Tired Of Mainstream "News" Channels?

[MikeK]

If you're tired of corporate-driven and regulated mainstream news channels and you'd like to look deeper into what's happening in your world, go here: On air ? RT

 

[MikeK]

Please bump this thread to keep it alive.

 

[MikeK]

Please bump this thread to keep it alive.

Bump

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

What does it mean to say that mainstream news channels are "corporate driven and regulated"? Has all integrity in journalism really gone down the drain?

What disturbs me most about journalists I know is when they allow their personal bias to influence a story.

I took a quick glance at your link and don't see how that news source is necessarily less biased than any other.

 

[MikeK]

What does it mean to say that mainstream news channels are "corporate driven and regulated"? Has all integrity in journalism really gone down the drain?

What disturbs me most about journalists I know is when they allow their personal bias to influence a story.

I took a quick glance at your link and don't see how that news source is necessarily less biased than any other.

A quick glance might not be enough.

And to answer your question; the constant commercials that punctuate mainstream news broadcasts are the corporate drivers. You will see and hear and see news items on RT which are not presented on mainstream channels. RT is commercial-free.

Try tuning in at different times of the day.

 

[asterism]

If you're tired of corporate-driven and regulated mainstream news channels and you'd like to look deeper into what's happening in your world, go here: On air ? RT

Where's RT's nonprofit paperwork?

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I don't know. Seems pretty biased to me. For example just now they were talking about Monsanto. And the reporters were obviously very anti-Monsanto.

I'm not interested in news organizations' bias about anything. I just want them to report the news, without putting their slants on it.

I don't care about the commercials, they're not part of the news. What I care about is the reporters' expressions, choice of words and emphasis as they promote their own personal bias on any given subject. That's what I don't like. And they're so full of themselves they don't even realize they're being biased.

This group doesn't look any different to me.

So, what...you think advertisers are bribing news stations to cover news in a certain way in order to earn their advertising dollars? I don't think so. I think that's a fabrication.

 

[Saigon]

I think I'll stick with BBC.

 

[editec]

If you are depending on the media to inform your POV, you are hosed no matter what station you listen to.

The format of radio and TV news dumbs down every issue regardless of how much the outlet might try to do a good job.

TV might be a decent place to start, but one must READ books to truly get a better handle on the issues of the day.

 

[MikeK]

I don't know. Seems pretty biased to me. For example just now they were talking about Monsanto. And the reporters were obviously very anti-Monsanto.

I'm watching the re-broadcast of that Monsanto coverage. What I've seen is objective reporting. If it seems biased to you it's because you might be uncomfortable with the facts, such as the fact that Monsanto is clearly attempting to monopolize on Nature by capturing the agricultural market via the creation of Genetically Modifed seeds which are available only from them. And how do you feel about the fact that laboratory rats which were fed exclusively GM seeds and foods all have developed malignant tumors?

How often do you see this kind of in-depth and repeated coverage on Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC?

The truth isn't bias. Facts are facts -- not bias.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I don't know. Seems pretty biased to me. For example just now they were talking about Monsanto. And the reporters were obviously very anti-Monsanto.

I'm watching the re-broadcast of that Monsanto coverage. What I've seen is objective reporting. If it seems biased to you it's because you might be uncomfortable with the facts, such as the fact that Monsanto is clearly attempting to monopolize on Nature by capturing the agricultural market via the creation of Genetically Modifed seeds which are available only from them. And how do you feel about the fact that laboratory rats which were fed exclusively GM seeds and foods all have developed malignant tumors?

How often do you see this kind of in-depth and repeated coverage on Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC?

The truth isn't bias. Facts are facts -- not bias.

No, I'm not uncomfortable with the facts. It seems biased to me because the reporters project their personal feelings about the topic through their facial expressions, choice of words, vocal emphasis, etc. I just want them to tell me what's happening, I could care less what their opinion of Monsanto is. I'll form my own opinion based on the straight facts.

I have issues with genetically modifying anything, by the way, so my resistance to this particular news source in no way implies that I'm in favor of genetic modifications or unaware of the pitfalls thereof.

I don't watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC, either. I don't watch that much news. I will catch the CBS Evening News a few times a week.

 

[BillyV]

If you're tired of corporate-driven and regulated mainstream news channels and you'd like to look deeper into what's happening in your world, go here: On air ? RT

What does it mean to say that mainstream news channels are "corporate driven and regulated"? Has all integrity in journalism really gone down the drain?

What disturbs me most about journalists I know is when they allow their personal bias to influence a story.

I took a quick glance at your link and don't see how that news source is necessarily less biased than any other.

A quick glance might not be enough.

And to answer your question; the constant commercials that punctuate mainstream news broadcasts are the corporate drivers. You will see and hear and see news items on RT which are not presented on mainstream channels. RT is commercial-free.

Try tuning in at different times of the day.

I don't know. Seems pretty biased to me. For example just now they were talking about Monsanto. And the reporters were obviously very anti-Monsanto.

I'm watching the re-broadcast of that Monsanto coverage. What I've seen is objective reporting. If it seems biased to you it's because you might be uncomfortable with the facts, such as the fact that Monsanto is clearly attempting to monopolize on Nature by capturing the agricultural market via the creation of Genetically Modifed seeds which are available only from them. And how do you feel about the fact that laboratory rats which were fed exclusively GM seeds and foods all have developed malignant tumors?

How often do you see this kind of in-depth and repeated coverage on Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC?

The truth isn't bias. Facts are facts -- not bias.

Yes, because a "news" channel started and funded by the Kremlin is much more likely to present the "true" facts than ABC, NBC or CBS.

As for Monsanto GMO seed causing tumors in rats, maybe you should read what Forbes had to say about it: Monsanto's GM Corn And Cancer In Rats: Real Scientists Deeply Unimpressed. Politics Not Science Perhaps? - Forbes
Of course, they are just following their corporate "masters", but it seems there is some dispute in the scientific community about the dangers of GMO foods.

 

[longknife]

There's only one "mainstream media" show I would ever bother to watch - "Sunday Morning" on CBS.

The only problem is that it's on the same time as my favorite Sunday morning radio show, Country Chuck on KCYE 102.7 FM here in Las Vegas [you can get an online stream] absolutely great Classic Country with one of the funniest DJs I've ever heard.