you can ask me that when the net is filled with an equal amount of hate for msnbc/cnn as it is with fox
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Media Organizations and Political Donations
to be honest marine american news talk show hosts fucking suck dick. go bbc11 Bravo wrote:
you can ask me that when the net is filled with an equal amount of hate for msnbc/cnn as it is with fox
they all do. bbc is shit.Cybargs wrote:
to be honest marine american news talk show hosts fucking suck dick. go bbc11 Bravo wrote:
you can ask me that when the net is filled with an equal amount of hate for msnbc/cnn as it is with fox
BBC does have a bias. shit first thing you learn in journalism school is to have a bias. least they give effort for trying to remain neutral.11 Bravo wrote:
they all do. bbc is shit.Cybargs wrote:
to be honest marine american news talk show hosts fucking suck dick. go bbc11 Bravo wrote:
you can ask me that when the net is filled with an equal amount of hate for msnbc/cnn as it is with fox
What does that have to do with this thread though? My point is essentially what you're already saying.11 Bravo wrote:
you can ask me that when the net is filled with an equal amount of hate for msnbc/cnn as it is with fox
Fox News gets a lot of hate for being biased, and MSNBC should receive the same.
Just because one gets more than the other doesn't matter. We both know they are both biased. So, in recognizing this, there's no point for either to pretend they have objectivity.
People should just be honest about this shit. Watch a show, acknowledge the bias, and cross-reference. It's that simple.
Read an interesting editorial piece a few days ago about this topic. The guy who wrote it leans pretty far left at times, but his position was that his contract had the same clause in it, but he didn't know it did until he went back and read his contract after the Olbermann incident. Because he shouldn't have to. It's common sense for a journalist NOT to do that kind of stuff.Turquoise wrote:
The thread is intended to ask whether or not ethics like NBC's are necessary.11 Bravo wrote:
it just shows you muppets how msnbc is EXACTLY what you bitch at Fox for.
oh and he is allowed to make all the donations he wants but has to get approval first. i guess they dont want their employees donating to the nazi party or whatever. its in his contract. he breached it. simple as that. no need for a thread about it,
Every media source has biases. Why should they even bother pretending that they are objective?
He did make an interesting point about objectivity in journalism and how there cannot--and should not--be objectivity in reporting. Say there is a story about a child molester/murderer. Do we want the reporter to be objective about that, to have no emotion about such an emotional story? Can we really expect them to NOT take sides in that situation? Granted, I thought that was a bit of an apples/oranges situation when considering the issue at hand was political reporting and spinmanship on the part of the media.
Frankly, MSNBC's ethics rules are a good idea, and I think others should have the same limitations on their employees.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'd rather FOX continue reporting their news in a *relatively* balanced way and continuing to donate to their favorite political causes than have a news organization like MSNBC, which is absurdly slanted and pretends not to donate money to political campaigns. Pretending to be unbiased and then giving hours of unjustified speaking time to Democrat candidates is more significant than $.
It probably is, you just have to go to certain places. Like in real life you get places that go a way and places that go the other way.11 Bravo wrote:
you can ask me that when the net is filled with an equal amount of hate for msnbc/cnn as it is with fox
I don't know what you're achieving by crying that everyone ''on the internet always complains about fox but never anything else'' because it makes as much sense as saying any other useless broad generalisation pulled out from thin air.
If you do want to try and explain it in a logical manner, it's not hard to see how liberals/left-wing people tend to be more technologically in touch and use things like the net more than conservatives/right wingers who stick to old mediums like radio and television. That doesn't take a genius to figure out either. But it's still not exactly true...for one, there's plenty of right wingers on bf2s, it's not a 50-50 ratio but it's not too bad either.
This is your logic and it always has been. All you're trying to do is dismiss all of this because in your eyes everyone always complains about fox, nobody complains about anyone else, therefore all of this shit that's being talked about (media and donations) is besides the point because the real issue is that everyone complains about fox and only fox.
While I hate almost every "news" organisation equally fox jumps out as being one of the most retarded thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and it's habit to routinely take everything they get their hands on completely out of context. Not to mention massive fear mongering etc etc etc.
inane little opines
Good points. Granted, I would argue that MSNBC is a good example of how ethics rules still seem to have no bearing on the objectivity of a source. Olbermann may be limited in his ability to contribute to campaigns, but as John said, he gives Democrats free publicity every night, just like Fox does for Republicans.FEOS wrote:
Read an interesting editorial piece a few days ago about this topic. The guy who wrote it leans pretty far left at times, but his position was that his contract had the same clause in it, but he didn't know it did until he went back and read his contract after the Olbermann incident. Because he shouldn't have to. It's common sense for a journalist NOT to do that kind of stuff.Turquoise wrote:
The thread is intended to ask whether or not ethics like NBC's are necessary.11 Bravo wrote:
it just shows you muppets how msnbc is EXACTLY what you bitch at Fox for.
oh and he is allowed to make all the donations he wants but has to get approval first. i guess they dont want their employees donating to the nazi party or whatever. its in his contract. he breached it. simple as that. no need for a thread about it,
Every media source has biases. Why should they even bother pretending that they are objective?
He did make an interesting point about objectivity in journalism and how there cannot--and should not--be objectivity in reporting. Say there is a story about a child molester/murderer. Do we want the reporter to be objective about that, to have no emotion about such an emotional story? Can we really expect them to NOT take sides in that situation? Granted, I thought that was a bit of an apples/oranges situation when considering the issue at hand was political reporting and spinmanship on the part of the media.
Frankly, MSNBC's ethics rules are a good idea, and I think others should have the same limitations on their employees.
I agree...except you switched from personalities to entire organizations mid-thought.Turquoise wrote:
Good points. Granted, I would argue that MSNBC is a good example of how ethics rules still seem to have no bearing on the objectivity of a source. Olbermann may be limited in his ability to contribute to campaigns, but as John said, he gives Democrats free publicity every night, just like Fox does for Republicans.FEOS wrote:
Read an interesting editorial piece a few days ago about this topic. The guy who wrote it leans pretty far left at times, but his position was that his contract had the same clause in it, but he didn't know it did until he went back and read his contract after the Olbermann incident. Because he shouldn't have to. It's common sense for a journalist NOT to do that kind of stuff.Turquoise wrote:
The thread is intended to ask whether or not ethics like NBC's are necessary.
Every media source has biases. Why should they even bother pretending that they are objective?
He did make an interesting point about objectivity in journalism and how there cannot--and should not--be objectivity in reporting. Say there is a story about a child molester/murderer. Do we want the reporter to be objective about that, to have no emotion about such an emotional story? Can we really expect them to NOT take sides in that situation? Granted, I thought that was a bit of an apples/oranges situation when considering the issue at hand was political reporting and spinmanship on the part of the media.
Frankly, MSNBC's ethics rules are a good idea, and I think others should have the same limitations on their employees.
The editorialist's point, I believe, is that Olbermann is just a douche (no argument here) who besmirched the name "journalist" with his actions both during this incident and beforehand with his antics.
It all boils down to individuals and how they handle themselves from an ethical perspective. There are plenty of individuals on Fox who handle themselves ethically and are balanced in their approach (Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Tony Snow when he was alive to name a few). Of course, the "opinionaters" do/are not, but they do not--in general--pass themselves off as "journalists."
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Um... I wouldn't consider Brit Hume to be balanced.
But would you say the line between journalists and opinionaters is not as clear as it should be?FEOS wrote:
I agree...except you switched from personalities to entire organizations mid-thought.Turquoise wrote:
Good points. Granted, I would argue that MSNBC is a good example of how ethics rules still seem to have no bearing on the objectivity of a source. Olbermann may be limited in his ability to contribute to campaigns, but as John said, he gives Democrats free publicity every night, just like Fox does for Republicans.FEOS wrote:
Read an interesting editorial piece a few days ago about this topic. The guy who wrote it leans pretty far left at times, but his position was that his contract had the same clause in it, but he didn't know it did until he went back and read his contract after the Olbermann incident. Because he shouldn't have to. It's common sense for a journalist NOT to do that kind of stuff.
He did make an interesting point about objectivity in journalism and how there cannot--and should not--be objectivity in reporting. Say there is a story about a child molester/murderer. Do we want the reporter to be objective about that, to have no emotion about such an emotional story? Can we really expect them to NOT take sides in that situation? Granted, I thought that was a bit of an apples/oranges situation when considering the issue at hand was political reporting and spinmanship on the part of the media.
Frankly, MSNBC's ethics rules are a good idea, and I think others should have the same limitations on their employees.
The editorialist's point, I believe, is that Olbermann is just a douche (no argument here) who besmirched the name "journalist" with his actions both during this incident and beforehand with his antics.
It all boils down to individuals and how they handle themselves from an ethical perspective. There are plenty of individuals on Fox who handle themselves ethically and are balanced in their approach (Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Tony Snow when he was alive to name a few). Of course, the "opinionaters" do/are not, but they do not--in general--pass themselves off as "journalists."
I'm sure is not only an american issue but it does seem difficult to find a media source there who treats their audience as semi-intelligent individuals who can form their own opinions based on the news alone.
In principle, I agree with you. Still, it seems like most people really aren't that intelligent and are rather easy to manipulate in their thoughts and perceptions.Ticia wrote:
But would you say the line between journalists and opinionaters is not as clear as it should be?
I'm sure is not only an american issue but it does seem difficult to find a media source there who treats their audience as semi-intelligent individuals who can form their own opinions based on the news alone.
