liminal
New member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
The search for unbiased news is futile. I have given up. Instead, I try to expose myself to a wide variety of sources, in the hope of gaining as balanced a view of the story as possible.
I trust most of you have seen Google’s news feature, located at http://news.google.com. For any given news story, there will be anywhere from a dozen to a thousand different articles from various publications worldwide.
So if I'm reading about the wall being built by Israel, Google will give me an article by Ha'aretz, al-Jazeera, the BBC, the Washington Post, Reuters, the International Herald Tribune, and even Xinhua.
Same goes for Karl Rove's apparent indiscretions: all the TV news and newspapers, but also the white house press releases, whywehatebush.com, rushlimbaugh.com, and everything in between.
Clearly there is still bias: Google picks which sources I see, those sources must be on the internet, etc. Still, some improvement is better than nothing.
I wonder how long it will take for people to realize that FOX, CNN, and MSNBC are to news what wrestling is to boxing. I, for one, refuse to be misled.
CNN's Inside Politics (mercifully sans Judy Woodruff) now airs a segment discussing the most popular political blogs. It's got atrocious hosts and a painfully obvious name, and it goes through the same filter as everything else on CNN, but it's a start.
I am fascinated by FOX News. Brit Hume had a guest on yesterday who outlined several connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, including the Africa claim and the terrorist cell that existed in Iraq during Saddam's reign. Brit Hume nodded the entire time, neglecting to even mention that the Africa claim is widely discredited and that the terror cell was in northern Iraq, within the US no fly zone. I watched Brit Hume's face every time he was on screen and he was inscrutable. Fair and balanced is such a great slogan. Why don't they just get it over with and call it the Ministry of Truth?
I do not mean for this example to be partisan: there are some legitimate reasons for the War in Iraq and those should be the basis for the argument to support it, not cynical deception. It is the same for Michael Moore: he devalues a legitimate cause by making a misleading, and in some ways down-right untruthful, movie.
Did anybody catch the White House press corps grilling McClellan about his previously voiced flat-out denial of Karl Rove's involvement in the leak and subsequent refusal to comment on an 'ongoing investigation,' even though he felt perfectly justified doing so when it suited him? NBC's correspondent was visibly angry and shouted, 'this is ridiculous!' Maybe the jailing of the NYTimes reporter was just what the mainstream needed to prod it into some semblance of real journalism.
Do people think that the popularity of online news and blogs will force the mainstream news to become more responsible? Is it hopeless? I'm tired of yelling at my television!
I trust most of you have seen Google’s news feature, located at http://news.google.com. For any given news story, there will be anywhere from a dozen to a thousand different articles from various publications worldwide.
So if I'm reading about the wall being built by Israel, Google will give me an article by Ha'aretz, al-Jazeera, the BBC, the Washington Post, Reuters, the International Herald Tribune, and even Xinhua.
Same goes for Karl Rove's apparent indiscretions: all the TV news and newspapers, but also the white house press releases, whywehatebush.com, rushlimbaugh.com, and everything in between.
Clearly there is still bias: Google picks which sources I see, those sources must be on the internet, etc. Still, some improvement is better than nothing.
I wonder how long it will take for people to realize that FOX, CNN, and MSNBC are to news what wrestling is to boxing. I, for one, refuse to be misled.
CNN's Inside Politics (mercifully sans Judy Woodruff) now airs a segment discussing the most popular political blogs. It's got atrocious hosts and a painfully obvious name, and it goes through the same filter as everything else on CNN, but it's a start.
I am fascinated by FOX News. Brit Hume had a guest on yesterday who outlined several connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, including the Africa claim and the terrorist cell that existed in Iraq during Saddam's reign. Brit Hume nodded the entire time, neglecting to even mention that the Africa claim is widely discredited and that the terror cell was in northern Iraq, within the US no fly zone. I watched Brit Hume's face every time he was on screen and he was inscrutable. Fair and balanced is such a great slogan. Why don't they just get it over with and call it the Ministry of Truth?
I do not mean for this example to be partisan: there are some legitimate reasons for the War in Iraq and those should be the basis for the argument to support it, not cynical deception. It is the same for Michael Moore: he devalues a legitimate cause by making a misleading, and in some ways down-right untruthful, movie.
Did anybody catch the White House press corps grilling McClellan about his previously voiced flat-out denial of Karl Rove's involvement in the leak and subsequent refusal to comment on an 'ongoing investigation,' even though he felt perfectly justified doing so when it suited him? NBC's correspondent was visibly angry and shouted, 'this is ridiculous!' Maybe the jailing of the NYTimes reporter was just what the mainstream needed to prod it into some semblance of real journalism.
Do people think that the popularity of online news and blogs will force the mainstream news to become more responsible? Is it hopeless? I'm tired of yelling at my television!