Where do you get your news?

Then again, I've pondered whether that really has been the way it always is. Prior to the explosion in competition first from cable tv news and now the internet... they, theoretically, could have just written the story they wanted told and that would be it.

It's hard for me to believe that the creative editing of footage or phone calls, displaying outdated photos to garner a certain response, presenting one interview to push a narrative while ignoring another 12 that contradicts that narrative, or simply ignoring an event altogether while giving others endless coverage just started with the cable or internet news era.

xsanguine wrote:Then again, I've pondered whether that really has been the way it always is. Prior to the explosion in competition first from cable tv news and now the internet... they, theoretically, could have just written the story they wanted told and that would be it.

It's hard for me to believe that the creative editing of footage or phone calls, displaying outdated photos to garner a certain response, presenting one interview to push a narrative while ignoring another 12 that contradicts that narrative, or simply ignoring an event altogether while giving others endless coverage just started with the cable or internet news era.

I was pretty naive growing up regarding reporting biases so maybe I am way off base, but the big three news anchors of the 80's (Brokaw, Jennings, Rather... maybe not so much Rather) seemed mostly unbiased. Any of the old timers care to chime in here?

I always felt that way, too. But I was also pretty naive and the possibility they would create and report a false narrative just never occurred to me then. So I don't have anything to go on with regards to news media prior to, but it seems like the next logical step...

It's like with crime. Crime is at historic lows but when we turn on the news it always seems like a war zone. So, we catch media deliberately fibbing things here and there now... but if something biased was going on in the 80's and 90's, there's a very low chance we'd ever know.

Edit: Oh, and I just remembered why I stopped going to Reddit (after just praising it a page ago)... and it's because they've gone the Facebook and Twitter route of censoring or deleting threads... which, just like with FB and Twitter, seem to follow a partisan theme. If you don't have the correct opinion, your opinion has a good chance of being censored.

There's a distinction between tweeting and reporting.

I guess my question is, if the NYT is so biased pick a random article off the front page and point out where the bias is. I just don't think the actual reporting is that biased.

Most of what they put in is sourced and scrutinized by the editors.

steveschneider wrote:There's a distinction between tweeting and reporting.

I guess my question is, if the NYT is so biased pick a random article off the front page and point out where the bias is. I just don't think the actual reporting is that biased.

Most of what they put in is sourced and scrutinized by the editors.

The assertion isn't that everything the NYT does has bias in it. The assertion is that bias pops up often, sometimes in subtle ways and sometimes in not so subtle ways. You can also write an article where everything is sourced and still neglect to include other relevant facts. It can also pass editorial review but it doesn't help ease much if the editor(s) are guilty of the same bias themselves.

Or campaign ads given exclusively to a particular political party.
Or when a news outlet makes a political endorsement of a presidential candidate.
Or the placement of op-eds on the front page that speak to a very specific political persuasion.

There's many ways biases manifest themselves.

A quick Google search brings up quite a few pages each outlying what they see as bias, specifically with regards to NYT. Here's wikipedia's lazy attempt at a couple of examples...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies

Also, here's NYT Public Editor Liz Spayd's editorial that was the basis for that Tucker Carlson interview; Why Readers See The Times as Liberal

Edit: Also, every news source is going to be guilty of this to varying degrees. I don't believe the NYT is even in the vicinity of the worst offenders, fwiw.

I've been watching ABC news since the days of Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith and basically stuck with them, now via many of their platforms. So I guess you can say simpleton main street media. Plus, John Oliver's Last Week Tonight.

Bias is a creepy animal. News organization have to be able to say that "the president presented no evidence for his claim." but they can't be saying "the president lied to the American people again today."

Just the facts, and when the story is some politician's bombastic claim about something, they need to be careful how they report on it. Sometimes deciding that a loudmouth is worth airtime is biased in itself because it provides a platform for said loudmouth.

I get my news from many sources. I do read the NYT, WaPo, Propublica, I listen to NPR, I read wonky blogs about national defense and the national security apparatus, I follow fox news even though it makes me want to vomit. They present way more talking heads than actual stories. Honestly they shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves news.

I randomly selected an article off the NYT front page.

Did the old eenie meenie miney mo routine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/09/business/dealbook/states-say-navient-preyed-on-students.html?ref=todayspaper

Someone show me where there is bias in this article.

steveschneider wrote:I randomly selected an article off the NYT front page.

Did the old eenie meenie miney mo routine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/09/business/dealbook/states-say-navient-preyed-on-students.html?ref=todayspaper

Someone show me where there is bias in this article.

I don't think that's how it works, Steve. NYT is not ThinkProgress or The Young Turks.

Most of their articles are going to be benign news stories. No one is saying all of their reports are leading you into one ideological perspective. What they're saying is that in those news stories where a bias is present, it is a consistent left-leaning bias.

xsanguine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:I randomly selected an article off the NYT front page.