I guess the temptation to influence the sheep is too great for most.
Still treating the dumb as even more stupid than they are makes them...dumber.Turquoise wrote:
In principle, I agree with you. Still, it seems like most people really aren't that intelligent and are rather easy to manipulate in their thoughts and perceptions.Ticia wrote:
But would you say the line between journalists and opinionaters is not as clear as it should be?
I'm sure is not only an american issue but it does seem difficult to find a media source there who treats their audience as semi-intelligent individuals who can form their own opinions based on the news alone.
I guess the temptation to influence the sheep is too great for most.
Yeah, but the dumber they are, the more money you can make off of them.Ticia wrote:
Still treating the dumb as even more stupid than they are makes them...dumber.Turquoise wrote:
In principle, I agree with you. Still, it seems like most people really aren't that intelligent and are rather easy to manipulate in their thoughts and perceptions.Ticia wrote:
But would you say the line between journalists and opinionaters is not as clear as it should be?
I'm sure is not only an american issue but it does seem difficult to find a media source there who treats their audience as semi-intelligent individuals who can form their own opinions based on the news alone.
I guess the temptation to influence the sheep is too great for most.
I guess the general business model that the elite aim for is to keep people productive and working but too complacent to give a damn about politics. Admittedly, it works pretty well for them.
Maybe so.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but the dumber they are, the more money you can make off of them.Ticia wrote:
Still treating the dumb as even more stupid than they are makes them...dumber.Turquoise wrote:
In principle, I agree with you. Still, it seems like most people really aren't that intelligent and are rather easy to manipulate in their thoughts and perceptions.
I guess the temptation to influence the sheep is too great for most.
I guess the general business model that the elite aim for is to keep people productive and working but too complacent to give a damn about politics. Admittedly, it works pretty well for them.
I still think being treated with respect should be first on our list.
Ideally yes, but I don't know... A lot of people seem to value the wrong things. For example, you'd be surprised how many people react more favorably to being talked down to or to empty flattery rather than honesty and dignity.Ticia wrote:
Maybe so.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but the dumber they are, the more money you can make off of them.Ticia wrote:
Still treating the dumb as even more stupid than they are makes them...dumber.
I guess the general business model that the elite aim for is to keep people productive and working but too complacent to give a damn about politics. Admittedly, it works pretty well for them.
I still think being treated with respect should be first on our list.
I don't know. I guess it's hard for me to respect people that lack self-respect or a decent level of intelligence.
When you consider how much better sensationalism sells than honest reporting, it's no wonder most media outlets aim for it. If we wanted a factual analysis of things, more of us would watch the BBC or C-Span. Most people don't have a firm understanding of the difference between information and entertainment. They want infotainment.
lol bbcTurquoise wrote:
Ideally yes, but I don't know... A lot of people seem to value the wrong things. For example, you'd be surprised how many people react more favorably to being talked down to or to empty flattery rather than honesty and dignity.Ticia wrote:
Maybe so.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but the dumber they are, the more money you can make off of them.
I guess the general business model that the elite aim for is to keep people productive and working but too complacent to give a damn about politics. Admittedly, it works pretty well for them.
I still think being treated with respect should be first on our list.
I don't know. I guess it's hard for me to respect people that lack self-respect or a decent level of intelligence.
When you consider how much better sensationalism sells than honest reporting, it's no wonder most media outlets aim for it. If we wanted a factual analysis of things, more of us would watch the BBC or C-Span. Most people don't have a firm understanding of the difference between information and entertainment. They want infotainment.
BBC is relatively unbiased. What's your beef with them?
lol
THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.
It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p … 942948.ece
------
my problem is not the bbc. it is people like YOU who cry about fox and use bbc as a good example. its laughable to watch.
THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.
It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p … 942948.ece
------
my problem is not the bbc. it is people like YOU who cry about fox and use bbc as a good example. its laughable to watch.
Fair enough, but since the full extent to which you contribute to this forum is basically equivalent to trolling, that really doesn't mean much.
lol keep your head up your ass
bbc is not biased lol. boo hoo waaaaaaaaaaaaaah fox waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
----
gee what a great contribution we get from you. utter shit.
bbc is not biased lol. boo hoo waaaaaaaaaaaaaah fox waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
----
gee what a great contribution we get from you. utter shit.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-11-17 08:12:05)
Lemme guess. The only unbiased source is Jane's.11 Bravo wrote:
lol keep your head up your ass
bbc is not biased lol. boo hoo waaaaaaaaaaaaaah fox waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
----
gee what a great contribution we get from you. utter shit.
i dunno. maybe. watch what you want idc. i dont spend my time trying to tell people what not to watch. sorry you feel the need to do that.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Media Organizations and Political Donations