I just spent the weekend at my family reunion and had a rather calm discussion regarding media bias with my liberal aunts. They acknowledged that newscasters "sometimes" commented on the news rather than just reporting it, but couldn't understand why I, as a conservative, would find network news as irritating as they find FoxNews. One aunt suggested that BBC America was the answer rather than listening to christian newscasts or looking up "the other side of the story" on the internet from sources like the Wall Street Journal or Townhall.com ("you've got to be careful about what you read on the internet!") They wouldn't even hear of watching C-SPAN and getting the unedited/uncommented version!
Where do you get your "unbiased" news?
Unable to get cable and too cheap to get dish I was relegated to Jim Lehrer -- he was at least somewhat balanced. Now I don't even get PBS. I try to get transcripts or listen to Christian Radio broadcasts. I've found that Moody Radio will often broadcast speeches without much commentary -- of course, I have to listen in my car because I can't get radio reception in my house!
..All the big news stations take sides...
Hey Dirty Hippie -
Believe it or not, there was a time, again, not so long ago, when reporters and news agencies were unbiased in their reporting. They reported the news and didn't offer up their opinion. And that's the way news should be reported. I was absolutely amazed when I recently learned that Walter Cronkite was a very left liberal. When he was reporting, you would have never known. And now you don't have to get to far into a news cast to find out where a reporter stands politically.
Mr. Hippie,
No where in any of the above posts did I read where anyone said that they only watched FOX news and read the Bible. And just for the record, the appropriate word should've been: "Just gotta make sure you're REALLY ignorant." People in glass houses and all that...
Now, on to the reason for my post: Awhile back, my husband subscribed to GQ magazine. Which is liberal in it's own right. However, as some sort of free gift, they started sending Rolling Stone as well. I skimmed through it and immediately noticed "the right" and Bush bashing. It took 3 phone calls and several emails for them to stop sending their liberal rag. I guess now they are having to push their rag for free. On a positive note, my husband dresses much snappier now. =)
Call me Dirty. Im just saying it goes both ways. Congrats on using those phrases. And for the record, I live in a wooden house. As for bush bashing, he was a really crappy president, so probably no harm done there.
Crappy? no. Ineffective in some policy's? absolutely...
You are probably not aware but i have spent a lot of time defending Obama's right to be president on this site. see this thread: http://www.freedomtorch.com/forum_topic.php?forum_id=1&topic_id=74
Be ready he will attack me now.....
see here:
http://www.freedomtorch.com/forum_topic.php?forum_id=16&topic_id=150&post_id=1209#post_1209
pretty clever not to do it on this thread though
I think this sums up the mass media pretty well:
"These guys, and women, are not journalists. They're enablers"
Yeah that pretty much sums up what we can expect for the next 3.5 years. I think the MSM is in a bind here. They don't like being controled, and they want to ask tough questions, but they totally BS'ed America to get him elected, so if they turn on him now its like admitting they were wrong, which kills their ability to convince people thay are anything more than a tabloid; and the whitehouse will give them the cold shoulder, which means their rattings go to hell.
