Can You Trust The Press?

Post Reply New Topic

Debate?

How does this video make you feel? Do you agree with any point? Do you disagree with any point?

Does a liberal media create a liberal society? Do we have the media to blame for our liberal tendencies?

Liberal? Have you ever heard of Murdoch, by any chance?

Simple answer is NO. ( for me anyway) as human nature dictates it seems those that run these cooperation's find it hard to be impartial to peoples political beliefs, News of the modern era is akin to getting good ratings for a reality tv show. I dont trust media nor do i trust the people that own these organisations as the world is not run by governments but dictated by the banking system and the hidden motives to remove peoples freedoms over time to have a better control of the mass by using fear as a way to control their own agendas. Democracy is a word that in to days world is flung around but has not true meaning in today's society, its only about making people believe what they wish them to believe in, as a CIA officer once said, the easiest form of brain washing is repetition. That is evident in many areas of society which today's journalism is a part of.

Also another quote i cant remember who wrote but is very true... 'Whoever controls the money controls the world!'.

( Just my very shortened view )

Last edited by Uncle on 08 Oct 2016, 12:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ok that is valid, Fox News is bleeding from the right but even then its got an agenda that a lot of conservatives don't have. Then you have alternative media, listen to the videos commentary around 4:30. If liberal media is pushing conservatives into a box then of course your going to have stuff like Fox News. But if the liberal media isn't identified as being liberal but just as mainsteam then those that carter to conservatives will appear even worse in comparison! We need a return to objectivity.

God no. The only thing to ever trust is the raw sources, not the filter through which they are delivered. This is why I'm a huge advocate for leaked video and audio. A good example was Donald Trump's recently leaked audio from a bugged microphone in his bus.

CNN actually covered the audio in full, uncensored (except for f**k) on the air, which I say is good.
One little problem was when they changed the headline to "Trump advisors huddling on how to respond", though, because they put "Source" as their source. Source says: blah blah blah. Source. This is obvious BS. They don't actually know. They guessed it.

CNN obviously edited down a speech from the relative of a guy shot down by cops. Her original speech was violent, inflammatory, and inciting, but they cut it down to "It's about peace and harmony" type stuff and edited everything else out.

The video actually used Fox as some sort of liberal news, or at least pro-Clinton... and...

It's so ironic that bias was in question but the video never admitted to its own. The channel was created by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager - a religious conservative, so it's guilty of what it accuses others.

Then I ask this, can a liberal be unbiased? Can a religious conservative be unbiased? Can you not believe something but still have an objective view? Cause if not then who in the hell should deliver the news? Were the people in the video described as unbiased not allowed to be conservative or liberal?

I have a wide range of beliefs, I have the belief that I don't have to agree with someone to support and understand their opinion. Would that make me unbiased? And finally are you, the person reading this unbiased? How so?

No, a liberal media doesn't create a liberal society. No blame should be assigned to liberal tendencies as they are praiseworthy and a cornerstone of the modern society of open communication in which we live and move and have our being.

The history of western civilization and a sense of personal and social ethics gives us our liberal tendencies.

The Judeo-Christian tradition, tempered by a scholarly culture grounded in the Greek and Roman classics and infused with the discoveries of Indian and Arab math and science gave us the scientific method (tip of the hat to Roger and Francis Bacon), a fine appreciation for analytical thinking and logical inquiry. The vigorous energies of the reformation were added to that base and, when the madness of the wars that followed finally cooled down, a new model for the application of the Golden Rule in an ecumenical and then universalist framework emerged: the idea of the rights of man.

These are the foundations of liberalism. As recognized in the concept of the fourth estate, a free press plays a vital part in keeping the citizens informed about the matters of state that they need to vote on in a modern, democratic state.

Judith Miller is the liar who vigorously promoted the war in Iraq, using her position at the New York Times as cover to lend credibility to the Bush administration's propaganda about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. She was fired for failing to meet up to the standards and practices of the New York Times, so it's laughable that she is now trashing them as partisan and lacking in standards. That she should then move to the hyperpartisan Newsmax makes her line about objectivity particularly hard to stomach.

Her analysis of the economics of the news business and reasons for a lack of trust by Americans of the media is as flawed as her reports on Iraqi WMD were. She fails to mention the role of the internet in disrupting traditional revenue streams for print journalism and fails to note that the decline in trust an respect for television news followed the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan appointees, the growth of Rupert Mudoch's media empire and the increasing corporate control of network news divisions, so clearly seen in the GE-NBC News relationship.

If it wasn't for the media, Hillary would be finished.

Is it possible that by allowing liberal and conservative based views in the press that we may never be able to have objective news again?

Too late. The unanimous 2003 opinion of a Florida Court of Appeals which agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States still stands as precedence ( http://projectcensored.org/11-the-media ... gally-lie/ ), and tells us all the condition of the media. With journalists and reporters maintaining their membership with such organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations (a group even Hillary Clinton once said she was "told [by the CFR] what we [the U.S. Department of State] should be doing"), it is terrifying to think that the professional objectivity of the media no longer remains as a journalistic standard. No, like the federal government, the media has been co-opted by even larger corporatists.

That case is at:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 10807.html

From what I understand, the Fox affiliate won on a technicality. Because these FCC policies don't have the force of law, this investigative journalist couple couldn't invoke the whistleblower statute.

So why don't we have a real law against falsifying the news? The media corporations might have to deal with a few more litigations, oh, poor them. That's not a valid reason.

Also, I'm not sure I believe the entirety of the Project Censored article either. One of its comments links to a Snopes article that differs somewhat.

I agree completely. I selected the Project Censored article simply because it described the bare facts quickly and easily, not because it might have connections to Snopes. The Florida opinion, however, has caused many to consider that the court relied on "entertainment law" (where false claims can be made with inpunity by calling it "fictionalization") instead of relying on "trade law" insofar as it is applied to claims made about products and services (such as news magazines, newspapers and news broadcasts). Under the latter, all claims must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. But, apparently not news which is advertised and marketed as truth, but not true itself. Ever since the Florida opinion was made I have hoped that another court, seeing a repeat of the same claimed "status," would balk at the idea. But, no.

Would we need explicit legislation then?

That would define the matter, but I doubt the Congress or most legislatures would try doing that as it would likely appear to be restricting speech. It is best left to the federal Supreme Court to define; so, a kind of lawsuit brought in federal courts to define the limits of commerical speech.

Every time the press reports on a subject I have personal experience with, they get it completely wrong; why should I assume that they get the things I don't have personal experience with right?