Mainstream vs. Alternate Media?

[manifold]

Not sure if "alternate" is the proper term but it's best I can come up with. Anyway, what is the difference? What makes a particular news outlet alternate rather than mainstream and vice versa? And perhaps more importantly, what makes one more truthful than the other? What's the best, most unbiased alternate media source on the internet?

 

[KittenKoder]

I have no idea, to me it's just sitcoms.

 

[DamnYankee]

Don't know which is "the best" or "most reliable". Most people scoff at The National Enquirer, but look at the "scoops" they got right -- Clinton and Edwards. There are probably others not quite so notable....

 

[random3434]

The Onion

http://www.theonion.com/content/index

 

[Dis]

The Onion

Home | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

No shit. They'll cover anything, and do it without an ounce of favoritism, or bias.

 

[manifold]

Considering how often I see people here deride the mainstream media, I figured they might have one or two suitable alternatives to offer.

 

[KittenKoder]

Considering how often I see people here deride the mainstream media, I figured they might have one or two suitable alternatives to offer.

LOL ... Seinfeld, South Park, and Family Guy ... more honest, least bias, and facts filled with humor. At least they are more fun to watch.

 

[manifold]

Considering how often I see people here deride the mainstream media, I figured they might have one or two suitable alternatives to offer.

LOL ... Seinfeld, South Park, and Family Guy ... more honest, least bias, and facts filled with humor. At least they are more fun to watch.

I'm talking about everyday news. It's not like you can grab a cup of coffee in the morning and then pop on an episode of Family Guy to find out what's new in the world today.

 

[KittenKoder]

Considering how often I see people here deride the mainstream media, I figured they might have one or two suitable alternatives to offer.

LOL ... Seinfeld, South Park, and Family Guy ... more honest, least bias, and facts filled with humor. At least they are more fun to watch.

I'm talking about everyday news. It's not like you can grab a cup of coffee in the morning and then pop on an episode of Family Guy to find out what's new in the world today.

Well ... in that case I got nothin'. As I said, it's all sitcoms to me, but those are the least bias of everything out there.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh, and I hope to add Digital Politics to that list ... if it gets far enough that is ...

 

[manifold]

So what you're saying is that most people are full of shit and I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for more credible news sources than those in the mainstream? Kind of what I figured anyway.

 

[KittenKoder]

So what you're saying is that most people are full of shit and I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for more credible news sources than those in the mainstream? Kind of what I figured anyway.

Purtty much.

 

[DamnYankee]

So what you're saying is that most people are full of shit and I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for more credible news sources than those in the mainstream? Kind of what I figured anyway.

Not having been around here long enough to know who derides the MSM, I might offer a suggestion based on other people I do know better. For instance, when discussing issues related to the middle east, there are those who tell us that the MSM here is unreliable and don't tell you the truth/facts. What they provide as evidence is articles from Al Jazeera, for instance -- as if that makes them more credible and unbiased. What I would ask is: If our MSM has correspondents all over the world, why would the not be considered credible?

 

[KittenKoder]

So what you're saying is that most people are full of shit and I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for more credible news sources than those in the mainstream? Kind of what I figured anyway.

Not having been around here long enough to know who derides the MSM, I might offer a suggestion based on other people I do know better. For instance, when discussing issues related to the middle east, there are those who tell us that the MSM here is unreliable and don't tell you the truth/facts. What they provide as evidence is articles from Al Jazeera, for instance -- as if that makes them more credible and unbiased. What I would ask is: If our MSM has correspondents all over the world, why would the not be considered credible?

Just because one has access to the information, does not mean they will tell you the real story. As I say, it's all just sitcoms, news is just sitcoms based on reality.

 

[DamnYankee]

So what you're saying is that most people are full of shit and I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for more credible news sources than those in the mainstream? Kind of what I figured anyway.

Not having been around here long enough to know who derides the MSM, I might offer a suggestion based on other people I do know better. For instance, when discussing issues related to the middle east, there are those who tell us that the MSM here is unreliable and don't tell you the truth/facts. What they provide as evidence is articles from Al Jazeera, for instance -- as if that makes them more credible and unbiased. What I would ask is: If our MSM has correspondents all over the world, why would the not be considered credible?

Just because one has access to the information, does not mean they will tell you the real story. As I say, it's all just sitcoms, news is just sitcoms based on reality.

Perhaps a better question would have been, what would make our MSM less credible? Not a damned thing that I can see.

 

[editec]

Maintstream media decribes those outlets with enormous reach in their market.

Alternative media are those up-and-comers which as yet don't have that reach, PLUS those outlets which will probably forever be on the margins.

Best unbiased media outlet?

CSPAN.

Why?

They don't have an editorial staff.

They broadcast the EVENTS rather than their SPIN about the event.

 

[DamnYankee]

Maintstream media decribes those outlets with enormous reach in their market.

Alternative media are those up-and-comers which as yet don't have that reach, PLUS those outlets which will probably forever be on the margins.

Best unbiased media outlet?

CSPAN.

Why?

They don't have an editorial staff.

They broadcast the EVENTS rather than their SPIN about the event.

There are only projections and estimates on the number of Washington outsiders (the American public) that actually tune in to CSPAN though.
C-SPAN: C-SPAN PRESS AREA

 

[editec]

Brian Lamb's contribution to the commonweal by putting CSPAN together and making it work is rather amazing.

I'm not inclined to hero worship, but if I had to seek a mentor to help me do what I am doing for world wide literacy education, he'd be the guy.

 

[catzmeow]

I am a fan of NPR's reporting, but I prefer to READ their coverage versus listen to it. Their stilted delivery grates on me. The only exception to this, for me at least, is "This American Life."

 

[DamnYankee]

Brian Lamb's contribution to the commonweal by putting CSPAN together and making it work is rather amazing.

I'm not inclined to hero worship, but if I had to seek a mentor to help me do what I am doing for world wide literacy education, he'd be the guy.

I'm not putting it down. I'm just saying that it is definitely the "go to" place for those on the Hill, but I wonder exactly how many average folks tune in. I have, when I want to see/hear how a specific issue is going "on the floor". You have to remember, there are still quite a number of people out there who still only have "regular" TV access. That would be the reason for the delays in the digital broadcasting mandate, and even those who do have "enhanced" serve probably find CPSAN "too dry". People thrive on drama, after all.