NationStates Jolt Archive

Which news source do you trust for the above buzz words?
(poll coming) This thread is aminly for American's but feel free to join in the rest of you.

Ironically, the network that the phrase applies to the least is the one that uses it as it's slogan.

Can I hear a collective Fuck Fox, my friends?

None of them, because Fair and Balanced has to be the most retarded saying I've ever heard. A statement isn't supposed to be "Fair and Balanced", because that would not only compromise its veracity, but it's just about impossible to make a "Balanced" statement. That saying is so incredibly stupid, every time I read or hear it I feel like my IQ has been skewered and then hastily stitched up, forever scarred.

No media is fair and balanced. You'll just have to decide for yourself.

Wow, someone voted Fox. *anticipates thermonuclear detonation*

le BBC

You think the vote for Faux "News" was just a joke? I voted for BBC.

le BBC

Aren't they a govenrmental monopoly?

No media outlet is truely fair and balanced, and it should be easy for people to see that...

PBS World News with Jim Lehrer?

Aren't they a govenrmental monopoly?
not by a long shot

I probably would've voted BBC but I really can't say much about them as I don't usually watch them.

I usually watch MSNBC. They seem on the level if you ask me.

not by a long shot

Alright, I suspected that might be a thing of the past, if it were ever true.

I probably would've voted BBC but I really can't say much about them as I don't usually watch them.

I usually watch MSNBC. They seem on the level if you ask me.

I know others who have beefs with MSNBC, but they seem fairly decent to me.

None of them, because Fair and Balanced has to be the most retarded saying I've ever heard. A statement isn't supposed to be "Fair and Balanced", because that would not only compromise its veracity, but it's just about impossible to make a "Balanced" statement. That saying is so incredibly stupid, every time I read or hear it I feel like my IQ has been skewered and then hastily stitched up, forever scarred.

Now now.... the following are all balanced statements

x equals x divided by 1
1 equals x divided by x
2x equal x plus x

:p ;)

d(x^2)/dx=2x

As sais no news source is truly non-biased, but I think BBC is pretty good. This coming from an American.

I took the BBC. Channel 4 News with Jon Snow is also excellent.

Aren't they a govenrmental monopoly?
They are owned by the British government, but they are not a monopoly or a propaganda arm.

I took the BBC. Channel 4 News with Jon Snow is also excellent.

They are owned by the British government, but they are not a monopoly or a propaganda arm.

Really? That was their official role (in writing) during WW II. Propaganda arm of the British Government.

Now, of course, individual reporters are able to push their own agendas. Just like any other news agency.

I took the BBC. Channel 4 News with Jon Snow is also excellent.


They are owned by the British government, but they are not a monopoly or a propaganda arm.

They're OWNED by the gov't. :eek: Christ-Almighty! That's absurd.

I was pretty sure they were gov't owned back in the day, but I thought that surely that died out years ago.

Am I the only one who wouldnt trust a news source with the slogan "fair and balanced"?
I mean, If you just went to talk to some one and they just began screaming "I SWEAR, IT WASN'T ME, IT'S NOT MY FAULT' YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING!!!" wouldnt that make you a little suspicious?

They're OWNED by the gov't. :eek: Christ-Almighty! That's absurd.
they definitely dont do what the government wants though

Well, I can't attest to that, as I only read articles by them once upon a blue moon. Seems awfully suspect to me, though.

Well, all news is fair and balanced. It is the news reporting agencies that cannot be trusted.

However, NPR and BBC seem to come closest to reporting the news the way it is supposed to be reported and, in that case, my vote goes to NPR.

Yeah, I know, some of you around here will scream that NPR is leftist liberal hack, but let me remind you that NPR's only news shows are "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered". Things like "Prairie Home Companion" and such are entertainment programming and any other news broadcasts you may hear on your local NPR station are broadcast by your member affiliate and not NPR or PRI. I've noticed that my local member affiliate, KUHT Houston, has a conservative bias - but it is Houston, after all. ATC and ME have no such bias either way.

Well, I can't attest to that, as I only read articles by them once upon a blue moon. Seems awfully suspect to me, though.
they get in arguments every now and then with the government when they publish something westminster doesnt like

like with the Hutton enquiry

I think it depnds a lot on the time. I mean, if you look at recent media covergae, you might detect a hint of anti-bushism, but back on Bush Vs. Gore, the media kicked the crap out of Al.

Well, all news is fair and balanced. It is the news reporting agencies that cannot be trusted.

However, NPR and BBC seem to come closest to reporting the news the way it is supposed to be reported and, in that case, my vote goes to NPR.

Yeah, I know, some of you around here will scream that NPR is leftist liberal hack, but let me remind you that NPR's only news shows are "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered". Things like "Prairie Home Companion" and such are entertainment programming and any other news broadcasts you may hear on your local NPR station are broadcast by your member affiliate and not NPR or PRI. I've noticed that my local member affiliate, KUHT Houston, has a conservative bias - but it is Houston, after all. ATC and ME have no such bias either way.

They've gotten more careful about their bias. Before Gingrich threatened to pull the plug in the early 1990s, they were far and away more Democrat than they are now.

That's also why many of their stars left - Cokie Roberts and others. Of course, now you'll see Juan Williams on Fox - so that there's some balance of opinion during disucssions (and Moira Liasson). I don't see CBS with anyone to balance out their opinions.

Instead of one opinion, which I might find suspect, I like to hear more than one opinion during a show. And, if we're not going to take other NPR programming such as Fresh Aire for having bias because they aren't news shows (but may very well discuss news items as opinion pieces), then we shouldn't include Bill O'Reilly in our discussion of the distortion at Fox - we should only discuss their headline news coverage - and nothing else they broadcast.

They're OWNED by the gov't. :eek: Christ-Almighty! That's absurd.

I was pretty sure they were gov't owned back in the day, but I thought that surely that died out years ago.

Why is it absurd ? A government is supposed to be more than the party that is currently in power - especially if you have a coalition goverment and a strong opposition. One can simply make a decree stating that the government always has to give X pounds/euros/dollars etc each year to finance a national broadcasting company, unless 75% or so of all parliament members decide that the station is performing poorly. This way the ruling party cannot cut funding easily if the station is critical. A system like this is used in many democratic nations. It wouldn't work well in a two-party system though.

If "fair and balanced" means "against the stations that are biased the other way" Fox definately deserves this title. For relatively objective journalism I like the BBC, though the quality is declining.

While I believe that no news source can be "fair and balanced", I also believe some are more trustworthy (in their factual accuracy, depth of covergage, and diversity of opinions presented). That said, my favorite network for international news is Spain's Antena 3 (and I'm an American). As for national news, web surfing does it for me, though I prefer the Orange County Register and the Christian Science Monitor. If I just want to listen to stupid people talking about the news, then FOX and MSNBC are quite good.

But no American TV network even compares to the quality of newscasts shown on Antena 3. I used to watch TVE (Spain's government-owned network), but the Socialist Zapatero government has turned it from a trustworthy outlet into a propaganda and misinformation machine. It wasn't nearly as bad during the Aznar years, when they actually criticized the government for the Iraq war.

I equally distrust all forms of media

Why is it absurd ? A government is supposed to be more than the party that is currently in power - especially if you have a coalition goverment and a strong opposition. One can simply make a decree stating that the government always has to give X pounds/euros/dollars etc each year to finance a national broadcasting company, unless 75% or so of all parliament members decide that the station is performing poorly. This way the ruling party cannot cut funding easily if the station is critical. A system like this is used in many democratic nations. It wouldn't work well in a two-party system though.

If "fair and balanced" means "against the stations that are biased the other way" Fox definately deserves this title. For relatively objective journalism I like the BBC, though the quality is declining.

There's so many opputunities for corruption and prior restraint there that iis is not even funny. Ever heard of Pravda?

I put BBC, though it's hard to see any of it in America. They have the BBC World News on PBS sometimes, which is good... Ah! Damnit! I should've put 'other'. No one's as neutral as PBS, becuase they're publicly funded, and I forgot all acout them. Damn.

There's so many opputunities for corruption and prior restraint there that iis is not even funny. Ever heard of Pravda?
Yes, I do find it amazing that a government-owned station like BBC does not spew government propaganda, whereas in America a privately-owned network like FOX takes it upon itself to spread government propaganda.

It defies what should happen in theory, but I suppose that's the story of life.

Yes, I do find it amazing that a government-owned station like BBC does not spew government propaganda, whereas in America a privately-owned network like FOX takes it upon itself to spread government propaganda.

It defies what should happen in theory, but I suppose that's the story of life.

My point is, how would one know if the BBC was spewing propaganda or not? Good propaganda is designed not to sound like propaganda. It manipulates you, almost subliminally.

BBC, no hesitation.

Most people have No Damn Idea how good the Beeb is until they have lived somewhere where most things are not available. BBC is reasonably impartial, fairly honest and you can trust it even when you're living in Central Africa, far from any other decent English-speaking TV.

For this, the BBC has my eternal loyalty.

Up here, CBC isn't too bad. Even though it's owned by the government, it's totally independant, and isn't biased (Although I'm sure finger pointing conservatives will find something wrong with it). They also have some pretty good documentaries (The Fifth Estate being the pick).

All of the American channels (We don't get the 24h news channels, except CNN, but the stuff on the evening news on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) is all very right leaning. They blatantly use fear tactics, and their reporting on the war in Iraq was horrible.

Instead of one opinion, which I might find suspect, I like to hear more than one opinion during a show. And, if we're not going to take other NPR programming such as Fresh Aire for having bias because they aren't news shows (but may very well discuss news items as opinion pieces), then we shouldn't include Bill O'Reilly in our discussion of the distortion at Fox - we should only discuss their headline news coverage - and nothing else they broadcast.

This is correct. I do not take a news network's entertainment programming or opinion/editorial programming as a sign of bias. Op/Ed is *supposed* to be biased. Fox does have a conservative bias in its op/ed while CBS has a more liberal bias.

The news, however, should be the news and nothing more than the news.

My point is, how would one know if the BBC was spewing propaganda or not? Good propaganda is designed not to sound like propaganda. It manipulates you, almost subliminally.

Because the government consists of parties all across the politcal spectrum, and all can ask questions in parliament ? And because the amount of money the stations get is independent of the party currently in charge ? (I'm not sure if ths is how the BBC works btw - it is how I would set it up).
As I said, it does require your country to have a coalition government with strong opposition. And much more than two parties with influence. Parties that are not all on the same side. Having a few commercial stations, paid by advertisers, to have another point of view also helps.

But you are right. You can never be completely certain - propaganda is subtle.

BBC seems fair. Although I have never seen it on television so I will just say CNN.

My point is, how would one know if the BBC was spewing propaganda or not? Good propaganda is designed not to sound like propaganda. It manipulates you, almost subliminally.
If Auntie Beeb was spewing propaganda, you can bet that either ITN (Independent Television News) or the many (mostly Murdoch owned) right-wing press would jump on it!

Unless a governmental hierarchy is perfect, there will always be those in a postion to exploit certain resources I think its best to eliminate the danger of having the media be one of them.