Something I've found interesting is the polarized news items on Palin. Using just the headlines you can easily see which side of the aisle the "reporter" is sitting in. "Reporters Gush for Palin," "Palin stretches the truth."
Journalism schools teach that a reporter is supposed to be non-biased. We no longer seem to be seeing that. Now it is, "How can the populace be manipulated," and boy are we manipilated.
Snow shoveling heart attack warning
3 hours ago
Posts
7 comments:
Makes it hard to even watch the news. Remember when you could watch extended news programs like Dateline? All of a sudden they began manipulating your sympathies, leading you to feel for one side of the story, only to flip you back in the last few minutes.
Made me feel used and cheated... So much for real in-depth news coverage. Now even the so called unbiased nightly news does it to you. Makes for better ratings, I guess. Disgusts me.
I'm already sick and tired of the upcoming election. Can't wait for it to be over.
If you do your own research, make your own decisions and see the media for what they are, you will do fine. Make up your own mind, not what a reporter tells you.
The polarization can't be good. I have refrained from making comments a number of times on subjects I strongly believe in because I do want to defend against all of the extraneous crap that will be thrown at me. I mean, if I publicly question something McCain or Obamaa says, the opposing camp immediately bombs me with a hundred instances of where "my" candidate said something similar, or worse. If I ask a question about Obama, it does not mean that I am for McCain, or vice-versa. Maybe, just maybe, I want to know the simple answer to my question and I am not campaigning for the other side. Of if I say that I support a statement that a candidate makes, that does not mean that I believe everything that s/he has ever uttered and will follow them to my death.
You cannot open your mouth without the attacks dog pouncing.
I have no suggestions at this point, but there really has to be a better way to do this. Narrowing my choices down to one of two candidates when I disagree with both is absurd.
It is all about ratings and it is discussing. These are the reasons I don’t watch the news very often at all. All they talk about is who was killed or who can swing the biggest bucket of crap in politics.
Two things I do not discuss are religion and politics. Newspapers are the same way. Newspapers are only good for lining bird cages. As Orgs mentioned all it does is bring the dog out.
SER, that's not the only thing, my boys use the newpaper quite well :)
And they make much bigger doo doo than birdies :)
I'm not 100% on this, but, supposedly, Mike Goucher from channel 12 news read a story that completely took a comment by Fred Thompson out of context:
Fred said "Obama is a historic candidate. He is the most unqualified, unprepared candidate in history"
Mike read: And here is a comment from Fred Thompson: [Fred] "Obama is a historic candidate"
Mike read: Next in sports.....
This kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated by a free people.
SER, I do not discuss religion, politics, or sex (unless it's with someone I'm interested in). I was advised a long time ago to ignore the news altogether. My father would roll over in his grave. He learned English and read the newspaper, watched the news, was proud to vote. Now I'm hooked on the blogging and I scan news sites daily. I admit that I roll right by 99% of the election coverage. All that stuff that the Journal Times site has had at the top of their main page during the conventions, I haven't clicked on (or looked at) a link. I'm sure that many others have. I do vote. But I'm not interested in circuses. Or rather, I know of much more entertaining ones elsewhere.
Post a Comment