Kevin's Watch

Been awhile since anyone's posted in here, so I thought I'd bring up a subject that affects us all. Your thoughtson Media Bias.

Is it possible to present the news without being bias. Does it matter to you. Any specific outlets of media you choose to follow, why are those important to you?

Your thoughts?

Ooop, posted in Philosophy when it should be in with Politics, some mod kindly move it to the proper place. Thank you.

It's a load of hooey. Real news sources (CNN, NBC, etc.) are not biased towards the left. In fact, alot of them go out of their way not to "harsh" on the right fearing the repercussion of being CALLED biased (one of the truly great victories of the right is the creation of this illusion and the reaction by credible media sources to the illusion).

Fox news, Limbaugh, even the leftie channel w/ Al Franken are not credible news sources as their bias, no matter what they might say, is evident to even the most common listener. Anyone (left or right) who claims otherwise is either a doofus or fooling themselves or both.

The thing I don't like about the "news" anymore. Is that 90% of it isn't news reporting. It is people's opinions on the news. I think news should be reporting of facts and not peoples opinions on what the facts mean. Some of the opinions are the reporters opinions, the writers opinions, and professional opinions. That is one of the reasons I don't watch the news anymore.

I'm gonna have to go with the BBC as the best news source. Still, its always best to get as great a variety as possble and not really on just one source

Clearly this is wrong. The only unbiased news you get is on Bid-Up TV. Not only that but you get the opportunity to buy vast quantities of cubic zirconia at rock-bottom prices. oh la la.

Sorry, I have lowered the tone, and am ashamed, ooh aint that another thread I can hegemonise...?

You are worse than darth, Emma

That is so terribly disturbing Ur-Vile...

I know . . . I take it back. Forgive me?

Never!!!!! (oh, all right then...)

I completely agree with Nightraven. After anybody who's job is being in front of the camera becomes remotely famous, they stop telling us what happened, and start telling us why it happened, and what should have been done.

However, I disagree with A Gunslinger. It is not possible for human beings to do anything that is free of bias. If nothing else, some amount of bias goes into how they decide which stories to tell us about, whether it's each station's decision, or media in general.

There is no part of the news that isn't baised... Which means that there is no part of the news that can be completely the truth. Which is a shame...

We never get truth in the news today... I read the Daily Mail and other papers like that, and am sickened by the amount of lies, over exaggerating of the media... *sigh*

You're painting with a broad brush, Darth, but at least you're steering this conversation towards the definition of truth.

How would you define truth, and how would you propose the media distribute it?

Fist and Faith wrote:I completely agree with Nightraven. After anybody who's job is being in front of the camera becomes remotely famous, they stop telling us what happened, and start telling us why it happened, and what should have been done.

However, I disagree with A Gunslinger. It is not possible for human beings to do anything that is free of bias. If nothing else, some amount of bias goes into how they decide which stories to tell us about, whether it's each station's decision, or media in general.

Yes humans have biases, but credible news sources and their reporters generally do a decent job og not allowing them to intrude to the point where bias becomes miseleading the public. This is the sort of bias, I believe the intent of the intial question was trying to invoke. This is where the Limbaughs, the Foxs, the Frankedns and the O'rileys depart. They mislead as an extension of bias. The bas*ards!