PDA

View Full Version : What's the worst place to get your News?


banyon
06-15-2006, 03:18 PM
Poll to follow

recxjake
06-15-2006, 03:22 PM
anywhere that is full of liberal propaganda

Bootlegged
06-15-2006, 03:29 PM
Apparently truthout.com

banyon
06-15-2006, 03:39 PM
anywhere that is full of liberal propaganda

Hey, you're back! I guess those poll numbers must've come back up 5 points, huh?

banyon
06-15-2006, 03:40 PM
Apparently truthout.com

Damn, I forgot the "other" option! :mad:

Duck Dog
06-15-2006, 03:50 PM
I don't know about the worst place for news, but the Planet is actually a pretty damn good place for a wide variety.

Logical
06-15-2006, 04:10 PM
In general I would say Blogs, if I need to be specific Newsmax would be one.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 04:26 PM
I actually have looked at all of those but I like to go to my favorite sites for their take on current news and the rest of the news that's not fit to print.

Lew Rockwell.com
Mises Institute
The Independent Institute
Human Events
antiwar.com

I do not do talk radio though and don't care for Fox for war coverage, nor do I watch CNN anymore. I don't do Drudge or NewsMax often either only if linked from elsewhere. Maybe once or twice a year. I've also read Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe, Foreign Affairs and even the Weekly Standard just to see what the NeoCons are up too.

Adept Havelock
06-15-2006, 05:04 PM
I don't pay much attention to any of them. My daily dose of the WSJ (minus the excreable opinion section) and the Thunderer take care of my news needs for the most part.


Except for the old KC Star, which is solely worthwhile to me for it's Sports section, and the comics. :redface:

If I had to pick the worst, probably World Nut Daily. Most of the others at least occasionally pretend to show two sides of a story.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2006, 05:04 PM
If you included National Review and Newsmax, to be fair and balanced you should have included Nation and Rawstory.....and to lump the NY Post Times/Wash Times together I can see, but NYTimes should have been lumped with the LATimes. The Washington Post at least tries to appear objective for the most part.....although they often fail.

banyon
06-15-2006, 05:09 PM
If you included National Review and Newsmax, to be fair and balanced you should have included Nation and Rawstory.....and to lump the NY Post Times/Wash Times together I can see, but NYTimes should have been lumped with the LATimes. The Washington Post at least tries to appear objective for the most part.....although they often fail.

I included Huff post and Time/Newsweek that should've balanced the scales (I can't pick everything) or are those not really "liberal" media?

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2006, 05:12 PM
I included Huff post and Time/Newsweek that should've balanced the scales (I can't pick everything) or are those not really "liberal" media?
Who reads Huff, except real political wonks? :shrug:

As for Time/Newsweek....they lean left, but only marginally so.....and they do remain conscientious enough to at least try to balance the scale once in awhile. The same cannot really be said of the NYTimes/LATimes though...at least not with a straight face.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 05:15 PM
If you included National Review and Newsmax, to be fair and balanced you should have included Nation and Rawstory.....and to lump the NY Post Times/Wash Times together I can see, but NYTimes should have been lumped with the LATimes. The Washington Post at least tries to appear objective for the most part.....although they often fail.

I think those major cities with the name "Times" in them are part of the same chain. What would also be cool to discuss and check into who owns the major media outlets. I think it's just a handful of places that own mostly all the major publications including magazines. It's specialty publications where you get info you can't get elsewhere. Of course that makes it less valid to some.

To me there is no such thing as a 100% objective source. Outlets can always refuse to print certain stories...even certain ads. I've seen it happen in advertising before. I am in advertising.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2006, 05:21 PM
I think those major cities with the name "Times" in them are part of the same chain. What would also be cool to discuss and check into who owns the major media outlets. I think it's just a handful of places that own mostly all the major publications including magazines. It's specialty publications where you get info you can't get elsewhere. Of course that makes it less valid to some.

To me there is no such thing as a 100% objective source. Outlets can always refuse to print certain stories...even certain ads. I've seen it happen in advertising before. I am in advertising.

The Washington Times couldn't be further from the NYTimes and LATimes; I just think it's a name that many papers have embraced over the years, like Journal. There are definitely magazines to feed all tastes and ideologies; liberals are suspicious of the conservative ones, and discount them.....and vice versa.

I agree, there is no such thing as truly objective. Some just try harder than others (CNN, WashingtonPost, US News & World Report, etc), while others lie through their teeth about it (NYTimes, FOX, etc) and seem to expect people to "believe" them and their claims of credibility.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 05:24 PM
The Washington Times couldn't be further from the NYTimes and LATimes; I just think it's a name that many papers have embraced over the years, like Journal. There are definitely magazines to feed all tastes and ideologies; liberals are suspicious of the conservative ones, and discount them.....and vice versa.

I agree, there is no such thing as truly objective. Some just try harder than others (CNN, WashingtonPost, US News & World Report, etc), while others lie through their teeth about it (NYTimes, FOX, etc) and seem to expect people to "believe" them and their claims of credibility.


Well, I forgot about the Washington Times...that's the Moonie one right?
Funny, I just recently read that one, if it's the one I just said, was RR's favorite in his own words. Sorry, I can't recall where I read it but it as very recent.

By and large though I believe the "times" point to have some merit though.
I know St Petersburg Times is part of the same network as LA Times...and is a liberal rag as well.

Adept Havelock
06-15-2006, 05:26 PM
True, Kotter. The fact that the WashTimes is owned by the head of the Moonies (Mr. God incarnate on earth himself, though he has backed off from such statements in the last few years) probably has something to do with that. ;)

All Times are not created equal. The Thunderer has a fine journalistic tradition going back over 200 years. Best international news coverage I've found over the years, by far.
Even if it is owned these days by Murdoch's News Corp. :D

Also, IIRC, back when KC had two newspapers, The Star tended to lean pretty hard to the left, and the Times (evening newspaper) was pretty strong to the right.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2006, 05:29 PM
Well, I forgot about the Washington Times...that's the Moonie one right?
Funny, I just recently read that one, if it's the one I just said, was RR's favorite in his own words. Sorry, I can't recall where I read it but it as very recent.

By and large though I believe the "times" point to have some merit though.
I know St Petersburg Times is part of the same network as LA Times...and is a liberal rag as well.

Yeah, the Moonies own it; and the liberals hate it. It's basically the print version of FOX. As for the Times thing, most large and better known urban papers lean left regardless of name, and drown out the more numerous yet much smaller papers (in terms of circulation) that tend to be more conservative.

BucEyedPea
06-15-2006, 05:32 PM
I completely forgot about the Manchester Union Leader of NH...another small one which is true traditional conservatism.

Funny though...all of my NH side of the family are liberal Democrats. :( That's quite a few of them too.

Adept Havelock
06-15-2006, 05:33 PM
Yeah, the Moonies own it; and the liberals hate it. It's basically the print version of FOX. As for the Times thing, most large and better known urban papers lean left regardless of name, and drown out the more numerous yet much smaller papers (in terms of circulation) that tend to be more conservative.

I'm not sure about the "Print version of Fox" as it's writing and commentary is usually a bit more sophisticated than FOX news pundit scream fests, but it's certainly the Right Wing version of the New York Times.

banyon
06-15-2006, 05:44 PM
Who reads Huff, except real political wonks? :shrug:.

Umm, people who would be reading the Nation? :shrug: Surely their demographics aren't too different.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2006, 05:55 PM
I'm not sure about the "Print version of Fox" as it's writing and commentary is usually a bit more sophisticated than FOX news pundit scream fests, but it's certainly the Right Wing version of the New York Times.

Even though the NYTimes is strongly left wing, I'd argue overall quality is better than the Washington Times. Then again, I don't read the Wash Times regularly....

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2006, 05:56 PM
Umm, people who would be reading the Nation? :shrug: Surely their demographics aren't too different.

I don't know much about Huff, I guess; as for Nation, it's definitely for the more impassioned activist types. Similar to National Review on the right I suppose....

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 12:35 AM
Even though the NYTimes is strongly left wing, I'd argue overall quality is better than the Washington Times. Then again, I don't read the Wash Times regularly....

The Washington Times can hardly be considered a source of anything other than absolute bullshit. The NYT has taken a lot of shit over the recent years, and rightfully so in many cases, but a great deal of that has been a smear campaign launched against them by the right wing. At least the NYT has some journalistic integrity

patteeu
06-16-2006, 07:19 AM
I think those major cities with the name "Times" in them are part of the same chain.

That's not really true. For example, the New York Times, the Washington Times, and the LA Times are all owned by different entities.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2006, 07:28 AM
That's not really true. For example, the New York Times, the Washington Times, and the LA Times are all owned by different entities.

LA Times and St Pete Time I "thought" were owned by the same (and I originally "thought" along with NY Times as well). Apparently NY Times also owns the Boston Globe....which is news to me but I just checked it.

banyon
06-16-2006, 09:33 AM
Newsmax! Winnah and still champion!

congrats recxjake!

Bootlegged
06-16-2006, 10:33 AM
***shocking results***

banyon
06-16-2006, 10:44 AM
***shocking results***

People could vote for whatever they wanted.

There were bad choices on several sides of the political spectrum for people to pick from.

patteeu
06-16-2006, 11:08 AM
I voted for CNN but I might have misunderstood the question.

Pitt Gorilla
06-16-2006, 11:27 AM
I voted for CNN but I might have misunderstood the question.Probably. CNN is pretty good.

go bowe
06-16-2006, 12:04 PM
cnn gets a lot of crap around here sometimes...

communist news network and all...

but they are a reputable news organization that presents news events as documentable facts, albeit with a slight leftward bias in some aspects...

newsmax and wnd are worse than laughable...

Ultra Peanut
06-16-2006, 12:09 PM
Fox is a steaming turd. The others are simply turds.

ChiefFripp
06-17-2006, 04:07 PM
Well Fox obviously has an agenda, I don't even think they try to hide that fact.

luv
06-17-2006, 04:22 PM
I would say from a police officer knocking on your door. From the list, though, I would say talk radio.

BucEyedPea
06-17-2006, 04:26 PM
cnn gets a lot of crap around here sometimes...

communist news network and all...

but they are a reputable news organization that presents news events as documentable facts, albeit with a slight leftward bias in some aspects...


I don't think that leftward bent is at all slight with CNN. Nope! Not when I see Judy Woodruff jumpin' up and down for joy on the 2000 election recounts here in Florida. Man that was so blatant.

I think you don't see it as it aligns with where you are.

Other than that, most major media is what I'd deem "statist" including FOX.

stevieray
06-17-2006, 05:17 PM
any media source...somewhere along the line their opinion of the news became more important than just reporting the news.

Logical
06-17-2006, 05:36 PM
...

Also, IIRC, back when KC had two newspapers, The Star tended to lean pretty hard to the left, and the Times (evening newspaper) was pretty strong to the right.You have those backwards, Times was morning, Star was Evening, I don't really recall which leaned right and left.

go bowe
06-17-2006, 08:03 PM
we had the herald (am) and the press (pm)...

the morning paper was moderate to right and the afternoon paper was right of attila the hun...

Nightwish
06-17-2006, 09:13 PM
From the Right:
Fox News, Newsmax, World Net Daily, Talk Radio

From the Left:
The Guardian, Huffington Post, Talk Radio

Fox isn't as bad as the others on the right, and Guardian isn't as bad as the others on the left. There's another left-wing journal that rates right up there with Newsmax and World Nut Daily, but I can't think of the name of it. If I remember right, it has a logo that looks like a cartoonish little man with a huge head, with his mouth wide open shouting.

Halfcan
06-17-2006, 09:27 PM
A bathroom wall.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2006, 05:44 AM
From the Right:
Fox News, Newsmax, World Net Daily, Talk Radio

From the Left:
The Guardian, Huffington Post, Talk Radio

Fox isn't as bad as the others on the right, and Guardian isn't as bad as the others on the left.

Believe it or not I agree with your general take on these.
But I would say the ones on the right are more NeoCon-Right wing(statist)*...as opposed to paleo-conservative (non-military-interventionist,more populist) right.



*I also call them Rockefeller Republicans too or RHINO's.

patteeu
06-18-2006, 07:40 AM
Believe it or not I agree with your general take on these.
But I would say the ones on the right are more NeoCon-Right wing(statist)*...as opposed to paleo-conservative (non-military-interventionist,more populist) right.



*I also call them Rockefeller Republicans too or RHINO's.

BEP, I think your view of the right is a little too simplistic. It appears that you are forcing the right onto a two dimensional map that tracks with your statist versus individualist view of politics in general and I don't think that's really very fair. I certainly don't see much in common between WND or Newsmax and Rockefeller Republicans. I think it's useful to see politics through a statist versus individualist lens, but when it comes down to it, most people/organizations don't fit neatly on one end or the other.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2006, 11:15 AM
BEP, I think your view of the right is a little too simplistic. It appears that you are forcing the right onto a two dimensional map that tracks with your statist versus individualist view of politics in general and I don't think that's really very fair. I certainly don't see much in common between WND or Newsmax and Rockefeller Republicans. I think it's useful to see politics through a statist versus individualist lens, but when it comes down to it, most people/organizations don't fit neatly on one end or the other.

Well, yes, your observation is correct....I do see it as two broad branches overall: The Rockefeller Republicans (RHINO's or NeoCons) versus the old-right, Lindbergh,Taft, Libertarian/Goldwater branch. Could it be broken down further...probably. But I do see that as the most obvious overall breakdown first.

I say that about WND because of the WoT and Farah's views toward Muslims and end-times prophecy. I have read Newsmax only a few times but from that alone they seemed to be in the same camp.

WND does, to its credit, have other types of conservative views on it's site such as right-libertarian and old-right but it's really adopted the NeoCon outlook because of this war. I would say that' s due to the evangelicals there. They are natural allies for this war. But then I haven't really read it at all for about 3 years now unless an article comes up in a link.

go bowe
06-18-2006, 12:17 PM
Believe it or not I agree with your general take on these.
But I would say the ones on the right are more NeoCon-Right wing(statist)*...as opposed to paleo-conservative (non-military-interventionist,more populist) right.



*I also call them Rockefeller Republicans too or RHINO's.what's the h stand for?

republicans in name only i can figure out, but rHino?

BucEyedPea
06-18-2006, 12:27 PM
what's the h stand for?

republicans in name only i can figure out, but rHino?
ROFL That's called a silent letter...English is funny like that! :p

CHIEF4EVER
06-18-2006, 01:51 PM
Unbelievable that CBS, ABC(BS) and PMSNBC(BS) weren't listed with the Clinton News Network. All left wing and biased as hell.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2006, 02:01 PM
Unbelievable that CBS, ABC(BS) and PMSNBC(BS) weren't listed with the Clinton News Network. All left wing and biased as hell.
I thought of those....I just thought they were taken for granted as such! ROFL

Nightwish
06-18-2006, 02:03 PM
Unbelievable that CBS, ABC(BS) and PMSNBC(BS) weren't listed with the Clinton News Network. All left wing and biased as hell.To you, anything that doesn't proclaim "Bush is God" with every other headline is "left wing and biased as hell." Aren't you one of those guys who actually thought Newsmax was a quality journal?

banyon
06-18-2006, 04:21 PM
Seems like our political views are pretty closely aligned with our preferred media choices.

I try to read stuff from both sides if I can.

banyon
06-18-2006, 04:22 PM
any media source...somewhere along the line their opinion of the news became more important than just reporting the news.

Any Media Source? Do you get your news from a magic 8-Ball?

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2006, 04:58 PM
To you, anything that doesn't proclaim "Bush is God" with every other headline is "left wing and biased as hell." Aren't you one of those guys who actually thought Newsmax was a quality journal?

Ummmmm.......no.

Nightwish
06-23-2006, 09:23 PM
Ummmmm.......no.
So why didn't you vote for it? It was multiple choice, after all. In fact, you didn't vote for any of the right-leaning sources.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2006, 09:51 PM
So why didn't you vote for it? It was multiple choice, after all. In fact, you didn't vote for any of the right-leaning sources.

Do the math sonny.......

Logical
06-23-2006, 10:02 PM
Any Media Source? Do you get your news from a magic 8-Ball?
Stevie just is one of those who only wants good news, if he is getting bad news then he does not like the source regardless of where it is coming from. JMO.

stevieray
06-23-2006, 10:09 PM
Any Media Source? Do you get your news from a magic 8-Ball?

oh look another comment without a substantive argument, just aone line insult...love the irony

rep!

Logical
06-23-2006, 10:11 PM
oh look another comment without a substantive argument, just aone line insult...love the irony

rep!I am curious what someone reading your comment was supposed to think Stevie. If you cannot get your news from any media source then where should people assume you do get it from?

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2006, 10:17 PM
I am curious what someone reading your comment was supposed to think Stevie. If you cannot get your news from any media source then where should people assume you do get it from?

Maybe not one of the biased media outlets.....just a thought.

stevieray
06-23-2006, 10:31 PM
I am curious what someone reading your comment was supposed to think Stevie. If you cannot get your news from any media source then where should people assume you do get it from?

Getting news and acknowledging that news based on opinion are two different things.

why are you playing semantics? I know you take stances to spur debate, but is it mandatory for every comment?

Nightwish
06-23-2006, 11:40 PM
Do the math sonny.......What math would that be ... dad? The fuzzy math that you quack jobs seem to prefer? You still didn't answer the question. If you don't think Newsmax is reliable, why didn't you vote for it? Of all the sources listed, even the worst of the left wing sources listed isn't in the same ballpark with Newsmax and World Nut Daily, unequivocally the two worst ones up there.

Logical
06-23-2006, 11:47 PM
Maybe not one of the biased media outlets.....just a thought.He said any media outlet not sure what that leaves since it is all encompassing.

Logical
06-23-2006, 11:49 PM
Getting news and acknowledging that news based on opinion are two different things.

why are you playing semantics? I know you take stances to spur debate, but is it mandatory for every comment?Definitely when I don't understand them. I really still have no idea where you can get your news from if you consider them all bad news sources. Not really playing semantics this time, more mystyfied?

stevieray
06-24-2006, 12:04 AM
Definitely when I don't understand them. I really still have no idea where you can get your news from if you consider them all bad news sources. Not really playing semantics this time, more mystyfied?

I can get news anywhere, what I decide to legitimize is up to me. I think, like a lot of people, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Logical
06-24-2006, 12:14 AM
Stevie just is one of those who only wants good news, if he is getting bad news then he does not like the source regardless of where it is coming from. JMO.Then basically Stevie, my statement in this post was essentially correct.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 12:17 AM
Then basically Stevie, my statement in this post was essentially correct.

BS, what we do with bad or good news defines us, not the news itself.

I think some look for the news to validate their own demons, and validates why there is an abundance of negaitivty news.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 12:35 AM
BS, what we do with bad or good news defines us, not the news itself.

I think some look for the news to validate their own demons, and validates why there is an abundance of negaitivty news.
So give us an example to explain... cause this doesn't make much sense to me yet.

What are your "demons"?
How do you seek to validate them?
Where do you prefer to go for news in order to validate these demons?

stevieray
06-24-2006, 02:54 AM
[QUOTE=jAZ]So give us an example to explain... QUOTE]

your posts since 2000.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 03:43 AM
your posts since 2000.
What are your "demons"?
How do you seek to validate them?
Where do you prefer to go for news in order to validate these demons?

banyon
06-24-2006, 08:40 AM
oh look another comment without a substantive argument, just aone line insult...love the irony

rep!

:Peace: Like Logical said, I just found your original post to be incomprehensible. I probably shouldn't have used such a sarcastic example. Though, if you could provide an example of this "unbiased" journalism, then I'd probably understand better.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 09:57 AM
What are your "demons"?
How do you seek to validate them?
Where do you prefer to go for news in order to validate these demons?


Hey Justin, I owe you a big apology.

I am wrong for judging you. In doing so, I'm assuming a
position I'm not qualified to fill. I'm sorry.

It won't happen again.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 09:06 PM
Hey Justin, I owe you a big apology.

I am wrong for judging you. In doing so, I'm assuming a
position I'm not qualified to fill. I'm sorry.

It won't happen again.
Hey, thanks... I think the gesture is quite noble and I fully accept your apology. To be clear I don't think it's necessary one bit. But I respect the offer completely. And thanks for taking the effort to make sure that I see it.