I just wouldn't read them.
I feel your pain.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Every day makes it plainer that Goldwater was right ...
Some would argue that my concerns are not anything new, that Americans have always complained about an ?unfair? news media. Others would say the media have almost always been about entertainment more than news despite their protestations to the contrary. And as entertainment, it appears bad news drives out good, and ?if it bleeds it leads.? And in any case, a free press is one of the main planks upon which a free people must stand and whatever press we get, well that is what we get.
This may all be true, but I believe it does not address the point raised by this essay. To be a free nation we must be able to debate the great issues of the day. To do that, there must be at least some seriousness in the news media to cover issues intelligently and fairly. But when the press itself becomes destructive of, and undermines, often deliberately, this process, it is time to take notice and say ?enough!?
Thus, to the extent the news media becomes simply a public relations appendage of one political party or the other, or of one particular view, serious debate on issues is seriously impeded. Without such debate, sound decisions cannot be made by our political leaders that require the determined and sustained support of the American people.
Take for example the threat largely considered to be the main concern of the United States, a nuclear device exploding in an American city. Stopping such an attack will require a sustained fight that will require the effective use of both diplomacy and military force and the vigorous use of tools such as the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance program. Failure to pursue all avenues will enable our enemies to buy the time necessary to bring their plans to fruition.
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/phuessy_20070702.html
The NYT is arguably the worst of the lot although the Washington Post and LA Times are not far behind.
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 59 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
I just wouldn't read them.
I feel your pain.
- Collapse -
I always get a chuckle when someone routinely complains about a newspaper, web site, etc. If you're complaining about it every day then you're probably reading it every day.
Fox News, Newsmax and Drudge don't especially bother me because I don't watch/read them (with the exception of the occasional link from SE). If I was visiting those sites regularly I suppose I'd consider them "arguably the worst of the lot."
- Collapse -
I got mad at them and ended my subscription. This was a number of years ago. I also decided to get rid of the cheap watch they gave me for subscribing, that said "TIME" on it...
- Collapse -
The press has adopted a sensationalistic edge to it's reporting. Why? Because that is what sells. I guess we all (as a society) have got what we wanted. A culture of entertainment rather than news reporting. This is reflected especially on TV but can be found on the web and regular print news sources as well. We have reached a glut of news reporting so that we can always find some source that is ready to say what we want to hear. After all, the press, driven by market forces, is simply giving us what we want.
I find it a bit one sided that Mr ODaniel insists on pointing out the favorite whipping boys of the right as the most egregious offenders. There are plenty of those on the right who call themselves reporters of news when what they really are is opinion/editorial providers who cherry pick their sources to justify the opinions they present to us, leaving out all items that mitigate their views. Don't get me wrong. This behavior is rampant whether it's left or right. It's just that we, as consumers, have enabled this to happen. We have reached a point where we all would rather have some talking head give us the part of the story we agree with, rather than all of it.
I would point out an example of the left coloring the news with opinion. This past week end George Stephanopoulos was interviewing Ron Paul (whose views I admire). He ended the interview with a remark to Mr Paul saying something to the effect that he should know he couldn't win so why was he even campaigning. A blatant example of a "reporter" coloring an interview with his own opinion. I hope Stephanopoulos was called on this by his bosses. I certainly sent an email of complaint hoping to call attention to this gaffe. I could point out just as blatant examples (if not more) or right wing dogma coloring news casting but I won't because I know it would just lead to petty dog fights. I will simply say that in my opinion it is plain for those who are willing to see.
In short, I find it a bit disingenuous to complain about the agenda driven state of news reporting today by the left or the right when the reality is that the news is what we have asked it to be. When we as a society are willing to demand the good and the bad news be given equal time( rather than just rewarding news sources with our patronage when they tell us what we want to hear) is when news will move back to giving us truly fair and balanced reporting.
PS... here is a link to that interview cached on YouTube. It's worth watching IMO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAh9sp7ebdY
PPS... have you seen how hot some of the news reporters are getting? 
- Collapse -
operation will try to give it's buyers what they want. But, they can also become like an animal bent on survival and will attempt to create and develop the marketplace if it doesn't beat a path to their door. As well, our media has the ability to reach and affect many people and can choose what that affect will be. They are a powerful force to reckon with. I think it's fairly well understood that, at least with persons in polititics, being less than friendly and cooperative with the media is potential suicide. Play their game or get bad press. Don't give them requested information for their stories and the stories go forth with speculative suggestions. Smile and give them some candy and you're their darling. They will help you defeat you enemy so as to keep you as their good customer. This atmosphere provides just too much opportunity for dishonesty and corruption, IMO.
- Collapse -
I wouldn't call him (and others with similar shows) part of the news.
- Collapse -
Well, to him, they are. I'd point to other news sources as my most egregious offenders. The problem (as seen here in SE many times) comes when people start confusing the difference between what constitutes a personal opinion vs. a fact.
TV news especially seems to have taken a steep dive into the absurd (local news in particular). It can barely be called news anymore. Our local newscasts often start with teasers like "How to keep your skin looking young...stay tuned!" Sorry, but that is NOT news. In fact, teasers in general are pretty annoying to me when it's a news show. If there's something important I should know, then TELL me, don't feed me part of it and then tell me to "stay tuned" because four minutes of commercials are more important than whatever breaking news story you have. These days an average 30 minute local news broadcast has maybe 6 or 7 minutes of actual news in it.
That's why I rely primarily on the Internet for my news nowadays. I have no opinion on Katie Couric's broadcasts because I've never seen one. I haven't watched a network evening newscast in I don't know how long. There's no need.
- Collapse -
Nope!
