Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am registered to vote as nonpartisan / unaffiliated.Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):
It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:
How are you consuming the news right now? When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?
I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.
How about you?
.
Then what did you do to get a real job afterwards ??My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label
Of course it does. You are a leftist.
The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.
You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.
Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.
How about you?
too cryptic.Just to clarify...
My point is not that we're seeing a mixing of traditional reporting with opinion, and that we have to discern the difference. Of course. That's a given, it's been going on for a quite a while, and it's another serious problem.
It's more that the two ends of the spectrum, as represented by the various forms of media, are essentially now existing in two entirely separate worlds. Each is cherry-picking facts to match their ideology and presenting two entirely separate pictures of the world, and much more so when connected to politics in any way.
Facts being bent to match an agenda, yeah, that's old news. I'm talking about two entirely different sets of facts that create different worlds.
.
and intrinsic to these two completely different worlds is a focus on the other one with no examination of one's own.
There are Leftists and there are Rightists.My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label
Of course it does. You are a leftist.
The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.
.Anything to the Left of RWNJs is a "left winger" just like anything to the right of LWLs is a "right winger".
Loaded titles are a good clue that partisan content is coming up -- yes.headlines, for me.
headlines are a summary of the story in a big bold statement to let you know what is in the story. i've got zero use for emotional tirades on either side where opinion is quickly replacing news and we no longer link to news to support our views, but someone else who agrees with us.
so when a headline tells me how to feel about a story, i blow off the story. when the first few paragraphs in a story include insults to the other side or name calling to the people they don't like, it's emotional, an opinion hit piece, and i ignore it.
Me too. Good point..Anything to the Left of RWNJs is a "left winger" just like anything to the right of LWLs is a "right winger".
I always know I'm doing my job if I get called both in the same thread.
Nice siggy, btw. I was lucky enough to hear those words in a small club during his first American tour.
For me it was a long boring book. Not sure why. Maybe because I was not up to speed and the author was too cryptic.Interesting that you would say that. I majored in broadcast journalism, was in the business nearly 20 years.Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):
It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:
How are you consuming the news right now? When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?
I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.
How about you?
.
I reached that point in mid-1980's; it's just more blatant now. real journalism died off by the early 1990's, as far as our universities are concerned. they were no longer even pretending to teach Journalism or Media Studies majors the concept of 'the fourth estate' and and the responsibility of objective reporting required of free press. Most of the 'students didn't care about it either, they just wanted to be 'pundits' and 'stars', not actual journalists.
The first assignment on my first day in my first journalism class was to read All The President's Men. I've often thought that, as important and powerful and inspiring as that book was, it may have ultimately done more harm than good. It made national celebrities out of reporters, not just anchors. Seems to me the last thing a reporter should be is a celebrity; it changes the person.
When you add that to the massive explosion of competing media sources brought on by the internet, you change the very nature of reporting. You get people who should be "reporting" what happened as completely as accurately as possible, looking to push the journalistic envelope by blending in opinion and conjecture.
But as bad as THAT is, we now have (and this is the point of the thread) two entirely separate and competing worldviews being represented, and they appear to be pulling in opposite directions, leaving fewer and fewer points of agreement on FACTS. I honestly don't know how a constitutional republic is supposed to function in that environment.
.
Never heard of her.I like Melissa McCarthy. She's funnier.I just wait and let Sean Spicer explain it for me
The fact remains "media" is a business and businesses cater to their clients to maximize revenue. To say there is "fake news" or "media bias" is to fail to understand the dynamics of 21st Century American media businesses. This doesn't even touch upon PACs funding "Blogs", Internet Trolls with websites, etc.
Still, the bottom line is to work smarter not harder; focus upon using critical thinking as a triage tool when dissecting the "Newz".
Examples for learning/reinforcing critical thinking skills:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition/study-skills-resources/critical_and_analytical_thinking.pdf
http://lifehacker.com/how-to-train-your-mind-to-think-critically-and-form-you-1516998286
Critical Thinking and Problem-solving
https://www.lynda.com/Business-Skills-tutorials/Critical-Thinking/424116-2.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=l1-US-Search-Biz-Critical+Thinking-XCT&cid=xct-learn_critical_thinking&utm_content=191387980753&utm_term=learn critical thinking&src=go-pa&veh=skwd-300445938178_pcrid_191387980753_pkw_learn critical thinking_pmt_e_pdv_c_ext__plc__trg__agid_45385731527_cmid_805998174_adp_1t1_net_g&lpk35=9137
How to Study and Learn (Part One)
dictionaries are not sacrosanct.Who would you consider to be "traditional reporters", people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"?When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?As you can tell from the above, I recognize that individuals who in one story may be merely reporting events that occurred, in another instance may be editorializing about the events that happened.
- Traditional reporter --> Yes, I take it at face value.
- Traditional editorialist --> No, but then I never did. I can tell when I'm hearing/reading commentary (an argument) versus when I'm reading a communique of facts and objective information.
- Internet-only reporter --> In most cases, no, I don't take it at face value.
- Internet-only editorialist --> Same as for traditional editorialist.
