual guys (TV).
That said, I still refuse to watch Wolf Blitzer, ever. After the 'Nam nerve-gas debacle, his response was: "I just read what they put in front of me". Probably true. Which gives any words coming out of his mouth Zero credibility, for me, even if he's reporting the blueness of the sky.
Kralizec
03-24-2009, 16:19
I personally prefer my news sources to be serious (=devoid of attempts at humour) and as unbiased as possible.
As for other people, I really couldn't care less where they get their news from. I don't see why the media shouldn't be demand-driven like any other industry. Requiring media to be 100% impartial is unworkable and more likely to result in monopolisation for one particular viewpoint. I've seen the Daily Show (wich some people seem to view as a news source) a couple of times and I found it to be extremely one-sided and generally unfunny besides, but to each his own.
I would like to clarify BTW, that when I said unbiased, I meant fair to both sides, without taking things out of context, lying, etc. There is and always will be bias, which is why it is so important that news outlets tell their biases up front. The field of history learned that a long time ago. I think that the real crime is done (and they are all guilty of it) not when they are biased, but when they deny their biases. That is what misleads people. Just my thoughts...
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 19:20
I think that the real crime is done not when they are biased, but when they deny their biases.Say, by claiming to be both "fair" and "balanced" when actually being a puppet of the Republican Party? I notice Colmes is gone. Looks like the last lingering thread of fake token liberalism has been expelled from Fox News.
:clown:
Strike For The South
03-24-2009, 19:21
Do your own research and stop putting so much faith in men that have a 4 year degree from some clown college.
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 19:23
To whom are you referring, STFS? (no war, just curious)
Minor note; if we had time to do our own research, there would be no need for news organizations. I think it should be someone's job to do fair reporting; most of us (myself excluded) are really busy. Unfortunately even though I have the time, I also don't want to get shot at in Iraq.
Kudos to real newsmen and women.
Say, by claiming to be both "fair" and "balanced" when actually being a puppet of the Republican Party? I notice Colmes is gone. Looks like the last lingering thread of fake token liberalism has been expelled from Fox News.
:clown:
As I said, they are all guilty of this crime. Both the ONE major conservative news outlet (:laugh4:) and all the others. :P
I gotta agree with SFTS though. The news media is good for bringing things to your attention that perhaps you did not know about before that, but from there on in, you should do as much of your own research into it as possible, and not rely on the media for your opinion. It takes time, it takes brains, most people just do not care about. They are willing to let someone else tell them what to think. I am afraid that that is most people in the world (and I am not talking about any parties here, just people in particular).
Askthepizzaguy
03-24-2009, 20:09
I tune in to Fox News once in a while, because I used to monitor Hannity and O'Reilly fairly frequently, but I get tired of the constant editorials.
It's less news and more punditry, which is fine, but they should call in Fox Opinion, not Fox News.
Just like MSNBC is a liberal lapdog, and anything you get on that network has been thoroughly left-wingerized.
I tune in to Fox News once in a while, because I used to monitor Hannity and O'Reilly fairly frequently, but I get tired of the constant editorials.
It's less news and more punditry, which is fine, but they should call in Fox Opinion, not Fox News.
Just like MSNBC is a liberal lapdog, and anything you get on that network has been thoroughly left-wingerized.
O'Reilly is a stupid jerk IMHO. :P Hannity is fairly good though. At least Hannity (unlike O'Reilly or Chris Matthews) makes no pretense about where he comes from. He is honest, intelligent, and well informed. That is why I like him. To be honest though, I do not watch Fox News. I have seen several of Hannity's specials on Youtube, but I don't watch even him regularly. I generally try to avoid News Channels. Too much garbage.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-24-2009, 21:51
O'Reilly is a stupid jerk IMHO.
Stupid? I really doubt that. Egotist, jerk, rectal sphincter, dumber than he THINKS himself -- all of these might apply. The man is NOT stupid.
Stupid? I really doubt that. Egotist, jerk, rectal sphincter, dumber than he THINKS himself -- all of these might apply. The man is NOT stupid.
I apologize, that was my dislike for the man speaking. :P You are quite right, he is an extremely calculating individual. That is as much as I will give him credit for though.
Stupid? I really doubt that. Egotist, jerk, rectal sphincter, dumber than he THINKS himself -- all of these might apply. The man is NOT stupid.
Depends on your definition of "stupid". Clearly he needs a certain level of intelligence to put together a show such as his, but he is often ill-informed in his statements. His shows also have a good knack for finding the latest outrage du jour that seems to account for most of his TV show's ratings.
... and this tells us everything we need to know about where you're coming from. Down with the well-established liberal bias of Wikipedia! Conservapedia FTW! That's hardly productive. :no:
Hannity, like the proverbial blind squirrel, does manage to find a nut once in awhile- but generally, I find him to be a bully and a blowhard who, more often than not, uses prewritten talking points and shoutdowns to try to win his points rather than logically making his case.
I had an Honors English class back in college that was rather interesting- the proff was a flaming liberal, but that was irrelevant in this case. He spent a lot of time talking about looking out for and identifying weasel words, and as he called them "smell" words in writing- particularly in the news. Certain descriptors like "democracy" or "freedom" smell good to readers, while others have negative connotations. Depending on how or where they're used, the tone and message of a supposedly unbiased news story can be substantially influenced.
Wikipedia even has an entry for "weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)", here are examples that I've seen used widely in the news by people who are supposed to know better.
# "A growing body of evidence..."[3] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
# "People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
# "Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
# "Clearly..." (Is the situation really clear?)
# "I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
# "There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
# "Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
# "It has been mentioned that..." (Can these mentioners be trusted?)
# "Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
# "It is known that..." (By whom and what method is it known?)
Bias in the news media is always going to be there. Right now, it seems to be of nauseating proportions, but even if journalists worked harder (they aren't) to remove biases, there would always be some. The trick is sifting the hard facts out of the BS when you read news. :yes:
a completely inoffensive name
03-25-2009, 01:24
What if the question was rephrased so that media would be held to be as unbiased as possible not 100% perfect? Seems like some people might choose the bias is ok option because 100% no bias is unattainable.
Strike For The South
03-25-2009, 02:40
I was referring to everyone in this thread.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-25-2009, 02:55
The best option is stepping out and allowing the media to play to the markets it has. There will be a market for tabloids, for right and left wing news, and most importantly to this topic, there will also be a market for relatively unbiased news. Therefore, we don't need to do anything - people who want unbiased news will demand it, forcing the creation of relatively unbiased networks in addition to the biased ones.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.