TV Talking Heads

[NorthSideSox72]

at the end of the day, all news is opinion to one degree or another.

Sort of. News reporting cannot ever remove bias entirely, because its reported by human beings. But you can make an effort to get close to objectivity, and most of the MSM has given up even trying.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Sort of. News reporting cannot ever remove bias entirely, because its reported by human beings. But you can make an effort to get close to objectivity, and most of the MSM has given up even trying.

 

The solution? Ban the 24/7 news cycle. Everyone can have their primetime slots, but that's it. The reason there's so much bias is that the MSM has to create news in order to keep people watching all day/night long. To do that you need charasmatic people that can speak non-stop on any given subject for a long period of time, which means they're going to have to share how they feel about it.

 

Ted Turner should be jailed for introducing America to cable tv news. It's easily one of the worst "inventions" of the last 20 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

The solution? Ban the 24/7 news cycle. Everyone can have their primetime slots, but that's it. The reason there's so much bias is that the MSM has to create news in order to keep people watching all day/night long. To do that you need charasmatic people that can speak non-stop on any given subject for a long period of time, which means they're going to have to share how they feel about it.

 

Ted Turner should be jailed for introducing America to cable tv news. It's easily one of the worst "inventions" of the last 20 years.

I actually think you could easily find 24/7 worth of news - but doing so would be very expensive (you'd need a LOT more actual journalists), and more to the point, would be boring for the intellectually soft crowd who sits in front of a TV all day.

 

[GoSox05]

Maybe we just watch too much tv.

[Balta1701]

Maybe we just watch too much tv.

Some of us never watch any of the 24 hour networks...yet our lives are still substantially impacted by them.

[southsider2k5]

Not really, that would be like saying everybody is racist to one degree or another.

 

I believe it 100%. You and I could watch the exact same thing happen, at the exact same time, from the exact same vantage point, and you and I would tell our stories of what happened completely different. It doesn't make it wrong or right, but our up bringings, our backgrounds, or expertise, our understandings of things would factor in to how we saw a situation, and how we would tell the story of what happened. The same thing happens in a news report, just on a much larger scale.

[southsider2k5]

I don't know. Facts are facts--of course facts themselves mean nothing and need to be spun or interpreted. BUT it is possible to do that in a responsible way. It's like the difference between Psychology Today and the Journal of Memory and Language. Both of them include facts. Both of them often include the SAME facts. But in one case you have Joe Schmo with a BA in Psych telling you what the facts are and spinning them. In JML you have PhDs giving you the facts and spinning them. In JML you also have peer review that makes you accountable for the way you spin the facts. As a result you don't get cracked out interpretations and wild conjecture. You get less diluted facts that have been thoughtfully rendered.

 

Sadly, today's news options aren't even Psychology Today. It's like Star and being spun and rendered by developmentally disabled monkeys. And yet people treat it like it was gold.

 

The reporting of facts can be taken from a completely different view point based on a person's life.

 

For example look no further than the facts surrounding the Ft Hood shooting. It is a fact that the guy was a Muslim. It was a fact he bought his guns publicly, instead of military issue. It is a fact that he took to heart that Obama was going to get us out of Iraq and Afganistan. It is a fact that the guy treated PTSD troops coming back from wars.

 

Now which facts even get made into news reports tells everything about a person, and their biases and opinions. Fox is going to focus on the Obama angles. MSNBC is going to focus on the gun issues. Some focused on the Muslim angles. All of them are factually true. It doesn't change that which ones get focused on, are a large part of that particular groups opinions.

[Soxy]

The reporting of facts can be taken from a completely different view point based on a person's life.

 

For example look no further than the facts surrounding the Ft Hood shooting. It is a fact that the guy was a Muslim. It was a fact he bought his guns publicly, instead of military issue. It is a fact that he took to heart that Obama was going to get us out of Iraq and Afganistan. It is a fact that the guy treated PTSD troops coming back from wars.

 

Now which facts even get made into news reports tells everything about a person, and their biases and opinions. Fox is going to focus on the Obama angles. MSNBC is going to focus on the gun issues. Some focused on the Muslim angles. All of them are factually true. It doesn't change that which ones get focused on, are a large part of that particular groups opinions.

Right. But none of that violates what I said. If you can't report the facts in a semi-unbiased factor without an emotional response, well, should you be reporting the facts at all? There are no checks on the media. There isn't a studio head saying, woah, woah that is completely out of line. There is no union of broadcasters that censures these irresponsible uses of facts. All of the facts that you talk about, right I can focus on that he is a Muslim--but what types of inferences I draw from that, well, that I can control. I can draw responsible inferences and RESPONSIBLY focus on that fact equally with others or I can be irresponsible. Facts are neutral, and if people can't present them neutrally, perhaps they are in the wrong line of work.

 

And I disagree that life experience has to temper how we present facts. If I'm talking about something highly political that I care about with my friends I can do so while expressing my opinion. When I talk about that same issue in class (see torture and obedience) I can discuss it ONLY in the context of Psychology. How does Psychology explain this? What biological explanations are there? What social factors? What personality factors? I do NOT have to marry my job is to my personal opinions. If I can do this, why can't journalists?

[Balta1701]

Furthermore...there is an awful lot of potential bias in how you get the facts. Great example...if you're looking for a front page story, you can talk to the Iraqi National Congress who says Saddam has WMD, and then talk to the administration who says that Saddam has WMD, and then just run the story confirmed by multiple anonymous sources, or you can spend the effort to actually check out whether or not those high strength aluminum tubes could actually be used in centrifuges.

