Can Snopes counter this? - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Can Snopes counter this?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southwestern, MI
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieK View Post
    Oh, you must be referring to THE ONLY NEWS NETWORK IN THE US THAT CONSISTANTLY HAS PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDE OF EVERY ISSUE. You certainly are not referring to NBC or MSNBC, those paragons of fairness. Oh....you must mean Rachael Madcow and her like, such as THE RIGHT REVEREND AL SHARPTON!
    No, I mean the Fake News Network. The only thing consistent with them is their agenda and the way they promote it. "THE ONLY NEWS NETWORK IN THE US THAT CONSISTANTLY HAS PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDE OF EVERY ISSUE" That statement is so ignorant that it's apparent that you don't listen to much else.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Central N.Car.
    Posts
    534
    One of the first things we were taught in Social Studies was that each news source/magazine/outlet had it's own aggenda. IMO there is no such thing as objective news stories. All are slanted and selected to project said aggendas. Remember the joke about the Marine rescuing the baby in the zoo? Next day the demoncrap news reporter said the Marine had deprived the animal of it's food. Story was true but not factual--there is a vast difference.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southwestern, MI
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by -06 View Post
    One of the first things we were taught in Social Studies was that each news source/magazine/outlet had it's own aggenda. IMO there is no such thing as objective news stories. All are slanted and selected to project said aggendas. Remember the joke about the Marine rescuing the baby in the zoo? Next day the demoncrap news reporter said the Marine had deprived the animal of it's food. Story was true but not factual--there is a vast difference.
    That’s a funny joke if it matches your political views, but not really believable that anyone would report a story that way. While I agree that every news story will have a slant because they are written by human beings and not machines, I would not agree that it translates to an agenda. In the 19th century newspapers were simply tools for people or political parties to push their agenda. In the 20th century we saw a movement toward a more neutral and disinterested reporting with people like Edward R Murrow, Walter Cronkite and the many other news anchors on network television. Newspapers separated their opinions into the editorial section and clearly marked that as their opinion on the news and not the actual news. With technology today we see a Balkanization of news. Cable television allows for a multitude of channels to present many different agendas. The internet allows for people that have little or no expertise or knowledge to have a blog and reach a wide audience. I remember someone saying that “people don’t listen to the news to be informed, they listen to be affirmed.” You believe what you want to hear and ignore the rest. Perhaps if Fox clearly differentiated the Fox News Network from their Network News by renaming it the Fox Editorial Network there wouldn’t be the confusion with real news.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Central N.Car.
    Posts
    534
    No such thing as unslanted "news" today. Not much news anyway. Only who is sleeping with who, who won "dancing with the stars", what the royal family is doing, what movie made X number of millions opening day, etc etc. We only get news with views. If you think the news networks are not politically motivated and controlled by who has the most money then you are saddly mistaken.

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by alduane View Post
    That’s a funny joke if it matches your political views, but not really believable that anyone would report a story that way. While I agree that every news story will have a slant because they are written by human beings and not machines, I would not agree that it translates to an agenda. In the 19th century newspapers were simply tools for people or political parties to push their agenda. In the 20th century we saw a movement toward a more neutral and disinterested reporting with people like Edward R Murrow, Walter Cronkite and the many other news anchors on network television. Newspapers separated their opinions into the editorial section and clearly marked that as their opinion on the news and not the actual news. With technology today we see a Balkanization of news. Cable television allows for a multitude of channels to present many different agendas. The internet allows for people that have little or no expertise or knowledge to have a blog and reach a wide audience. I remember someone saying that “people don’t listen to the news to be informed, they listen to be affirmed.” You believe what you want to hear and ignore the rest. Perhaps if Fox clearly differentiated the Fox News Network from their Network News by renaming it the Fox Editorial Network there wouldn’t be the confusion with real news.
    R U 4 Real???? Claiming that Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were neutral and disinterested is out there. The only reason that people thought they were neutral is that we didn't have anyone else telling us differently and they only reported what they wanted us to hear. That is how Kennedy was elected and why everyone thinks he was so great. Until reporters saw what a story like Watergate could do for a reporter they fed the public what the government fed them. Monica and Bill was a Disney story compared to what used to go on in the White House and it didn't start with JFK. Ike and FDR had their ladies on the side and everyone knew about them but no one printed it. Slanted news didn't start or end in the 19th century and is alive and well in the 21st century.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by alduane View Post
    No, I mean the Fake News Network. The only thing consistent with them is their agenda and the way they promote it. "THE ONLY NEWS NETWORK IN THE US THAT CONSISTANTLY HAS PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDE OF EVERY ISSUE" That statement is so ignorant that it's apparent that you don't listen to much else.
    So obviously you are being forced to watch a news network that consistently has higher ratings than the other news networks combined. If you aren't being forced to watch, why don't you watch only the networks that agree with you. I don't know how you guys on the left always know what the real truth is and only CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and other main stream media outlets get it right all the time. After all you only need watch one of them, the rest are carbon copies.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,647
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    R U 4 Real???? Claiming that Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite were neutral and disinterested is out there. The only reason that people thought they were neutral is that we didn't have anyone else telling us differently and they only reported what they wanted us to hear. That is how Kennedy was elected and why everyone thinks he was so great. Until reporters saw what a story like Watergate could do for a reporter they fed the public what the government fed them. Monica and Bill was a Disney story compared to what used to go on in the White House and it didn't start with JFK. Ike and FDR had their ladies on the side and everyone knew about them but no one printed it. Slanted news didn't start or end in the 19th century and is alive and well in the 21st century.
    I'm old enough to have watched Cronkite and I know he had a bias.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast