"If you're getting your news from CNN you have no idea whatsoever what those who get their news from Fox know, because you will never hear it. Most studies find exactly the opposite, in fact. Remember, people CHOOSE their sources for news, and they do so intelligently, contrary to liberal belief. Lying to them or slanting the truth loses you audience. Compare Fox News and CNN and you will see it, plain as day."Now what do you think, is there really a huge conspiracy out there where the Liberals, Conservatives, Whole Organizations, etc are actually working to twist FACTS and state LIES? Or do they truly believe what they are writing, saying, etc is the TRUTH / FACTS?
If you answer twisting and lying, who do you think is the biggest LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE and why?
The reason it fascinates me is because it comes down to intent. Are they really evil tyrannical manipulators or honest well intentioned engaged citizens, news people, politicians, etc? That is a pretty big difference that seems very important to me.
As you are aware, I like to peruse all types of information sources so that I can understand the play from the perspective of all seats in the theater. Be it from the Left, Middle, Right or some other country. Overall I think most folks are being honest based on their perspective of reality, and I find it amusing when folks call these fellow citizens liars.
Finally, what important sources did I miss below?
G2A Snopes and Relativity
Blind Spots
CNN
FOX News
Aljazheera (English)
BBC News
Huffington Post
EIB network
The Nation
20 comments:
Oh, I have opinions on this topic:
--I think people don't pay enough attention to news. They read/listen to analysis or opinion and treat it as news. It's not. You don't get news from watching an hour of Beck or O'Reilly or Olbermann. And less from blogs (no offense, John ;-).
--I'm not at all opposed to gathering info from all sources, and more people should do it. I'm pretty well acquainted with the local right wing talkers and read WSJ and Washington Times on occasion. And I read blogs from all sides of the spectrum.
--There are usually two sides to any issue. That doesn't mean they are intellectually equal or should be covered 50/50. That's a weird idea that's surfaced in the past few decades.
--I think FOX is in the process of a much-needed course correction. Ailes realized his org was going a little off the rails after the '10 midterms, and he's done some good things with transparency and reining in the worst of the rhetoric. Still right-leaning, but no longer quite so wild-eyed.
--The WSJ has gone downhill since being acquired by News Corp. I used to really appreciate and respect them, but of late it's gotten pretty weird over there.
--Sites like HuffPo and EIB don't qualify as news.
--I'm most concerned with the quality of the reporting. I think TV news is fine for breaking news, but pretty worthless for content--my one exception is 60 Minutes. Blogs and talk radio are good for reinforcing your beliefs. For real in-depth reporting you pretty much still can only rely on print (and their websites). I like the boring all-text/no picture magazines for really in-depth stuff, but again, that's not always or necessarily news.
--That said, for straight-up strength of reporting, I pick the NYT and BBC newsrooms. Politico does a good job for Washington stuff. For local, I read both papers, even though they've both suffered in quality from their newsroom cuts. MinnPost has some really solid in-depth reporting-- quality is often very good but quantity is slim. MPR has stepped up its game on news.
--WNYC produces a radio show called "On the Media". Really good look at what gets covered, by whom, and from what angles.
--Annie
First, to answer the questions:
No, there is no conspiracy, on either side, but there is a remarkable unanimity of leftist worldviews in the major "news" media. In other words, they not only believe what they're saying, but believe they are being objective.
Annie makes an excellent point that most people don't pay much or enough attention to the political news, much of what they think they know is simply a reflection of the unconscious bias of reporters. Since something like 57% of the population gets most or all of their news from the TV networks and newspapers, the amount of missing information must be staggering.
I commend those of you capable of reading a wide ideological range of news sources, and commend you more so for recognizing them as such. I had to stop reading the Startribune altogether because the cloud of bias was simply too thick. Instead, I read a variety of "conservative" news sources and take from them, for the most part, just the raw, underlying facts. Given (enough of) the facts, I believe I can make up my own mind. What passes for a fact, however, on much of the major media, is what someone else in the major media has said about something rather than the underlying fact. You know the way it goes. CBS news says, "the latest CNN/Gallup poll has Newt Gingrich up by two points in Iowa." Okay, that's what CNN found, so why is that news? This isn't a horse race, and I don't want to bounce one tout's opinion off of another's; I want to know which horse really has the strongest legs and the smartest jockey and the best record in 5 furlongs. What did Gingrich actually SAY or do to gain this lead? Much of this major media polling is simply done so they will have something to talk about, and when it comes to the Startribune for example, their polls are intended to discourage Republicans and encourage Democrats. I know they don't believe it, and I won't even begin to speak about their motivations, but their polls certainly have that effect. Is it therefore a fact, even though it may not be intended?
Sorry, I'm rambling. Again, there are few lies in news reporting. They may repeat lies without fact checking – that's common – or they may mislead by their choice of, or emphasis on, stories also common. This complicates the search for the truth and most people simply do not or will not take that kind of time. That being the case, I find that conservative news and opinion ("conservatively biased" only in relation to the left-leaning major media) make it easier to find the facts on any given subject.
J. Ewing
Among other things, news coverage is biased toward even handedness, and a he said she said mentality. It reports what people are willing to say, but has a very difficult time of it if no one is willing to say the truth. Also, a lot of reporters are simply bad. They got their job because of the way they look or family connections, and their terror of losing them determines the way they cover the news.
--Hiram
Oh, I have opinions on this topic. You'll just have to wait because my favorite news source , The Daily Show, just came on.
G2A is not a viable news source ???
My illusions are crushed ....
Oh my.... How will I go on...
(hahahahahahahaha)
Probably makes sense since I rarely see the professionals asking questions. They must be really smart to be so sure of everything...
John,
I actually depend on blogs and cable news commentary for nearly all my information. Your little blog is a bit light on both news and opinions that interest me, although I do enjoy reading it.
As for the pants on fire awards, I have been persuaded it foes to Faux news and many in the GOP presidential field, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Romney, in that order. Politifact has a full file on each of the three.
Laurie raises an interesting issue. The first is definitional, in that a "lie" is a specific form of informational error, but I want to overlook that for the issue she raises. That is, WHO DECIDES whether something is a "lie" or not? She cites Gingrich, Bachmann and Romney, but I haven't heard any of them utter a lie. Perhaps we need some examples, so we can determine the criteria being used?
J. Ewing
Today's political news has forced me to amend my opinions:
TV IS still home to a few really good reporters--hats off to Pat Kessler for breaking the big story.
And as for lying.. . . I think there was some baldfaced lying going on yesterday, not by the media, but by Koch and by GOP chiefs. I think pols are allowed a personal life, but I think it interferes to the point where it abruptly ends your leadership position, it ceases to be personal and becomes public. I have things to say about family values, taking personal responsibility, and the sanctity of marriage, but I'll save that for another day.
--Annie
I assume this is the one. News Story
Now did he find out about this before the news conference, and that's why they had it? Or is he just reporting what the news conference said? I am missing the timeline here.
I didn't see any lies coming from Sen. Koch or the Republicans on Thursday. That's not to say there weren't any, just that I personally didn't happen to see them. Obviously, the whole story wasn't being told, but that was pretty clear at the time.
From what I hear, the rumor mill was churning for quite some time, and reporters were reporting less than they had been hearing. Kessler didn't name names last night but Hauser did. But there were widely disseminated hints, particularly surrounding Sen. Parry's scheduled and then cancelled news conference.
--Hiram
I think there is a peculiar brand of lying that is both more and less wrong than other kinds, and that is political lying.
We all know the old joke about how to know if a politician is lying, and that the more words he speaks the bigger the lie. But golly, I do not want to know every tawdry detail of who is shagging whom, and how. I applaud a politician for wanting more "family time," regardless of the real reason. It is the kind of lie I favor, even if I know it is a lie.
The other kind of political lie is the usual one, that "unemployment checks create 600,000 jobs" as Nancy Pelosi claims, or that "Republicans want dirty water and dirty air and senior citizens thrown over a cliff" as Obama and others have claimed. Those are stupid or despicable, respectively, and deserving of derision and disdain, but we don't get that from our press, we get this other, personal bilge.
