pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
actuly I don't often watch Keith, becuse I find him to bias...But then again at least he is not paid by a company to pitch products as if he was giving news...
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Glenn back news...or advertising?
- Thread starter pocketfullofshells
- Start date
actuly I don't often watch Keith, becuse I find him to bias...But then again at least he is not paid by a company to pitch products as if he was giving news...
Werbung:
Another pocket hits the nail on the head moment!
We on the Left like people like Keith Olbermann because he's hilarious in the way he documents the misbegotten Right Wing. But I see no one trying to act as if he's not preaching for the Left.
This is completely unlike Lonesome Roads Beck believers. They've actually convinced themselves that this mindless Carnival Barker is giving good heartfelt nonpartisan advice. Even with the now very document Vicks VapoRub in the eyes to make him cry on cue thing they think he's credible!
That's one reason why they continue to stay sooo out of touch. But Chris Mattews, David Gregory, that type of political journalist, are absolutely real journalists.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
If you don't understand the difference between a newscaster and an entertainer then maybe you have been watching too much msnbc?
In fact all the networks, CNN, FOX etc stopped being purely journalists a long time ago.
But at least CNN and FOX are not so blatant as to present their entertainers as if they were newscasters.
But the MSM pretends to be objective journalists when they are biased journalists.
In fact all the networks, CNN, FOX etc stopped being purely journalists a long time ago.
But at least CNN and FOX are not so blatant as to present their entertainers as if they were newscasters.
But the MSM pretends to be objective journalists when they are biased journalists.
When has the media ever been totally objective? Any media, leftie, rightie, in betweenie, are any of them really objective?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Go read some news stories in old newspapers and you will see a much greater effort at objectivity. But be sure to look back before the onset of "opinion journalism" as it is called in the field or "advocacy journalism" before journalists thought they could change the world rather than just report on it.
They are sometimes still objective today, proving that they can be objective when they want to.
CNN is one of the best on the left. Here is a good example of journalism from their website:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/10/pakistan.student.arrest/index.html
You will note that the reporters never gave any of their own opinions and only quoted others. If they are able to write a story like that and keep it objective then why can't they cover presidential elections, global warming, and health care in objective ways?
For the other kind of story you can go to
http://newsbusters.org/
to read example after example (just bear in mind that they cover all media and not just news)
I agree on both sources. CNN is pretty reliable, not totally, but pretty much. Your other example looks like a lot of other blogs that are simply opinion pieces.
If CNN is one of he best on the left, which one is the best on the right?
CNN is really right down the middle as far as the way they cover the news.
MSNBC is a nice counter balance for FOX.
I like to watch MSNBC because I enjoy a tilt to my perspective. But I often watch CNN for a real right down the middle coverage. They're the most "truth to power" channel.
And I even watch FOX for a limited time now and then (all I can stand without throwing stuff at the TV
) just to know what the most recent Republican misdirection play is. 
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
Glenn Beck... completely nuts.
chestnut
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,222
It's so funny how the left attack these guys. And Rush and Palin.
I guess it's easier to attack them then to truly debate what they say.
I think the reason is the left have no one that polarizes the masses. No one listens to lefty talk radio.. and MSNBC ratings are in the toilet.
Oh what to do.. what to do.. if you're a liberal.
I guess it's easier to attack them then to truly debate what they say.
I think the reason is the left have no one that polarizes the masses. No one listens to lefty talk radio.. and MSNBC ratings are in the toilet.
Oh what to do.. what to do.. if you're a liberal.
Brain surgery? I thought he had ass surgery... oh!
Werbung:
It's not hard to debate what they have to say, and you don't have to be very far left to do it.
Are Rush and Palin saying the same thing? If they are, and if the Republicans want to run Palin for president in '12, does that mean that Rush is really the voice of the Republican party? Are they all behind the Limbaugh Letter?
Oh, let's bring up a Limbaugh talking point and debate it honestly. Was it Rush, or was it Hannity who said that "climategate" proves that there is a conspiracy of scientists to establish a socialist world government? Is that or is it not a Rush issue?
Or, if you think that is a strawman, let's pick another Rush issue and see how hard it is to shred.
