(10-26-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-26-2019 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (10-26-2019 10:57 AM)InterestedX Wrote: (10-26-2019 09:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (10-26-2019 09:15 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: TV or print?
All you want. I lean to TV.
That explains a lot. TV "news" is largely useless drivel.
That is your opinion, not a fact. My opinion is that it doesn’t matter the medium, just the content. Whether a reporter’s story is presented live on air or in print hardly matters. The content is the same.
But if you must rely only on print, or smoke signals, or drum beats, I still suggest you have a variety of sources. By variety, I mean not all biased in the same way. Reading the NYT and the WashPo does not constitute variety.
Does anybody have a legit quarrel with getting mews from a variety of sources? Is the some argument in favor of limiting mews to one POV?
Quality of sources matter - so if someone is saying that they read the National Enquirer as one of their sources, I wouldn’t put too much stock in that comment.
John Edwards would beg to differ with your statement above. And, interestingly enough, there were a handful of 'real' media that had that story before and sat on it.
As opposed to our 'thrown it in the dustbin as a matter of course' simply because of the perception of the specific media channel, sometimes it might behoove on to look at the items presented.
One example: a few years ago you and I had a discussion on a Project Veritas piece, where I noted a very explicit comment in the presentation from one of their 'targets'.
You pooh-poohed the comments as being from 'oh them, lolz'. And I will grant you that they do at times read more into the 'target' comments than what is being said, and do use cute edits very liberally.
But in this one comment I made, the 'target' was very specific on an issue dealing with the actions of the Obama campaign and his interaction with people in the Obama administration, the dirty tricks his group was employing, and that the people to whom he coordinated this in the DNC and the Obama campaign not only knew about the actions, but condoned them. All with zero jump cuts or edits.
Your automatic response had zero to do with that specific comment thread -- all it had to do was with denigrating PV (some of which is justified, mind you). But sometimes organizations like that (and Nat Enq) do have items that are spot on accurate.
So true, quality of sources matter for factual issues. But to dismiss something out of hand is also not very prudent.
Back when I did litigation full time (as a very new attorney), I learned that lesson repeated above in some very hard ways.
Quote:Sticking to long-running and well sourced media companies will generally provide you sources with some integrity.
Perhaps. But even then the facts can be accompanied by language that tilts. Not even in the blazingly overt manner of MSNBC, or the less obvious manner of CNN. The choice of specific language, or ancillary fact inclusion (or exclusion) by the various media is powerful.
One very stark example is the 'pounce' example. When OAC introduced the new Green Deal the story was framed not necessarily in terms of the issues of the GND, but how Republicans 'pounce' on the idea. In short, it kind of backlights the Republican criticisms as a negative opportunistic effort.
