Un-Biased Press?

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It would be a wonderful thing IF we had a truely un-biased press. If our media would just REPORT, not take sides on issues or for or against a candidate. A FREE press that would report ALL sides of a story so that PEOPLE could make up their OWN minds.

They can write EDITORIALS if they want to push this or that but NEWS SHOULD be straight. Any bets that it will NEVER happen as we move closer and closer to having PRAVDA instead of a free press?


Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin and the Piranhas of the Press -- Politics Daily
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
there's a lot of mistruths in this forum....:(


True, but we EXPECT that here. This is an OPINION forum, we are, for the most part, NOT reporting the NEWS. The PRESS SHOULD be un-biased. They should NEVER be the "mouthpiece" of the Government.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
They don't even teach objective reporting in journalism school anymore. Part of the curriculum is to effectively interpret what they facts mean to the readers and listeners. True. You cannot hardly read or listen to a report without the reporter interjecting editorial comments of some kind, even if it's just a single qualifier like "clearly" or "obviously". They can't help themselves. They aren't in the business anymore to inform, to tell the story, they are in the business to change the world. There are 10 or 15 news channels on satellite radio, for example, and only 2 that will give you unfiltered facts.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
They don't even teach objective reporting in journalism school anymore. Part of the curriculum is to effectively interpret what they facts mean to the readers and listeners. True. You cannot hardly read or listen to a report without the reporter interjecting editorial comments of some kind, even if it's just a single qualifier like "clearly" or "obviously". They can't help themselves. They aren't in the business anymore to inform, to tell the story, they are in the business to change the world. There are 10 or 15 news channels on satellite radio, for example, and only 2 that will give you unfiltered facts.


In the fall of 1969 I started college for the first time, fresh out of high school. My major was music and I had a double minor of education and journalism. I wanted to either teach music or be a sports writer (I REALLY like adjectives!!) I quit school almost as soon as I started, being number 100 on the draft lottery made it a waste of time. I was going to drop the journalism minor had I stayed in school for this very reason. It was obvious even back then that objectivity was NOT a priority and frowned upon IF you wanted a good grade. What is call the press is a sad joke now. It does NOT serve a free sociaty. It does serve socialism. Socialism feeds on lies and half-truths. It cannot live in the light of day.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Yeah it can and will survive quite well....The US is the one that is failing...an individual cannot survive the wild for long....how do you think we really survived all these 1,000's of years.....by having groups of settlers helping each other...socializing, working together in a "social" goal of building a country....building civilizations....
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yeah it can and will survive quite well....The US is the one that is failing...an individual cannot survive the wild for long....how do you think we really survived all these 1,000's of years.....by having groups of settlers helping each other...socializing, working together in a "social" goal of building a country....building civilizations....


Very funny!! You know darn well that I am speaking of "Socialism" in the Soviet, Cuban, Chinese style NOT normal working together. You know, being ruled and controlled for the greater good of only those in charge.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Very funny!! You know darn well that I am speaking of "Socialism" in the Soviet, Cuban, Chinese style NOT normal working together. You know, being ruled and controlled for the greater good of only those in charge.


oh that socialism.....I thought that was Communism
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
They don't even teach objective reporting in journalism school anymore. Part of the curriculum is to effectively interpret what they facts mean to the readers and listeners. True. You cannot hardly read or listen to a report without the reporter interjecting editorial comments of some kind, even if it's just a single qualifier like "clearly" or "obviously". They can't help themselves. They aren't in the business anymore to inform, to tell the story, they are in the business to change the world. There are 10 or 15 news channels on satellite radio, for example, and only 2 that will give you unfiltered facts.

OK, I'll take the bait. Which two channels give unfiltered facts?
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
socialites....social...socialism...socialist....church social...social event....all means....being in a group....being friendly and helpful....Like this country....a very social and pleasant one at that....:)
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
OK, I'll take the bait. Which two channels give unfiltered facts?
It's actually three, sort of, or one, depending on how you look at it.

For pure news, The BBC World Service presents news stories in the tradition of Edward R Murrow and use the classic Five Ws (and one H) of news reporting. Outside of the headlines, where they do "in depth" stories, the selection of stories themselves represents a filter in an of itself, but even with those they tend to present all sides.

The other is C-SPAN Radio, where they present things as they are, unfiltered.

The third is POTUS, where they present both raw news, such as speeches and unedited news conferences and interviews, as well as with blatantly filtered reports from other organizations, but present them blatantly unfiltered so you can see how they are filtered. POTUS is brutally honest in pointing out the biases, regardless of the origins or political stance.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
It's actually three, sort of, or one, depending on how you look at it.

For pure news, The BBC World Service presents news stories in the tradition of Edward R Murrow and use the classic Five Ws (and one H) of news reporting. Outside of the headlines, where they do "in depth" stories, the selection of stories themselves represents a filter in an of itself, but even with those they tend to present all sides.

The other is C-SPAN Radio, where they present things as they are, unfiltered.

The third is POTUS, where they present both raw news, such as speeches and unedited news conferences and interviews, as well as with blatantly filtered reports from other organizations, but present them blatantly unfiltered so you can see how they are filtered. POTUS is brutally honest in pointing out the biases, regardless of the origins or political stance.

I do enjoy C-SPAN.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I have never thought of the BBC as un-biased. They have always seemed a little more than left of center. The BBC was on this Global Warming stuff like white on snow when we were living in England and we left there in 1981. I remember one story where they stated very clearly that Washington DC and other global coastal towns were going to be under 4' of water by the year 2000. To my knowlege that has yet to occur. It is a shame, I was hoping that those bums there would get flooded out!!:D
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The BBC is left of center, but not when they cover the news. For news stories, they present the Five Ws (and one H) usually without comment, a la Edward R Murrow and Joe Friday. It's the "in depth" news stories they cover that are generally leftist. But even with those, they present both sides of the story ore often than not.

Just last night I was listening and they did a 20 minute piece where they kept using "Climate Change, "Global Warming" and "Global Climate Change" interchangeably. The story focused on the recent lack of water in a couple of streams near a couple of villages, and how people were adapting. Many of the people interviewed were quick to point out that it was impossible to know for sure if this was due to a normal cycle of climate change, or if this was something new and different, possibly caused by man. The villager's focus was more on how to adapt, expecially with more and more people needing water, than anything else. One village elder was quick to point out that yes, things are changing, but they have been changing for thousands of years for his people.

In yet another village, they talked of a time many generations ago where the fields around them were lush and green with many crops, and then it became a desert, but that recently there is more green and they can grow crops again. They called it part of the normal cycle of life on this planet.

The BBC went to great pains to present all sides of the story, which they generally do, even with their own "pet project" stories. They are far from perfect, but the BBC World Service stands head and shoulders above the likes of CNN and Fox News.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The BBC is left of center, but not when they cover the news. For news stories, they present the Five Ws (and one H) usually without comment, a la Edward R Murrow and Joe Friday. It's the "in depth" news stories they cover that are generally leftist. But even with those, they present both sides of the story ore often than not.

Just last night I was listening and they did a 20 minute piece where they kept using "Climate Change, "Global Warming" and "Global Climate Change" interchangeably. The story focused on the recent lack of water in a couple of streams near a couple of villages, and how people were adapting. Many of the people interviewed were quick to point out that it was impossible to know for sure if this was due to a normal cycle of climate change, or if this was something new and different, possibly caused by man. The villager's focus was more on how to adapt, expecially with more and more people needing water, than anything else. One village elder was quick to point out that yes, things are changing, but they have been changing for thousands of years for his people.

In yet another village, they talked of a time many generations ago where the fields around them were lush and green with many crops, and then it became a desert, but that recently there is more green and they can grow crops again. They called it part of the normal cycle of life on this planet.

The BBC went to great pains to present all sides of the story, which they generally do, even with their own "pet project" stories. They are far from perfect, but the BBC World Service stands head and shoulders above the likes of CNN and Fox News.

Almost ANYTHING is better than our networks. They are too interested in ratings than doing their job. Which SHOULD be JUST reporting.
 
Top