There is a need for unbiased organized news reporting.

WMD Owl:

The NY Times example is incredibly instructive. If they can't extract a reasonable sum of money for their news content, not many newspapers will be able to do that.

SumOfAllFears:

I'm probably going to regret posting this, but, what the heck. "Unbiased reporting" is, unfortunately, a subjective decision. What some folks say is unbiased reporting is seen as a slant-filled agenda-pushing pile of crap by others. And vice versa. We all say we want unbiased reporting, but I'm not so sure that's true. Unbiased reporting, in the purest sense, is really just the presentation of data. And most of us don't want to sift through data, we want a concise summary. But getting a concise summary immediately means something gets left out, which is a decision that has to be made by a person, which inherently opens itselt to bias - either conscious or not.

(03-25-2009 11:17 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  I'm probably going to regret posting this, but, what the heck. "Unbiased reporting" is, unfortunately, a subjective decision. What some folks say is unbiased reporting is seen as a slant-filled agenda-pushing pile of crap by others. And vice versa. We all say we want unbiased reporting, but I'm not so sure that's true. Unbiased reporting, in the purest sense, is really just the presentation of data. And most of us don't want to sift through data, we want a concise summary. But getting a concise summary immediately means something gets left out, which is a decision that has to be made by a person, which inherently opens itselt to bias - either conscious or not.

Very prescient commentary. You're in the business, or were, right? You are right on target with the comments about what gets left out. That's where the real bias shows.

I have never had any media company as a primary employer, but I have worked on the fringes for most of my adult life, more as a fun "second job" than anything else. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE MEDIA. Never has happened, and probably can't.

The only thing we can do to keep informed is to recognize that every bit of news that we see/read/hear is inherently biased, and purposely seek to obtain as many different viewpoints as possible. Then figure out what makes sense to you, recognizing that there is some truth and some spin to almost anything you see/read/hear.

Anyone that believes 100% what they read from any one source is foolish - here is almost always an agenda. But then, sadly, there is a too significant portion of our population that reads and believes "papers" such as the National Enquirer" or "Star". I'm guessing those mags aren't closing up shop.

The majority of our society follows the antics of Paris and Brittany far more than the actions of those in our government. While I may not agree with the liberal posters viewpoints on here, at least they pay attention to what is going on - too many are just worried about when their check will arrive in the mail.

(03-25-2009 11:17 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  WMD Owl:

The NY Times example is incredibly instructive. If they can't extract a reasonable sum of money for their news content, not many newspapers will be able to do that.

SumOfAllFears:

I'm probably going to regret posting this, but, what the heck. "Unbiased reporting" is, unfortunately, a subjective decision. What some folks say is unbiased reporting is seen as a slant-filled agenda-pushing pile of crap by others. And vice versa. We all say we want unbiased reporting, but I'm not so sure that's true. Unbiased reporting, in the purest sense, is really just the presentation of data. And most of us don't want to sift through data, we want a concise summary. But getting a concise summary immediately means something gets left out, which is a decision that has to be made by a person, which inherently opens itselt to bias - either conscious or not.

I'm not talking about the "purest sense" , I really don't believe that exists, except maybe at some far-flung college campuses. I'm talking about common sense. You know it as well as I do, it does exist. Un-biased Journalism is not some "pie in the sky" unachievable goal. It goes to honestly and integrity, which is more black and white, than most people are willing to admit.

Sum:

I'll agree that there's a lack of common sense. I'll have to respectfully disagree with the idea that unbiased reporting is easily achievable. It's not. And I think that has as much to do with what the public perception of unbiased is as much as anything.

People, if newspapers don't get bailed out, what will we wrap our fish in, or line our birdcages with?

Think about it.

We are getting close to the final swirl down the bowl. It is truly sad how fast we are falling as a nation. When will the bailout madness stop?

(03-26-2009 11:32 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  People, if newspapers don't get bailed out, what will we wrap our fish in, or line our birdcages with?

Think about it.

Junk mail.

(03-26-2009 11:37 AM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  We are getting close to the final swirl down the bowl. It is truly sad how fast we are falling as a nation. When will the bailout madness stop?

I'm afraid we are on a long road to recovery from this BS, or we may never get back on the Conservative, Capitalist road.

Bailouts are not foolproof, no matter where they come from

The New York Times received a "bailout" from a Mexican billionaire that supposedly put them back on solid footing. Apparently not.

(03-24-2009 10:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I will miss waking up to a morning paper. Nothing better than reading the sports section with a coffee in one hand. You guys are right too. Whose going to buy the cow when you get the milk for free? I worry about the ramifications of losing our free press though.

This morning I took my laptop with me when I sat on the toilet. Logged on to the AJC website.

It wasn't the same.

(03-26-2009 02:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-26-2009 11:37 AM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  We are getting close to the final swirl down the bowl. It is truly sad how fast we are falling as a nation. When will the bailout madness stop?

I'm afraid we are on a long road to recovery from this BS, or we may never get back on the Conservative, Capitalist road.

And what really sux is that it was a guy who was supposed to be a conservative who got us started down that road.

(03-26-2009 07:44 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-24-2009 10:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I will miss waking up to a morning paper. Nothing better than reading the sports section with a coffee in one hand. You guys are right too. Whose going to buy the cow when you get the milk for free? I worry about the ramifications of losing our free press though.

This morning I took my laptop with me when I sat on the toilet. Logged on to the AJC website.

It wasn't the same.

Speaking of the AJC ... Massive layoffs coming to their newsroom

(03-27-2009 07:07 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  

(03-26-2009 07:44 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-24-2009 10:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I will miss waking up to a morning paper. Nothing better than reading the sports section with a coffee in one hand. You guys are right too. Whose going to buy the cow when you get the milk for free? I worry about the ramifications of losing our free press though.

This morning I took my laptop with me when I sat on the toilet. Logged on to the AJC website.

It wasn't the same.

Speaking of the AJC ... Massive layoffs coming to their newsroom

Some of the "part timers" cut were in sports...:muttering: which is really the only decent section in the paper.

(03-24-2009 07:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote:Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

FUQ THAT!

My damn tax dollars should NOT be paying for another buncha GDamn government propaganda organizations! I'm already pissed that I have to pay for NPR and PBS!

Sorry Reb if I get that vein in your neck to bulge out a little more but if this goes into effect I think the papers will get their money and nothing will happen to them if they make endorsements just like hardly anything happens to the tax exempt status of churches that make them.

And why stop at endorsements? A smear campaign against one candidate is just like an endorsement for another. Memo-Gate and McCain's supposed affair are good examples.

If you want to stop the NY Times from glomming your tax money you just might need to burn it down. Wanna borrow my gas can?