Hmmm....report on election fraud...

[The Weekenders]

they clearly have issues with partisanship, diligence, and honesty.

I tend to think that there are very few organizations that don't these days. Everyone has an agenda if you dig far enough.

I think this is a bit of an unfortunate attitude. We've stopped caring or expecting our media to attempt to overcome bias. We've dramatically lowered the bar.

Maybe this is for the better, because we no longer (in theory) have automatic trust in the words of Walter Cronkite, but this has had the effect that we're accepting of a considerable amount of debased coin.

We used to demand that our media at least attempted to verify some facts, and that they'd be ashamed to publish blatant partisan spin--report on, yes, but repeat uncritically, no.

Now they--or rather many--don't bother, and we don't expect them to. If such partisanship cost them viewers, they might make it a little less blatant.

However, these days the opposite is true: stations such as Fox have made a lot of money by deciding that what viewers really wanted was to see news that reflected the viewers own opinions and preferences, rather than news which attempts to overcome them.

Include CBS in there, and the NY TImes and we can agree. Look at the Times latest antic, digging into private adoption records on Roberts. If they find something the least questionable, would it be to serve the agenda of many of their readers and editorial board in efforts to discredit him, or a diligent search for truth? For some reason, you only mentioned Fox.......

[izzarina]

they clearly have issues with partisanship, diligence, and honesty.

I tend to think that there are very few organizations that don't these days. Everyone has an agenda if you dig far enough.

I think this is a bit of an unfortunate attitude. We've stopped caring or expecting our media to attempt to overcome bias. We've dramatically lowered the bar.

Oh, I agree that it's an unfortunate attitude. But what's even more unfortunate is that it's true. The media in general tends toward the sensational these days in order to sell their publications. There is always something underlying in what they telecast or write, and I find that to be appalling. I wish that caring would actually do something to change this, but I tend to think that the vast majority of people (at least here in this country) like things they way they are. Truth seems to be a relative thing with most people...if they person doing the reporting tends to agree with your point of view, than it must be accurate. There is a part of me that feels that the first Amendment needs to be amended, so to speak. The press shouldn't have the right to report half truths and lies, and to dupe the public at large under the banner of "Freedom of the Press".

[jsluder]

There is a part of me that feels that the first Amendment needs to be amended, so to speak. The press shouldn't have the right to report half truths and lies, and to dupe the public at large under the banner of "Freedom of the Press".

That sounds like an agenda to me...

[s1m0n]

Include CBS in there, and the NY TImes and we can agree. Look at the Times latest antic, digging into private adoption records on Roberts. If they find something the least questionable, would it be to serve the agenda of many of their readers and editorial board in efforts to discredit him, or a diligent search for truth? For some reason, you only mentioned Fox.......

I guess, but the Times at least falls both ways from time to time. For instance, the NY Times did a LOT of cheerleading in the runup to the war, and reported as fact an awful lot of misinformation about WMDs which the administration was feeding Judith Miller.

I understand that some parts of the right see the Times as massively liberal, but from here on the left it doesn't look like that at all. Most of the time, the TImes is well to the right of what I'd see as liberal. Maybe the Times is just sloppy rather than sloppy and biased.

[fiddleronvermouth]

I understand that some parts of the right see the Times as massively liberal, but from here on the left it doesn't look like that at all. Most of the time, the TImes is well to the right of what I'd see as liberal. Maybe the Times is just sloppy rather than sloppy and biased.

Actually, the NY Times seems to be the number one most oft-cited example of a news source that completely fails to offer anything remotely deviant from state-generated misinformation, according to this Chomsky book I'm reading.

He seems to think it's rather far to the right.

[s1m0n]

He seems to think it's rather far to the right.

The Times is politically establishmentarian and socially liberal, I suppose. They're for the US establishment foursquare while being a little more liberal on issues liek abortion and gay rights.

If the latter are what you think is important, and if you see support for the government as "transparant" (ie, so in tune with your views that it seems obviously the only option) then you'd probably see the Times as liberal.

[fiddleronvermouth]

...if you see support for the government as "transparant" (ie, so in tune with your views that it seems obviously the only option) then you'd probably see the Times as liberal.

*Shudder*

I took this internet test once and it turns out I'm left of Ghandi.

http://politicalcompass.org/

[izzarina]

I think I'm basically in the same place you are....tending toward Communism As much as I kid about it, I'm really not a Communist you know....although I do tend to look pretty darn good in red

[peeplj]

...if you see support for the government as "transparant" (ie, so in tune with your views that it seems obviously the only option) then you'd probably see the Times as liberal.

*Shudder*

I took this internet test once and it turns out I'm left of Ghandi.

http://politicalcompass.org/

So am I. I'm also, according to this test, an almost pure anarchist.

Interesting that this test equates libertarianism and anarchism as equivalent concepts, as I personally find them quite different.

--James

[Flyingcursor]

...if you see support for the government as "transparant" (ie, so in tune with your views that it seems obviously the only option) then you'd probably see the Times as liberal.

*Shudder*

I took this internet test once and it turns out I'm left of Ghandi.

http://politicalcompass.org/

So am I. I'm also, according to this test, an almost pure anarchist.

Interesting that this test equates libertarianism and anarchism as equivalent concepts, as I personally find them quite different.

--James

Similar to the current trend of assigning equivalency to being a Republican and a Fire and Brimstone Fundamentalist.