QO, not QQ

posted by gut

I disagree.  Opinions used to be reserved for the Opinion/Editorial section.  Today, the news is opinion and the opinions are straight-up partisan propaganda.  "Just the facts" doesn't appear to exist in most reporters' purview.  Definitely not true 25 years ago.

And the actual quality/mastery of most Opinion has declined precipitously.  A good persuasion piece honestly addresses the best arguments on the other side.  You'll rarely see that today.  Most Opinion pieces today are built around strawmen and non-sequitors.  The NYT, at least its editorials, is practically a tabloid now.

 

This isn't accurate.  Going back to founding days of the country, politics has always been part of what's reported.  During the 1700s nad 1800s, many major newspapers were more resembling of what we call tabloids.  Every city had multiple papers that reported from different political perspectives.  Usually the publisher's politics are what the paper pursued.  The idea that there was every this time of objective news journalism is just not so.  The difference today is that news media is so prevelant and unavoidable, so we all think about it a lot more.  

Lol CNN LBGT 18 other letter townhall tonight. With a 9 year old transgender asking a question. That’s def gonna win y’all the Midwest. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

This isn't accurate.  Going back to founding days of the country, politics has always been part of what's reported.  During the 1700s nad 1800s, many major newspapers were more resembling of what we call tabloids.  Every city had multiple papers that reported from different political perspectives.  Usually the publisher's politics are what the paper pursued.  The idea that there was every this time of objective news journalism is just not so.  The difference today is that news media is so prevelant and unavoidable, so we all think about it a lot more.  

Totally disagree with your point of view here.

My Father was a 50+ year newspaper reporter and editor who retired in 1977.  He worked for local newspapers as well as 'conglomerates' that owned several newspapers where his by-lines appeared in several cities.  He railed against what he called 'yellow journalism'...which is what is prevalent today.  His point of view, and those of the industry was that a newspaper was to report the news, while opinions were for the Op/Ed pages only.  IMO, newspapers are not nearly as bad as the television media where the political lean has gone to full tilt to one side or the other with absolutely no room to report what is not in keeping with the networks politics.  It doesn't matter if you are talking about CNN, Fox, PMSNBC or any of them....you get no factual and unbiased news reporting from any of them.

posted by iclfan2

Lol CNN LBGT 18 other letter townhall tonight. With a 9 year old transgender asking a question. That’s def gonna win y’all the Midwest. 

Yea I saw about 1 minute of the show.....unreal how cringy it was for those Dems to act like they actually believed the words that were coming out of their mouths

LOL, whisteblower wants to submit written answers in lieu of oral testimony in order to "protect their identity".  Is this person actually in danger, or is that being sensationalized to add gravity to the charges?  I don't doubt some idiots would harass this person if their identity was public, but I'm not seeing the issue testifying behind closed doors.

Doesn't sound suspicious at all.  I completely trust Adam Schiff to do the right thing.

posted by gut

LOL, whisteblower wants to submit written answers in lieu of oral testimony in order to "protect their identity".  Is this person actually in danger, or is that being sensationalized to add gravity to the charges?  I don't doubt some idiots would harass this person if their identity was public, but I'm not seeing the issue testifying behind closed doors.

Doesn't sound suspicious at all.  I completely trust Adam Schiff to do the right thing.

The transcript is already out, everything now is window dressing.  The whole thing is a weak ploy that will end in no impeachment, but you've already bought in. 

posted by iclfan2

The transcript is already out, everything now is window dressing.  The whole thing is a weak ploy that will end in no impeachment, but you've already bought in. 

I thought the whistleblower(s) had more than just the phone call?

Also, I made my mind up POTUS should be impeached when he went before the media and called on corrupt foreign powers to investigate individual US citizens.  By his own standards (and rhetoric), he should be in jail for saying that.

its also hard to compare news now to 50 years ago because news used to be 1 hour at noon and one hour at 5.  Now its 24 hours a day.  They dont have enough content so they just do mostly bs.  I never watch the news on tv.  I will read news from sites i follow on twitter or yahoo news or something similar on the cpu.  I also cant stand that every article now a days has to have a video.  I really just want to read it.  I get it that they make their money that way but its annoying.

posted by geeblock

its also hard to compare news now to 50 years ago because news used to be 1 hour at noon and one hour at 5.  Now its 24 hours a day.  They dont have enough content so they just do mostly bs.  I never watch the news on tv.  I will read news from sites i follow on twitter or yahoo news or something similar on the cpu.  I also cant stand that every article now a days has to have a video.  I really just want to read it.  I get it that they make their money that way but its annoying.

But I agree with Wkfan - even 25 years ago most mainstream media kept the news pretty separate from opinion.  There was supposed to be, and for the most part was, essentially a chinese wall between the news and the editorials.

That line has basically disappeared with the internet.  The "breaking news" aspect caused the established media to get much looser with fact checking and verification or they get left behind.  And then most people want their news cherry-picked and spun to their liking.  Still that is very, very different relative to some of the outright fake news and propaganda with respect to Trump.

If I were to pinpoint it, I'd say they finally threw in the "non-partisan towel" somewhere around 2005 and it's been a gradual but accelerating descent....to the point most "journalists" now clearly push a party agenda, and they no longer try to hide it much less apologize for it.

posted by gut

I thought the whistleblower(s) had more than just the phone call?

Also, I made my mind up POTUS should be impeached when he went before the media and called on corrupt foreign powers to investigate individual US citizens.  By his own standards (and rhetoric), he should be in jail for saying that.

LOL …you mean the vice-president of the United States who was selling his office for personal gain, and using my money to bribe foreign officials. Good God, get in the game.

Elizabeth Warren making up that she got fired for being pregnant is awesome. What a world we live in when these are the best candidates.

posted by iclfan2

Elizabeth Warren making up that she got fired for being pregnant is awesome. What a world we live in when these are the best candidates.

It's quite incredible.  Everything is so scripted and focused group that even genuine stories are probably embellished to the point of fabrication.

At least Trump is a bad liar!  With Biden and Warren you never know what to believe.

Speaking of the news media, Shepherd Smith with a shocking departure from Fox News today.

The actual news piece of Fox has been butting heads with the opinion idiots.  Shep was one of the few good ones that you could trust not to push an agenda or fake news.

posted by gut

Speaking of the news media, Shepherd Smith with a shocking departure from Fox News today.

The actual news piece of Fox has been butting heads with the opinion idiots.  Shep was one of the few good ones that you could trust not to push an agenda or fake news.

It's a win for blind partisanship over actual balance.

posted by Heretic

It's a win for blind partisanship over actual balance.

Yep, and Tucker Carlson is a complete jackass.

I have a feeling Shep isn't going to be the last one to leave Fox, either.  Which is a shame, because their straight news coverage in the afternoon was actually pretty good.

posted by wkfan

Totally disagree with your point of view here.

My Father was a 50+ year newspaper reporter and editor who retired in 1977.  He worked for local newspapers as well as 'conglomerates' that owned several newspapers where his by-lines appeared in several cities.  He railed against what he called 'yellow journalism'...which is what is prevalent today.  His point of view, and those of the industry was that a newspaper was to report the news, while opinions were for the Op/Ed pages only.  IMO, newspapers are not nearly as bad as the television media where the political lean has gone to full tilt to one side or the other with absolutely no room to report what is not in keeping with the networks politics.  It doesn't matter if you are talking about CNN, Fox, PMSNBC or any of them....you get no factual and unbiased news reporting from any of them.

I don't doubt your father's experience or perspective. 

But you can go back to the country's founding or the Civil War era or reconstruction or the Depression. Newspapers, which were the main news media channels, were not only blatantly biased in their news reporting, but at times downright viscious. Not in editorials, but in news stories .

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I don't doubt your father's experience or perspective. 

 

But you can go back to the country's founding or the Civil War era or reconstruction or the Depression. Newspapers, which were the main news media channels, were not only blatantly biased in their news reporting, but at times downright viscious. Not in editorials, but in news stories .

May be so...but I believe that we got it right in the last 90 years or so and evolved to a journalistic philosophy that included a much more non-partisan, fact based reporting of the events of the day.  Unfortunately, the media has abandoned that philosophy and now spins the news to whatever lean they have.

Many politicians state that a free media is essential in our country...and I agree with that.  Unfortunately, there is no free media today as none of them report the news that is 'free' from opinion.

posted by wkfan

May be so...but I believe that we got it right in the last 90 years or so and evolved to a journalistic philosophy that included a much more non-partisan, fact based reporting of the events of the day.  Unfortunately, the media has abandoned that philosophy and now spins the news to whatever lean they have.

Many politicians state that a free media is essential in our country...and I agree with that.  Unfortunately, there is no free media today as none of them report the news that is 'free' from opinion.

 

I definitely agree with your last paragraph. I think the only way is to use the abundance of sources and piece together, as much as is possible, some semblance of the truth.  That is admittedly difficult. 

Here's a follow-up question to that: Do you think a non-partisan media outlet would be able to survive financially?

I'm not sure which came first, the biased media outlets or the audiences who have effectively "voted" out any possibility of it with their viewership.

Hmmmmm......Zuckerberg interviewing with Dana Perino and sounding rather not-socialist.  I guess threatening to break-up your company and take your money will do that to even the most hardened progressives!

posted by O-Trap

Here's a follow-up question to that: Do you think a non-partisan media outlet would be able to survive financially?

I'm not sure which came first, the biased media outlets or the audiences who have effectively "voted" out any possibility of it with their viewership.

I don't know if a "non-partisan" media outlet is possible.  Mainly because "non-partisan" is subjective in itself  What one guy considers to be objective, another may see as blatantly partisan.  If in a perfect world you were able to construct a media source that had no subjectivity to it, it probably would not do well.  We want confirmation of our beliefs more than any objective truth.  That's because we're human beings and it's in our survival nature to find our pack.  I personally don't believe there ever has been anything like an objective news media because I don't think it is even possible.  That's not new today either.  There is a term that I am too lazy to look up that names the tendency of any group of humans presently living to believe they are at a unique crossroads like non before.  We are like that with the media and the partisan nature of our country today.  There is nothing unique about either in our human history.  But because we're in the midst of it, we tend to see it as a unique condition - unprecedented - and to also believe our future is at stake.  

Global warming, the invasion of the Latinos, Trump, Pelosi, etc.  We can't be practical or impartial to these things.  It ain't in us.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I don't know if a "non-partisan" media outlet is possible.  Mainly because "non-partisan" is subjective in itself 

No it's not.  It absolutely is possible, especially for journalists educated and trained throughout their career, to state simply the facts [on both sides] and avoid biased language.  And it was much, much better 25-30 years ago.

It seems like you think some facts are partisan and others are not.  Facts are facts - omission of facts is partisan, and the injection of opinion and biased language, along with one-sided facts, has been a gradual development over the past 2 decades.

posted by gut

No it's not.  It absolutely is possible, especially for journalists educated and trained throughout their career, to state simply the facts [on both sides] and avoid biased language.  And it was much, much better 25-30 years ago.

It seems like you think some facts are partisan and others are not.  Facts are facts - omission of facts is partisan, and the injection of opinion and biased language, along with one-sided facts, has been a gradual development over the past 2 decades.

Non-partisan is a subjective thing because there is no way to ever say what are all the facts, or what are the selection of facts that need to be included in the reporting.  Those are judgements based upon a person's opinion.  Reporting involves conveying something to people who aren't physically present.  There's no way a person can do that in a completely objective way.  What may be an irrelevant fact to the reporter may be of upmost importance to a recepient.  That it wasn't included then gives that person the impression that the reporter is promoting a bias.

So, all of Canada is confirmed racist. That’s how this works, right?