NO!!! There is a WIDE variety in between. Most lean towards the "left", Fox definitely leans towards the "right"....but honestly I feel that Fox just seems like it leans more to the right than it actually does because everything else REALLY leans to the left. I don't watch too much news on the tv anymore because it seems like everyone has an agenda they are trying to get across and they are always trying to sensationalize everything. Journalism is supposed to be unbiased, but if you listen carefully, you can easily tell who they want to "win" based off what they report on or how long they report on an issue. Rush Limbaugh (not saying I agree with him on everything) refers to most media as the "drive by media" because they are interested in taking cheap shots and moving on instead of finding and reporting the truth. I usually get most of my news from talk radio/Christian radio, and balance it out with liberal reporting from the Associated Press. Anything I want to know more about, I go directly to the sources' websites.
Sorry, I don't think I asked that question the way I was trying to. I think the "drive by media" thing more closely gets what I was trying to ask. The other day (we only get CNN for American News channels) I caught the NewsDesk or whatever it's called. I thought "oh here we go, the news of the day- perfect." Nope! The anchor covered maybe 5 different topics, all of which were followed by lots of commentary from a few different people trying to push their own opinion. Where are the facts? Where are the other stories? I'm pretty sure more than 5 things have happened in the whole wide world in the last 24 hours!
Ah. Josh was thinking that the radio programs tend to be more right while the TV ones tend to be more left.
But isn't some of the in-depth-ness part of the problem? (or at least my problem.) When I listen to the news I want Story #1: fact fact fact fact, Story #2: fact fact fact. Story #3 and so on. Certianly there is room for some expanded coverage on major stories, but I expect at least 15 stories in 1/2 an hour. If I want commentary, I'll go look for it on a commentary show or on the net. That's not hard to do!
Like I said, I don't watch it much, but they each have morning shows that last for several hours and then they each have news from 5-6:30 and then again at 10.
More and more commentary, imo, especially at the national level. And while I can see your point about having less explaining and just giving facts, I think it's good to get it explained too -- just as long as you have all different sides explain it. Then you can see their logic. Because I'm not an expert on everything to be able to figure out what it means. Take the economy right now. If they were to just get on there and tell me the stock numbers every day, I wouldn't have a clue what was happening. But when they have both sides explain, I can decide which one makes sense. If that makes sense. ;)
But are there really only two sides? Here, we have 5 major political parties, each with a slightly different view- do we give them all a chance to explain every little news item, spun to their ideology? American politics are both to the right of the international center. I have never heard a truly left commentator on CNN, so you're really not getting all sides anyways. Wouldn't it just be faster for everyone to go get commentary from the people that they will believe anyways?
Are you serious that you don't think you've ever heard a truly left commentator on CNN????? If you don't think they are left, I would hate to see what you do!!
Yeah, I think of them as more left too (and fox news as more right, but right's becoming lefter, if that's a word;) ... as for it being faster to go to your person you already believe to get commentary, not everyone has an opinion or cares so they wouldn't go on their own, and some people don't really know what they believe until they hear more from both sides. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I think we should be open to hearing different viewpoints instead of only listening to our own side of things or people we initially agree with. How could we grow if we didn't? If nothing else, we should see what the other side(s) are saying just so that we can logically debate with them. ;) (disclaimer: I don't always practice what I'm preaching here; I'm simply giving reasons why it might be good to hear from both sides) And no, we don't really have 5 different views, I don't think, or at least we don't usually hear them if we do... I guess I was thinking of the bailout bill for example -- I would've liked to have heard detailed reasons for and against it on the news, including the logic and support behind the arguments.
There are commentators who will have a secular approach to abortion/gay marriage, etc... but I wouldn't call that a left/right issue, but rather a secular/moral issue. I have never seen a fiscal left wing commentator (e.g. a unionist, communist, socialist) on any American news station. In Canada, our New Democratic Party (currently in 3rd place in polls, but giving the 2nd place Liberals a run for their money), is (or at least was) is anti-corporation, and pro-labour unions. Even our most right-wing party is for government-run health care. In our province our electicity/natural gas, and car insurance are all run by government bodies ("crown corporations"), and until a few years ago, our phone system was too.
Oh- maybe I wasn't clear- we have 5 major parties- so we don't have time for 5 different political views- especially if they're just trying to push their own agenda- not that I have patience for that in the first place- I usually just turn off CNN when they go the the Dem. and Rep. spokespeople.
While I agree with you that it's important to be open to new ideas and grow (or debate)- does the news only having 1 or 2, or even 3 or 4 different commentators give credience to those specific ideas and shut out the rest of the wide range of ideas out there on a specific issue?
I wasn't saying that the news provides this; I think it's often pretty one-sided. I just meant that facts alone aren't always enough for everyone. I want more than that but I also want different sides represented. Especially non-mainstream ideas. :)
Believe me, I'm sick of the commentary sometimes. Especially when it's so obviously one-sided/politically-spun and nobody seems to notice it (or maybe they do but they don't tell our leaders or our leaders don't hear them;)
chelley it goes back to the whole thing we were talking about on IM...our "representatives" aren't really representing us because most people don't jump out and call them on it. I'm so glad you are getting involved!
So before I got sick, I moderated my own comment (shame on me!) and then didn't get back on here to explain myself and re-ask my question. What I had asked, is if the socialists on CNN are actually on there to offer a reasonable point of view or as a side show? I then related this thought to having seen Pat Robinson on there early in the day. What I realized after, is that I have no idea how Robinson is viewed in the States. Here, he is only known for his blaming Katrina on the sin of New Orlenes- that they had it coming, so he's not seen in a serious light. However, that's all we see of him. How is he viewed in the States? And how are the socialists viewed on CNN? Are they Communist socialists or democratic socialists?
Feel free to sign in or just comment as "anonymous." However, if you do comment as anonymous, please sign it with some name, number or symbol so that it is easier for everyone to keep the conversation players strait. Thanks!
"It's always safer for one's sanity when you only say what you would be willing to hear from someone with whom you disagree."
Purpose
The idea behind this site is that it will serve for a forum for a continuing discussion that has been occuring on several different websites. I've asked many roving questions and some friends have valiently been answering them over the past few months. This site will hopefully organize the conversation and allow others to participate. I recognize that some topics may not make a whole lot of sense, as there has been a significant amount of conversation up until now. Feel free to ask questions to clarify the ideas and history of the authors.
I reserve the right to moderate the discussion and delete any comments that are offensive. I will attempt to be in contact with the author prior to any action.
The goal is to inform and learn, not to attempt to change people's ideas.
I am a history lover, especially that of the average person at any point in time. While it is often easy to dismiss people that do not think as one does as "crazy," it is my hope and purpose to instead understand differing viewpoints than I hold, and therefore to have a greater grasp on events as they unfold. While it is not possible to interview people from the past, it is very possible to do so for the many different cultural groups that exist in our world today. Real people are much more interesting than a history textbook (as much as I love a good read!)
My viewpoint is not the purpose of this site, although undoubtibly I will have to explain where I come from as well. In fact, in the emails between friends, it has come to that point, so it will most likely be an early post. The hope, in that case, is that others who share my experience will aid me in explaining it!
23 comments:
NO!!! There is a WIDE variety in between. Most lean towards the "left", Fox definitely leans towards the "right"....but honestly I feel that Fox just seems like it leans more to the right than it actually does because everything else REALLY leans to the left. I don't watch too much news on the tv anymore because it seems like everyone has an agenda they are trying to get across and they are always trying to sensationalize everything. Journalism is supposed to be unbiased, but if you listen carefully, you can easily tell who they want to "win" based off what they report on or how long they report on an issue. Rush Limbaugh (not saying I agree with him on everything) refers to most media as the "drive by media" because they are interested in taking cheap shots and moving on instead of finding and reporting the truth. I usually get most of my news from talk radio/Christian radio, and balance it out with liberal reporting from the Associated Press. Anything I want to know more about, I go directly to the sources' websites.
Sorry, I don't think I asked that question the way I was trying to. I think the "drive by media" thing more closely gets what I was trying to ask.
The other day (we only get CNN for American News channels) I caught the NewsDesk or whatever it's called. I thought "oh here we go, the news of the day- perfect." Nope! The anchor covered maybe 5 different topics, all of which were followed by lots of commentary from a few different people trying to push their own opinion. Where are the facts? Where are the other stories? I'm pretty sure more than 5 things have happened in the whole wide world in the last 24 hours!
That is precisely why I get most of my news from talk radio...
ah, so then all the other TV news stations are the same way..?
Are radio programs any better?
Depends on who you ask! :-D Radio programs tend to be on the conservative side...but they go more in depth into what's going on.
Ah. Josh was thinking that the radio programs tend to be more right while the TV ones tend to be more left.
But isn't some of the in-depth-ness part of the problem? (or at least my problem.) When I listen to the news I want Story #1: fact fact fact fact, Story #2: fact fact fact. Story #3 and so on. Certianly there is room for some expanded coverage on major stories, but I expect at least 15 stories in 1/2 an hour. If I want commentary, I'll go look for it on a commentary show or on the net. That's not hard to do!
That is more like our local news...
Ah.
So where do you (or more so, other people, since I know you go to internet sources) get your national and international news?
the local news also covers national and international stuff...ABC, NBC, CBS have national affiliates
They have local entities?
How do they manage to cover all of that in an hour? Do you get a lot of international news?
Like I said, I don't watch it much, but they each have morning shows that last for several hours and then they each have news from 5-6:30 and then again at 10.
More and more commentary, imo, especially at the national level. And while I can see your point about having less explaining and just giving facts, I think it's good to get it explained too -- just as long as you have all different sides explain it. Then you can see their logic. Because I'm not an expert on everything to be able to figure out what it means. Take the economy right now. If they were to just get on there and tell me the stock numbers every day, I wouldn't have a clue what was happening. But when they have both sides explain, I can decide which one makes sense. If that makes sense. ;)
But are there really only two sides?
Here, we have 5 major political parties, each with a slightly different view- do we give them all a chance to explain every little news item, spun to their ideology? American politics are both to the right of the international center. I have never heard a truly left commentator on CNN, so you're really not getting all sides anyways. Wouldn't it just be faster for everyone to go get commentary from the people that they will believe anyways?
Are you serious that you don't think you've ever heard a truly left commentator on CNN????? If you don't think they are left, I would hate to see what you do!!
Yeah, I think of them as more left too (and fox news as more right, but right's becoming lefter, if that's a word;) ... as for it being faster to go to your person you already believe to get commentary, not everyone has an opinion or cares so they wouldn't go on their own, and some people don't really know what they believe until they hear more from both sides. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I think we should be open to hearing different viewpoints instead of only listening to our own side of things or people we initially agree with. How could we grow if we didn't? If nothing else, we should see what the other side(s) are saying just so that we can logically debate with them. ;) (disclaimer: I don't always practice what I'm preaching here; I'm simply giving reasons why it might be good to hear from both sides) And no, we don't really have 5 different views, I don't think, or at least we don't usually hear them if we do... I guess I was thinking of the bailout bill for example -- I would've liked to have heard detailed reasons for and against it on the news, including the logic and support behind the arguments.
There are commentators who will have a secular approach to abortion/gay marriage, etc... but I wouldn't call that a left/right issue, but rather a secular/moral issue. I have never seen a fiscal left wing commentator (e.g. a unionist, communist, socialist) on any American news station.
In Canada, our New Democratic Party (currently in 3rd place in polls, but giving the 2nd place Liberals a run for their money), is (or at least was) is anti-corporation, and pro-labour unions. Even our most right-wing party is for government-run health care.
In our province our electicity/natural gas, and car insurance are all run by government bodies ("crown corporations"), and until a few years ago, our phone system was too.
I have definitely seen socialists on CNN...must not be watching at the same time as you... :-D
Oh- maybe I wasn't clear- we have 5 major parties- so we don't have time for 5 different political views- especially if they're just trying to push their own agenda- not that I have patience for that in the first place- I usually just turn off CNN when they go the the Dem. and Rep. spokespeople.
While I agree with you that it's important to be open to new ideas and grow (or debate)- does the news only having 1 or 2, or even 3 or 4 different commentators give credience to those specific ideas and shut out the rest of the wide range of ideas out there on a specific issue?
I wasn't saying that the news provides this; I think it's often pretty one-sided. I just meant that facts alone aren't always enough for everyone. I want more than that but I also want different sides represented. Especially non-mainstream ideas. :)
Believe me, I'm sick of the commentary sometimes. Especially when it's so obviously one-sided/politically-spun and nobody seems to notice it (or maybe they do but they don't tell our leaders or our leaders don't hear them;)
chelley it goes back to the whole thing we were talking about on IM...our "representatives" aren't really representing us because most people don't jump out and call them on it. I'm so glad you are getting involved!
aw, shucks -- thanks! :)
So before I got sick, I moderated my own comment (shame on me!) and then didn't get back on here to explain myself and re-ask my question.
What I had asked, is if the socialists on CNN are actually on there to offer a reasonable point of view or as a side show? I then related this thought to having seen Pat Robinson on there early in the day. What I realized after, is that I have no idea how Robinson is viewed in the States. Here, he is only known for his blaming Katrina on the sin of New Orlenes- that they had it coming, so he's not seen in a serious light. However, that's all we see of him. How is he viewed in the States?
And how are the socialists viewed on CNN? Are they Communist socialists or democratic socialists?
Post a Comment