How many of you had the nerve?

[pilotman2105]

I guess the red cross must be run by the american liberal media...oh and all other media in the world too - they too can not see the truth for what it is....only FOX can!! They are the only news outlet in the entire world that speaks the truth. I you guys REALLY want to see what people down there think - just read Al Jazeera - that will make CNN look less "liberal"

Al Jazeera aside, the media reports what will get attention, not necessarily the unbiased truth. Marketing plays a role in getting someone to buy a newspaper or watch their channel over someone elses. This includes Fox as well.

More often than not, to figure out what is going on, you either have to be their yourself or piece-meal things together from various sources.

 

[jarhead]

pilotman2105

What you seem to be suggesting, is that there is no source ever, for news to be unbiased. You feel the networks, magazines, newspapers, and politicians all have a hidden agenda? Where would you suggest one get the "true" unbiased news then?

I realize that many newscasters and print journalists have the ability, and sometimes do, put their own unique spin on some stories. However, when I watch the generals, the congressional leaders, and the administration officials interviewed live, or eye witnesses to events interviewed live, with photographic documentation, I am usually able to rid the bias and filters put to stories, with my own good (or sometimes bad) judgement. I don't think we can ever find some all seeing Solomon that sees the news as an unvarnished raw truth. The media is not always "liberal". I also see "conservative" slants, and often, I see just raw facts from which you and I can draw conclusions. Often, our conclusions will differ from seeing the same train wreck; other times we will reach the same conclusions. Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative", are usually just a convenience for ones particular form of biased denial to facts that do not support our own agenda.

 

[pilotman2105]

Re: pilotman2105

What you seem to be suggesting, is that there is no source ever, for news to be unbiased. You feel the networks, magazines, newspapers, and politicians all have a hidden agenda?

Of course they all have a hidden agenda. The "better-ment" of themselves or their company. These places are run by businesses. Businesses exist to make money.

Where would you suggest one get the "true" unbiased news then?

You don't.

I realize that many newscasters and print journalists have the ability, and sometimes do, put their own unique spin on some stories. However, when I watch the generals, the congressional leaders, and the administration officials interviewed live, or eye witnesses to events interviewed live, with photographic documentation, I am usually able to rid the bias and filters put to stories, with my own good (or sometimes bad) judgement. I don't think we can ever find some all seeing Solomon that sees the news as an unvarnished raw truth. The media is not always "liberal". I also see "conservative" slants, and often, I see just raw facts from which you and I can draw conclusions. Often, our conclusions will differ from seeing the same train wreck; other times we will reach the same conclusions. Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative", are usually just a convenience for ones particular form of biased denial to facts that do not support our own agenda.

The media promotes it's own agenda by selectively showing interviews and editing out parts of an interview that sometimes change the entire context. You can't tell me that you possibly view/hear all interviews from everyone about every subject that you're interested in. The media will examine all the content they have on a subject, and use what content will best suit their ultimate goal of increasing viewership.

One example of this is the local newspaper. Quite a few months ago, front page headline to the effect of "Interracial couples house burns; Arson suspected." After digging through the article, there was one sentence along the lines of "The fire marshall has not ruled out arson." There was a huge outcry in town and even a donation fund set up through a local bank to help these poor victims get back on their feet. About a week later, on page A-10 on a side column, one-paragraph article the actual cause of the fire was listed as some malfunctioning appliance. This is a prime example of sensational journalism. It caught the readers attention, so let's run with it.

The media can also change the context of interviews and facts from what the source orginally intended. This has happened to friends, family, and myself. I had a newspaper interview me at work and to put it simply, they took what they wanted out of what I said, re-arragned it, edited it, and made it into what they wanted.

All I'm saying is not to believe something simply because it comes from "the media." CNN, CBS, FOX, ABC, etc. are all ultimately run by businesses. Keep this in mind next time you see a headline about the poor Iraqi prisoners. Are you really getting the full truth? Why have we not hyped up the Berg murder? The media could be interviewing the family, friends, relatives, teachers, next-door neighbors, towns-people, etc., but they aren't. Instead, their pushing the prisoner abuse. Why? I don't know.

I guess that I've just learned to take everything that I read in the media with a grain of salt. Whether one media source is better than another is a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Dubya]

Media not biased?

jarhead....the media is so into itself it isn't even remotely questionable. You can go on being disillusioned by their obnoxious leanings.

Denial....it's not just a river in Africa.

W

 

[jarhead]

Pilotman2105

I agree with much of what you have stated, but not all of it. I too, have been interviewed by reporters, and when I saw it in print, I would not have known it was me, by the errors of omission and commission. Incompetence, or an agenda.....I dunno, but it was not what I said.

Also, we need to take lots of grains of salt when listening to the "analysis" of the news by such folks as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Alan Combs, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough, Paul Begalla, et.al. They are not newscasters. They are commentators, who are paid to opine, and give their analysis. I really don't need their analysis. I want facts, and then I'll form my own "analysis".

Now, that said, when I watch gavel to gavel coverage, live without interruption by any media type, I am getting facts from the newsmakers themselves. After the Senate Armed Services hearings concluded, the paid analysts were out in force, telling me what they thought. I did not need it, as I was able to form my independent analysis of what I'd seen and heard in that senate hearing.

 

[bart]

I wonder how many senators, news anchors and "so-called" journalists are losing sleep over the fraternity hazings that take place daily on American campuses, or the hazing of military personnel in the elite training schools. I really think we should pay attention to that. Innocent people are being humiliated and scarred for life.

We need to put a stop to it now. Otherwise we should impeach the president, get rid of the secdef and lock up all the college presidents and faculty advisers, not to mention the perpetrators of such antics.

 

[jarhead]

Dubya

How are you able to form any opinions at all, ever? Please tell me. I know you can't be there, at every event that takes place all over the globe to make first hand judgements. I would venture to say you form your opinions while using support from those sources that support your personal views, and deny all reports that differ from your own preconceived version of the truth. If it supports you, it is not biased, but if it contradicts you, it is biased? Am I far off the mark there? Again, if not from media, where do you get information from which to form your opinions?

 

[pilotman2105]

Re: Pilotman2105

Now, that said, when I watch gavel to gavel coverage, live without interruption by any media type, I am getting facts from the newsmakers themselves. After the Senate Armed Services hearings concluded, the paid analysts were out in force, telling me what they thought. I did not need it, as I was able to form my independent analysis of what I'd seen and heard in that senate hearing.

But that in itself is biased. Why are they showing that particular hearing and not another? Why are they showing hearings on that subject as opposed to another. What makes that more important than say a murder in NYC?

Simply because you see a hearing start to finish does not make you an englightened individual on the subject. There are so many factors other than simply the legal aspect.

 

[jarhead]

Hey Bart!

Stupid Hurts!

 

[jarhead]

Pilotman2105

I'm going to give you that one. I would guess that the Senate hearings on someone being pick-pocketed at a football game in Kansas City, no doubt would draw little attention from the masses, or congress. None-the-less, it was an important event to the victim of the pick-pocket. That's just reality.

Cats that don't get stuck in trees, don't make news headlines.