• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Media Test

MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Fletch said:
The media should report news, not create it.
Click to expand...

I suppose I'm the last one to read these words....somewhere. But this is so profound to me right now that I wanted to share it as a litmus test.

Any point in discussion? Or was it obvious to everyone but me?
 
Most certainly in agreement.

The News media should report the news, the facts, what is known, not what is only guessed at, and most certainly not pass off their interpretations of the news as news itself. There needs to be a clear distinction between the factual news reporting and their commentary about the news. This is where many in the media seem to get it wrong, or at least those who are writing for the news media's talking heads, anyway.
 
MaggieD said:
I suppose I'm the last one to read these words....somewhere. But this is so profound to me right now that I wanted to share it as a litmus test.

Any point in discussion? Or was it obvious to everyone but me?
Click to expand...

News is not news, not really.
The bias presented in news, is designed for it's target audience, which is largely left leaning urban dwellers.

It's entertainment, not facts.
Don't rely on it.
 
MaggieD said:
I suppose I'm the last one to read these words....somewhere. But this is so profound to me right now that I wanted to share it as a litmus test.

Any point in discussion? Or was it obvious to everyone but me?
Click to expand...

It is a fundamental paradox of journalism. While it is psychologically impossible to escape one's own subjective view and report totally objectively, news is only really good, when it is objective id est true. So journalists cannot report objectively, but they must try.
Anglo Saxon tradition pay this fact tribute by separating news from editorial, where opinions are given.
 
a nation cannot learn or prosper when the media reports are biased..

check how they make their money to see their bias..many entertainment industry has bought the media news and both gets their money from the same thing.... being globalists and expanding markets and is the reason the media is pushing for muslims because of 1 billion more people to brainwash and drug out on entertainment and getting brainwashed.... the democrats are also these and hollywood.. if this don't wake up the women nothing will... pushing muslims who are womens worst nightmare
 
joG said:
It is a fundamental paradox of journalism. While it is psychologically impossible to escape one's own subjective view and report totally objectively, news is only really good, when it is objective id est true. So journalists cannot report objectively, but they must try.
Anglo Saxon tradition pay this fact tribute by separating news from editorial, where opinions are given.
Click to expand...

I posted up on Facebook that CNN edited a HC video to omit her reference to "bomb." A leftie BFF then posted up something about Sean Hannity saying how disgusting he is. Why is she watching him? She's a highly intelligent woman. Why does she even WATCH him? It's as if we have accepted entertainment as news. WTH??

I'm pretty conservative. NEVER watch those kinds of shows.
 
MaggieD said:
I suppose I'm the last one to read these words....somewhere. But this is so profound to me right now that I wanted to share it as a litmus test.

Any point in discussion? Or was it obvious to everyone but me?
Click to expand...

Most media bias is accomplished simply by omission. If you do not want crimes committed by illegal aliens, Islamic extremists or young black males to become news then simply report the last "crazy" or "bigoted" thing that Trump said in place of that. That is not creating news, per se, it is steering public attention in a desired direction.

Stories like Trump, again as of today, has not released his tax returns would be creating news - reporting what did not happen, just to take a shot at the opposition candidate, certainly qualifies as making news. Fox News does this too by drumming in how long it has been since Hillary has opened herself up for press questions.
 
MaggieD said:
I posted up on Facebook that CNN edited a HC video to omit her reference to "bomb." A leftie BFF then posted up something about Sean Hannity saying how disgusting he is. Why is she watching him? She's a highly intelligent woman. Why does she even WATCH him? It's as if we have accepted entertainment as news. WTH??

I'm pretty conservative. NEVER watch those kinds of shows.
Click to expand...

The internet and mass media at large, is allowing people to create there own realities.
So she watches Hannity, to reassure herself that the "demon" on the other side is real.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The internet and mass media at large, is allowing people to create there own realities.
So she watches Hannity, to reassure herself that the "demon" on the other side is real.
Click to expand...

Wow. That makes sense.
 
joG said:
It is a fundamental paradox of journalism. While it is psychologically impossible to escape one's own subjective view and report totally objectively, news is only really good, when it is objective id est true. So journalists cannot report objectively, but they must try.
Anglo Saxon tradition pay this fact tribute by separating news from editorial, where opinions are given.
Click to expand...

And once upon a time, the Fourth Estate could be trusted. I began noticing a real shift in the NY Times in 2000, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around, the gray lady had turned into a two-bit hooker for John Kerry. That's when I cancelled my 'scrip.
 
nota bene said:
And once upon a time, the Fourth Estate could be trusted. I began noticing a real shift in the NY Times in 2000, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around, the gray lady had turned into a two-bit hooker for John Kerry. That's when I cancelled my 'scrip.
Click to expand...

I think that periods of united paradigm and partisan warfare are periodic and have come and gone and will go on that way for ever and a day... unless it stops.
 
nota bene said:
And once upon a time, the Fourth Estate could be trusted. I began noticing a real shift in the NY Times in 2000, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around, the gray lady had turned into a two-bit hooker for John Kerry. That's when I cancelled my 'scrip.
Click to expand...

There is an amazing amount of independent content and commentary outside of traditional sources.
The quality of which is bar none, far and away better than the vast majority of MSM outlets.

Crazy thing is that these people are not professional journalists in any way.
 
There is no need these days to rely on the MSM.
 
MaggieD said:
I suppose I'm the last one to read these words....somewhere. But this is so profound to me right now that I wanted to share it as a litmus test.

Any point in discussion? Or was it obvious to everyone but me?
Click to expand...

That's boring and doesn't pay the bills.
 
MaggieD said:
I suppose I'm the last one to read these words....somewhere. But this is so profound to me right now that I wanted to share it as a litmus test.

Any point in discussion? Or was it obvious to everyone but me?
Click to expand...

In my opinion this media circus is a result of the removal of the fairness doctrine by Reagan in 1987. It all flows from there.
 
MaggieD said:
I suppose I'm the last one to read these words....somewhere. But this is so profound to me right now that I wanted to share it as a litmus test.

Any point in discussion? Or was it obvious to everyone but me?
Click to expand...

Maggie, we've gone off the deep end already when it comes to this stuff. There is no longer a standard for what is "news" and what is "editorial". That disappeared with the need to fill 24 hours with "news". Throw in a heaping spoonful of internet and "citizen journalists" and you've got whatever we have now.
 
It's pretty frustrating that things like how Benghazi was leveraged against Clinton are considered "news" by the uninformed masses.
 
6 corporations owns 90% of what americans read.... listen to or watches..... these all make their money from the same way... drugging out the population to waste time with their attention grabbing SYSTEM

this is OUTRAGEOUSLY harmful for a nation... teddy roosevelt understood this harm and stopped this harm and now we have trump who will do the same but they are fighting trump in a panic together this is why they promote low IQ's to vote... so that harmful crooks can fool them
 
Eh, opinion is okay as long all the facts are reported with limited bias as well. The reader then has the information to make up their own minds (thus the commentary doesn't/shouldn't affect much).

Even news entertainment/24 hour channel stuff is alright as long as they are honest about it (which most of those channels aren't).
 
coyotedelmar said:
Eh, opinion is okay as long all the facts are reported with limited bias as well. The reader then has the information to make up their own minds (thus the commentary doesn't/shouldn't affect much).

Even news entertainment/24 hour channel stuff is alright as long as they are honest about it (which most of those channels aren't).
Click to expand...

but bias makes the reporting not the same .. and since all these corporations makes their money on drugging out the population that makes them a globalist company and will make their NEWS part of their corporation help other parts to bring the most money for the corporation

OUTRAGEOUS that any big entertainment company to own the news that gets to the public...

the ones who has allowed this should be LOCKED UP..
 
We don't lock people up for this in the United States.
 
nota bene said:
We don't lock people up for this in the United States.
Click to expand...

But could we? Could false, deceitful, biased reporting lead to unfair treatment, and even incarceration, if only briefly?

This election season has seen outrageous examples of extreme bias across a large part of the MSM. It's so over the top, it's garnered Op-Ed's from it's propagators, and alarms written by fellow journalists shocked by the proliferation of such reporting.

CNN falsely reported Trump called for "Racial Profiling" in response to the weekend bombings, when a transcript of his comments prove he never called for racial profiling.

The MSM reports a police officer shot what the MSM claims to be some "unarmed" person, only to find out later he was armed, or attempted to attack. Has the original headline served it's purpose? How often do "retractions" even get noticed?

The MSM willfully lies to report the sister of a person shot and killed by the police was calling for peace and calm, when in truth, she was calling for attacks on members of other races in other parts of town.

Voters should take notice where this is coming from, and for what purpose, for history has provided all the evidence necessary to conclude how dangerous a state run media is.
 
Last edited:
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But could you link me up to a couple of journo alarms please? I'd like to read them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom