Has Anyone Else Completely Lost Faith In The Media?

[mlmpetert]

Alright im taking a note from BleedBurgundy by starting this thread. Hopefully it can be used when we notice biases or events the media seems to ignore or gloss over for whatever reason they may believe they have.

There have been 2 recent things that have really bothered me:

The difference between how the Tea Party was treated and how the OWS has been and is being treated be the media is night and day. Every time a extremist or racist tea party protester got in front of a camera or was interviewed the media seemed to jump on it and report it to the public like that was the regular voice or tone of the tea party. The tea party was also regularly mocked by mainstream news channels when they called tea party posters tea baggers. The OWS seem to be getting preferential treatment. There has been tons of violence, rampant drug use, 10 rapes/sexual assaults (give or take), tons of extremest groups associating with OWS, an anti Semitic tone and tons of protesters saying hateful and bigoted things. And yet the media largely ignores this? I just dont get the double standard.

The Herman Cain media cover of alleged sexual harassment is getting ridiculous at this point. In the last week ending Monday there have been 84 stories by the major 3 networks on the Herman Cain scandal. For comparison sake in the week when the Bill Clinton Juanita Broaddrick rape scandal broke there were 4 mentions, when Bill Clinton was accused of groping Kathleen Wiley there were just 3 stories. There was barley any coverage whatsoever when Larry Sinclair came out with a story that he smoked crack and had sex with Obama and that Donald Young did too. The problem i have is not that the media largely ignored the unfounded stories about Bill Clinton or Obama, but that they are prematurely jumping on unfounded stories on Cain. I just dont get it. Today MSNBC and the senior Politco reporter that "broke" the Herman Cain allegations mocked the idea that theres a Journalism Code of Ethics.

Another very recent thing, that was actually the tipping point for me to get up and take and stand by doing something (starting this thread.....), was journalist conspiring together not to report a conversation between Sarcozy and Obama about Netanyahu.

Sarkozy tells Obama Netanyahu is a liar | Reuters

But whats not in the Reuters article is the mention of the journalist acting to first to try and cover it up:

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu 'liar' - Israel News, Ynetnews

Anyone else fed up? What else do you have? I know NCSkins has to have some stuff on Fox....

[Alvin Walton]

The media is a business.
They will peddle news that will make money for them.
You may as well lose faith in Wal-Mart because their underwear selection sucks.

[NC_Skins]

David Gregory: No "Grand Wizard" In GOP To Force Cain Out | RealClearPolitics


hahahahahahahaahahaha

It's so offensive, you just have to laugh at the stupidity.


I've lost faith in the media long ago.

[SmootSmack]

Larry Sinclair and Donald Young had sex with Obama???

Anyhow, I'll abstain from this only to say y'all give the media too much credit. Not everything is some shrewd, duplicitious, conspiratorial plan. People looking for a sinister motive behind everything when more often than not it's just laziness

[NC_Skins]

You can't trust Smoot. He works for tha man!



I'll post more on this media when I gather some thoughts and examples.

[That Guy]

well, she got like a 180million dollar settlement from the company and cain admitted guilt in 2002 when they were planning his senate run and possible obstacles.

now, all of a sudden, 9 years later, he's forgotten all about it, and tells people they're stupid for bringing it up is idiotic.

[JoeRedskin]

As AlvinW said, it's business. In today's multi-channel cable media filled world, everyone preaches to their own choir. This doesn't change the fact that "the truth is out there". Facts exist and can be discovered. Separating fact from fiction can be difficult though I find, generally, it's not the facts that are hard to discover - it's that various outlets only report the facts that best illustrate their point so getting the complete picture can be difficult and time consuming.

For example: Go to MSNBC and the OWC is painted as diligent, disaffected middle class folks. They tend to play up the police presence and downplay the health, safety and security issues of the various locations.
On the other hand, go to Fox and OWC is a bunch of granola (fruits, nuts and a bunch of flakes) living in their own excrement and who lay in wait for women and small children to fall into their evil grasp.

In between the spin, however, the facts do exist. You just have to look. In today's information world, I believe people who want to do so - are getting more and more savvy at finding out all the facts.

Think about it - the information that was the catalyst for this thread would probably never have seen the light of day 10 years ago. Yet... here we are. Everyone knows exactly what was said. How various news agencies spin it, in terms of context and placement will vary on their own political agenda.

I haven't "lost faith" in the media - I just don't expect it to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Rather it reports the facts it likes, in the manner that it wants to and that sell the most advertisements.

[saden1]

Generally speaking it takes only one person to keep a secrete so if you have a secret and someone else knows it there will be a time when it will be disclosed.

Why have faith when you can follow the advice of my man Reagan to "trust but verify?"

If news organizations are willing to sign away their freedom of the press rights and their responsibility to their readership in exchange for access then perhaps it's time to look for and switch to ones that won't?

The competition between news organizations nor ad revenues leads to competition for a breaking stories. Despite the attempts of politicians to control information it will eventually be disclosed.

Cain story is pretty legit and so long has it has new news I am interested in reading about it. Karma is a bitch and so is Cain based on all the shit he has said. If I were him I would perform Seppuku as soon possible.

...and that's all I got to contribute.

[NC_Skins]

Fairleigh Dickinson PublicMind Poll Shows Fox News Viewers Less Informed on Major News Stories


Color me shocked.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Larry Sinclair and Donald Young had sex with Obama???

Anyhow, I'll abstain from this only to say y'all give the media too much credit. Not everything is some shrewd, duplicitious, conspiratorial plan. People looking for a sinister motive behind everything when more often than not it's just laziness

This.

The only bias in media is the personal bias that every reporter can't see in themselves. For the most part its humans being human.

[NC_Skins]

Speaking of Fox. Let's see exactly why they are banned in Canada.


Statutes and Regulations | CRTC


-requires that "a licenser may not broadcast….any false or misleading news."



I think the US should pass the same type of legislation that our neighbors to the north have. Would make for better quality news.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Speaking of Fox. Let's see exactly why they are banned in Canada.

For a guy who claims to be non-partisan and advocates getting all the facts, you sure do have a hardon for lies about Fox.

As I posted once before, but you apparently chose to ignore 'cause it involved facts you dislike:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

<sigh> You have been reading to many liberal blogs and accepting their statements as fact. Fox news is not and has never been "banned" in Canada:

There was a point when Fox News had it’s application denied by the regulatory authority, but not due to any content related issues. [11/22 Edit For Clarification: Fox was going to combine with another news agency and so a separate stand alone "Fox News" channel was deemed duplicative.]

CRTC approves Fox News for Canada - Canada - CBC News

In Canada, the Fox News Channel is currently available on: Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV.

Since it has been broadcasting in Canada, Fox News has never been cited for violating the "don't broadcast false news" regulations (neither has any other station).

In fact, the whole "Canada Bans Fox" story is the twisted result of the CRTC's recent decision to drop its 10 year old attempt to change the regulation you cite. The reason they sought the change was to make their regulations compliant with Canada's constitution which protects false or misleading speech as Free Speech.

The committee was concerned that the regulation violated a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, which found that the Charter of Rights provision protecting freedom of expression meant a person could not be charged for spreading false information.

CRTC ditches bid to allow fake news - The Globe and Mail

B/c the "ban misleading speech" regulation is one of those "feel good" laws that sounds fine but can lead to censorship and have a chilling effect on free discourse, the CRTC's proposal was met with overwhelming popular opposition when it tried to change the reg to conform to the country's constitutional requirements. After the CRTC w/drew its proposed change, and in an act of classic demagougery, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. makes a big deal that the CRTC has folded to the "will of the people" and, despite Fox News actual presence in Canada, RFK, Jr. asserts that "Fox like" news is content banned:

[Quoting RFK, Jr.:]When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada

He made this statement despite the fact that Fox News had been in Canada since 2004. It was picked up and twisted by liberal blogs across the internet and repeated until people like you began to believe it as truth.

In Canada, just as here, you can't pre-censor speech b/c you think it might be misleading. To protect and - in fact enhance - free and open discourse, the appropriate remedy for false speech is, as it has always been, to seek damages in libel/slander or, here's a shocking concept, fight false speech with truthful speech.

And BTW, the same study you found unsurprising in its indictment of Fox listeners also indicted those who listed MSNBC as their primary source. It is as I have been saying all along, those who rely on one source or one set of sources for their facts will, inevitably fail to see the entire picture and, rather, like yourself, they will see only those parts of the picture they find agreeable.

[NC_Skins]

I stand corrected then. I have a good friend that's Canadian that said something to me about it, I don't really read any liberal blogs per say.

Why in the hell do you think I read once source? I don't fail to see the big picture. I said something that I was wrong about. Big deal. You say a lot of things that are wrong, especially in your stance with the Occupy Movement, but that doesn't stop you.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I stand corrected then. I have a good friend that's Canadian that said something to me about it, I don't really read any liberal blogs per say.

Why in the hell do you think I read once source? I don't fail to see the big picture. I said something that I was wrong about. Big deal. You say a lot of things that are wrong, especially in your stance with the Occupy Movement, but that doesn't stop you.

Out of curiosity, can you cite an example where JR was wrong(factually) on the Occupy movement, given proof of the error, and then his failing to acknowledge it?

I may not (in fact I know I don't) agree with JR on certain issues, but rarely is the disagreement based on underlying facts, which you seem to be saying when you say he says "a lot of things that are wrong", our disagreements usually involve application of those facts.

[JoeRedskin]

Feel free to PM with what you believe are my incorrect positions in the Occupy thread and I will gladly refute or admit as necessary. I would suggest that I stand by all my statements as factually correct and, if they are in error, I will gladly and publicly admit the same.

Further, my intention was not to say that you rely on one source but that you act like someone who does. That is just my opinion based on your various arguments and positions that you have taken in the various political threads. I said:

those who rely on one source or one set of sources for their facts will, inevitably fail to see the entire picture and, rather, like yourself, they will see only those parts of the picture they find agreeable.

Perhaps it would have been more clear to say: "rather, they will see only those parts of the picture they find agreeable just as it seems to me that you often do."

My intent, if it was not clear, was that you often (I would say consistently) are dismissive of facts which do not support you opinions and "see only those parts of the picture [you] find agreeable". Fox reports facts - they also spin them. In my opinion, you consistently look at the spin and ignore the facts.

Further, you were wrong when you initially made the statement ("Fox is banned") in the Occupy thread. I pointed out the error then, but, consistent with your methodology, you ignored it. Now, in a thread lambasting the media for their playing fast and loose with the truth, you repeat - and assert as truth - a fact which you have not verified, the error of which was previously pointed out and which is consistent with your complete and utter contempt for Fox.

Pardon me for calling "Fail" on a person who consistently blasts others for being uninformed but whose only support for a blatantly erroneous statement that is the child of rank demagougery is "a friend told me".