.That is certainly an aspect of an apt description for them, and I suppose it'd be useful to include in a general description of what "traditional reporters" means. Right now, I think the only way I could accurately define that term would be to use the approach dictionaries must use to define the the word "the" -- list every applicable instance -- and I really have neither the time nor will to do that. If you care to ask me about specific reporters or press outlets, I will answer "yes," "sometimes" or "no."people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"
too cryptic.
The actually do a better job than CNN, MSNBC or Fox.Russian Television is the official news outlet for Trump supporters.I no longer trust the media. I don't believe what they say anymore. So I look at and research topics I consider important and try to find the truth.
Our news is now PRAVDA.
In my teens I mostly learned by rote.Well, I agree that the idea of near instantaneous dissemination of news and information is part of the problem. I think another part of the problem is "news maker's" feeling compelled to respond to inquiries quickly rather than after having given careful deliberation to what they should and want to say. Often a simple qualification such as "what we know right now is..." or "our current thinking is....but we are still evaluating 'such and such'" would suffice to communicate that there is an element of uncertainty over their current position/thinking.The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the storyWho would you consider to be "traditional reporters", people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"?When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?As you can tell from the above, I recognize that individuals who in one story may be merely reporting events that occurred, in another instance may be editorializing about the events that happened.
- Traditional reporter --> Yes, I take it at face value.
- Traditional editorialist --> No, but then I never did. I can tell when I'm hearing/reading commentary (an argument) versus when I'm reading a communique of facts and objective information.
- Internet-only reporter --> In most cases, no, I don't take it at face value.
- Internet-only editorialist --> Same as for traditional editorialist.
.That is certainly an aspect of an apt description for them, and I suppose it'd be useful to include in a general description of what "traditional reporters" means. Right now, I think the only way I could accurately define that term would be to use the approach dictionaries must use to define the the word "the" -- list every applicable instance -- and I really have neither the time nor will to do that. If you care to ask me about specific reporters or press outlets, I will answer "yes," "sometimes" or "no."people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked
Quite simply, there will always be instances and situations of which one does not know "everything" one would want to know, yet one feels obliged to reply to an inquiry. In such situations, some sort of qualification that conveys the "I/we don't know yet" aspect of one's remarks is what's called for. Too few people these days are okay with not knowing something about which they are asked.
As a young person (sometime in my teens), I learned to the value to admitting that one does not know "whatever" when one simply does not. It's a lesson we stress as part of our onboarding process for new hires. One'd think that it'd be unnecessary to tell people to just be truthful in their answers to concerned stakeholders, but strangely that is something that one must not only instruct people to do, but also reinforce that dictum by indirectly threatening harsh consequences for not doing so. I cannot explain what that's so, but I can say that it has been so in my observation of more than a handful (but not most) new consulting professionals' behavior.
Loaded titles are a good clue that partisan content is coming up -- yes.headlines, for me.
headlines are a summary of the story in a big bold statement to let you know what is in the story. i've got zero use for emotional tirades on either side where opinion is quickly replacing news and we no longer link to news to support our views, but someone else who agrees with us.
so when a headline tells me how to feel about a story, i blow off the story. when the first few paragraphs in a story include insults to the other side or name calling to the people they don't like, it's emotional, an opinion hit piece, and i ignore it.
But if I were you would also avoid CNN, MSNBC, and Fox like the plague as well.
Who is Sharyl Attkinsson ??? What network ???Loaded titles are a good clue that partisan content is coming up -- yes.headlines, for me.
headlines are a summary of the story in a big bold statement to let you know what is in the story. i've got zero use for emotional tirades on either side where opinion is quickly replacing news and we no longer link to news to support our views, but someone else who agrees with us.
so when a headline tells me how to feel about a story, i blow off the story. when the first few paragraphs in a story include insults to the other side or name calling to the people they don't like, it's emotional, an opinion hit piece, and i ignore it.
But if I were you would also avoid CNN, MSNBC, and Fox like the plague as well.
they're all bad about that and i may run through them quickly - but i don't stop and pretend any is real. just who's angry at what today.
emotional states are not news.
news anchor opinions on current events isn't news
given that most *news* sources have shifted to glorified blogs, i tend to just scattershoot and look for elements of what seems likely in many sources.
sharyl attkisson - i do like her work and believe she tries to be objective. the few writers on either side that do that, i value like gold.
In every way.too cryptic.
In what way?
The leftist partisan hacks in this forum spend their time pointing fingers at real or imagined righties with no criticism of their own, while the righty partisan hacks do the same thing in regards to the left.
It's nothing more than a game of cowboys and Indians.
Who is Sharyl Attkinsson ??? What network ???
so she is a freelancer then ??Who is Sharyl Attkinsson ??? What network ???
she's the one who broke fast n furious and then found herself in obama's "gun sights" and told to shut up.
Fast and Furious Story Links | Sharyl Attkisson
her show "full measure" is out there also. i think she was on CBS but i don't follow a lot of the networks much anymore so can't tell you all that much.
Home
so she is a freelancer then ??Who is Sharyl Attkinsson ??? What network ???
she's the one who broke fast n furious and then found herself in obama's "gun sights" and told to shut up.
Fast and Furious Story Links | Sharyl Attkisson
her show "full measure" is out there also. i think she was on CBS but i don't follow a lot of the networks much anymore so can't tell you all that much.
Home
