Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

That is an opinion I don't agree with sorry... or is it that you just can't think for yourself?

How can you argue with years of elite journalism training not availible to the common citizen?

Chapter Six, in which Steyr, having completely invalidated his argument by saying it's all subjective, retreates behind a smokescreen of grumpiness, while his former ally Cyberpawz lobs fire in his direction. Will our hero escape?

Im sure it will be a Pulitzer prize winning story no doubt.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Chapter Six, in which Steyr, having completely invalidated his argument by saying it's all subjective, retreates behind a smokescreen of grumpiness, while his former ally Cyberpawz lobs fire in his direction. Will our hero escape?

Im sure it will be a Pulitzer prize winning story no doubt.

Though of course it's all subjective.

I trust journalists to be completely non biased.

Not quite

StaticAge wrote:

Here is something to chew on. In an earlier thread, our dear pawzie was worried about an atmosphere of inactivity, where no one DID anything. Yet, he seems to wish for news reported with no bias, no commentary, just the facts ma'am, a sort of invisible anonymous news source.

Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that the two are connected? That disinterested reflection and curiousity and lack of meaningful action is generated by press which encourages no perspective? Detached presentation of the issues only begets detached reflection; nihilism begets nihilism.

Every cry for "no bias, no bias" is begging for "no changes, no action, no passion."

Facts don't lie...

But there also was plenty of criticism. Among the poll's findings:
•58 percent say journalists have too much influence over what happens in the world.
   
[b]•74 percent say reporters tend to favor one side over the other when covering political and social issues.
   
•About half say the press tends to exaggerate problems or is too sensational in its coverage.[/b\
   
•77 percent say they think a news story is sometimes killed or buried if it is embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a press organization.

Don't know about you, but when half of the country seems to agree with me, and almost 3/4th of the people agree with me about the news being biased, I don't know... I think I might have stumbled upon something.

Last edited by Cyberpawz (2006-05-03 8:22 am)

StaticAge wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

Facts don't lie...

Don't know about you, but when half of the country seems to agree with me, and almost 3/4th of the people agree with me about the news being biased, I don't know... I think I might have stumbled upon something.

If the opinion is that widespread, how could you have helped but "stumble into it?" I mean, what profound insight is offered by noticing what everyone else already believes?

My point has nothing to do with that anyway. I am not saying it is or isnt true, I am just saying that wanting an unbiased press fits in with an inactive and disassociated public.

I think editorials would fill in that void nicely. However, editorials shouldnt masquerade as news stories.

StaticAge wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

Facts don't lie...

Don't know about you, but when half of the country seems to agree with me, and almost 3/4th of the people agree with me about the news being biased, I don't know... I think I might have stumbled upon something.

If the opinion is that widespread, how could you have helped but "stumble into it?" I mean, what profound insight is offered by noticing what everyone else already believes?

My point has nothing to do with that anyway. I am not saying it is or isnt true, I am just saying that wanting an unbiased press fits in with an inactive and disassociated public.

Well it seems people here don't think there is a problem.  I didn't stumble upon it, I knew about it quite some time ago, I had to prove to people here (the same ones that don't believe that there is liberal biased in the news in general) that there was...

As for your 2nd point... not really. It would allow people to make their own decisions, instead of the news companies, or papers making it for them. Instead of being biased to one side or another, you would have to show both sides of an argument fairly to be able to allow people to actually make a decision.  If that means that we kill 24 hr news and make it like it was when I was a kid, then so be it.

Some people here have to remember the 5 O'clock news, then perhaps the 7:00 for those who got out later... and then the next time something would show up unless something important happened would be 5:00 and then at 8:00 the next morning again...

News should be thought out, thorough, and detailed... if something news breaking comes on, then they say just in: etc... and then do research on it to give the people a more detailed look into what happened if possible, and then come on the air back with any information about the topic, and if they don't they say we are still looking into it, because we don't know enough to report about it yet.

That is what news use to be like, now it is, just in, lets us bring you to the scene now... and then the reporter speculates without knowing ANY facts which pisses me off royally...  and in many cases has to re-state the facts, and I have never seen anyone apologize on air that they reported the wrong facts originally either.

Not to mention that at 6:00 they report what they did at 5:00, at 7:00 they report the same thing at 6:00 mayhap with more detail, etc...and it would go through until about 11:00 at night but not enough to really dictate the story should be restated again.

I'm sorry, that is not the way to report, and even SS has to agree with that.

A great example of that would of been when Princess Diana died... I watched the live coverage of it when it was happening... for 4 hours no one could say anything, or say what was going on, or how it happened... so the reporters speculated, and those speculations became rumors, etc... they did that for several hours without any hard core facts, all programs were cut out because of it, etc... I remember how they would of said, we now bring you back to your regularly scheduled program, and we will get back to you once we know more... you almost never see that any more...

Cyberpawz wrote:

Well it seems people here don't think there is a problem.  I didn't stumble upon it, I knew about it quite some time ago, I had to prove to people here (the same ones that don't believe that there is liberal biased in the news in general) that there was...

Yeah, you did a swell job too.

As for your 2nd point... not really. It would allow people to make their own decisions, instead of the news companies, or papers making it for them. Instead of being biased to one side or another, you would have to show both sides of an argument fairly to be able to allow people to actually make a decision.  If that means that we kill 24 hr news and make it like it was when I was a kid, then so be it.

See, that's it, right there. Your mentality is that the news is so powerful, that any opinion inserted in it will imprint itself on everybody else. People will not form any opinion of their own because the printed bias is so strong. So, if the media is so powerful, isnt it logical then that the impassioned reflection would also imprint itself? Your argument fails either in one sense or the other.

Cyberpawz wrote:

Facts don't lie...

But there also was plenty of criticism. Among the poll's findings:
•58 percent say journalists have too much influence over what happens in the world.
   
[b]•74 percent say reporters tend to favor one side over the other when covering political and social issues.
   
•About half say the press tends to exaggerate problems or is too sensational in its coverage.[/b\
   
•77 percent say they think a news story is sometimes killed or buried if it is embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a press organization.

Don't know about you, but when half of the country seems to agree with me, and almost 3/4th of the people agree with me about the news being biased, I don't know... I think I might have stumbled upon something.

So, just because its commonly thought that the news is biased, it is ?  How many of those 58% whom say "journalists have too much influence over what happens in the world" can find France on a map ?

Cyberpawz wrote:

Well it seems people here don't think there is a problem.  I didn't stumble upon it, I knew about it quite some time ago, I had to prove to people here (the same ones that don't believe that there is liberal biased in the news in general) that there was...

You didn't "prove" that such bias exists, you've demonstrated that a certain percentage of people believe there is a bias (from a survey of less than 500 people).

Some people here have to remember the 5 O'clock news, then perhaps the 7:00 for those who got out later... and then the next time something would show up unless something important happened would be 5:00 and then at 8:00 the next morning again...

People likely remember them because they're still aired.

That is what news use to be like, now it is, just in, lets us bring you to the scene now... and then the reporter speculates without knowing ANY facts which pisses me off royally...  and in many cases has to re-state the facts, and I have never seen anyone apologize on air that they reported the wrong facts originally either.

I'm left with the impression that you never watch the news, then.

I remember how they would of said, we now bring you back to your regularly scheduled program, and we will get back to you once we know more... you almost never see that any more...

This all sounds like nostalgia on your part.

Robert B. wrote:

•58 percent say journalists have too much influence over what happens in the world.

Got any examples? I kind of wonder how you think journalists are pulling the strings on world events.

Dude, c'mon! That's lesson one in journalism school.

JakeTheTall wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Robert B. wrote:

Got any examples? I kind of wonder how you think journalists are pulling the strings on world events.

Dude, c'mon! That's lesson one in journalism school.

No, the first rule of journalism school is that you don't talk about journalism school !

:: slaps forehead ::

Yellow journalism. For the color of newsprint used by Pulitzer's papers.