Get a life! Go outside!

If you get all your news from one source, you need to be beaten with a flaming two by four as a warning to others of the importance of using your critical thinking skills.

BalugaJoe: Get a life! Go outside!

Over in one.

+1

Look / If you had / One shot
To sit on your lazy butt / And watch all the TV you ever wanted / Until your brain turned to mush
Would you go for it? / Or just let it slip?

I get my news from Fark. And I consider myself well-informed.

A simple homework assignment for your first year broadcasting student. Big deal.

NutWrench: If you get all your news from one source, you need to be beaten with a flaming two by four as a warning to others of the importance of using your critical thinking skills.

Yep. Either multiple sources or zero are pretty much the optimal way to stay sane.

Yeah, I sort of agree with him, but in a way I don't, you see, there was a long time in this country when you only really got one point of view in the USA. It was a moderate-left point of view, but it absolutely predominated.

Now the views are more extreme, but at least there are a variety of views.

/gone are the days when the media would turn a blind eye to womanizing, incompetence, and ties to organized crime like they willingly did for Kennedy.

Thats why I read fark instead of watching news on t.v half the time out of my day, all the same b.s, but threads get hilarious and you can see who sucks (or doesn't) with t.v news they all suck.

I'm pretty sure that every now and again, the Post prints something that I don't wipe my ass with. I wouldn't know about tfa, because I've been burned too many times in the past.

"For Daily Kostics, "Alternate reality" meant "conservative sci-fi." Yet who first ventured the idea that absolute reality is unknowable, that truth depends on the viewer? Lefty, Frenchy postmodernists. Jacques Derrida."


-Ooooo BURN!

-You know what irritates the most? This 'fracturing' of reality is best shown when people post comments where they're sure of this or that or the other. They don't actually know, but somehow they're sure. See it all the time, and typifies how people construct and live inside their own reality...

In what world does the NY Post publish a intelligent column about the danger of ideological news sources?

I always figured inside every news corp, the guy who ran it was a modernized (weird term to use, I know) version of the Bloom Picayune editor from Bloom County and he's surrounded by hundreds of Milos.

/RUN THAT BABY
//didn't RTFA

i know people talk about how fox news and msnbc have wildly varying biases when it comes to delivering the news, but it was interesting to see concrete examples of how they talked about the holocaust memorial shooting. from tfa:

* The alleged Holocaust museum killer, James Von Brunn, was a white supremacist who had "deep ties to far-right extremists." (The left-wing blog Daily Kos)

* The shooter was a 9/11 truther who hated George W. Bush, John McCain and neoconservatives. (The right-wing blog HotAir.com)

* The shooter was a member of MENSA. (Fox News)

* The shooter wore a Confederate cap. (MSNBC)

* We should blame "political correctness." (Fox News)

* We should blame "the right." (MSNBC)

* We should think about Rush Limbaugh's ties to haters. (MSNBC)

* We should think about Barack Obama's ties to haters. (Fox News)

* The shooter should mainly remind us of the Muslim guy who shot the American soldier in Arkansas, because the Muslim did it out of religious hatred. (Fox News)

* The shooter should mainly remind us of the anti-abortion guy who killed the abortionist in Kansas because both were right-wing haters. (MSNBC).

The NY Post is nothing more than Weekly World News with bigger words and smaller fonts.

This is the first thing I've ever read in pop media and liked.

NutWrench: If you get all your news from one source, you need to be beaten with a flaming two by four as a warning to others of the importance of using your critical thinking skills.

suraimu: Yep. Either multiple sources or zero are pretty much the optimal way to stay sane.

Evidently not, according to the article. None of the selective and seemingly contradictory reports of the Holocaust Museum assault give the entire story.

This demonstrates that media outlets cherry-pick what they report about an event, even when other relevant facts are available.

What gets my goat more is that speculation and preemptive analysis are par for the course. Whenever something like this happens, it usually takes a couple of days for all the facts to be known, and even then, some time to analyze it properly. By that time, though, the media has moved on to whatever half-reported story dominates that day's news.

Because the media jumped the gun on this, everyone's arguing whether or not this von Brunn guy was a right-wing or left-wing extremist. Neither of which are true nor relevant -- the truth is that he was a nutcase with radical views and took them out on innocent people in an explosion of rage, and nothing more. It's not about left or right, it's not about gun control, it's not about anything else -- a crazy guy shot some people, got arrested, one guy died, the end.

Getting viewers worked up about it by jumping the gun on analysis, and manufacturing context to justify it, is highly irresponsible.

Even worse is that most stories are ongoing, yet the media rarely comes back to them after the sensationalism has died down. Will there be any discussion about the Iranian elections and the aftermath next week, or next month? I doubt it.

There have been two terrorist shootings in the US in the last 11 days. (MSNBC)

* There have been three. (Fox News)


By far the most telling illustration between right and left.

The left doesn't consider the black Muslim who killed one US soldier and seriously wounded another to be a terrorist.

Many reasons for this not least of which their utter and ingrained contempt for the US Military.

If by now you haven't realized that TV is not the best place to get informed then please stfu and continue watching your soaps and TV reality show.s

As weird as it sounds, and as much as I hate to assign power to idiots, the refusal of most of the press to report news which does not support their idea of how things work might be the biggest impediment to progress we face.

The fact that the majority of news sources are significantly to the left of the American public is also problematic, but it wouldn't be a big deal if they kept their bias to opinion pieces, and actually reported the news, all of it. I don't mind hearing people's opinions -- I like it. But I do not want people to eliminate news stories that don't fit with their opinions. I want to make up my own mind from the facts, with the reporters at least TRYING to be objective when reporting facts. That would help immensely. It's way too much like being programmed to watch most news shows today.

Most people under thirty today have been raised in an environment in which the press have been almost rabidly anti-Republican. This has meant, that while most people when given a chance to rate IDEAS, test as conservative (2/3) people only vote about fifty-fifty that way. The press has consistently reported more crime by Republicans than by Democrats. They also report party affiliations of Republicans, and not of Democrats. They also report Democratic Representatives as "A. Slimeball, Rep., Arkansas" knowing that some people will read that as "A. Slimeball, Republican" instead of "A. Slimeball, Representative." It's clear bias, and quantifiable in a way that switching adjectives is not.

So, media news is a fantasy. Really, this should surprise nobody who has watched it. It's especially easy to see if one has contact with the REALITY being portrayed in the news. "Wait, that's not what happened" is a frequent comment when people see the coverage of an event at which they were present. Any even half-assed attempt to find out what is going on needs several takes on the same facts. Sad, but true.


Gen. Jim

I'm surprised there aren't more posts in here. This piece was a very good read.

I was intrigued by this:

"Potok went deep into speculative mode, saying that Obama's visit to Buchenwald sparked the shooting: "I'm sure that enraged him . . . My own speculation would be more along the lines of, he's getting near the end of a long life . . . and he very probably is feeling that, you know, sort of the bad guys won. Obama has become president, the Jews in his mind have taken over and all is lost and perhaps he thought he was going to strike one great blow for freedom."

/wow what a reality to live in

Let's just agree on this...

You are an Idiot, I am an an Idiot (no fair if you don't agree),

We don't know what is going on, but we have a clue.

AND WE DON'T TRUST YOU!!!

FTA: Molson Cutting Off Free Beer Supply for Retirees

In other news, Montreal AA meetings see sharp increase in membership.

/Seriously, free beer? For life??? How come I hadn't heard of this before it was too late?

Amigajoe: -You know what irritates the most? This 'fracturing' of reality is best shown when people post comments where they're sure of this or that or the other. They don't actually know, but somehow they're sure. See it all the time, and typifies how people construct and live inside their own reality...

WTF? What do you actually know? What can you honestly trust? Minnesota might not be real for all I know. I've never seen it, and who even says I can trust my eyes?

GeneralJim: As weird as it sounds, and as much as I hate to assign power to idiots, the refusal of most of the press to report news which does not support their idea of how things work might be the biggest impediment to progress we face.

The fact that the majority of news sources are significantly to the left of the American public is also problematic, but it wouldn't be a big deal if they kept their bias to opinion pieces, and actually reported the news, all of it. I don't mind hearing people's opinions -- I like it. But I do not want people to eliminate news stories that don't fit with their opinions. I want to make up my own mind from the facts, with the reporters at least TRYING to be objective when reporting facts. That would help immensely. It's way too much like being programmed to watch most news shows today.

Most people under thirty today have been raised in an environment in which the press have been almost rabidly anti-Republican. This has meant, that while most people when given a chance to rate IDEAS, test as conservative (2/3) people only vote about fifty-fifty that way. The press has consistently reported more crime by Republicans than by Democrats. They also report party affiliations of Republicans, and not of Democrats. They also report Democratic Representatives as "A. Slimeball, Rep., Arkansas" knowing that some people will read that as "A. Slimeball, Republican" instead of "A. Slimeball, Representative." It's clear bias, and quantifiable in a way that switching adjectives is not.

So, media news is a fantasy. Really, this should surprise nobody who has watched it. It's especially easy to see if one has contact with the REALITY being portrayed in the news. "Wait, that's not what happened" is a frequent comment when people see the coverage of an event at which they were present. Any even half-assed attempt to find out what is going on needs several takes on the same facts. Sad, but true.


Gen. Jim

That is a fact huh? according to what study?

manimal2878: GeneralJim: As weird as it sounds, and as much as I hate to assign power to idiots, the refusal of most of the press to report news which does not support their idea of how things work might be the biggest impediment to progress we face.

The fact that the majority of news sources are significantly to the left of the American public is also problematic, but it wouldn't be a big deal if they kept their bias to opinion pieces, and actually reported the news, all of it. I don't mind hearing people's opinions -- I like it. But I do not want people to eliminate news stories that don't fit with their opinions. I want to make up my own mind from the facts, with the reporters at least TRYING to be objective when reporting facts. That would help immensely. It's way too much like being programmed to watch most news shows today.

Most people under thirty today have been raised in an environment in which the press have been almost rabidly anti-Republican. This has meant, that while most people when given a chance to rate IDEAS, test as conservative (2/3) people only vote about fifty-fifty that way. The press has consistently reported more crime by Republicans than by Democrats. They also report party affiliations of Republicans, and not of Democrats. They also report Democratic Representatives as "A. Slimeball, Rep., Arkansas" knowing that some people will read that as "A. Slimeball, Republican" instead of "A. Slimeball, Representative." It's clear bias, and quantifiable in a way that switching adjectives is not.

So, media news is a fantasy. Really, this should surprise nobody who has watched it. It's especially easy to see if one has contact with the REALITY being portrayed in the news. "Wait, that's not what happened" is a frequent comment when people see the coverage of an event at which they were present. Any even half-assed attempt to find out what is going on needs several takes on the same facts. Sad, but true.


That is a fact huh? according to what study?

Oh, quite a few:

http://www.journalism.org/node/2304

According to the Pew Center, journalism.org, here. (new window)

R. Lichter, S. Rothman, and L. Lichter, The Media Elite. New York: Hastings House, 1991.

Groseclose and Milyo, 2003

et. al.

Also, a coherent lecture on the subject is available here. (new window)

It still seems odd to me that people don't see this. I mean, one can do the research oneself -- just pick up a newspaper, and LOOK at how crime by elected officials is reported. Count the cases. Find out how many Democrats are identified by party, and how many Republicans. Then, check the cases where no party is given. The numbers are astonishing. I've done this myself. In the last twenty-five to thirty cases, every time I look up a congresscritter who was arrested, or convicted, but NOT identified by party in the article, the party is the Democratic party. Additionally, if one checks on the reporting from other states, reports of bad activities by Democrats are only rarely reported outside their local area, but Republicans behaving badly are apparently more newsworthy.

I mean, quite a few forms of bias are hard to spot, and especially hard to quantify. A political speech can be identified as a "boring stump speech" or a "major political address" depending upon how the reporter likes the candidate, and it's hard to get that lined up in a statistic on bias. However, the number of criminal reports, and whether or not the party affiliation of the perpetrator is reported is a reasonably cold statistic.

Gen. Jim