> There is definitely some bias in reporting. But GOOD reporters try to > overcome their bias. Bad reporters embrace their bias.
So Dan Rather- good reporter or bad reporter? The guy has had a woodie for taking on Republicans ever since Nixon. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. :-P To me the difference between much mainstream press and Foxnews (and > many other recent "conservative" "news" outlets), is that the > mainstream press may not present all the facts, and may leave out some > facts (usually due to an unadmitted but present bias), but many > "conservative" "news" outlets (and some recent "liberal" "news" > outlets) DELIBERATELY publish known untruths, misrepresentations, and > purposefully leave out uncomfortable facts to fit an acknowledged > agenda. This is unconscionable. I'm a cynic on this issue. I tend to go with the lawyer's rule of thumb- "everyone lies". As for Fox, I watch Brit Hume, mostly for the little panel discussions. The "news" portion of the show is no better than Hardball or any other show of its ilk. On the panels, Hume has pretty much the same rotating group of folks- Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Moira Liasson, Charles Krauthammer, Juan Williams, Bill Salmmon, and a couple of others. No one yells, they all give each other a modicum of respect taking turns speaking, and they are all very well informed and very well plugged-in in DC. Mostly for me the panel wins on style points, if you can put up the general conservative bent of the show and the hacks they have covering stories. Krauthammer is by far the smartest person on that show, and he tends to be a contrarian to the traditional conservatives. I do occasionally catch Paul Gigot with the WSJ review show on the weekends, and the Beltway Boys (hilarious that two old cranks like them are called Boys), but only if I happen to see it flipping channels. Pretty much everything else on Fox is "man bites dog" crap like every other dumb news channel. Now, I trust very few of the new "up-to-the-minute" news outlets. They > don't take the time to verify their facts before going on the air, but > rush to publish. So I immediately discount any "facts" they display, > since they seldom have had the time (or inclination) to verify, and > much of the "news" discussion is complete wild-ass-guesses. What are these? Like Headline News? Or like Drudge? I like Headline News because Erica Hill is a hottie. I like Drudge because he has the best set of links to other news sources I have seen anywhere, and he keeps it up to date. You just have to regard his stories as something like urban myth- might be something to it, might not. I also completely discount any information presented on talking-head > shows (The O'Reilly factor being the most egregious example, but every > station (and many websites) have their own versions.) O'Reilly is a big idiot. I can't watch any of the talking head shows any longer. I just can't spend that much time listening to people try to talk over each other. As I said, I distinguish Brit Hume's show in that they act like civilized adults in the panel discussions. The current slant towards opinion and away from facts is NOT a good > trend in my mind > Facts are incidental to ratings. I want to hear facts, but I also want to hear opinions. Opinions can tell you a lot about the attempted manipulation of facts. As for local news, it is totally unwatchable everywhere. -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:201674 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
