What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Correspondent: How We Fix The News (1 Viewer)

jon_mx

Footballguy
How does that fix anything?  The reporters and their biases and agendas are as much of a problem as the sources of money and the biases they add.  This only addresses one part of the problem.  Even so, people will watch sources which line up with their biases.  The problem is that there will always be people with biases in the process and all you can do is understand that and have a diversity of sources 

 

yak651

Footballguy
How does that fix anything?  The reporters and their biases and agendas are as much of a problem as the sources of money and the biases they add.  This only addresses one part of the problem.  Even so, people will watch sources which line up with their biases.  The problem is that there will always be people with biases in the process and all you can do is understand that and have a diversity of sources 
You afraid it can't be labeled fake news?  Maybe some people want a source that isn't biased and want to form their own opinion? 

 

wikkidpissah

Footballguy
How does that fix anything?  The reporters and their biases and agendas are as much of a problem as the sources of money and the biases they add.  This only addresses one part of the problem.  Even so, people will watch sources which line up with their biases.  The problem is that there will always be people with biases in the process and all you can do is understand that and have a diversity of sources 
Sorry that creativity is liberal, humor is liberal, cogent & colorful use of words is liberal, arts are liberal. Sorry that there are no conservative arts colleges, that schmoozing, harumphing and crystal cathedral architecture aren't majors. Sorry, that Dickens didn't tell stories from the bankers' POV, that Beethoven dedicated a symphony to Napoleon instead of Adam Smith, that slaves didn't write blues songs for their masters to properly reflect how depressing whippin' folk can get. Sorry that most of the people want the story, not the story as laundered through a perspective and the perspective of those who tell stories well is generally & naturally expansive. That's just the free market of ideas at work, wouldn't you say?

Stories were largely well and fairly told for the first 500+ of print. Now, the colloquy of storytellers might get a little clubby on occasion, but i've been a member of the press, i've been on a presidential press train and in the press box at national conventions of both parties right before (in fact, i had significant dealings with your patron saint, a very young Lee Atwater) y'all started calling everybody who disagreed with you 'liberals' and inventing cabalistic chimeras, and i saw NO one working for a major news org looking to advance a viewpoint in that time, nor consulting on a party line, nor a journalist whose 99.8% motivation was anything but to get it right. The inadequate response to Fox should be proof enough for anybody how inadequate leftists are at advancing viewpoint journalism. Reason for that? There ain't a liberal view - there tens upon hundreds upon thousands of thousands of non-conservative viewpoints, some of them even reactionary. Y'all made this up, now deal widdit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Herb

Footballguy
Sorry that creativity is liberal, humor is liberal, cogent & colorful use of words is liberal, arts are liberal. Sorry that there are no conservative arts colleges, that schmoozing, harumphing and crystal cathedral architecture aren't majors. Sorry, that Dickens didn't tell stories from the bankers' POV, that Beethoven dedicated a symphony to Napoleon instead of Adam Smith, that slaves didn't write blues songs for their masters to properly reflect how depressing whippin' folk can get. Sorry that most of the people want the story, not the story as laundered through a perspective and the perspective of those who tell stories well is generally & naturally expansive. That's just the free market of ideas at work, wouldn't you say?

Stories were largely well and fairly told for the first 500+ of print. Now, the colloquy of storytellers might get a little clubby on occasion, but i've been a member of the press, i've been on a presidential press train and in the press box at national conventions of both parties right before (in fact, i had significant dealings with your patron saint, a very young Lee Atwater) y'all started calling everybody who disagreed with you 'liberals' and inventing cabalistic chimeras, and i saw NO one working for a major news org looking to advance a viewpoint in that time, nor consulting on a party line, nor a journalist whose 99.8% motivation was anything but to get it right. The inadequate response to Fox should be proof enough for anybody how inadequate leftists are at advancing viewpoint journalism. Reason for that? There ain't a liberal view - there tens upon hundreds upon thousands of thousands of non-conservative viewpoints, some of them even reactionary. Y'all made this up, now deal widdit.
Preach, brother Wikkid. Halle-####in-lujah!

 

Henry Ford

Footballguy
They’re up about 100k since I posted this (I believe it was about $1.62 million at that time.) They may actually hit the goal in five days as required.

They've already broken their own crowdfunding record from the Netherlands version.  Over $1.7 million so far. 

 

Leroy Hoard

Footballguy
Sorry that creativity is liberal, humor is liberal, cogent & colorful use of words is liberal, arts are liberal. Sorry that there are no conservative arts colleges, that schmoozing, harumphing and crystal cathedral architecture aren't majors. Sorry, that Dickens didn't tell stories from the bankers' POV, that Beethoven dedicated a symphony to Napoleon instead of Adam Smith, that slaves didn't write blues songs for their masters to properly reflect how depressing whippin' folk can get. Sorry that most of the people want the story, not the story as laundered through a perspective and the perspective of those who tell stories well is generally & naturally expansive. That's just the free market of ideas at work, wouldn't you say?

Stories were largely well and fairly told for the first 500+ of print. Now, the colloquy of storytellers might get a little clubby on occasion, but i've been a member of the press, i've been on a presidential press train and in the press box at national conventions of both parties right before (in fact, i had significant dealings with your patron saint, a very young Lee Atwater) y'all started calling everybody who disagreed with you 'liberals' and inventing cabalistic chimeras, and i saw NO one working for a major news org looking to advance a viewpoint in that time, nor consulting on a party line, nor a journalist whose 99.8% motivation was anything but to get it right. The inadequate response to Fox should be proof enough for anybody how inadequate leftists are at advancing viewpoint journalism. Reason for that? There ain't a liberal view - there tens upon hundreds upon thousands of thousands of non-conservative viewpoints, some of them even reactionary. Y'all made this up, now deal widdit.
Great post, we need you in here posting as much as possible.

 

jon_mx

Footballguy
Sorry that creativity is liberal, humor is liberal, cogent & colorful use of words is liberal, arts are liberal. Sorry that there are no conservative arts colleges, that schmoozing, harumphing and crystal cathedral architecture aren't majors. Sorry, that Dickens didn't tell stories from the bankers' POV, that Beethoven dedicated a symphony to Napoleon instead of Adam Smith, that slaves didn't write blues songs for their masters to properly reflect how depressing whippin' folk can get. Sorry that most of the people want the story, not the story as laundered through a perspective and the perspective of those who tell stories well is generally & naturally expansive. That's just the free market of ideas at work, wouldn't you say?

Stories were largely well and fairly told for the first 500+ of print. Now, the colloquy of storytellers might get a little clubby on occasion, but i've been a member of the press, i've been on a presidential press train and in the press box at national conventions of both parties right before (in fact, i had significant dealings with your patron saint, a very young Lee Atwater) y'all started calling everybody who disagreed with you 'liberals' and inventing cabalistic chimeras, and i saw NO one working for a major news org looking to advance a viewpoint in that time, nor consulting on a party line, nor a journalist whose 99.8% motivation was anything but to get it right. The inadequate response to Fox should be proof enough for anybody how inadequate leftists are at advancing viewpoint journalism. Reason for that? There ain't a liberal view - there tens upon hundreds upon thousands of thousands of non-conservative viewpoints, some of them even reactionary. Y'all made this up, now deal widdit.
You really believe we had an honest and unbias media for the first 500 years before Fox news showed up?  Media has been heavily influenced and slanted from day 1.  In the beginning we had the rulers and churches use their power to limit viewpoints.  And more recently Nazi's and Communists (yes even those liberal left-wingers) using their iron fist to make sure only their propaganda was seen.  In the US we typically had numerous diverse sources, each with their own biases.  Rampant partisanship has characterized the print media throughout our history.  In the 80's it was painfully obvious the media hated Reagan while the public mostly loved him.   The media hated GWH Bush until rather recently.  

Journalism was far more diverse when it was working class trade instead of the professional status it has become in recent decades.  Now all reporters have college degrees and are largely programed that it is their duty not only to report news but shape opinion.  The idea that there ain't a liberal view is laughable. Of course in this cesspool of liberalthank, the mob is oblivious says believes otherwise.  That is fine, I can tolerate differing opinions.  No one here can't. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

OrtonToOlsen

Footballguy
You really believe we had an honest and unbias media for the first 500 years before Fox news showed up?  Media has been heavily influenced and slanted from day 1.  In the beginning we had the rulers and churches use their power to limit viewpoints.  And more recently Nazi's and Communists (yes even those liberal left-wingers) using their iron fist to make sure only their propaganda was seen.  In the US we typically had numerous diverse sources, each with their own biases.  Rampant partisanship has characterized the print media throughout our history.  In the 80's it was painfully obvious the media hated Reagan while the public mostly loved him.   The media hated GWH Bush until rather recently.  

Journalism was far more diverse when it was working class trade instead of the professional status it has become in recent decades.  Now all reporters have college degrees and are largely programed that it is their duty not only to report news but shape opinion.  The idea that there ain't a liberal view is laughable. Of course in this cesspool of liberalthank, the mob is oblivious says believes otherwise.  That is fine, I can tolerate differing opinions.  No one here can't. 
OH OK

 

Henry Ford

Footballguy
You really believe we had an honest and unbias media for the first 500 years before Fox news showed up?  Media has been heavily influenced and slanted from day 1.  In the beginning we had the rulers and churches use their power to limit viewpoints.  And more recently Nazi's and Communists (yes even those liberal left-wingers) using their iron fist to make sure only their propaganda was seen.  In the US we typically had numerous diverse sources, each with their own biases.  Rampant partisanship has characterized the print media throughout our history.  In the 80's it was painfully obvious the media hated Reagan while the public mostly loved him.   The media hated GWH Bush until rather recently.  

Journalism was far more diverse when it was working class trade instead of the professional status it has become in recent decades.  Now all reporters have college degrees and are largely programed that it is their duty not only to report news but shape opinion.  The idea that there ain't a liberal view is laughable. Of course in this cesspool of liberalthank, the mob is oblivious says believes otherwise.  That is fine, I can tolerate differing opinions.  No one here can't. 
This is my Hoobastank cover band from Barthelona. 

 

The Commish

Footballguy
How does that fix anything?  The reporters and their biases and agendas are as much of a problem as the sources of money and the biases they add.  This only addresses one part of the problem.  Even so, people will watch sources which line up with their biases.  The problem is that there will always be people with biases in the process and all you can do is understand that and have a diversity of sources 
Sorry that creativity is liberal, humor is liberal, cogent & colorful use of words is liberal, arts are liberal. Sorry that there are no conservative arts colleges, that schmoozing, harumphing and crystal cathedral architecture aren't majors. Sorry, that Dickens didn't tell stories from the bankers' POV, that Beethoven dedicated a symphony to Napoleon instead of Adam Smith, that slaves didn't write blues songs for their masters to properly reflect how depressing whippin' folk can get. Sorry that most of the people want the story, not the story as laundered through a perspective and the perspective of those who tell stories well is generally & naturally expansive. That's just the free market of ideas at work, wouldn't you say?

Stories were largely well and fairly told for the first 500+ of print. Now, the colloquy of storytellers might get a little clubby on occasion, but i've been a member of the press, i've been on a presidential press train and in the press box at national conventions of both parties right before (in fact, i had significant dealings with your patron saint, a very young Lee Atwater) y'all started calling everybody who disagreed with you 'liberals' and inventing cabalistic chimeras, and i saw NO one working for a major news org looking to advance a viewpoint in that time, nor consulting on a party line, nor a journalist whose 99.8% motivation was anything but to get it right. The inadequate response to Fox should be proof enough for anybody how inadequate leftists are at advancing viewpoint journalism. Reason for that? There ain't a liberal view - there tens upon hundreds upon thousands of thousands of non-conservative viewpoints, some of them even reactionary. Y'all made this up, now deal widdit.
And that should wrap it up folks.  Good night!!  Well stated :thumbup:  

 

jon_mx

Footballguy
The Commish said:
And that should wrap it up folks.  Good night!!  Well stated :thumbup:  
Only on a forum which does not accept the fact that there is bias in reporting which is an accepted fact by anyone whomever studied it.  But this is the land of uncritical thinking where only those who spout the partyline may speak. 

 

Henry Ford

Footballguy
Only on a forum which does not accept the fact that there is bias in reporting which is an accepted fact by anyone whomever studied it.  But this is the land of uncritical thinking where only those who spout the partyline may speak. 
You should read the FAQs on the site I posted in the OP. 

 

jon_mx

Footballguy
Media Bias

Is slanted reporting replacing objectivity?

By Robert KienerMay 3, 2013 – Volume 23, Issue 17

Historians are quick to point out that the roots of American journalism were deeply embedded in partisan soil. Bias was the norm during journalism's formative years in this country. Indeed, the very idea of an unbiased press was anathema to the nation's early citizens.

Newspapers reflected the opinions of their owners and publishers. “For most of American history … there was only opinion, and highly partisan opinion at that,” said Sheppard of Long Island University.48In The Partisan Press, Sheppard cites several early newspaper owners and publishers who attacked the ideas of balance and objectivity:

On Sept. 4, 1798, the Newark Gazettedescribed giving equal time to both sides of the political divide a “‘folly that should not be tolerated.’”49

On July 17, 1799, The Washington Mirror said treating parties equally was impossible, and that “printers who ‘pretended’ neutrality succeeded only in willfully misleading the people.”50

On March 10, 1800, the New York American Citizen called impartiality “‘injurious to the best interests of mankind.’”51

Newspapers and their political pamphlet cousins were “mouthpieces” for the political parties of the era.52

Many newspapers were even supported directly by politicians. For example, Thomas Jefferson helped pay for the startup and running of the National Gazette, and Alexander Hamilton supported the Gazette of the United States.

“This gave an acrimonious tone to public discourse, since newspapers had no incentive to temper the language they used to criticize opponents,” wrote George Mason University's Lichter.53 In addition, newspapers often had lucrative government printing contracts, which also promoted biased reporting.

To temper the political bias of the press, the government — led by President John Adams' Federalist Party — passed the Sedition Act of 1798, which made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous and malicious writing” about the president or Congress. It enabled the government to close down many opposition Republican newspapers but caused such a voter backlash that Adams was not re-elected. The act expired in 1801.54

The partisan press also placed party above accuracy. Some editors and reporters even worked part-time for politicians.55 Others were key party leaders.56 Some have called the first quarter of the 19th century the “Dark Ages of American journalism.”57

“Even Jefferson, who famously preferred newspapers without government to government without newspapers, later complained that newspapers made their readers less well informed because ‘he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehood and errors,’” wrote Lichter.58

 

The Commish

Footballguy
Only on a forum which does not accept the fact that there is bias in reporting which is an accepted fact by anyone whomever studied it.  But this is the land of uncritical thinking where only those who spout the partyline may speak. 
I'll give you $50 per post of this thread saying there is no bias in reporting.  I mean we have posted billions of times the illustration of the "bias scale" of all the various news outlets here, but yeah, it's everyone else.  You're chasing your own straw man trying to beat the #### out of it.  It was pretty entertaining for a while.  Now it's just sad.  If I were you, I'd read wikki's second paragraph until you understand what it says.

The same is to be said for your "this place is the absolute worst, yet I post and "participate" here daily" shtick.  I know you think you're some sort of outlaw maverick who's bringing "truth" to the uninformed, but reality isn't on your side.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jon_mx

Footballguy
I'll give you $50 per post of this thread saying there is no bias in reporting.  I mean we have posted billions of times the illustration of the "bias scale" of all the various news outlets here, but yeah, it's everyone else.  You're chasing your own straw man trying to beat the #### out of it.  It was pretty entertaining for a while.  Now it's just sad.  If I were you, I'd read wikki's second paragraph until you understand what it says.

The same is to be said for your "this place is the absolute worst, yet I post and "participate" here daily" shtick.  I know you think you're some sort of outlaw maverick who's bringing "truth" to the uninformed, but reality isn't on your side.  
Here is one plus the 18 likes it recieved....that is $950

Stories were largely well and fairly told for the first 500+ of print.


And here is a second plus the 18 likes again....that is $1900

i saw NO one working for a major news org looking to advance a viewpoint in that time, nor consulting on a party line, nor a journalist whose 99.8% motivation was anything but to get it right.


And there is a third, but I will let it slide. 

 

sho nuff

Footballguy
Here is one plus the 18 likes it recieved....that is $950

And here is a second plus the 18 likes again....that is $1900

And there is a third, but I will let it slide. 
Neither of those say there is no bias in reporting Jon. Words have meanings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Commish

Footballguy
I'll give you $50 per post of this thread saying there is no bias in reporting.  I mean we have posted billions of times the illustration of the "bias scale" of all the various news outlets here, but yeah, it's everyone else.  You're chasing your own straw man trying to beat the #### out of it.  It was pretty entertaining for a while.  Now it's just sad.  If I were you, I'd read wikki's second paragraph until you understand what it says.

The same is to be said for your "this place is the absolute worst, yet I post and "participate" here daily" shtick.  I know you think you're some sort of outlaw maverick who's bringing "truth" to the uninformed, but reality isn't on your side.  
Here is one plus the 18 likes it recieved....that is $950

Stories were largely well and fairly told for the first 500+ of print.


And here is a second plus the 18 likes again....that is $1900

i saw NO one working for a major news org looking to advance a viewpoint in that time, nor consulting on a party line, nor a journalist whose 99.8% motivation was anything but to get it right.


And there is a third, but I will let it slide. 
:confused:

None of this says what you want it to say and that's the problem with coming to these threads looking to back up your preconceived notion with data points instead of using data points to establish your notion.  It's either that or you have a very different definition of what "bias" is than anyone else here.  Same with the term "posts".  I normally just sit and watch the shtick from afar, but this seems like a good post to actually engage to show the point being told you over and over by everyone here.  It seems to be your belief that stories are EITHER  "well and fairly told" OR written with bias.  That is blatantly false.  It's not either/or.  I get you have to make it either/or for your argument to work, so I understand WHY you're doing this, but it doesn't make it true.   It should also be pointed out that saying one hasn't observed bias (the everyday definition of the word...not your definition of the word, whatever that is) isn't remotely similar to saying that bias doesn't exist.  This is stealthcat level stuff here IMO so I'll offer you the same suggestion I offered him.  That is to read what people are actually saying and addressing their comments rather than trying to fit them into a preconceived box you think they should be in by twisting their words around until you are comfortable they are saying what you want them to be saying.

 

wikkidpissah

Footballguy
G'ahead, kidz, play gotcha with jonny.

In the break room of almost every psych hospital i ever worked at was one of those motivational posters. This one sported a huge, mud-caked porker with the slogan "Every wrestle with a pig? You both get dirty. The pig likes it."

The jon_mxes don't give a fig about this world or anything in it upon which they cannot make some imprint. Michelangelo's David is not as beautiful to them as a discarded PopTart carton with their thumbsmudge upon it. Like those before them who couldn't see life but thru the tunnel of Yahwehan or Mohammedan or Paulean scripture, they have been marketed a limited viewpoint of prefab "certain"ties, a paranoia based on everyone who disagrees with any portion of their credo being members of the same evil cabal, and a semantic gluetrap kit of whatabouts, prove-its & exceptions making rules by which to win king-of-the-sty contests and muddy any who enter the pen.

Because the other 80% of America don't live to agree with each other (in fact, the flaw of our Great Cabal is how little commonality we seek), hoglife has great sway in our land at present. And yes, there is another 20% of America who are just as piggy - if not as well organized - about their opposing viewpoint. In fact, the young and many wound-licking people of color are re-inventing Puritanism as we speak and will soon be another tractor-trailer in the passing lane of the Highway of Discourse.

Don't engage. Walk away. Laugh if you want to, not at them, at yourself for even thinking about it. If they want no part of the world but theirs, let them have it. Let them have no other part, give them naught but disdain, no thought at all. Each time a pig challenges you to wrestle, use that as a reminder to rescue someone who has fallen into the pit. Someone said i should post more in this forum. I should actually post less, but i have a lot of muddy friends in here who i feel the need to occasionally hose down. 

Everyone who disagrees with you, ask them why, tell them why. Establish the difference fully, firmly & freely if you need to. But, if your next step beyond that is not "What can we agree on?" you've lost. If it helps you, remember that there is no one forumfolk would more vehemently disagree with than Jesus Christ. Go in peace & progress. nufced

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jon_mx

Footballguy
:confused:

None of this says what you want it to say and that's the problem with coming to these threads looking to back up your preconceived notion with data points instead of using data points to establish your notion.  It's either that or you have a very different definition of what "bias" is than anyone else here.  Same with the term "posts".  I normally just sit and watch the shtick from afar, but this seems like a good post to actually engage to show the point being told you over and over by everyone here.  It seems to be your belief that stories are EITHER  "well and fairly told" OR written with bias.  That is blatantly false.  It's not either/or.  I get you have to make it either/or for your argument to work, so I understand WHY you're doing this, but it doesn't make it true.   It should also be pointed out that saying one hasn't observed bias (the everyday definition of the word...not your definition of the word, whatever that is) isn't remotely similar to saying that bias doesn't exist.  This is stealthcat level stuff here IMO so I'll offer you the same suggestion I offered him.  That is to read what people are actually saying and addressing their comments rather than trying to fit them into a preconceived box you think they should be in by twisting their words around until you are comfortable they are saying what you want them to be saying. 
Fair    free from discrimination, dishonesty, etc.:  just; impartial

unbiased      not biased or prejudice; fair; impartial

I have no idea what definition of fair you are referring to as it absolutely means unbiased. 

 

jon_mx

Footballguy
G'ahead, kidz, play gotcha with jonny.

In the break room of almost every psych hospital i ever worked at was one of those motivational posters. This one sported a huge, mud-caked porker with the slogan "Every wrestle with a pig? You both get dirty. The pig likes it."

The jon_mxes don't give a fig about this world or anything in it upon which they cannot make some imprint. Michelangelo's David is not as beautiful to them as a discarded PopTart carton with their thumbsmudge upon it. Like those before them who couldn't see life but thru the tunnel of Yahwehan or Mohammedan or Paulean scripture, they have been marketed a limited viewpoint of prefab "certain"ties, a paranoia based on everyone who disagrees with any portion of their credo being members of the same evil cabal, and a semantic gluetrap kit of whatabouts, prove-its & exceptions making rules by which to win king-of-the-sty contests and muddy any who enter the pen.

Because the other 80% of America don't live to agree with each other (in fact, the flaw of our Great Cabal is how little commonality we seek), hoglife has great sway in our land at present. And yes, there is another 20% of America who are just as piggy - if not as well organized - about their opposing viewpoint. In fact, the young and many wound-licking people of color are re-inventing Puritanism as we speak and will soon be another tractor-trailer in the passing lane of the Highway of Discourse.

Don't engage. Walk away. Laugh if you want to, not at them, at yourself for even thinking about it. If they want no part of the world but theirs, let them have it. Let them have no other part, give them naught but disdain, no thought at all. Each time a pig challenges you to wrestle, use that as a reminder to rescue someone who has fallen into the pit. Someone said i should post more in this forum. I should actually post less, but i have a lot of muddy friends in here who i feel the need to occasionally hose down. 

Everyone who disagrees with you, ask them why, tell them why. Establish the difference fully, firmly & freely if you need to. But, if your next step beyond that is not "What can we agree on?" you've lost. If it helps you, remember that there is no one forumfolk would more vehemently disagree with than Jesus Christ. Go in peace & progress. nufced
Such a pant load. 

 

Sheriff Bart

Footballguy
G'ahead, kidz, play gotcha with jonny.

In the break room of almost every psych hospital i ever worked at was one of those motivational posters. This one sported a huge, mud-caked porker with the slogan "Every wrestle with a pig? You both get dirty. The pig likes it."

The jon_mxes don't give a fig about this world or anything in it upon which they cannot make some imprint. Michelangelo's David is not as beautiful to them as a discarded PopTart carton with their thumbsmudge upon it. Like those before them who couldn't see life but thru the tunnel of Yahwehan or Mohammedan or Paulean scripture, they have been marketed a limited viewpoint of prefab "certain"ties, a paranoia based on everyone who disagrees with any portion of their credo being members of the same evil cabal, and a semantic gluetrap kit of whatabouts, prove-its & exceptions making rules by which to win king-of-the-sty contests and muddy any who enter the pen.

Because the other 80% of America don't live to agree with each other (in fact, the flaw of our Great Cabal is how little commonality we seek), hoglife has great sway in our land at present. And yes, there is another 20% of America who are just as piggy - if not as well organized - about their opposing viewpoint. In fact, the young and many wound-licking people of color are re-inventing Puritanism as we speak and will soon be another tractor-trailer in the passing lane of the Highway of Discourse.

Don't engage. Walk away. Laugh if you want to, not at them, at yourself for even thinking about it. If they want no part of the world but theirs, let them have it. Let them have no other part, give them naught but disdain, no thought at all. Each time a pig challenges you to wrestle, use that as a reminder to rescue someone who has fallen into the pit. Someone said i should post more in this forum. I should actually post less, but i have a lot of muddy friends in here who i feel the need to occasionally hose down. 

Everyone who disagrees with you, ask them why, tell them why. Establish the difference fully, firmly & freely if you need to. But, if your next step beyond that is not "What can we agree on?" you've lost. If it helps you, remember that there is no one forumfolk would more vehemently disagree with than Jesus Christ. Go in peace & progress. nufced
Determined or not that cat has to be long dead.

 

The Commish

Footballguy
Advertising free, Billionaire-owner free, pay-what-it’s worth journalism.  Actual journalism.  

This is a Dutch concept moving to English language. If they raise $2.5 million by December 14, they will build it.  If not, everyone gets their money back.  

I’m in. 

https://thecorrespondent.com/
This sounds interesting, but is it really much different than what NPR delivers? 
This was my initial thought as well.  

 

squistion

Footballguy
Hey look...it's a personal attack.  
And isn't he the one that always complains about the name calling and how the level of discourse has deteriorated in this forum because people are not civil to each other? (Meaning to him and he has played the victim card so often in that respect that he has worn out the deck).

 

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
How does that fix anything?  The reporters and their biases and agendas are as much of a problem as the sources of money and the biases they add.  This only addresses one part of the problem.  Even so, people will watch sources which line up with their biases.  The problem is that there will always be people with biases in the process and all you can do is understand that and have a diversity of sources 
Here’s the thing about journalists - they need a story and they need a headline and they need to sell to their readership. It’s just a fact, you wake up and you need a story. Even though you just killed yourself writing one the night or week before you need to do it again. And I think that’s where the bias and sloppiness comes in. Look at Trump, he gets it. Put out a tweet, boom, journalists will write about it, even print the tweet’s punch line as a headline. I’m not entirely sure how this helps that, so I think you sort of have a point.

 

psychobillies

Footballguy
I know.  I'm asking why sensationalism isn't a good enough reason to support it, even if you think there isn't bias in the media.
Sensationalism is a good reason to support it.   Probably the only good reason to support it.    I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't.

 

Henry Ford

Footballguy
Sensationalism is a good reason to support it.   Probably the only good reason to support it.    I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't.
Gotcha.  

Just for everyone's information, The Correspondent doesn't claim it's going to be viewpoint-free.  It instead says this:

Will The Correspondent be left-wing? Right-wing?

Our founder, Rob Wijnberg, has written 2,000 words on this subject, but here’s the short version: we don’t think these labels are very useful, because they’re mostly used to disqualify people you disagree with nowadays. We believe you can’t do justice to human beings  with a simplistic partitioning like left or right, liberal or conservative, for or against a president. And we think the same is true of media. Worldviews — including those of journalists — are too complex for that. But our correspondents do have a worldview, just like any other human being. So we’re not going to pretend to be “neutral” or “unbiased.” Instead, our correspondents will tell you where they're coming from, in the belief that transparency about a point-of-view is better than claiming to have none. And if you really want to label us as an organization, here’s one we’re comfortable with: The Correspondent is grounded in progressive realism. This means we believe in the possibility of a better world, based on facts. And we will change our minds if the facts tell us to.
Our correspondents won’t be chasing the latest breaking news, but asking their audience instead: “What do you encounter every day at work or in your life that rarely makes the front page, but really should?” They won’t just write one-off stories, they’ll share their learning curve. Meaning: they will keep a public notebook and share their questions, assumptions, data, sources, inspirations, and doubts with you as well. This kind of transparency helps you understand where we’re coming from and gives you the opportunity to share your knowledge and experience along the way. A correspondent’s published piece won’t be the end of the reporting process, but the starting point for a more in-depth conversation. So, finished stories are only half of what you’ll get as a member of The Correspondent. Our correspondents will shed light on the underlying forces that shape our world in a way that won’t leave you cynical and depressed, but informed and empowered. You can read more about how we’ll practice the journalism we preach here.

 

psychobillies

Footballguy
Gotcha.  

Just for everyone's information, The Correspondent doesn't claim it's going to be viewpoint-free.  It instead says this:
Sounds better than what we currently have.  I'm just glad that some are acknowledging that true journalism isn't realistic anymore.  Stories will always be driven by personal biases and will only appeal to one side of the aisle or the other.  I'm glad that we are being honest about it. 

Cronkite and Murrow were before my time, but my understanding is that they were pretty unbiased and just reported the news without their opinion driving a slant.  I'm sure it was fairly dull, but that was back when there wasn't much competition for views or clicks.  I don't think that's possible anymore.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top