(03-05-2013 11:13 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:01 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 10:55 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 09:57 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Fox News is so successful because their spin fits the fears and frustrations of a large number of people. They breathlessly tell you what you were afraid was true (even if it isn't actually true).

MSNBC is less successful because their spin is more "look at how stupid those people are and if you aren't in it with us you are stupid too."

I’m often amused by those that give CNBC and Fox News scathing reviews but tolerate the gross intellectual dishonesty of network news. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are hardly the bastions of intellectual integrity and have been caught editing video and parsing national stories a number of times. At times they seem to be more concerned about keeping their positions in the White House Press Core and their seats on Air Force One. On any given night one can turn on any of the networks and hear the same talking points fed to them from members of the White House and Congress. Network news has become almost state run news that no longer is interested in keeping our government honest, but actually aiding it in evading thorough investigation. But as long as people focus on the two networks that are driven by opinion, no one will talk about the major networks failure of responsible journalism.

I am amazed that Americans tend to think other nations are susceptible to government/media propaganda, while somehow believing they themselves are impervious to it.

Call me old fashion but there was a time, but its been a very long time ago that I believed it.

I promised I wasn't going to post any more on this topic but had to say one more thing, I have friends/relatives who religiously watch FoxNews or CNN or MSNBC. I'm constantly reminding them that because some pretty face (well, some aren't so pretty) on a national program tells them something that it's their duty as intelligent Americans to seek out and confirm the facts for themselves and not take the words of "actors" as fact just because they are famous personalities. Yes, as expected, most of them look at me like I'm nuts.

When 70-80% of journalists readily admit in surveys that they lean to one side of the political spectrum, bias exists. I'm one of those silly Kentuckians who believes that most journalists have the best of intentions. Typically their bias comes out not by blatant partisan talking points but by their choice of topics, their choice of sources of information, etc. That's where the bias is most concerning. Many, not all of us, can discern the open bias of opinion shows. Sadly, many can't detect it when it's presented by "reputable" journalists.

Heck, I even believe most politicians have the best of intentions. Sadly, the growing number of bad apples spoil the perception we have of those sincerely trying to do good.

Call me naive.

I'm with you, brother. I believe most journalists are trying to present facts and expose truth, but people underrate how hard it is to not have your own beliefs and biases affect the tone of what you produce.
It's much easier to complain about other's biases than filter out your own.

(03-05-2013 11:40 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:13 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:01 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 10:55 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 09:57 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  I’m often amused by those that give CNBC and Fox News scathing reviews but tolerate the gross intellectual dishonesty of network news. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are hardly the bastions of intellectual integrity and have been caught editing video and parsing national stories a number of times. At times they seem to be more concerned about keeping their positions in the White House Press Core and their seats on Air Force One. On any given night one can turn on any of the networks and hear the same talking points fed to them from members of the White House and Congress. Network news has become almost state run news that no longer is interested in keeping our government honest, but actually aiding it in evading thorough investigation. But as long as people focus on the two networks that are driven by opinion, no one will talk about the major networks failure of responsible journalism.

I am amazed that Americans tend to think other nations are susceptible to government/media propaganda, while somehow believing they themselves are impervious to it.

Call me old fashion but there was a time, but its been a very long time ago that I believed it.

I promised I wasn't going to post any more on this topic but had to say one more thing, I have friends/relatives who religiously watch FoxNews or CNN or MSNBC. I'm constantly reminding them that because some pretty face (well, some aren't so pretty) on a national program tells them something that it's their duty as intelligent Americans to seek out and confirm the facts for themselves and not take the words of "actors" as fact just because they are famous personalities. Yes, as expected, most of them look at me like I'm nuts.

When 70-80% of journalists readily admit in surveys that they lean to one side of the political spectrum, bias exists. I'm one of those silly Kentuckians who believes that most journalists have the best of intentions. Typically their bias comes out not by blatant partisan talking points but by their choice of topics, their choice of sources of information, etc. That's where the bias is most concerning. Many, not all of us, can discern the open bias of opinion shows. Sadly, many can't detect it when it's presented by "reputable" journalists.

Heck, I even believe most politicians have the best of intentions. Sadly, the growing number of bad apples spoil the perception we have of those sincerely trying to do good.

Call me naive.

I'm with you, brother. I believe most journalists are trying to present facts and expose truth, but people underrate how hard it is to not have your own beliefs and biases affect the tone of what you produce.

It's much easier to complain about other's biases than filter out your own.

The network biases aren't the fault of the on air talent, look to folks like Roger Ailes, advertisers, deep pocketed private individuals like the Koch family. On air talent certainly has their biases too, but it starts at the top.

(03-05-2013 12:03 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  The network biases aren't the fault of the on air talent, look to folks like Roger Ailes, advertisers, deep pocketed private individuals like the Koch family. On air talent certainly has their biases too, but it starts at the top.

