Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-16-2012, 09:32 AM   #31 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Düsseldorf and Detroit
Posts: 83
Default

Wall Street Journal (print), CNN, Google News, and local papers(online), occasionally watch TV news, some radio as well.

Try not to be too addicted to one source
steve0211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2012, 08:57 PM   #32 (permalink)
Trolier Than Thou
 
Forward To Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,328
Default

I watch whatever, and apply common sense and "you're so full of ****" sensing abilities and overall just take it with a grain of salt. The only accurate way to get the "news" is by looking into it yourself. It's a shame most people just believe their news source, and think the rival news sources suck. Fox News is biased, and so is CNN, NBC, etc.

I keep an open mind, and really I don't understand why people react to news.
Forward To Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2012, 11:02 PM   #33 (permalink)
Trolier Than Thou
 
Forward To Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,328
Default

Unless you know someone personally, you can't really objectively tell "who's saying it". Many people think Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews or Rush Limbaugh are credible and unbiased news sources. I always kinda have to chuckle when I see someone make a post on an internet forum or blog or whatever about how superior their knowledge of politics is, and Fox News is biased. Then you ask them what sources they prefer, and they say Chris Matthews or Jon Stewart.

Anyways, it's fine to watch those shows, you just have to take all of it with a grain of salt if you want to be taken seriously.
Forward To Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 12:11 AM   #34 (permalink)
Killed Laura Palmer
 
ThePhanastasio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ashland, KY
Posts: 1,667
Default

I watch a little bit of everything, and read a lot of news online. I prefer CSPAN on television, even though it can be dull as dirt. It can be just as biased as the rest of them, though. Usually, whenever I see a story breaking that piques my interest, I'll read up on it on several different news sources, and try to find the full coverage of what they're actually talking about to draw my own conclusions.
__________________

It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken
Perhaps they're better left unsung
ThePhanastasio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 11:44 AM   #35 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forward To Death View Post
Unless you know someone personally, you can't really objectively tell "who's saying it". Many people think Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews or Rush Limbaugh are credible and unbiased news sources. I always kinda have to chuckle when I see someone make a post on an internet forum or blog or whatever about how superior their knowledge of politics is, and Fox News is biased. Then you ask them what sources they prefer, and they say Chris Matthews or Jon Stewart.

Anyways, it's fine to watch those shows, you just have to take all of it with a grain of salt if you want to be taken seriously.
Stewart and Matthews are certainly bias. They aren't lead in, though, by an ad for the network saying "Fair & Balanced", neither of which Mr. O'Reilly is. And this is the problem with Fox News. They actively refute their bias. In fact O'Reilly had to change his affiliation from Republican to Independent just to keep the ghost up when the Post discovered it.

News sources often aren't perfect, but Fox is in a league of its own.
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 06:35 PM   #36 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
hip hop bunny hop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Default

Eh? By that logic, any paper that features opinion columns is biased throughout.
__________________
Have mercy on the poor.
hip hop bunny hop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 01:32 AM   #37 (permalink)
Trolier Than Thou
 
Forward To Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3 View Post
Stewart and Matthews are certainly bias. They aren't lead in, though, by an ad for the network saying "Fair & Balanced", neither of which Mr. O'Reilly is. And this is the problem with Fox News. They actively refute their bias. In fact O'Reilly had to change his affiliation from Republican to Independent just to keep the ghost up when the Post discovered it.

News sources often aren't perfect, but Fox is in a league of its own.
By what rationale? I'd like to see you substantiate the logic that claiming "fairness and balance" somehow brings Fox to a different level of bias. Open bias does not equal to less bias.

In fact, MSNBC used to play the balanced card, as almost all media outlets do, but only recently became open about their liberal bias.

Guys like O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck are very open about their political biases.

Point here: bias distorts the truth, and almost every source is guilty of having an agenda. That's why it's important to gather as much truth and detail as possible to draw conclusions that are well informed.
Forward To Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 08:51 AM   #38 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forward To Death View Post
By what rationale? I'd like to see you substantiate the logic that claiming "fairness and balance" somehow brings Fox to a different level of bias. Open bias does not equal to less bias.

In fact, MSNBC used to play the balanced card, as almost all media outlets do, but only recently became open about their liberal bias.

Guys like O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck are very open about their political biases.

Point here: bias distorts the truth, and almost every source is guilty of having an agenda. That's why it's important to gather as much truth and detail as possible to draw conclusions that are well informed.
Because its attempting to hide the bias. And its not about effecting how much bias there is, but how much bias is perceived. If you're saying a network is "Fair & Balanced" - then it should be. But even you're saying no one can be bias free.
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 02:34 PM   #39 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
hip hop bunny hop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Default

So, your primary objection is the slogan they use?
__________________
Have mercy on the poor.
hip hop bunny hop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 03:37 PM   #40 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop View Post
So, your primary objection is the slogan they use?
What else would a person object to? I agree with the rest of what he said. No one isn't bias.
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.