Did the old eenie meenie miney mo routine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/09/business/dealbook/states-say-navient-preyed-on-students.html?ref=todayspaper

Someone show me where there is bias in this article.

I don't think that's how it works, Steve. NYT is not ThinkProgress or The Young Turks.

Most of their articles are going to be benign news stories. No one is saying all of their reports are leading you into one ideological perspective. What they're saying is that in those news stories where a bias is present, it is a consistent left-leaning bias.

That's how I view the paper.

I find the charge of liberal bias over blown on the NYT. I think there has been a persistent and well funded cultural war against the NYT for decades now and I think it really has created this perception that it is a liberal rag and unreliable news organization trying to exert its influence on the world for the liberal elites. I think its up there with the people that believe free masons or illuminati control the world. I'm not the brightest bulb in the universe but I read it pretty frequently and the bulk of it is really just benign news reporting. I don't understand why people don't value the high level of reporting they do.

steveschneider wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I don't think that's how it works, Steve. NYT is not ThinkProgress or The Young Turks.

Most of their articles are going to be benign news stories. No one is saying all of their reports are leading you into one ideological perspective. What they're saying is that in those news stories where a bias is present, it is a consistent left-leaning bias.

That's how I view the paper.

I find the charge of liberal bias over blown on the NYT. I think there has been a persistent and well funded cultural war against the NYT for decades now and I think it really has created this perception that it is a liberal rag and unreliable news organization trying to exert its influence on the world for the liberal elites. I think its up there with the people that believe free masons or illuminati control the world. I'm not the brightest bulb in the universe but I read it pretty frequently and the bulk of it is really just benign news reporting. I don't understand why people don't value the high level of reporting they do.

Steve? It's not just their reporting, their editorial page is pretty hard left. I find it bleeds into their reporting.

In addition to what you're asking for which is coverage there's also the issue what what they cover or choose not to cover. Those decisions help drive what stories are big.

This is obviously a right wing site....it says so right up top. But check some of the stories on this page for their examples....

Media Bias

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:I was pretty naive growing up regarding reporting biases so maybe I am way off base, but the big three news anchors of the 80's (Brokaw, Jennings, Rather... maybe not so much Rather) seemed mostly unbiased. Any of the old timers care to chime in here?

My opinion for what it's worth.

CBS - Cronkite was pretty liberal, Rather just as much but they played it pretty straight at the anchor desk.  Both of them took less care to hide it after out of the anchor seat.

NBC - John Chancellor played it pretty straight and I thought Brokaw did too while anchor.  Since he's been freed he's trended more liberal but has supposedly raised hell behind the scenes that MSNBC damages NBC's reputation.

ABC - Peter Jennings was probably the most blatantly liberal of them all.  I still clearly remember how outright pissed he was when the Rs won the House in 94 for the 1st time 40 years.   Did he comment on what a "change" election it was?  Nope.  Said "America threw a tantrum tonight"

McNeil/Lehrer on PBS were much like CBS - pretty straight on the air.

steveschneider wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I don't think that's how it works, Steve. NYT is not ThinkProgress or The Young Turks.

Most of their articles are going to be benign news stories. No one is saying all of their reports are leading you into one ideological perspective. What they're saying is that in those news stories where a bias is present, it is a consistent left-leaning bias.

That's how I view the paper.

I find the charge of liberal bias over blown on the NYT. I think there has been a persistent and well funded cultural war against the NYT for decades now and I think it really has created this perception that it is a liberal rag and unreliable news organization trying to exert its influence on the world for the liberal elites. I think its up there with the people that believe free masons or illuminati control the world. I'm not the brightest bulb in the universe but I read it pretty frequently and the bulk of it is really just benign news reporting. I don't understand why people don't value the high level of reporting they do.

NYT isn't even close to being the worst culprit. I think even those that believe quite strongly in this bias would admit it's nowhere near cable tv.

I like NYT. It's the only paper I've ever had an online subscription to and I'm considering doing it again because they do solid work. I expect them to be a lot more truthful with me than Fox News, MSNBC or CNN. But I also can recognize some of the charges made about them from time to time. Of course, I don't think they have any goals for global ideological dominance.

I guess my point is everything is going to have a bias. I can tolerate a little bias and in a lot of ways it's good to spark a reaction in order to have a discussion... and then let the viewer/reader decide... so long as it's not overdone like cable tv.



Edit: But, also... where is the bias in this article....

UNUSUAL NAVY PATROL SPARKS FEAR OF FOREIGN SUB OFF CALIFORNIA COAST

We have a lot of left leaning people on this board and I've been out of that neighborhood for awhile. I go back to some of my old stomping grounds and wonder what the hell happened...

But I'm looking for some good, left leaning political podcasts. Preferably video and preferably someone that has on changing guests, often there as a counter point to the host. Is there someone that anyone is enjoying at the moment? I watch Dave Ruben, but he's basically Libertarian at this point...

xsanguine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

That's how I view the paper.