We can all name names such as Ted Turner, George Soros, et. al. but you are correct, those at the top, i.e. editors, bureau chiefs, organizations like Moveon.org, Heritage, etc. work non-stop day in and day out to manipulate and demand which stories get covered and which get overlooked. Those decisions about what is covered and what is not covered is just as damaging as the bias-laden words of a political hack talking head.

And it's not just TV broadcasts. The same is true in print media. Heck even the "watchdog" sites that profess to dispel myths even show bias.

(03-05-2013 11:40 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:13 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:01 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 10:55 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 09:57 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  I’m often amused by those that give CNBC and Fox News scathing reviews but tolerate the gross intellectual dishonesty of network news. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are hardly the bastions of intellectual integrity and have been caught editing video and parsing national stories a number of times. At times they seem to be more concerned about keeping their positions in the White House Press Core and their seats on Air Force One. On any given night one can turn on any of the networks and hear the same talking points fed to them from members of the White House and Congress. Network news has become almost state run news that no longer is interested in keeping our government honest, but actually aiding it in evading thorough investigation. But as long as people focus on the two networks that are driven by opinion, no one will talk about the major networks failure of responsible journalism.

I am amazed that Americans tend to think other nations are susceptible to government/media propaganda, while somehow believing they themselves are impervious to it.

Call me old fashion but there was a time, but its been a very long time ago that I believed it.

I promised I wasn't going to post any more on this topic but had to say one more thing, I have friends/relatives who religiously watch FoxNews or CNN or MSNBC. I'm constantly reminding them that because some pretty face (well, some aren't so pretty) on a national program tells them something that it's their duty as intelligent Americans to seek out and confirm the facts for themselves and not take the words of "actors" as fact just because they are famous personalities. Yes, as expected, most of them look at me like I'm nuts.

When 70-80% of journalists readily admit in surveys that they lean to one side of the political spectrum, bias exists. I'm one of those silly Kentuckians who believes that most journalists have the best of intentions. Typically their bias comes out not by blatant partisan talking points but by their choice of topics, their choice of sources of information, etc. That's where the bias is most concerning. Many, not all of us, can discern the open bias of opinion shows. Sadly, many can't detect it when it's presented by "reputable" journalists.

Heck, I even believe most politicians have the best of intentions. Sadly, the growing number of bad apples spoil the perception we have of those sincerely trying to do good.

Call me naive.

I'm with you, brother. I believe most journalists are trying to present facts and expose truth, but people underrate how hard it is to not have your own beliefs and biases affect the tone of what you produce.
It's much easier to complain about other's biases than filter out your own.

I find that hard to believe when many journalist are involved in political activism. It’s okay to have your own political beliefs, but there are far too many journalists who think it’s their job to bring about political or social change through their work. I have a hand full of friends that are sports journalist in the print media and television, and they all pretty much say that same things about many of their colleagues. They say a number a graduates come into field idealistic and wanting to bring about change in one manner or another through their articles and reporting. They rarely own up to their own bias because they spend very little time with others that don’t share their points of view or life experiences. They don’t see themselves as bias because they are committed to a certain cause and rarely are questioned on it. Many of them may have enter college to major in journalism for the right reasons, but once they graduate they seem to assimilate with a number of their colleagues that participate in activist journalism.

Quote:We can all name names such as Ted Turner, George Soros, et. al. but you are correct, those at the top, i.e. editors, bureau chiefs, organizations like Moveon.org, Heritage, etc. work non-stop day in and day out to manipulate and demand which stories get covered and which get overlooked. Those decisions about what is covered and what is not covered is just as damaging as the bias-laden words of a political hack talking head.

And it's not just TV broadcasts. The same is true in print media. Heck even the "watchdog" sites that profess to dispel myths even show bias.

Yes. The average journalist may have good intentions but a lot of the folks up top don't.

(03-05-2013 12:03 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:40 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:13 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:01 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 10:55 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I am amazed that Americans tend to think other nations are susceptible to government/media propaganda, while somehow believing they themselves are impervious to it.

Call me old fashion but there was a time, but its been a very long time ago that I believed it.

I promised I wasn't going to post any more on this topic but had to say one more thing, I have friends/relatives who religiously watch FoxNews or CNN or MSNBC. I'm constantly reminding them that because some pretty face (well, some aren't so pretty) on a national program tells them something that it's their duty as intelligent Americans to seek out and confirm the facts for themselves and not take the words of "actors" as fact just because they are famous personalities. Yes, as expected, most of them look at me like I'm nuts.

When 70-80% of journalists readily admit in surveys that they lean to one side of the political spectrum, bias exists. I'm one of those silly Kentuckians who believes that most journalists have the best of intentions. Typically their bias comes out not by blatant partisan talking points but by their choice of topics, their choice of sources of information, etc. That's where the bias is most concerning. Many, not all of us, can discern the open bias of opinion shows. Sadly, many can't detect it when it's presented by "reputable" journalists.

Heck, I even believe most politicians have the best of intentions. Sadly, the growing number of bad apples spoil the perception we have of those sincerely trying to do good.

Call me naive.

I'm with you, brother. I believe most journalists are trying to present facts and expose truth, but people underrate how hard it is to not have your own beliefs and biases affect the tone of what you produce.

It's much easier to complain about other's biases than filter out your own.

The network biases aren't the fault of the on air talent, look to folks like Roger Ailes, advertisers, deep pocketed private individuals like the Koch family. On air talent certainly has their biases too, but it starts at the top.

Actually it started years ago and has come to fruition in "political correctness". It's now everyday life. A journalist's job today is to point out the politically correct view, not do any rational analysis.

Heaven forbid that you have a system of morals and declare that something is right or wrong. You then become the problem, not the act you spoke out against.

Both sides of an issue can't possibly be examined because everyone knows that by definition certain things are true, like the rich are only rich because they stole their money from the working man or blacks cant be racists.

It's in kindergarten where the brainwashing begins. My grandaughter has a tablet of some sort that plays what used to be fairy tales.

The new version of the three little pigs has the big bad wolf at the brick house failing to blow it down, but instead of being boiled in a pot in the chimney he jumped down, is invited in for a meal and becomes a happy neighbor. In the billy goats gruff, the troll under the bridge is taught how to eat grass instead of billy goats and they all live happily ever after.

Today everybody gets a trophy and is taught winning is irrelevant, and that there really isn't right and wrong, just misguided people making a few mistakes.

That's what journalism is today.

(03-05-2013 07:57 AM)Eagles Cliff Wrote:  He has written more about Ga Tech than Ga Southern and when he writes about Ga Southern, it's usually a hit piece from his blog.

That's probably the root of the problem right there. He's still (to borrow a word from the MTSU fans) butthurt over that beat down MTSU gave him last year.

(03-05-2013 09:57 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 04:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 02:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Trying to be as objective as possible, MSNBC and Fox News are easily the worst. I agree that Fox News is the worst, but I like to give them the benefit of the doubt(to an extent) that they swing so far right because nearly every other outlet is at least left leaning and in some cases like MSNBC nearly as far left as Fox News is far right.

I will say, I'm not sure how conservatives stomach Fox News, I don't watch MSNBC because being pandered to makes me feel stupid, or at least makes me believe they think I'm stupid, and Fox News panders to their audience with the best of them.

Fox News is so successful because their spin fits the fears and frustrations of a large number of people. They breathlessly tell you what you were afraid was true (even if it isn't actually true).

MSNBC is less successful because their spin is more "look at how stupid those people are and if you aren't in it with us you are stupid too."

I’m often amused by those that give CNBC and Fox News scathing reviews but tolerate the gross intellectual dishonesty of network news. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are hardly the bastions of intellectual integrity and have been caught editing video and parsing national stories a number of times. At times they seem to be more concerned about keeping their positions in the White House Press Core and their seats on Air Force One. On any given night one can turn on any of the networks and hear the same talking points fed to them from members of the White House and Congress. Network news has become almost state run news that no longer is interested in keeping our government honest, but actually aiding it in evading thorough investigation. But as long as people focus on the two networks that are driven by opinion, no one will talk about the major networks failure of responsible journalism.

The real travesty is the lack of a basic understanding of journalism.

Having one person spew spin for one side then another for the other side is not journalism.

Real journalists jump in and challenge the "facts" spewed by spinner #1 and spinner #2.

My local Congressman has all sorts of grand pronouncements that never get challenged. I don't like the guy but the other choice was a multiple DWI offender.
1. End the free cell phone program. I don't care one way or another except that if they do eliminate it, I want my monthly universal service fee removed from my phone bill. Not once has any reporter asked what he would do with the Universal Service Fee if he prevails. The program represents 1/10th of a percent of the budget DEFICIT assuming the money can even be used for something else.
2. He spends a lot of time talking about the unfair wages received by Federal employees. No one has ever said Congressman, when the current pay scale was adopted during the Clinton administration government employees made 78% of comporable private sector employees and have not received any raises in excess of the rate of inflation yet now Federal employees with a bachelor's degree or less make more money than comporable private sector employees. Isn't the problem wages in the private sector?
3. He goes to great lengths to "fight unfair regulation and interference with property rights". Most notably the local government's attempt to protect a local lake from runoff from a proposed major commercial development that would be next to the lake, a development owned by a major contributor. Central Arkansas Water has highly competetive rates because they spend very little for treatment of the water to exceed health standards. That would change if hundreds of cars are parking on an asphalt lot that runs off into the lake. His donor makes millions and I get a higher water bill.

But what really really makes me angry is during the debates CNN and the AP would do "fact check" pieces explaining how somethings said we outright lies and others left out key information to make things sound more outrageous. NEVER did I see a reporter for either outfit challenge either candidate or their spokesmen about the statements. Utterly irresponsible.

(03-04-2013 03:06 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Back on track....................?

NEVER!

If there were ever a thread that was off topic, it is this one. Can't believe it has not been locked.

(03-05-2013 12:25 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

Quote:We can all name names such as Ted Turner, George Soros, et. al. but you are correct, those at the top, i.e. editors, bureau chiefs, organizations like Moveon.org, Heritage, etc. work non-stop day in and day out to manipulate and demand which stories get covered and which get overlooked. Those decisions about what is covered and what is not covered is just as damaging as the bias-laden words of a political hack talking head.

And it's not just TV broadcasts. The same is true in print media. Heck even the "watchdog" sites that profess to dispel myths even show bias.

Yes. The average journalist may have good intentions but a lot of the folks up top don't.

The average journalist makes less than a teacher. They do it because they have a passion for it or enjoy being in the midst of the action.

The people the average journalist works for is a one-percenter whose personal wealth can rise or fall based on which party's policies prevail.

If you had a lot of money in say hospital stock, the Supreme Court ruling on health care increased your wealth. Arkansas is backing off it's no Medicaid expansion stance to go with a plan that buys private health insurance with the Federal fund expansion. It will cost you the taxpayer more because private insurance is more expensive than Medicaid but if you have stock in a health insurer, taking a hardline on that "big government" program is to your advantage.

Warren Buffett gets lots of press for his tax the wealthy ideals. But look at his holdings. If taxes go up on the 95% of lower income people it hurts the companies he owns. If taxes go up on the top 5% it helps him. If the government slashes spending and slashes the workforce and the contractors he isn't going to sell as many sofas, as much paint, as much jewlry, etc to people laid off. He will lose millions if not billions in cancelled government contracts. What's more, Buffett was in business back when the top income tax rate on millionaires was 75%. Rich people bought stock and invested in companies in order to defer income to postpone paying taxes. Right now rates are so low the smart money is taking profits now and converting to cash because it makes better sense to pay the taxes now. It's to his advantage for the super wealthy to go back to investing.

Everyone has an agenda and you can't understand the news without understanding what that agenda is.

(03-05-2013 01:46 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  If there were ever a thread that was off topic, it is this one. Can't believe it has not been locked.

I like reading some of this.....but off track......you bet.......we pretty much come here to talk sports and trash people who are thinking they are to good for us.....and saying how great our squads are etc.....but all of us have a stake in what is going on nationally with politics and its effect and affect on our economy.....I would venture a guess but most folks who post on here are just a tad more informed, if not misguided by allegiances to some....the general public has trouble discerning what is truth and there are a truck load of talking heads who know alot about nothing but their positions......meanwhile love college football if the MORONS in conference realignment would calm the heck down......MONEY MONEY MONEY....politics and our beloved football.

Whomever it was that posted my earlier comment about this article on the Savannah News site, thank you. I wonder if that idiot will respond to it.

Georgia Southern beat writer "responds" to Adam Van Brimmer:

http://www.statesboroherald.com/section/...cle/48429/

(03-06-2013 07:42 AM)Eagles Cliff Wrote:  Georgia Southern beat writer "responds" to Adam Van Brimmer:

http://www.statesboroherald.com/section/...cle/48429/

Good article by Matt Yogus.

(03-06-2013 07:42 AM)Eagles Cliff Wrote:  Georgia Southern beat writer "responds" to Adam Van Brimmer:

http://www.statesboroherald.com/section/...cle/48429/

The games are more fun to watch when you understand the rules of the game.

(03-04-2013 11:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  What is important at this point is Georgia Southern's response. Go on the offensive and defend the Sun Belt while pointing out the error or hunker down pretend to be a happy contented member of the Southern Conference and ignore it.

That will tell us a lot about what sort of member the Eagles will be.

(03-04-2013 12:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  This is where the administration calls the paper's publisher and says "Guy is messing with our options to grow" and asks that a friendly member of the sports staff write a rebuttal column.

Georgia Southern gets tainted, a friendly writer makes rebuttal and advances the case to Eagles fans for the change while making obvious comparisons that advance GaSouth's cause.

Maybe the writer just need to fill some inches and happened upon that subject or maybe someone at GaSouth knew he was friendly to the issue and suggested now would be a really good time.

But interesting how part of the case was that the Southern is no longer a good fit. It wasn't the Southern is nice but you have to look at options, it was the time for the Southern and GaSouth has passed.