![Image](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.2534793109.4739/st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg)
Jesse Stone: "The truth is out there...you just have to let it in."
HAGO!
![Magnum! :magnum:](./images/smilies/icon_magnum.gif)
Moderator: Styles Bitchley
NPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being dull. LOL! I’m thinking of Nina Totenberg reporting on The Supreme Court for example. She recites the justices questions and responses verbatim in oral arguments. It can’t get more straight news than that. One has to separate news reporting from op-ed, and sadly many can’t or don’t want to.Mark de Croix wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 6:51 am I agree with Eagle about the Allsides chart. It's a joke. For example no way NPR is centered--it's left learning. Oppositely, The Hill is not centered but right-leaning. Evidently their methodology was skewed in certain ways. (My view here is based on multi-source data collection.)
BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now. I agree it was unbecoming of him to disregard the welfare of the construction workers by his being maskless, but surely he would not be naive nor uninformed about a purchase as huge as that, surely.
Hey Styles,Styles Bitchley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 6:43 pm Take the politics to the KKC or, better yet, some other forum.
I have no doubt that he knows. I can't stand the guy, but I don't think he bought the estate to stick it to MPI fans. He bought it because it was in such a state of disrepair that the state could not prevent him from tearing it down and building whatever he and Marty want.BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now.
I agree. No matter how you feel about Obama or Nesbitt, or whomever could have purchased the property, it had been allowed to fall in to such a state of disrepair that it was purchased for property location alone. When potential buyers toured the property, they were not even allowed to enter the main house because it was unsafe. I know this from conversations with a former member with photos of a tour of the property. I stated this before the purchase ever happened and I was heartbroken before it was sold because it was almost inevitable. Myself and a few other forum members speculated accurately that it would be sold, razed, and subdivided into multiple properties. Not surprisingly, it happened, and those unfamiliar with the details are rightly surprised, but wrongly begin assigning blame.MagnumsLeftShoulder wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 8:24 pmI have no doubt that he knows. I can't stand the guy, but I don't think he bought the estate to stick it to MPI fans. He bought it because it was in such a state of disrepair that the state could not prevent him from tearing it down and building whatever he and Marty want.BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now.
It was less in reference to Allsides than to your own perspective. In fact I must admit, and do admire, Allsides attempt to conceptualize systematically the array of media in terms of politics. However you seem less cognizant of how bias impacts human perception while too eager to claim others are too subjective when maybe you yourself are most guilty of it. For example let's look at your comment:Pahonu wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 5:27 pmNPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being dull. LOL! I’m thinking of Nina Totenberg reporting on The Supreme Court for example. She recites the justices questions and responses verbatim in oral arguments. It can’t get more straight news than that. One has to separate news reporting from op-ed, and sadly many can’t or don’t want to.Mark de Croix wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 6:51 am I agree with Eagle about the Allsides chart. It's a joke. For example no way NPR is centered--it's left learning. Oppositely, The Hill is not centered but right-leaning. Evidently their methodology was skewed in certain ways. (My view here is based on multi-source data collection.)
BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now. I agree it was unbecoming of him to disregard the welfare of the construction workers by his being maskless, but surely he would not be naive nor uninformed about a purchase as huge as that, surely.
Realistically, a separation has to be made between three things, news, analysis, and op-ed. These are much more clearly delineated in print journalism, which many never read unfortunately. The WSJ front page news is still very well done, while it’s op-ed has shifted it seems. Long form analysis in print like Newsweek is dying a slow death from lack of readers attention spans.
For those who asked about reputable sources, I would say Reuters and the Associated Press, with their still sizable foreign bureaus of reporters are both excellent. I also think The Economist does an incredible job delineating these three areas of journalism and I have been a subscriber for almost two decades. Steer clear of the many sources that have no original reporting whatsoever and simply cite other agencies work and add commentary.
What is the multi-source data collection you reference in calling the Allsides methodology a joke?
I wasn’t laughing at others, I was thinking of the nature of Nina Totenberg’s verbatim reading of court transcripts as being so dry. Sorry if you thought that it might be directed at you.Mark de Croix wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:43 amIt was less in reference to Allsides than to your own perspective. In fact I must admit, and do admire, Allsides attempt to conceptualize systematically the array of media in terms of politics. However you seem less cognizant of how bias impacts human perception while too eager to claim others are too subjective when maybe you yourself are most guilty of it. For example let's look at your comment:Pahonu wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 5:27 pmNPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being dull. LOL! I’m thinking of Nina Totenberg reporting on The Supreme Court for example. She recites the justices questions and responses verbatim in oral arguments. It can’t get more straight news than that. One has to separate news reporting from op-ed, and sadly many can’t or don’t want to.Mark de Croix wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 6:51 am I agree with Eagle about the Allsides chart. It's a joke. For example no way NPR is centered--it's left learning. Oppositely, The Hill is not centered but right-leaning. Evidently their methodology was skewed in certain ways. (My view here is based on multi-source data collection.)
BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now. I agree it was unbecoming of him to disregard the welfare of the construction workers by his being maskless, but surely he would not be naive nor uninformed about a purchase as huge as that, surely.