I find the charge of liberal bias over blown on the NYT. I think there has been a persistent and well funded cultural war against the NYT for decades now and I think it really has created this perception that it is a liberal rag and unreliable news organization trying to exert its influence on the world for the liberal elites. I think its up there with the people that believe free masons or illuminati control the world. I'm not the brightest bulb in the universe but I read it pretty frequently and the bulk of it is really just benign news reporting. I don't understand why people don't value the high level of reporting they do.

NYT isn't even close to being the worst culprit. I think even those that believe quite strongly in this bias would admit it's nowhere near cable tv.

I like NYT. It's the only paper I've ever had an online subscription to and I'm considering doing it again because they do solid work. I expect them to be a lot more truthful with me than Fox News, MSNBC or CNN. But I also can recognize some of the charges made about them from time to time. Of course, I don't think they have any goals for global ideological dominance.

I guess my point is everything is going to have a bias. I can tolerate a little bias and in a lot of ways it's good to spark a reaction in order to have a discussion... and then let the viewer/reader decide... so long as it's not overdone like cable tv.



Edit: But, also... where is the bias in this article....

UNUSUAL NAVY PATROL SPARKS FEAR OF FOREIGN SUB OFF CALIFORNIA COAST

Alex Jones FINALLY admitted he was wrong about Pizza Gate so that's progress.

Here's something interesting:

http://www.businessinsider.com/breitbart-jared-kushner-coverage-steve-bannon-2017-4

This is literally the bogus conspiracy that the NYT is accused of almost every day, happening right out in the open on a right wing paper.

xsanguine wrote:We have a lot of left leaning people on this board and I've been out of that neighborhood for awhile. I go back to some of my old stomping grounds and wonder what the hell happened...

But I'm looking for some good, left leaning political podcasts. Preferably video and preferably someone that has on changing guests, often there as a counter point to the host. Is there someone that anyone is enjoying at the moment? I watch Dave Ruben, but he's basically Libertarian at this point...

I've enjoyed Sam Harris and I'm really enjoying this season of Bill Maher. Keith Olbermann's shorts have some good moments. Every Friday PBS does a segment with David Brooks and Mark Shields that has some good insight My friends are trying to get me to listen to the Intercept podcasts but I can't stand that paper. Your results may vary.

steveschneider wrote:

xsanguine wrote:We have a lot of left leaning people on this board and I've been out of that neighborhood for awhile. I go back to some of my old stomping grounds and wonder what the hell happened...

But I'm looking for some good, left leaning political podcasts. Preferably video and preferably someone that has on changing guests, often there as a counter point to the host. Is there someone that anyone is enjoying at the moment? I watch Dave Ruben, but he's basically Libertarian at this point...

I've enjoyed Sam Harris and I'm really enjoying this season of Bill Maher. Keith Olbermann's shorts have some good moments. Every Friday PBS does a segment with David Brooks and Mark Shields that has some good insight My friends are trying to get me to listen to the Intercept podcasts but I can't stand that paper. Your results may vary.

Maybe I'm already getting the best there is to offer on that side. I do watch Bill Maher, but his views on Islam in the context of all religions is something I can't argue with. (Sam Harris is originally the one that articulated the point as I could see it but I don't have Sam's intellectual power to spell it out).

During the Bush years ThinkProgress and Crooks & Liars used to keep it pretty real but I've gone back there recently and they all look like the protesters at a Milo speech; "Keep your hate speech off our campus!" types.

xsanguine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

I've enjoyed Sam Harris and I'm really enjoying this season of Bill Maher. Keith Olbermann's shorts have some good moments. Every Friday PBS does a segment with David Brooks and Mark Shields that has some good insight My friends are trying to get me to listen to the Intercept podcasts but I can't stand that paper. Your results may vary.

Maybe I'm already getting the best there is to offer on that side. I do watch Bill Maher, but his views on Islam in the context of all religions is something I can't argue with. (Sam Harris is originally the one that articulated the point as I could see it but I don't have Sam's intellectual power to spell it out).

During the Bush years ThinkProgress and Crooks & Liars used to keep it pretty real but I've gone back there recently and they all look like the protesters at a Milo speech; "Keep your hate speech off our campus!" types.

There's always Democracy Now and Truth Dig.

Intellectuals that pop up in interviews that I try to follow are Gary Kasparov, Anne Applebaum and David Frum. David Frum has written a string of really good articles for the Atlantic. All three are center right, but they sound like the best voices of reason these days. Definitely worth checking out.

I will have to do that, thanks Steve.

Also, two guests on real time this year that caught my attention were Timothy Snyder prof of Yale and Jon Meacham. I gotta look further into their stuff.

The Guardian. My grandmother got me hooked 25 years ago - she used to do the crossword everyday. Who knew it would become the best place for US news coverage.