Anyone following the Catherine Herridge/CBS news bit?
Anyone following the Catherine Herridge/CBS news bit?
I dunno, I got pretty quickly what 702 was and why it is dangerous, but the issue was that both parties had alternative modifications to the bill which differed enough to just leave it as it was rather than fight for months about an alternative that could hamper ongoing intelligence.
Right?
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
So what is defined as news these days?
Reporting of events or stories of public interest. Who, What, When, Where. The why when definitive, but that that should usually be saved for a clearly labeled editorial portion.
What are the rules for a "news outlet". The FCC used to have rules about that. They don't anymore. There is no court that decides what journalistic malpractice is and what must be reported by every certified news outlet and how it should be reported. There are no certified news outlets. Certifying news outlets is something that dictatorships do. Apart from that, there are no rules. If you don't like a news source, turn it off. If enough other people do the same, the source will eventually go away. That's the only free market solution out there.
Yes, exactly, 100%. We get the "news" that we deserve. If we as consumers don't hold the outlets responsible, and are content with being fed whatever we want to hear, that's on us. If we do hold them accountable and change the channel, they will be forced to adapt or they will lose business. On the other end, some newsrooms are extremely biased and their insistence to force their views on their consumers has been detrimental to their business. CNN is the obvious example. Despite their great brand recognition, they have been losing viewership, which is much lower than their competitors. They have been recently been trying to reinvent themselves and move back to the center, but they have been experiencing a lot of internal resistance.
If you bring in five editors you will get five interpretations as to what is newsworthy and five different ways of covering the news. Every single one of them will have different biases, and a boss who thinks he can make more money doing it another way. If you don't like where you get your news, you can go somewhere else. Maybe there is a place for a news outlet that at least attempts to be unbiased, but I haven't seen it yet. It is what it is.
That is a bit of a cop out in the context of this discussion. I don't need to provide examples for you to know that we are talking about significant stories, not about whether they should do a piece on the new carnival ride at the Happy County Fair. If an editor chooses not to cover the stories that I'm talking about, they should not be a "news" editor. And they are losing money by not covering the stories, which should raise a flag- they are putting their politics before their profits. As consumers, we should be aware of that and weigh it accordingly. I do agree that there isn't an unbiased option. I'd like to think that there is a place for an unbiased outlet. My guess is that we were closer to that in the past but have been drifting away. I hope that we have drifted too far and are due for a correction. That won't happen until we as consumers demand it, and/or there is more diversity of thought in the newsrooms.
In reply to RevRico :
I can give a great one for today. The headlines should be reading "Americans fedup with illegal warrantless surveillance of themselves by corrupt government officials have taken to the streets".
Instead it reads (summarizing a few different outlets here) "the party we don't like got strongarmed into continuing an ongoing, unconstitutional illegal spy regime against our own citizens because it makes our corporate overlords feel safer" and is being touted as somehow a good thing.
Curious, where are you getting your news? Do you care to share your sources? I read a few reports from diverse sources (Fox, CNN, CBS, NBC, The Hill) and none of them reported as you have described. They were all surprisingly middle of the road answering who, what, when, where, with minimal editorialization. A bit of a letdown actually for the topic at hand. Maybe is was because it's passage was largely bi-partisan? Or because it's not set in stone and doesn't make as big an impact as you appear to perceive? From the various reports-
It makes no difference short term because it would remain in effect through the current term regardless if it passed or not.
The count is still being challenged and could change on Monday
The term was dropped from 5 years to two, and one of the presidential candidates has a personal issue with FISA.
A separate bill is to be proposed next week requiring warrants for data requested from companies.
Did your sources share the above?
You guys wanna see some really wacko alternative news sources? Go look around some of the YouTube competitors. Bit chute is great fun. In 20 minutes you'll learn all about the lizard people and how they're eating illegal immigrants that "they" are organ farming.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CcsB3FpiJA7z/
Fueled by Caffeine said:You guys wanna see some really wacko alternative news sources? Go look around some of the YouTube competitors. Bit chute is great fun. In 20 minutes you'll learn all about the lizard people and how they're eating illegal immigrants that "they" are organ farming.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CcsB3FpiJA7z/
Yeah. I remember when the lizard people first came here in their flying saucers seeking peace, then started taking people up to store as food. Or was that a TV series?
Lets tread lightly here. We all know that the internet is full of whackadoodles. Between that and mainstream political differences, this could run off the cliff in a moment.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Lets tread lightly here. We all know that the internet is full of whackadoodles. Between that and mainstream political differences, this could run off the cliff in a moment.
Birds aren't real. You knew that, didn't you?
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Pulitzer & Hearst would be proud of modern 'journalism'.... it harkens back to their innovation of what we now call 'click bait' headlines and exaggerated claims.
I'm not surprised to see someone call out NPR, it's almost exclusively run on local levels by college students and they definitely aren't known for being balanced these days.
WOW Really Paul? said:In reply to GameboyRMH
I'm not surprised to see someone call out NPR, it's almost exclusively run on local levels by college students and they definitely aren't known for being balanced these days.