 

If you put your resources into telling a certain story, that means there's probably another story you're not telling.

[southsider2k5]

Right. But none of that violates what I said. If you can't report the facts in a semi-unbiased factor without an emotional response, well, should you be reporting the facts at all? There are no checks on the media. There isn't a studio head saying, woah, woah that is completely out of line. There is no union of broadcasters that censures these irresponsible uses of facts. All of the facts that you talk about, right I can focus on that he is a Muslim--but what types of inferences I draw from that, well, that I can control. I can draw responsible inferences and RESPONSIBLY focus on that fact equally with others or I can be irresponsible. Facts are neutral, and if people can't present them neutrally, perhaps they are in the wrong line of work.

 

And I disagree that life experience has to temper how we present facts. If I'm talking about something highly political that I care about with my friends I can do so while expressing my opinion. When I talk about that same issue in class (see torture and obedience) I can discuss it ONLY in the context of Psychology. How does Psychology explain this? What biological explanations are there? What social factors? What personality factors? I do NOT have to marry my job is to my personal opinions. If I can do this, why can't journalists?

 

I feel that the very process of what facts you pick and concentrate on are where your opinions lie.

[mreye]

I love how those that complain about Fox News and the like probably don't even watch it. And don't give me the, "I watch Fox News all the time" line, because it's easy to claim that on a forum. We'll never know the truth unless I'm sitting in your living room with you or you're a Nielsen Family.

 

Yes, Fox News leans right - even somewhat during their news segments. That's why I watch it. MSNBC leans left, so I've heard. I don't know. I don't watch them. Not that Fox would want to move to the middle when they're so popular, but at this point it would be next to impossible. The commentators that are willing to come on there are from the right - the Karl Roves. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid is going to go on Fox?

 

I also think it's funny how the OP says Fox "calls" themselves news, but all the others are actually news.

 

Even though I watch Fox News I'm smart enough to realize that Beck, O'Reilly, etc are OPINION, but they're more than not my opinion, so I will continue to watch.

 

And another thing, are you serious about requiring "Opinion" on the screen or banning the 24/7 news cycle because what they report is not what you believe to be legitimate news? Wow. Maybe Beck is more right (correct) than I thought.

[southsideirish71]

I watch Fox news, and absolutely can't stand Glenn Beck.

 

Edited November 14, 2009 by southsideirish71

[StrangeSox]

i've come to believe more and more lately that most people simply do not know how to think. They don't know how to construct or dissect a valid, logical argument. they can't recognize debate from demagougary. opinion shows are news shows for them because they don't know the difference. The idea of everything having a false dichotomy or equal merit of both/ all arguments and it's just a matter of opinion is the most prominent example.

[BigSqwert]

Kudos to Ashleigh Banfield speaking out at one point (see last couple sections of the article).

[bmags]

Your : "opinion" waiver doesn't do anything.

 

And, also, a critical point, the problem with fox news isn't that it's "conservative", it's that it's republican. And that's a big difference.

[BigSqwert]

Perfect example. Up until now whenever KSM was mentioned we'd get this photo of him:

 

 

Now that he may be tried in the states as a criminal they keep posting this photo:

 

 

Yeah...no opinions used in that decision process.

[lostfan]

I love how those that complain about Fox News and the like probably don't even watch it. And don't give me the, "I watch Fox News all the time" line, because it's easy to claim that on a forum. We'll never know the truth unless I'm sitting in your living room with you or you're a Nielsen Family.

 

Yes, Fox News leans right - even somewhat during their news segments. That's why I watch it. MSNBC leans left, so I've heard. I don't know. I don't watch them. Not that Fox would want to move to the middle when they're so popular, but at this point it would be next to impossible. The commentators that are willing to come on there are from the right - the Karl Roves. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid is going to go on Fox?

 

I also think it's funny how the OP says Fox "calls" themselves news, but all the others are actually news.

 

Even though I watch Fox News I'm smart enough to realize that Beck, O'Reilly, etc are OPINION, but they're more than not my opinion, so I will continue to watch.

 

And another thing, are you serious about requiring "Opinion" on the screen or banning the 24/7 news cycle because what they report is not what you believe to be legitimate news? Wow. Maybe Beck is more right (correct) than I thought.

I don't watch any TV news, at all, except for major stories when I need information and in that case it's CNN.

 

The person you're referring to that made the "banning" comment is a conservative... FWIW

 

[DukeNukeEm]

I watch FOX for entertainment sometimes, or just to get angry.

[mr_genius]

I watch FOX for entertainment sometimes, or just to get angry.

 

I watched the Hannity show yesterday, it was a classic.

Edited November 17, 2009 by mr_genius

[Controlled Chaos]

Perfect example. Up until now whenever KSM was mentioned we'd get this photo of him:

 

 

Now that he may be tried in the states as a criminal they keep posting this photo:

 

 

Yeah...no opinions used in that decision process.

Um..maybe that's because the prior was the only photo anyone had. The latter was just discovered in Septemberish.

[Cknolls]

Perfect example. Up until now whenever KSM was mentioned we'd get this photo of him:

 

 

Now that he may be tried in the states as a criminal they keep posting this photo:

 

 

Yeah...no opinions used in that decision process.

 

 

FWIW, O'Reilly used the top photo in a story yesterday about the trial.