(04-01-2019 07:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I can pretty well distinguish between news and opinion/entertainment--most of the time.

But here is my problem. A lot of what passes for news is, and has been for years, hugely shaped by the personal opinions of the newscasters/newswriters. Dan Rather was news. But anybody who saw his face when he had to deliver the message that the Supreme Court had shut down the shenanigans in Florida, meaning that George W. Bush was going to be our next president, knew instantly that he was nowhere near objective on the issue. I've seen happier faces on people who just lost a dear beloved relative. Is it any surprise that, four years later, he would cook up the fake National Guard letter?

A lot of it is what they cover. They gave wall-to-wall coverage to possible "collusion" by Trump with "the Russians" but have pretty much ignored any collusion with Russians by Hillary's organization, or the issues relating to the dossier that was produced in significant part from that collusion. I'm not particularly a fan of Trump or Hillary, all I want to see is the same rule applied with equal vigor to both. At least in the mainstream media, I'm not going to see that, and at this point I have little reason to believe that I will see that in the political/judicial area, the latter primarily because republicans have done an absolute horses*** job of pursuing the case.

I remember when Obama fired Van Jones. Obviously Jones did something that he needed firing for. But unless you followed Fox, you would have had no idea what he did or even who Van Jones was.

There are plenty of others. Those are just a few that come to mind as I type this.

I quit on Rather over Viet Nam coverage.

(04-01-2019 12:24 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Like my net worth, tax returns, tremendous marks in school, terrific health care that is cheaper, knowledge about all things military?

So, you've decided that being a democrat requires too much of a sacrifice...of your integrity?

One subtle thing I note. When they have a talking head on from Heritage to provide analysis, he/she is identified as from the "right-wing" Heritage Foundation. When they have one on from Brookings, he/se is described as from the "nonpartisan" Brookings Institution. Obviously, the impression conveyed is that Heritage is highly partisan, while Brookings is objective.

Now, Brookings is non-partisan because it is not formally associated with any party. Neither is Heritage. And Brookings leans left. So would it not be equally accurate to describe the "non-partisan" Heritage Foundation and the "left-leaning" Brookings Institution? But you never hear that.

(04-02-2019 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One subtle thing I note. When they have a talking head on from Heritage to provide analysis, he/she is identified as from the "right-wing" Heritage Foundation. When they have one on from Brookings, he/se is described as from the "nonpartisan" Brookings Institution. Obviously, the impression conveyed is that Heritage is highly partisan, while Brookings is objective.

Now, Brookings is non-partisan because it is not formally associated with any party. Neither is Heritage. And Brookings leans left. So would it not be equally accurate to describe the "non-partisan" Heritage Foundation and the "left-leaning" Brookings Institution? But you never hear that.

And they classify a lot of moderate conservatives as far right. They classify true far right as "alt-right." And they classify far left liberals as moderates.

(04-02-2019 10:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One subtle thing I note. When they have a talking head on from Heritage to provide analysis, he/she is identified as from the "right-wing" Heritage Foundation. When they have one on from Brookings, he/se is described as from the "nonpartisan" Brookings Institution. Obviously, the impression conveyed is that Heritage is highly partisan, while Brookings is objective.

Now, Brookings is non-partisan because it is not formally associated with any party. Neither is Heritage. And Brookings leans left. So would it not be equally accurate to describe the "non-partisan" Heritage Foundation and the "left-leaning" Brookings Institution? But you never hear that.

And they classify a lot of moderate conservatives as far right. They classify true far right as "alt-right." And they classify far left liberals as moderates.

What caught my eye is how any Trump lawyer is referred to by the MSM as a "fixer" while any other person's lawyer is just a lawyer.

(04-01-2019 06:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-01-2019 04:51 PM)DETLTU Wrote:  Fake news means different things to different people. Most would agree that an outright lie told with full knowledge that you are lying is fake news. What about information that was questionable, but was presented to shape public opinion (and later proved to be false). What about information that is factually correct, but presented in a way that is misleading to shape public opinion or cause damage to a public figure or cause.

The news media wields power. They have since their beginning. They are not above abusing that power.

This is an important discussion and it is important to NOT use examples before establishing the parameters... and then put examples in. At that point, I think you understand how partisan things are. Further, it important to distinguish between 'the press' and a 'news show'. I think a surprisingly large percentage of people don't know the difference.

You start by eliminating 'news shows' (Today, The View, some of the shows on Fox News and CNBC ets etc etc) as being NEWS.
They aren't news. They shouldn't have the protection or access of news. They are entertainment. If you get your news from these people, you're not getting news.

Second, to your questions... that which we all (you said most, but it's really essentially all) know is false is false.... and IMO, ANY news presented in a manner to shape public opinion is by definition, not news. The facts presented may be news, but if you're presenting it in a way designed to shape OPINION, then you are inserting bias.

A local person was shot today, police are looking for a man... they believe it may be drug related (if that is what the official statement from the police said). If there is a family or whatever to claim something else, state that as well.

If you instead say... our source within the police says something else... then reserve that for an opinion show. It's not that this doesn't have value.... It's that this is purely speculative at this point. It's not news. Once it becomes confirmed, you can bring it to the news show.

That's my starting point. I am willing to be convinced otherwise... but we need to clearly differentiate between news and opinion

I think there is very little of that type of reporting now.