Jump to content


Photo

Are there any reliable news sources left?

News Politics Elections News Bias CNN FOX OANN.com Information

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 03 December 2016 - 08:15 PM

Now that one of the most contentious elections in history is over, it would seem obvious to many that blatant bias of our news sources is rampant. I started noticing some serious leanings during the 2012 election, enough to make me cut my exposure to CNN considerably.  During this year’s Primaries I tried CNN a number of times and finally just gave up, it’s one thing to report the news in a blatantly biased nature but all together different to generate story-lines of your own. (This bothered me, being a CNN junkie from the days of watching it while active duty during Desert Storm, to watching 9/11 live while CNN was still reporting the first strike as a small private plane. I once depended upon them, so watching them lie out right was an eye opener.) 

 

Even FOX had its fair share of biased reporting but at least they made an attempt at showing both sides, but not always fairly, still, some days were close to fair and balanced.

 

The only source that seemed to show things in a stark exposure was OANN or (One American News), they seem to be just starting out so about where CNN was in 1991. On some days they did seem to slant the other direction but more out of an offset sort of defense.

 

With disruptive technologies changing the topographies of information, newspapers can barely cut it digitally, the print version can’t even rely upon coupons as a means of existence, and those pop up on your phone and load directly to your account while you’re filling your basket. Will news channels one day just give up their charade of unbiased and change their screen bugs to represent their political leanings CNN will go Democrat Blue, FOX will go to a Dem Blue for the bottom 60% and GOP Red for the top 40 and fluctuate by time of day, like all red for Hannity, etc… and OANN would just be GOP Red. Not that people need the color coding to tell, but it sure would be nice if you could load your news sources from GOP or Dem / Liberal sources, pick and filter what you spend your time on, kinda like filling up your coupon list for the things you spend your money on. 


Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#2 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 03 December 2016 - 09:16 PM

Now that one of the most contentious elections in history is over, it would seem obvious to many that blatant bias of our news sources is rampant....

 

I would agree.  However, there is biases ingrained into the electorate; and the media simply adhere to their audiences.  

 

The problem that seems to be more dangerous is the lack of patriotism.

 

Many, many Americans  who were eligible to vote appear to have so little regards for democracy, a form of governance that requires their participation, chose not to get involved. Democracy can not be sustained without the govern making its voice heard.  It would appear that there has been a decline in the "home of the free" and a rise in the "I don't give a damn".

 

On the other, many Patriots did vote.  The decision, in my opinion, was hardly a difficult one to make because there was no amount of bias that could fool anyone after all the candidates were clearly exposed.  This election was about the "everything else be damned" will of the Patriots that voted. 

 

In the end, I am finding some comfort , as the final numbers are being totaled, in the fact that I am among the majority of Patriots who got beyond the bias to get it correct.  Bias may be rampant as you have said; but being determinedly steadfast at paying attention to the candidates ideas and goals can help you get to the correct decision.



#3 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 04 December 2016 - 01:26 AM

I am actually a little relieved that many do not vote, I don’t consider it patriotic TO vote, I consider it privilege of citizenship. If it could be done fairly, “I doubt it could” I think people should be required to pass a test that qualified them as competent to cast a vote (along with a national voter ID card).

 

I consider it patriotic NOT to burn or desecrate our flag, to stand for the national anthem and to help veterans and your fellow Americans when you can.

 

I’m more worried that some voters vote with little or no knowledge of what they’re voting for. Civics is no longer taught in school, if you can’t name nor select from a picture, the VP for each party, they should not be voting, they’ve not done their homework. (This situation alone does lend some credence to super delegates but I don’t think they’re used the way they were intended)

 

I consider myself very adept at finding information online, I was doing SEO in the 90’s, and I found it very,  very difficult to find accurate information this election, so I know someone that can’t name key players has made little to no effort researching the key issues. If they relied on CNN or any other main stream outlet, they were herded to the poles, they didn’t drive themselves there. 

 

I don't think the polls being off by as much as they was accidental, they were premeditated actions to sway the gullible voter, it's a long standing fact that Democrat turnout is much, much higher when their candidate is leading and much lower when they're not. By showing leads in poll after poll, then alluding to the accurate polls as a cattle prod they were able to use both sides of that psychological coin for benefit. (By feigning questions as to how could they have been so wrong, allows them to side step the whole, "we were trying to sway/rig the election and it didn't work, oops) situation. 

 

I believe the ONLY thing that allowed this election to bend to the will of the people was social media and Trump's ability to use it to hold the media accountable. I think that's the reason they (the media) were so out in the open biased, they could no longer float their semi half truths and let them drift through the public conscious, instead they were instantly sunk by 140 character tweet storms.  


Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#4 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 04 December 2016 - 10:45 AM

I am actually a little relieved that many do not vote, I don’t consider it patriotic TO vote, I consider it privilege of citizenship. If it could be done fairly, “I doubt it could” I think people should be required to pass a test that qualified them as competent to cast a vote (along with a national voter ID card)....I consider it patriotic NOT to burn or desecrate our flag, to stand for the national anthem and to help veterans and your fellow Americans when you can.....I’m more worried that some voters vote with little or no knowledge of what they’re voting for. Civics is no longer taught in school, if you can’t name nor select from a picture, the VP for each party, they should not be voting, they’ve not done their homework.

