• 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!

State of Journalism......Crisis or A-Okay?

Should there be 2 simple requirements if you want to bill yourself as a news agency?

  • Total voters
    14
Thoreau72 said:
LOL, that's a funny comparison.

I recognize that to some degree or the other, RT represents the Russian perspective. It's not rocket science. I recognize the US perspective in NYT and other western media, just as I recognize the Indian perspective, Chinese perspective or Russian perspective from any of their respective publications. I understand it and respect it, but that doesn't mean I believe everything they print.

It was my time in the US Army that taught me to at least TRY to separate the wheat from the chaff, the elements of truth from the propaganda.
Click to expand...
Separating the wheat from the chaff is a good thing. However, I wouldn’t take the RT as a reliable source of unbiased news no more than I would MSNBC or Fox.
 
Rising Sun said:
Separating the wheat from the chaff is a good thing. However, I wouldn’t take the RT as a reliable source of unbiased news no more than I would MSNBC or Fox.
Click to expand...

As I tried to explain to you, however poorly, I do not consider it a reliable source of unbiased news. I consider it, as I've mentioned already, to be a source offering the Russian perspective on the news, slanted oftentimes in favor of Russia. I say again sir, it's not rocket science. It is only independent and analytical thought. Compare what every slanted piece offers, consider what stories are not printed, and try to find the truth ON MY OWN.

As Bob Dylan noted, I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing, and I don't need Lester Holt or Scott Pelley to tell me what's happening in this country. Can you dig it?
 
A segment (scarily large, perhaps) of the population seems to do little more than turn the TV on and call that the bulk of "media". There is SO much media across all platforms: old/cable TV, print, internet 'print (from news to stuff like vice.com)', internet video, podcast, yadda bloody yadda.

If someone cannot make sure to browse a number of different-leaning sources and triangulate what seems a balanced account, that's on them. But talking about "is 'the media' X or Y" is absurd.




There is no such thing as the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom