• 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!

Are News Networks News Or Entertainment

Are news networks news, entertainment, or news entertainment


  • Total voters
    24
Isn't what you just said there completely ass backwards? They do present facts but cover it up? How do you cover up facts if you present them?

Examples:

The Hunter Biden laptop(s) exist (fact), but their content is said to (likely?) be Russian disinformation (opinion and spin).

A severe weather event has occurred (fact), but the cause was alleged to have been AGW (opinion and spin).

Shootings occurred during a BLM protest (fact), the alleged perp was a white supremacist and carried the illegally possessed gun used across state lines (nonsense based on ??? and spin).


I'm not saying that to knock you, because in this conversation, I agree with you more than I disagree. What I am saying is that if people trust nobody, but yet trust that the "facts" that they see are truly "facts", then clearly you are giving even just a little bit of trust.

Now, if many of us are in agreement that simply reporting the news is what we all want, warts and all, then we have to give that trust. How does one earn that trust? It is clear that FOX, CNN, MSNBC, OANN, etc, is more worried about money. The thing is, is that you HAVE to be worried about money, in order to stay in business and ply your trade. The ratings, whether we like it or not, clearly show that the general public watches Hannity, Maddow, Carlson, etc, much more than "the news".

Most folks are easily able to discern opinion and news analysis segments from those purported to be straight news. What is harder for many (most?) to discern is the difference between a confirmed fact and any accompanying opinion and spin. The use of extraneous adjectives (far-right or left-leaning) and adverbs (extremely or slightly) can be a tell, but not conclusive proof that the underlying ‘facts’ are being grossly distorted.
 
If you are not informed by anything I post, I'm thinking the problem is on your end.

You are dismissed.
Apparently this nerd has an outsized influence on your opinions,


1649193939636.png

Mark Ivor Bradman
 
Well, it's good that no one has chosen "news".
 
That was said to have (likely?) been Russian disinformation. ;)
This must be as well (considering the sources):

Did you hear the WaPo's rationalization about the laptop? They were duped by Hillary's Russian disinformation Steele Dossier hoax, so they were over cautious with their reporting on the laptop. Funny how that worked.
 
The thing is conservatives want an endless supply of benefit of the doubt and ultimately they don't have a right to that. They claim to support small government, but their actions over the past 20 years tell a different story, they claim their media criticism theories are neutral, but Rumsfeld used it to prolong the Iraq War and Trump used it to try to steal an election he didn't win. The benefit of the doubt is a privilege, not a right and you can lose it.
 
I voted News Entertainment, but it depends on what network you're talking about.

All 3 of the cable news networks provide entertainment... They have to, because there just isn't enough news to fill all the hours with. What is lacking is straight, opinion free, hard news coverage from both CNN and MSNBC. At least Fox News has "Special Report" which is the most opinion free and balanced hard news coverage you'll find on cable or the networks. One of the big problems I see with CNN and MSNBC is they advertise their shows as "News" when most are political opinion. That's something that Fox News doesn't do.

.
 
I voted News Entertainment, but it depends on what network you're talking about.

All 3 of the cable news networks provide entertainment... They have to, because there just isn't enough news to fill all the hours with. What is lacking is straight, opinion free, hard news coverage from both CNN and MSNBC. At least Fox News has "Special Report" which is the most opinion free and balanced hard news coverage you'll find on cable or the networks. One of the big problems I see with CNN and MSNBC is they advertise their shows as "News" when most are political opinion. That's something that Fox News doesn't do.

.

Oh please, how much actual investigative journalism does Fox News do?

The whole American cable news industry is a joke, it's what you get when you allow the profit motive to run a news industry, the news might as well be sponsored by Pringles. Now no news industry is perfect mind, but other countries have a better news industry than the US:

 
Network news is entertainment as well. I remember the 15 minute news broadcasts as a kid. They were pretty much straight news back then. But when anchors became “ personalities “, that all changed.
How much news can a 15 minute broadcast convey? How in depth?
 
This was brought up in another poll. Are news networks like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc... news, entertainment, or similar to WWE, news entertainment?

I voted for News because you did not include a "depends on the source" option. It is all real news on CNN and MSNBC. It is all fake news on Fox and OAN.
 
Reporting the news does not mean giving someone a podium to say the earth is flat or the election was stolen or Russia is doing a military mission in the Ukraine.
 
It's not up to news reporters to determine that someone is lying based solely on their own bias. When news organizations do that, THEY are lying.
Good reporters are not biased but they can tell lies from the truth. Political commentators and analyst amplify lies or disparage the truth.
 
Good reporters are not biased but they can tell lies from the truth. Political commentators and analyst amplify lies or disparage the truth.
An example, illustrating why good reporters are the last thing RWE want reporting the news.

By Kate Conger, Mike Isaac and Lauren Hirsch
  • April 5, 2022
"...
A Twitter spokesman said Mr. Musk would not have a hand in policymaking at the company. Day-to-day policy decisions would still be made by Twitter employees, he said, and the company would be impartial in developing and enforcing its rules.

Mr. Musk could bring turbulence to Twitter. He has long used the service as a cudgel, trolling short-sellers of Tesla and insulting critics. He has also spread inaccurate information about the pandemic. After he mused about taking Tesla private in a tweet in 2016 and inaccurately claimed he had secured funding for the transaction, he was fined $40 million by the S.E.C.

His appointment to Twitter’s board was celebrated on Tuesday by some Republicans, who have accused the company of political bias and censoring right-wing voices. “Musk. Free speech,” said Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican of Ohio.

(Democrats, whom Mr. Musk has tangled with online over the party’s proposed wealth tax, were not vocal.).."
 
If you belive this, you have no idea what propaganda is.

Fox presents propaganda. No MSM outlet does.

Fact.
For the most part Fox participated in the same propaganda. Same Democrat narratives. It will work to reestablish the trust lost. The MSM all count on short memories, FOX included.
 
For the most part Fox participated in the same propaganda. Same Democrat narratives. It will work to reestablish the trust lost. The MSM all count on short memories, FOX included.

🤡
 
For the most part Fox participated in the same propaganda. Same Democrat narratives. It will work to reestablish the trust lost. The MSM all count on short memories, FOX included.
You use a "narrative" when you post "Democrat narratives". Substituting "Democrat" for Democratic to refer to "Democratic" party, leader, convention, platform, etc. Only RWE guests and CNN hired RWE stooge commentators speak like every Fox News TV personality in referring
to Democratic party...

In 2010, it was described as "occasional". As a result of self radicalized repetition it has become habit, "the norm" that is a badge of RWE.
It is a contrived alteration of speech that had to be carefully adhered to until practice made perfect. IOW, RWE made the effort to normalize
a slurring of the description of the rival party. Who does that, who is not an extremist? It was done in lieu of facts supported argument because
RWE do not debate facts.

What’s in an adjective? ‘Democrat Party’ label on the rise​

February 27, 2021
"
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Two days before the assault on the U.S. Capitol, Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano, a Republican, said supporters of then-President Donald Trump’s claims of election fraud were basically in a “death match with the Democrat Party.”

A day later, right-wing activist Alan Hostetter, a staunch Trump supporter known for railing against California’s virus-inspired stay-at-home orders, urged rallygoers in Washington to “put the fear of God in the cowards, the traitors, the RINOs, the communists of the Democrat Party.”

The shared grammatical construction — incorrect use of the noun “Democrat” as an adjective — was far from the most shocking thing about the two men’s statements. But it identified them as members of the same tribe, conservatives seeking to define the opposition through demeaning language...."

Since When Did It Become the Democrat Party? - NPR

https://www.npr.org › sections › publiceditor › 2010/03/26
Mar 26, 2010 — Republicans occassionally like to irritate Democrats by calling them members of the Democrat Party when the official name is the Democratic ...

Democrat Party (epithet) - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Democrat_Party_(epit...
Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While the term has been

Bush still slipped up now and again in his speech "discipline"

Transcript of Bush's news conference - Americas - International ...

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Americas
August 22, 2006
And there are a lot of people in the Democratic Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done. Period.

Quote by Ronald Reagan: “I didn't leave the Democratic party ...

https://www.goodreads.com › quotes › 837554-i-didn-t...
Ronald Reagan — 'I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me.'
 
Last edited:
You use a "narrative" when you post "Democrat narratives". Substituting "Democrat" for Democratic to refer to "Democratic" party, leader, convention, platform, etc.

In 2010, it was described as "occasional". As a result of self radicalized repetition it has become habit, "the norm" that is a badge of RWE.
It is a contrived alteration of speech that had to be carefully adhered to until practice made perfect. IOW, RWE made the effort to normalize
a slurring of the description of the rival party. Who does that, who is not an extremist. It was done in lieu of facts supported argument because
RWE do not debate facts.

Since When Did It Become the Democrat Party? - NPR

https://www.npr.org › sections › publiceditor › 2010/03/26
Mar 26, 2010 — Republicans occassionally like to irritate Democrats by calling them members of the Democrat Party when the official name is the Democratic ...

Democrat Party (epithet) - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Democrat_Party_(epit...
Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While the term has been

Quote by Ronald Reagan: “I didn't leave the Democratic party ...

https://www.goodreads.com › quotes › 837554-i-didn-t...
Ronald Reagan — 'I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me.'
Democrat Party is correct usage.
 
Democrat Party is correct usage.
I just posted several cites supporting that the opposite of your claim is true, as well as the history of the development and emergence of the partisan slur you've been radicalized into using and defending as if it is normal speech. You linked to nothing to support your claim.

One more time,

How to Tell Fate from Destiny: And Other Skillful Word ...​

https://books.google.com › books

Charles Harrington Elster · 2018 · ‎Reference
According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, ... (the Democrat Party); that construction is used by opponents to disparage the party.
 
One more time. I used correct usage.
 
That falls into the category sometimes known as "investigative reporting" and it's a long form program.
I am talking about nightly news reporting and the 24 hour cable news cycle in particular.
News organizations around the world have been producing long-form investigative programming for decades, but that's a whole different animal than the 24 hour news cycle.

And when you take a landmark event like the assassination of President Kennedy and try to make it a boilerplate that is used to compare ALL news, you've basically made an attempt
to describe all motor vehicles as having four wheels. Sorry, many have eighteen.

What I was getting at is the fact that each news network now HAS a declared political slant.
Fox News IS the Right Wing mouthpiece and always was. One could declare that MSNBC is left oriented, at least left leaning, and certainly not middle of the road.
Cable news IS the dominant member here, the 800 pound gorilla.

And there is a reason why a Fox News or similar RW outlet insists that Russia's view is the correct one: Trumpers love Putin and if Putin says that the Bucha dead were all crisis actors and
that the atrocities were staged by Ukraine, "then goddammit that's what Fox better say" or else massive numbers of viewers will turn off Fox...and that impacts the bottom line.
Fox News Channel cannot exist solely on cable news carriage fees...they can try but it won't be sustainable, otherwise there'd be no need for Mike Lindell's pillow ads.

I don't say or imply that news networks weren't engaged in manufacturing consent to some degree prior to Murdoch's fast tracked citizenship in America,
I'm saying that market pressures to produce a staggering profit did not exist quite as much because prior to the 1990's most American news department budgets were underwritten by prime time programming...that's a fact. The exodus from loss leader news departments BEGAN in the 1980's and by 1996 the process of transformation was virtually complete.
Roger Ailes proposed a right wing news channel while still working for Tricky Dick Nixon. It was a long time goal, to counteract what Nixon, Agnew & himself saw as a liberal bias in Network news coverage.
Some folks say truth has a liberal bias...
 
But again, you said it yourself, you trust nobody. Who do you trust to give you the facts if you trust nobody? If you are searching for the kernels of facts, you still have to trust those people who are giving you those kernels.
He searches "outside" of the MSM I'll bet.
 
Back
Top Bottom