If you think the Media is honest and credible. . . .

[Wry Catcher]

PBS and NPR are heavily skewed left, but their funding is heavily dependent on taxpayer dollars and neither would likely survive if that source of funding was cut off. And because they may be dependent on Democrats or Republicans for their funding, they do a somewhat better job of reporting straight news and even in their sociopolitical documentaries they feature so they don't provide ammunition for a more conservative power base to eliminate it.

Do you watch The News Hour?

I'd invite some of those who hold opinions which differ from my own to watch The News Hour.

Tonight, PBS investigates some of the most notorious factors in driving U.S. health care costs. Every Friday NPR broadcasts Science Friday.

I suspect "the left" isn't well defined and has become a code word for McCarthy style politicing, though I'm curious as to how you define "the left"?

I have often watched the News Hour. Less so during the campaign as even PBS gets a little nutty if they think their candidate is behind or is slipping. And healthcare is one of those areas in which PBS's bias has been the strongest and in which they have been the least honest in showing opposing points of view. Global warming is another.

PBS does as well in presenting the news and perhaps sometimes even a bit better than ABC, NBC, or CBS at times. But for those who aren't ideologically left, the bias is still obvious. Those who are ideologically left see others who are left whether in the media or academia or entertainment as being the normal, rational, unbiased ones. But those trained to be objective and who demand that all the facts and all points of view be offerred without prejudice know that they aren't.

And how do you, as a trained an objective observer rate Fox News? Or do you acknowledge as do many on the right that Fox News is not news but commentary?

 

[koshergrl]

Which show?

 

[koshergrl]

Have they been exposed withholding or staging *news*?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here for the interested is a link from PBS on Housing:

No News is Good News; Good News is Better | PBS NewsHour

Now, is this the sort of thing Foxfyre would find far left?

Or this:

5 Things to Watch for at the 2012 U.N. General Assembly | PBS NewsHour

Or this:

A PBS Documentary Asks Why is U.S. Health Care So Expensive? | PBS NewsHour | Sept. 24, 2012 | PBS

 

[koshergrl]

I take that as a "no".

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm sure some will consider the programing below far left:

Ohio Lawmaker's Quest to Fight Voter Disenfranchisement | PBS NewsHour

And this of course:

Arctic Sea Ice Melts to Record-Breaking Low | PBS NewsHour

And I'm sure there are those who consider these and other PBS/NPR programming far left.

Why, because the political right in the U.S. has gone over the edge, it teetered on the fringe but has finally fallen off into the abyss of abject ignorance. From their prospective anyone who disagrees with their ideology is either a RINO or a Commie.

 

[koshergrl]

This is evidence of what, exactly?

Your own overwhelming bias?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here's another example. The article itself is from Mediate.com, which I normally would not use as a source, but it pulls together in an easily readable form the sequence of events that I have read or heard in the mainstream media including Fox, CNN, and WaPo:

A video that broke on the Drudge Report on Tuesday and circulated widely which purports to show President Barack Obama as an Illinois state senator advocating for laws that favor redistribution of wealth continues to shift the focus of the presidential campaign. Today on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell said that neither NBC News nor MSNBC will air the video because they have not yet independently authenticated that the voice on the video is that of President Obama.

In the video in question, Obama is speaking to an audience of college students at Loyola University. “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and, hence, facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution – at least, at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot,” the voice which is supposedly that of Obama’s says.

“Because we have not, independently at NBC News and MSNBC, authenticated it, we’re not airing it,” said Mitchell

In the following segment, Mitchell interviewed President Obama’s campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt about the video and the president’s response to charges he advocated for a policy that favors the redistribution of wealth.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports, “The Obama campaign confirmed that is Obama’s voice on the recording and a spokesman moved to rebut Romney’s criticism of it.”
NBC News Not Airing Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Tape Because They Have Not Yet ‘Authenticated It’ | Mediaite

And after being called on the carpet for 'favoritism', NBC did subsequently air the tape well behind others who had already done so.

Interestingly enough, MSNBC also knew about the Romney tape all the way back in the summer, but wouldn't comment on it becaue they couldn't verify it's authenticity. They first became aware of the Romney fundraiser tape, because someone had posted it on YouTube under Rachel Maddow's name, and since Ms. Maddow hadn't put that tape up, that account was removed. It was posted up again later under another account, but still, because it was too hard to verify it as being Romney, they still refused to say anything about it.

However.............when Jimmy Carter's relative tracked down the person and was able to get the original tape? They were then able to verify that it was Romney, and it was authentic.

So.............yeah....................MSNBC does try to vet their information before airing it, unlike FAUX Nooze.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure they do.

That's funny. They were hanging onto it until they needed it, until closer to election time.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sure they do.

That's funny. They were hanging onto it until they needed it, until closer to election time.

Actually, it was Mother Jones news that broke the story, and the article was written by David Korn.

MSNBC just followed along after it had been vetted. Incidentally, so did all the other news agencies.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh huh.

 

[Polk]

This is the story that prompted this thread:

FOX News jumping on that one specifically is pretty ironic.

Fox Nation is not Fox News though it is supported by their website. However, is the story wrong? Unnewsworthy? Can you provide a more acceptable source that disputes their facts?

Edit: Conversely, remember the Restore Honor rally in Washington DC last year and how hard the mainstream media, except for Fox, tried so hard to downplay the size of the crowd at that event? It has been my observation that the MSM will inflate numbers for anything supporting the left and will do their damndest to shrug off any significant support for anything on the right.

The second paragraph of their own story disputes their claims in the first paragraph.
Also, the idea that the media pumps liberal events and shrugs off conservative ones is at odds with what actually happens. Tea Party rallies got a ton of press coverage, while protests against the Iraq War back in 2003 got almost none, even though the anti-war protests drew far more people than the Tea Party rallies.

 

[Polk]

Also, the idea that the "mainstream media" downplayed the size of Beck's rally seems odd, since most of them reported the crowd was 100k+, when it actually around 90k.

 

[Foxfyre]

FOX News jumping on that one specifically is pretty ironic.

Fox Nation is not Fox News though it is supported by their website. However, is the story wrong? Unnewsworthy? Can you provide a more acceptable source that disputes their facts?

Edit: Conversely, remember the Restore Honor rally in Washington DC last year and how hard the mainstream media, except for Fox, tried so hard to downplay the size of the crowd at that event? It has been my observation that the MSM will inflate numbers for anything supporting the left and will do their damndest to shrug off any significant support for anything on the right.

The second paragraph of their own story disputes their claims in the first paragraph.
Also, the idea that the media pumps liberal events and shrugs off conservative ones is at odds with what actually happens. Tea Party rallies got a ton of press coverage, while protests against the Iraq War back in 2003 got almost none, even though the anti-war protests drew far more people than the Tea Party rallies.

The Tea Party rallies, however, were covered in the most negative way possible, and those who tried to sabotage the Tea Parties got as much coverage as the real Tea Partiers.

The anti-Iraq war rallies were less covered because there was no way to make them a positive thing and to show them honestly would have created much more disgust than approval and that would have been to President Bush's advantage. No way the MSM wanted to do that.

As for the tally of attendance at the Restore Honor Rally, what media source do you trust to give the correct number? Those I know who were there were pretty darn sure there were many more than 90k there.

 

[Polk]

There weren't people attempting to sabotage the Tea Party rallies. That was the excuse made by organizers for the litany of racist signs in the crowd.

I'd also point out that your argument is framed so that you're always the victim. Don't get coverage? They were ignoring me. Get a lot of coverage? That's just so they can make fun of me.

As for the Restore Honor attendance, CBS commissioned an aerial measurement, which is much more scientific than the perceptions of people on the ground.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suppose Foxfyre will find cause to question this too:

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds - Yahoo! News

The Primary Source is here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose Foxfyre will find cause to question this too:

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds - Yahoo! News

The Primary Source is here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf

This thread is not about global warming and I won't participate in a discussion of that and politely request that this thread not be derailed into that.

This thread is about media honesty. And the story you posted re PBS's coverage on global warming is neither conclusive nor instructive on the topic of this thread. Somebody's opinion expressed on a TV program may or may not be accurate; may or may not be well researched; may or may not include and/or omit any mitigating information that would encourage the viewer or reader to draw any conclusion other than what the 'reporter' wants the viewer or reader to believe.

You see THAT is the point of this thread. Does the information provide ALL credible points of view? Or does it attempt to indoctrinate you with a particular point of view? One precious freedom too many Americans are willing to give up is the ability to think for oneself. Too many want somebody to tell them what to believe or think, and once they pick a side, they become riigid and refuse to even consider a different way of looking at it.

Those of us who value freedom do not want our opinions dictated to us. We want ALL information so that we have a real shot at arriving at a place that is closer to the whole truth.

Here for instance is an unbiased and objective look at Arctic Ice melt. Does it reinforce the opinion expressed on PBS? Or does it leave room to consider other possibilities? It is the consideration of all possibilities that exist that makes a news report of any kind credible and trustworthy.
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[Polk]

He's not asking about global warming. He's asking about Fox's dishonest coverage of global warming.

 

[Foxfyre]

He's not asking about global warming. He's asking about Fox's dishonest coverage of global warming.

I was referring to the PBS article he referred to earlier. As for the report on Fox News and WSJ coverage of global warming issues, I have found both to be far more balanced and both at least report opposing points of view which LiveScience generally does not do. Therefore I have to place any criticism of Fox News by LiveScience into the category of needing far more verification from more reliable sources before I will accept their opinion.

 

[Polk]

He's not asking about global warming. He's asking about Fox's dishonest coverage of global warming.

I was referring to the PBS article he referred to earlier. As for the report on Fox News and WSJ coverage of global warming issues, I have found both to be far more balanced and both at least report opposing points of view which LiveScience generally does not do. Therefore I have to place any criticism of Fox News by LiveScience into the category of needing far more verification from more reliable sources before I will accept their opinion.

Fox not only "report opposing points of view". It treats them as if they're the scientific consensus.