 

 Disenfranchising citizens, whatever the purpose, is an extreme remedy for what ails this country.  Such remedies have the potential to be a gargantuan problematic headache with unintended consequences that are so numerous as there is not enough ink or time for adequate discussion. 

 

Serving in the Armed Forces, as you have done and members of my own immediate family have and are doing, is an act of patriotism.  Voting is also an act of patriotism. Citizenship, unlike patriotism, is acquired at birth or through immigration; its is or it requires one to acquire it.  Exercising ones constitutional rights comes with citizenship.  Helping fellow citizens is an act of charity and a barometer of ones compassion towards others.

 

As for the recent national election, the simple and rather easy task for the voters was to determine who of the candidates had the skills, judgment and character to be the titular leader of the country.  There was an unsurpassed amount of actual statements and proposals made by the candidates that were printed, aired and telecast to enable those who were patriotically interested to cast a vote and to do so one way or the other.

 

IMO, the election, for those who voted, came down to who of the candidates best held the requisite skills, judgement and character to be the titular leader of the country.  Even with a bias media, like you and like me, a bias media could not have prevented me from using my reason and my own judgment to make the correct choice. The actual vote totals for each of the candidates signify that a majority of voters were able to utilize both reason and judgment, in spite of bias.

 

I voted very early; and I knew all that I had to know as soon as the candidates officially received their nomination. As such, I could have voted at that time with confidence who of the candidates met the criteria I believe to be important. 

 

All of the media stuff ,as I see it, was theater, commercialization of the election and ratings.  Blaming media bias is scapegoating the fact that a significant segment of eligible voters apparently could not care less for the democracy for which they are both lucky and privilege to have.

 

On a personal note, was it your tour of duty that explains that you have been MIA from the Forum during large periods of time? B)



#5 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 04 December 2016 - 10:15 PM

Unfortunately, Charter doesn't carry One America News. I'd watch OAN more often if it were on my lineup.

 

I'm not a huge fan of their evening FOX-like political talk shows, but I do like their typical daytime newscasts.

 

One America News applies a broadcast-style news format to their typical newscasts. They will talk about one news story for a couple of minutes, then move on to the next story, then the next story, then the next story, etc. From what I've seen so far, their typical newscasts are fairly objective.

 

FOX News, MSNBC, and CNN air political talk shows all day long, and they tend to focus on only one or two big news stories every day.


- Dylan


#6 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 06 December 2016 - 11:50 AM

Personally, I listen to NPR.  I can't think of a time when they are reporting the news, where opinion is added from the newscasters.

 

If you are truly interested in listening to both sides of an issue, then shows like The Diane Rhem Show and Intelligence Squared are great.  The Diane Rhem Show goes into topics with experts from all sides of an issue.  Intelligence Squared is an actual debate.  Like a for real debate, with rules and decorum and everything.  There are no shouting matches on any of these shows.

 

I also really enjoy their other programming like Planet Money, where they did a whole series on buying oil.  They actually bought something like a 1,000 barrels of oil (can't remember the exact amount) and followed it all the way from pumping it out of the ground to turning it into gasoline.  They did a similar thing with t-shirts.



#7 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 06 December 2016 - 12:34 PM

Personally, I listen to NPR.  I can't think of a time when they are reporting the news, where opinion is added from the newscasters.

 

If you are truly interested in listening to both sides of an issue, then shows like The Diane Rhem Show and Intelligence Squared are great.  The Diane Rhem Show goes into topics with experts from all sides of an issue.  Intelligence Squared is an actual debate.  Like a for real debate, with rules and decorum and everything.  There are no shouting matches on any of these shows.

 

I also really enjoy their other programming like Planet Money, where they did a whole series on buying oil.  They actually bought something like a 1,000 barrels of oil (can't remember the exact amount) and followed it all the way from pumping it out of the ground to turning it into gasoline.  They did a similar thing with t-shirts.

 

I think NPR does a good job of employing "the fairness doctrine" in this post-fairness age, but they definitely lean left.  They try to be fair, but it's pretty clear to me that most of the people doing the reporting have a left-leaning slant when they report.

 

When it comes to reporting about the American political scene, I actually like the perspective of distance that The Economist provides.  They don't exactly have a horse in the race (other than what the U.S. does impacts the U.K., but they don't advocate to the same extent as most U.S. publications).


My blog: Doohickie

#8 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts

Posted 06 December 2016 - 05:47 PM

When the so-called news reporters are either in shock of disappointment or glee of happiness on the set during a live broadcast, you know you aren't getting unbiased reporting. Too many TV news reporters aren't journalists anymore, they are TV personalities. The days of news professionals on TV went with the last of the WWII reporters - Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, and HarrynRasoner, etc.
the only source for real news is the AP news wire. Who, what, when, where, and why are rarely answered by news prints today. Instead we get one liners; drain the swamp, build the wall, lock her up, etc.. - and name calling; sexist, racist, homophobic, liar, etc...





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: News, Politics, Elections, News Bias, CNN, FOX, OANN.com, Information

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users