Realistically, a separation has to be made between three things, news, analysis, and op-ed. These are much more clearly delineated in print journalism, which many never read unfortunately. The WSJ front page news is still very well done, while it’s op-ed has shifted it seems. Long form analysis in print like Newsweek is dying a slow death from lack of readers attention spans.
For those who asked about reputable sources, I would say Reuters and the Associated Press, with their still sizable foreign bureaus of reporters are both excellent. I also think The Economist does an incredible job delineating these three areas of journalism and I have been a subscriber for almost two decades. Steer clear of the many sources that have no original reporting whatsoever and simply cite other agencies work and add commentary.
What is the multi-source data collection you reference in calling the Allsides methodology a joke?
>>NPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their >>many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being >>dull. LOL!
First as far as I know, no one related to our discussion has failed to make a distinction between straight news and opinion pieces. You imply otherwise which is a strawman argument. I myself never stated nor implied that my statement was based on NPR opinion pieces. Next, you suggest having multiple news offices by NPR ensures reliable news coverage. Hardly does that suffice because whether it's a hundred or a thousand news bureaus they likely follow the same management directives. Moreover straight news simply because it may be shorn of opinion or emotion (thus possibly "dull" in your terms) can still be motivated by politics or bias. Bias can creep in at least by four ways:
1 certain details excluded or slanted
2 topics or news stories avoided
3 the language of reporting itself (e.g., use of active/passive constructions according to race)
4 lack of investigative reporting or reporting from one side only of an issue or event
Finally, you should be more respectful of others here in discussion by not laughing at them. Regardless whether you agree or not is not reason to laugh a
I’m very interested in your views about American protectionism in its markets, largely because I agree, and many Americans have no clue about it.Mark de Croix wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 3:13 am Hi guys, Hi Pahonu,
>>"Sorry again if it felt like I was disrespectful or laughing at you and others."
Thank you for that.
>>“I have been posting here for many years and have had many respectful conversations or debates”
I believe that. This website seems very civil and I’m sure you have helped make it so. Sometimes of course anywhere differences can occur. That is to be expected.
Going back to my comment about “Founding Fathers” your response seemed to substitute a regretful reply for something substantive. And your later comment about another member being subjective seemed to suggest—seemed—possibly superficial. This was echoed by your statement,
>>“straight news stories from journalists … is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently,
>>almost to the point of being dull.”
Such wouldn’t have been said if you really were cognizant of the ways bias can and does occur even in straight news reporting. People generally do not realize how much ideology/propaganda they absorb each day via media. I am not referencing op-ed journalism, as you so much do, but garden variety straight news.
People do not know for example that the US has one of most economic protected markets in the world. Does mainstream media inform us about it? No. Instead they trumpet political posturing that pushes for “free markets” while ignoring the economic barriers by their own country that result in losses of billions to consumers. Such is hardly ever investigated by mainstream journalists. On the political front, mainstream media tend—tend-- to ignore matters that would badly reflect on the present administration ideology. All of this is a result of journalistic choices at least some of which are made to drive media financial profit—not to objectively inform the public.
I don’t want to provide the groundwork for someone’s dissertation. Suffice it for me to recommend that you reassess your view of straight news journalism because you seem to underestimate the bias plain to see if you look deep enough. I appreciate your many fine postings to MM and look forward to sharing with you our esteem for one of the finest TV programs ever.![]()
I think we actually hold many of the same positions on the role of the economy in US politics. I think we mostly disagree about the media and its complicity or not.Mark de Croix wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 8:24 am
Sadly in the US we live in a divisive time, which plays out in the media. I don’t think media—mainstream that is—is playing a responsible role. I might be unrealistic because the powers to be will always be trying to maintain or increase their power even at the expense of all. We see that in how corporate America has known only one siren—that of the almighty dollar. It doesn’t matter that national security has been put at much risk by the huge outsourcing of manufacturing done over recent decades. “Oh, if we can shave off a few pennies on those brooms at Walmart or have the Chinese produce our tanks, too, why not? And let them corner the market for rare earths, as well. As long as we enjoy the largest income ratio in history between CEO and average worker, we’re making progress! So what if folks are having to work two or three jobs to get by, if we didn’t do it, someone else would.”
So we have the American public end up subsidizing the US auto industry without knowing it. Huge tariffs and hidden barriers jack up the prices on imported vehicles. (Look up the famed “chicken tax” on truck imports.) Thus Detroit can be protected who in turn “manufacture” false claims about protectionism in foreign lands, keeping politicians in their corner while Detroit fleeces consumers. If you own a truck whether foreign or domestic branded you paid thousands of dollars in excess of the real price.
Do mainstream media “journalists” report on this dynamic—no, no, no. Although the auto industry is no longer the single core of the national economy, it surely remains an important segment as it helps support a myriad of other industries. Everything flows from economic well being—without it social and civic unrest results. Continually for national elections, pundits have a common refrain, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
When I look at the demise of the free press (the reduction of multiple independent news outlets to just a few majors today) and how mainstream mass media seems to favor special or corporate interests it is discouraging. What happened to the bonus expected from the end of the USSR? None came. The country seems to have gone backwards. Could it be only coincidental that not only a free press has eroded but also the ethics of journalism—the fourth estate? Thank God we have the estate of Robin’s Nest for respite anytime we watch our favorite program.![]()
![]()