Personally, I trust the Newsers just as much today as I always have!
I turned it off fifteen years ago.
I haven’t watched TV or Cable news in years. I read a lot, and I’ll watch the occasional clip on the Net, but ALL of it is, generally, crap. They each preach to their choir while in a quest for ratings. From MSNBC to Fox and everything in between they are all useless. People need to stop listening to pundits saying what they (listeners) HOPE is true and get the facts for themselves.
Only reason I buy a newspaper nowadays is coupons and the comics. Even those are available online. I rarely watch tv news, not even Fox (”fair and balanced” my arse).
As far as news goes...
...This ain’t it
Ya think?
I haven’t watched the Leftist POS news in decades.
The MSM long ago ceased making any effort to report any semblance of real news. They clearly support the leftist agenda and are ‘shaping’ the news to convey that point of view in the most favorable way. Conversely, the MSM (PBS included) attacks all things conservative. Most people are pretty much aware by now that the MSM are purveyors of propaganda dressed up as ‘news’. The alphabet news organizations have completely lost what little credibility they ever had and are no better than their erstwhile Russian counterparts Tass or Isvestia.
Yahoo! and its recent alliance with new soulmate CNBC are a virtual political attack machine that makes the rest of the MSM look fair minded by comparison.
What’s that other ABC twit named Brian? No mention of “Gun Walker” for what, 18 months, give or take?
DUH. Tell us something we didn't already figure out about 10 years ago.
I thought we had a little hope with Fox. But it now appears after a few years they too are falling into the category of entertainment. Fox & Friends has turned into the Today show.
And to think that at one time they actually ran commercials mocking the lamestream media about the crap they spewed.
How about no longer SHAMELESSLY shilling for Obama and the Communist left? How about no longer pushing the gay agenda? How about no longer lying outright?
Naw. That would never work.
As you were.
It’s long past “is waning.”
Personally, I trust the Newsers just as much today as I always have!
The point is, he didn't even recognize a newspaper story about his own plane crash. If a "news" report of something as non political as a plane crash is so inaccurate that the pilot of the crash doesn't even recognize it as his own incident, just think of the distortion that is present in a political story, where the writer can't help but have a personal bias.
What I find most appalling is that so many Libs/Progressives (and I personally know three women still supporting Obama) say they watch that sick wanna-be comedienne, Jon Stewart and believe that he is an honest journalist delivering the “news.” They make their decisions based on his twisted thoughts. Same for that other hypocrite, Bill Mahar, who Libs seem to tolerate for some strange reason, and even believe. Why people want to watch what they think is “news” that has been spun by joke writers and is being spoon fed to them by people who really just want to ridicule and not report the truth, is beyond me. It says something is very lacking when a person would rather just laugh about issues, or agree with someone who makes fun of others, rather than take a serious look into what the issues really are.
But you’ll have to admit that TV keeps us up to date about the things that really matter, like when Lindsey Lohan forgets her underwear.
I think I stopped watching TV News in high school when the Cronkite was on every night bringing the daily bad news from Viet Nam into our homes. I subscribed to the WSJ in an Engineering Economics class and have kept it current almost ever since. Then, with the advent of the WWW and more reliable and honest news, who would ever need to plop themselves down in front of the boob tube to watch radical libs spout their biases as “news”?
“Trust” in TV news died with Huntley and Brinkley.
These are not accidents. They are egregious errors in judgment that could be avoided if the professional culture were more committed to accuracy and fairness, and less preoccupied with being first, showing off and sensationalizing the news.Television is still the source from which most citizens get their news. A free press was established to provide the information needs of a democracy. Television news, as the citizenry’s prime surrogate, assumes a heavy responsibility. The nation needs and deserves a television news industry that enlightens and empowers citizens.
Broadcast journalism has its licenses which limit direct competition in broadcast journalism; because of that broadcasting has a theoretical responsibility to be objective. But there is a difference between trying to be objective, and trying to look like you are being objective.In a larger sense, the problem isn’t the medium used, whether print or broadcast - the problem is the nature of journalism as we know it. The nature, that is, of the wire service.
In the founding era, newspapers were mostly weeklies, and some newspapers had no deadline at all, and just went to press when the printer was good and ready. They had no communication technology which was not accessible to the public at large, and by the time the newspaper came out on Wednesday (say) you might very well already know any news which reached the printer shortly after press time the previous Tuesday night. From the same sources the printer had. Consequently, newspapers were as much about the printer’s take on the news as they were about the news itself. IOW, newspaper printers were more like today’s talk radio hosts than like today’s “objective” journalists.
But with the wire services (and a single one, the AP, has always dominated by its own monopolistic design), journalism became homogenized. All major outlets have the same information feed, and the reporters working for the individual members of the AP aspire to have their stories picked up by other outlets nationwide. They conform their formats and their slant on their stories to the Associated Press template. And since the individual editors don’t even know, much less supervise, reporters who contribute stories to their papers via the newswire, the whole operation of wire service journalism hinges on the shared assumptions of its membership.
It is a cult.
Like all cults, it conflates its own interest with the public good. The cult of “objective” wire service journalism places the promotion of the interests intrinsic to journalism - the desire for attention, prosperity, and influence - above the interests of individual people and against the cumulative interests of people generally.
The cult of wire service journalism requires that the public assume that its priests are objective, so its membership promotes that absurd proposition incessantly. To claim objectivity - even to belong to a group which claims objectivity for you - is to foreclose the very possibility of seriously attempting to be objective. Because belief in your own objectivity is the defining characteristic of its opposite, subjectivity. No one can do the real work of attempting objectivity - no one can openly lay out the reasons why he or she might not be objective - and simultaneously claim that they actually are objective.
The cult of “objective” journalism places bad news - places criticism, condemnation, and complaint - on a plane far above getting your hands dirty by actually trying to do something. "The man who is actually in the arena” gets no respect from the cult of criticism, condemnation, and complaint.
The cult of “objective” journalism places novelty far above accuracy. Consequently “There’s nothing more worthless than yesterday’s Newspaper.” The cult of superficial attention-grabbing defines a big story as always “Man Bites Dog,” not “Dog Bites Man.”
The cult of “objective” journalism flatters anyone who promotes journalism’s ego, and heaps derision on anyone who openly considers other principles and constituencies to be more important than the cult of journalism. “Objective” journalism flatters its acolytes by calling them “liberal” or “progressive” - and derides its skeptics with terms like “conservative” and “right wing extremists.” And, during the Soviet era, “Cold Warriors.”
There is no objectivity in “objective” journalism. “Objective journalism” is a propaganda cult. One which successfully cons a very great number of Americans. Most of us have fallen for the con, at least some of the time . . .
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith