Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,020,628 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
I don't believe for one moment about non-biased new reporting in our media. ALL media news is biased to some extents as someone is subjectively even selecting which items are worthy of coverage and what isn't.
I don't believe for one moment about non-biased new reporting in our media. ALL media news is biased to some extents as someone is subjectively even selecting which items are worthy of coverage and what isn't.
This is pretty much my point, as if people want pure and true objectivity go speak with God. (which is subjective) lol
I don't have a problem with news/entertainment being biased and in fact, I expect it do be biased. I'm old enough I can read between the lines and know where something is coming from and make up my own mind.
However for one of the more biased commentators from one of the more biased stations making the argument that there is somehow a promise of objectivity is ludicrous and laughable.
However for one of the more biased commentators from one of the more biased stations making the argument that there is somehow a promise of objectivity is ludicrous and laughable.
Objectivity is not the main point, the main point is false equivalence. It's saying that Olbermann is the same as O'Reilly, only from the other end of the spectrum.
That is the issue here, you cannot compare one with the other solely based on someone being from FOX, the other MSNBC and opposite viewpoints being 180 degrees apart. What matters is accuracy and truth.
It's the fact checking and content that is important. Thats where Koppel is wrong when he makes comparisons between someone like O'Reilly and Olbermann, and why Olbermann called out Koppel (around the 11:00 mark) for failing to do his job in 2003, 2004, and 2005 while on Nightline and reporting on Iraq.
I remember well Ted Koppel taking a pass on investigative journalism, and why he has no room to talk about Olbermann.
I don't believe for one moment about non-biased new reporting in our media. ALL media news is biased to some extents as someone is subjectively even selecting which items are worthy of coverage and what isn't.
LOL I learned this the hard way 40 years ago. I am a vietnam veteran......nuff said
Objectivity is not the main point, the main point is false equivalence. It's saying that Olbermann is the same as O'Reilly, only from the other end of the spectrum.
That is the issue here, you cannot compare one with the other solely based on someone being from FOX, the other MSNBC and opposite viewpoints being 180 degrees apart. What matters is accuracy and truth.
It's the fact checking and content that is important. Thats where Koppel is wrong when he makes comparisons between someone like O'Reilly and Olbermann, and why Olbermann called out Koppel (around the 11:00 mark) for failing to do his job in 2003, 2004, and 2005 while on Nightline and reporting on Iraq.
I remember well Ted Koppel taking a pass on investigative journalism, and why he has no room to talk about Olbermann.
If objectivity isn't the "main point" then why is it listed as the topic theme and the theme of the Olbermann commentary?
I've watched Olbermann's rebuttal on this subject and while I still disagree with him on a variety of points, the topic still reads, "The false promise of objectivity in the media." As I've said, I've never heard the media claim the promise objectivity, although it was the unwritten goal of journalism at one point. Sorry, but Keith is not objective, but then again, no human really is. In his case, he openly shares his liberal views as he sees them and when others disagree he goes to great efforts to not only disagree but to tear them down.
Keith Olbermann, while an intelligent and eloquent speaker who gets a number of things right, is still a sensationalist peddler of exaggerated hyperbole and fear. You are certainly free to disagree but I have no general political lean to promulgate or denounce as I find the vast bulk of media today to be little more than self inflicted ignorance and imposed obedience to the moronic notion that the argument is left vs right as much as it is about liberal views or conservative views. To these people the argument is the news, not the subject of the argument.
People want to raise their IQ 10 points, turn off MSNBC and FOX and for God's sake, think for yourself, take a chance at being wrong.
in my opinion, the last time the news anywhere was objective, was in 1974. after that it became completely one sided until talk radio came about in the late 80s. at that point we get both sides, but we have to listen to both sides, and then find the truth somewhere in the middle.
I don't have that problem, as I can discern fact from fiction, and opinion from actual news
The ONLY way you can know something that happened is fact is if you were there to see it happen
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
