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.
You're right, it's the right wing goons that eat up the propaganda that is fed to them. They have been programmed to see any news that isn't hard right as "liberal" and that only their right wing biased outlets are "fair and balanced"
But I'm sure you think MSNBC, the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, and ThinkProgress are "fair and balanced," right?
Most news outlets, whether TV or print, biased and have been so for as long as they have been in existence. Some are pretty blatant, some are more subtle. At least Fox is open about what they do. The others are not so honest.
Most news outlets, whether TV or print, biased and have been so for as long as they have been in existence. Some are pretty blatant, some are more subtle. At least Fox is open about what they do. The others are not so honest.
I agree with you with MSNBC being the worse, i find, the worse. It is so obvious which news outlets are bias, it is written all over the faces.
I had to vote for the first two. While I think liberal bias is much more widespread, I was so disappointed in Fox News this primary season that I've sworn off their entire line-up now except for Cavuto and The Five and The Five is only hanging on because of Eric Bolling. If Bolling goes, The Five loses me, too.
I see all of them cherry picking stories that suits the Democrat Machine or Republican Machine agenda. For the regular networks, they have to cherry pick their stories because of time constraints but what's 24/7 cable news' excuse? Just remember, guests that appear on their shows don't grow on trees. Somebody in the establishment has to be sucked up to. Does that alter how they tell a story? You decide.
I'd like to know which of the opinion jockeys on in prime time have a degree in economics or finance. Just because they're louder than the so-called experts they bring on their shows doesn't make the opinion jockeys right. It's the reason they didn't see the downturn coming when it did. Their excuse is it's over their audience's head. I think it's over their head.
Watch them dumbing down stories. Know when it's sweeps months (ratings during those months dictate how much they can charge for advertising) and take note of the kinds of sensational stories they do, then. That goes for your regular TV shows, too.
Know the difference between an opinion jockey and a news anchor or news reporter. News anchors and news reporters shouldn't be offering up opinions. Watch for it.
I also catch the opinion jockeys time and again creating poll data confusion for the audience. Job approval ratings given by every adult that picks up the telephone for a survey does not equate to how the President will do on Election Day. If you want to know if people will vote for the President on Election day you poll voters not adults. All adults are entitled to their opinion about how the President does his job but they all don't vote nor are they all even eligible to vote but the opinon jockeys are counting on the public not to know the difference...unless of course, they don't know, either. Those job approval samples are representative of adults. They are not representative of voters. It's not the pollsters fault that the opinion jockeys are running amuck with their poll results and what it really means. There are other polls of likely voters or even registered voters. Use those for Election Day predictions and pay attention to margin of error and confidence levels. The reason some of the polls seem to vary greatly is the difference between polling all adults, registered voters, likely voters and confidence levels and margins of error. Be wary of poll averaging. The only time polls should be averaged is if the methodology is the same.
In print, watch for where in the story they bury a tidbit, where in the newspaper they bury a story, how many times they report on something on the front page, which sources are named and which aren't, what's in quotes and what isn't, even in the same sentence, language (everyone that's Republican is right-wing something but when was the last time you read about left wing so and so in their newspaper?, non-follow up on the stories or only a paragraph or two buried in the newspaper for stories that turn out to be just plain wrong or that didn't evolve the way they planned (and where in the newspaper, if at all, you find that follow up), photographs that slant a story (including how crowd scenes are cropped to make the crowds look bigger or smaller, look alikes, younger or older photographs of people, wild-eyed photos out of context, etc.) who advertises full page ads with them, who they give money to or what organizations they tout, what social affairs they attend with the people they write about, etc.
I like the new media (Internet) because they don't pretend to be balanced. I also think they tell stories without worrying whether some establsihment hotshot isn't going to like them because of it. I also think the analysis is better.
BUT, watch the news gatherers (Google News, Drudge, etc.) and placement of stories.
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.