J. Ewing
J-
about the lying GOP presidential candidates -
I did mention politifact as a source to see what their combined total of nearly 100 lies are regarding.
Also, I haven't paid much attention to the news lately and am curious about this:
"Republicans want dirty water and dirty air and senior citizens thrown over a cliff" as Obama ... has claimed.
It just doesn't sound like something he would say. I believe your statement attributing these comments to him may be a lie, perhaps originating in some news source of yours.
Lastly, even some conservatives view Romney as a flip flopping liar.
Why Does Romney Lie?
Interesting site... Politifact
All, Thoughts are they biased or fact based? Can we agree they are a ggood source?
PolitiFact is entirely solid. Pulitzer-award winning and they give out true and false to both parties. Michele Bachmann herself cited them recently. Unfortunately, she said they found her statements to be true, when in fact they found her statements to be false.
--Annie
I think politifact does a good, though not perfect job. I disagree with some of their labels such as if a statement is false or "pants on fire" false. btw, Obama has a far better true to false ratio than any of the major GOP presidential candidates.
"Obama has a far better true to false ratio than any of the major GOP presidential candidates." -- Laurie
If that is true, not that I am doubting you at all, then Politifact is grossly unreliable as a source. Obama lies easily, in the normal sense of the word. See the following.
Annie, see it for yourself
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/17/obama_gop_wants_dirtier_air_dirtier_water_less_people_with_health_insurance.html
J. Ewing
For your convenience. Real Clear Politics Obama
I was thinking politifact seemed a little bit Left leaning based on the "promises kept" section. Though I haven't taken much time to look into it.
J, so, you're refuting a Pulitzer-prize winning site that roots out lies by right and left (Politifact) with a site that was founded by conservatives actively seeking to counter an anti-conservative, anti-Christian bias (Politifact). I think the nub of the perception of what is truth is evident right there. This is where I become most frustrated with my friends on the right. The truth--the researched, verified, quantified truth--isn't accepted because it sometimes run counter to their opinions. So they seek out a site that has a different opinion and then creates a false equivalency between the two.
Politifact researches statements that garner attention in the mainstream and social media, so people who say provocative things on a regular basis get a thick file (coughMicheleBachmanncough) But the liberals get taken to task as well, and Obama gets spanked plenty. the Obameter chides him for an equal amount of promises "stalled, broken or compromised" as "kept".
--Annie
Annie,
The video was apparently from MSNBC, and it certainly seems that Pres Obama was saying that the GOP wants dirtier air, dirtier water and fewer people with health insurance. If Obama denied this later, then he lied.
As for the belief statement itself, it seems pretty truthful. Though commenting on intent is always dangerous, since most of can not read minds.
J,
It seems to me that the GOP does want dirtier air, dirtier water and fewer people on health insurance. Considering these are relative topics and the far Left Liberals want pristine air and water, and 100% healthcare coverage no matter the cost. So anything would be less.
So where is the lie?
The lie is in saying the GOP-- every 75 million of us or so-- /wants/ these awful things. As you said, he cannot possibly know this about ANY of us, let alone all of us. He's never heard any of us say this, so he is in essence quoting something we never said. That is a flat out lie, and a damnable one at that. It attempts to slander a whole 1/2 the nation.
Again, there is that problem. Unless you can prove something is factual-- that it is there for your own eyes to see, repeatedly and in context-- you are relying on information that may or may not convey what the actual fact would. For example, Newt Gingrich makes a statement. That is a fact. IF it is reported accurately and in context, you may be able to form an opinion about what was said, but you cannot call it a lie without a lot of other facts to dispute not just what was said but the actual INTENT of what was said.
So much of the political sturm und drang of politics is based on grabbing one vote or one small statement, perhaps years back, and amplifying that into some unacceptably radical position that the candidate does not actually hold. I always say, "don't tell me what the other guy wants to do or will do, tell me what YOU will do."
J. Ewing
Post a Comment