Independent public stations pay to be an NPR affiliate. It is not run by the college students. It is run by veteran news people who have pretty impressive resumes. NPR is the national network. Just like ABC is the big thing, but your local ABC station could be run by anyone from any political affiliation. Many local NPR affiliates are broadcasting from college campuses, mostly because of the access to research, technology, and interns. But to say NPR is run by college students is not accurate.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
That's a fair point and I stand corrected on that. Three of our IPR stations are based out of the communication school at Ball State University and there are many students that are always on air with their segment slots. Only the IPR station in Indy still carries BBC The World which kinda sucks.
Here's NPR's president responding to the original article:
And Matt Taibbi's take featuring some of her past tweets in her words which kind of gives you the vibes NPR has given me the last 10 years especially.
https://www.racket.news/p/new-npr-chief-katherine-mahers-guide
Toyman! said:In reply to Marjorie Suddard :
Their story is why they aren't trusted. They aren't there to sway my opinion, they are there to pass on information and that is all.
I want facts stated as plainly as possible.
The problem with this, as I see it after a few decades of news, is that, too often, even simple facts are considered propaganda and "fake news" if the facts don't line up with your personal and political beliefs. We saw that with Covid and with anti-vaxxers (and we now have measles outbreaks thanks to that), especailly if the facts are more complicated than a sound bite can cover.
Even if Walter Cronkite came back and read us simple news with no "opinion," half the population would call him fake news, the same way so many religious people call the Gospel of Luke "woke." That's what sad about this.
In reply to crankwalk (Forum Supporter) :
Yep. She's basically said she's going to double down on her social engineering. It's time to elect the people to remove public funding from organizations like this.
I use an app called RocaNews. They seem to pride themselves in reporting facts and leaving the commentary out.
In reply to Chris_V :
Deleted.
You and I won't agree on this.
Let's just leave it at that.
Toyman! said:In reply to Chris_V :
Deleted.
You and I won't agree on this.
Let's just leave it at that.
And thus the problem. You don't want anything that disagrees with your existing worldview, so anything that does is "fake news" and anyone even bringing it up is not to be talked to.
In reply to Chris_V :
Spoken like someone who hasn't read anything I've written. Which is what I expected and why I cut this off before starting it. You don't read to understand, you read to repeat your world view.
Carry on.
Chris_V said:Toyman! said:In reply to Marjorie Suddard :
Their story is why they aren't trusted. They aren't there to sway my opinion, they are there to pass on information and that is all.
I want facts stated as plainly as possible.
The problem with this, as I see it after a few decades of news, is that, too often, even simple facts are considered propaganda and "fake news" if the facts don't line up with your personal and political beliefs. We saw that with Covid and with anti-vaxxers (and we now have measles outbreaks thanks to that), especailly if the facts are more complicated than a sound bite can cover.
Even if Walter Cronkite came back and read us simple news with no "opinion," half the population would call him fake news, the same way so many religious people call the Gospel of Luke "woke." That's what sad about this.
I guess we will see where it ends up but not sure you can blame the current Measles outbreak on Covid anti-vaxers. 
As long as NPR is reliant on listener-funding, it will beholden to similar standards as commercial funded news. It needs to play to its audience in order to convince that audience to keep funding them.
One could argue the way to move NPR towards more impartial reporting would be to increase Govt funding to the point where they are not beholden to any listener opinions about whether the reporting is right or wrong. Of course, that sounds great in principle... but implementing that would be far from simple.
In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
The problem is that if you increase government funding NPR will be more beholden to them. Pick your devil.
Chris_V said:And thus the problem. You don't want anything that disagrees with your existing worldview, so anything that does is "fake news" and anyone even bringing it up is not to be talked to.
I think you may not be clear in what you mean here.
It sounds like you are accusing him of not wanting do see anything that disagrees with him and calling it fake and not wanting to talk to you. Now, if you are saying, that is the general trend, for many people, from all sides, I think you have a point. If you are referring to him, then you are essentially starting an argument, and he is very right not to engage (for all of us really).
To respond the previous post: It's a bit of a self-fulfilling situation for the news. One of the primary reasons people don't trust it, is because many of the things it has reported on are clearly deceptive in how they are presented (in the least). You can hardly blame the public for it, when they demonstrate it over and over and over again...
There are certainly people who don't trust the news just because they are told not to, but there are also many, many others who have seen the examples they seemingly so eagerly provided. Which Toyman is, I don't know... but he seems like a well informed fellow on the topic to me, so I would tend to assume the later.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :
The problem is that if you increase government funding NPR will be more beholden to them. Pick your devil.
Depends. Being a publicly funded organization, there would have to be oversight. In the current political climate, that would need to be a committee with an even balance of party representatives - possibly a committee with members from both the House and the Senate. Their sole purpose would be to maintain that balance of serving the middle ground.
If you find yourself paying attention to a particular news source and always agreeing with how the news is being presented, you aren't getting news.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