You should have noticed that I opted to concentrate attention on NEWSPAPERS and it is undeniable by even the far left liberals that the three papers I mentioned ALWAYS bias their "reporting" (one should also recognize that AP and Reuters bylines must necessarily be excluded from papers because the reporters are not in the paper's employ).
Had I included Radio I would have had to include Rush and even Hanity because they admit right up front that you are going to get their slant but then, the Rush and Hanity radio shows are NOT "news" as such, they are OPINION based on news.
Had I got into TV most again slants left but again most of the "news" shows are not really news, they are OPINION.
NEWS should be unbiased and simply reported and the mainstream print media isn't doing that. Nor should news include ANYTHING detrimental to the security of the nation and again the MSM isn't concerned with security, only with profit.
- Collapse -
Remember "yellow journalism," which led to the Spanish American War? As its chief architect, William Randolph hearts said, "Dog biotes man -- that's not a story. Man bites dog -- now THAT'S news!"
BTW, Ed's starter header reminds me of one of Barry's campaign slogans -- "In your heart you no he's right," the comeback to which was "yeah -- FAR right!"
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
Just wondering, Dave, was William Randolph Hearst the one that came up with that "man bites dog" quote? Could it have been Charles Anderson Dana?
- Collapse -
... just come out and say someone made a mistake in a quote or the use of a term. OK?
- Collapse -
... when one is not being patronized.
I am curious about the "admitting it" issue that you have raised. Does a typo, a misspelling, a misused term or a wrongly accredited quote require an admission?
- Collapse -
Incorrect word usage and or untrue "facts" yes. Negro does NOT mean south. misspellings
- Collapse -
... do not need to be "admitted" to by the offending author but incorrect word usage or untrue facts do require acknowledgment by the person committing the gaffe?
- Collapse -
... we must stay on point when discussing RFK?
I refer you to my question of DM. Does a typo require "admitting it"?
- Collapse -
That made no sense.
What typo are you talking about? He got the historic quote wrong, that's all. And you didn't get DM's reference.
Anyway, maybe I "insisted" we stick to a topic, but I didn't ORDER anyone to do something. This is not the first time you've tried to tell people how to post either.
Over and out. You can have all the last words you want.
- Collapse -
I think everybody understood what was said. Is there some sort of approved form for a response now?
- Collapse -
...is a little bit pushy, and brash. Seems like you could have said something like, "maybe someone made an error in a quote or the use of a term"...and leave off that "OK?"...in caps, no less...and we all know what caps insinuates.
- Collapse -
Does it not? Maybe I'm wrong. I also believe the proper way of spelling it is with capital letters unless you choose to spell it okay or o-kay.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/OK
As for a little bit brash and/or pushy? You can take it however you wish. J seemingly has appointed himself as the referee of terminology and spelling as of late. I have no particular problem with that per se. I do think he does it in a rather patronizing manner unless it is polite form to begin correcting a gaffe by "wondering" if someone intentionally made a mistake.
As in... I wonder, did you mean to screw up or did it just happen. That, to me is patronizing.
from the actual post... "Just wondering, Dave, was William Randolph Hearst the one that came up with that "man bites dog" quote? Could it have been Charles Anderson Dana?"
In fact though, I was being pushy as in rushing someone to "just say it"
OK?
- Collapse -
you can fight for your opinions just be ready for someone to fight for his too (or words to that effect)
.,
- Collapse -
...apropos in this little sub thread. I tried to inject a little idea on civility but I think I failed the mission. My apologies for being the catalyst that further disgraced this thread.
- Collapse -
READ what YOU wrote up there in the subject line. Now try to recognize your errors. (hint, think AGREEMENT)
Avoid attempting to correct others until you at least provide empirical evidence that you can practice what you preach.
Just wondering, is this actually a question? "As for a little bit brash and/or pushy?" Certainly doesn't stand on its own.
Just wondering why your 4th paragraph is initiated with "from the actual post... " as that lower case f certainly isn't in accordance with any grammar rules most are familiar with. Normally a sentence begins with a capital letter.
Just wondering whether you have noted that every time you point YOUR FINGER as someone else's typo or malapropism there are four more pointing directly back at you and the probable errors you have made within your own response. That certainly doesn't lend credibility to your attempted criticisms.
- Collapse -
1 pointing PLUS there are four more pointing directly back at you.
3 of the four could be his, and last/or first one of the "four more" could be yours.
OR do you think he has 5 fingers and 1 thumb.
Perhaps he points with his thumb, (Donald Rumsfeld has been observed pointing with his thumb)
- Collapse -
... I guess it's a lucky thing I don't really care what you think. Otherwise, I might be in a fetal position on the floor right now.
Like I said, you can take it however you wish. However, according to Duckman, the only thing I need to admit to is incorrect word usage or stating incorrect facts. As for my credibility? You have already made it clear I have no credibility in your eyes (boy, did I lose sleep over that). Consequently, I must assume your continued efforts to address my failings are simply a harassment campaign. All I can say is "boy, you sure showed me! Yup, you showed me real good."
I noticed your post dropped the whole "OK" issue. Can I assume you admit I at least got that one right?
BTW... I thought your style of pointing involved using all four fingers to point down range?
- Collapse -
Marshall McLuhan was a Canadian professor of English literature who burst into world prominence as a media guru in the 1960s. Working with the ideas of Harold Innis, another Canadian communications expert, McLuhan popularized the idea that our technologies have a profound effect upon our lives, culture, and history.
Countering the commonly accepted attitude that the content of a message is more important than its form, McLuhan pointed out that the means of communication itself creates an impact, regardless of what is being said.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic