Typicall media elitism

Closed Thread

  #1  
Old 11-11-16, 08:06 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,341
Typicall media elitism

Yesterday on one of the AM news shows I watched a female reporter giving a breakdown of the election. She covered the gay vote, the minority vote, the white male vote and finally the female vote. She said that college educated women voted overwhelmingly for Clinton and UNEDUCATED women voted for Trump. I got a kick out of her feeble attempt at recovery (I think a producer may have whispered into her earpiece) "Oh! I think I used the wrong word" was the best she could do. My uneducated, deplorable wife almost choked on her coffee.

I suggest a constitutional amendment requiring a college degree as a prerequisite for registering to vote.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 11-11-16, 09:46 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 427
Tell your wife not to worry. Perhaps soon there won't be any liberal press to bother her.
 
  #3  
Old 11-11-16, 10:19 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 10,026
CW, I read an article yesterday along the same line, couldn't find it just now, but the puke flowing out of that article about the uneducated masses was vile, I was in shock that there are people that actually think like that.

Bud
 
  #4  
Old 11-11-16, 10:25 AM
XSleeper's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 20,685
It would be nice if we could get news that wasn't editorialized one way or the other.
 
  #5  
Old 11-11-16, 10:33 AM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 44,020
I remember when the news just reported the facts, then came along a commentary at the end of the news broadcast - now so much of the news broadcast is slanted one way or the other it's barely worth watching!
 
  #6  
Old 11-11-16, 10:41 AM
XSleeper's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 20,685
Well, seems like everyone used to agree with whatever Walter Cronkite or Paul Harvey said because it was always sensible. Unfortunately, times have changed...
 
  #7  
Old 11-11-16, 10:50 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,575
I, for one, get more than a little perturbed when things like this are analyzed along the lines of those with and without a college education. I have "0" college, but can go toe-to-toe with most of today's college graduates on any number of subjects.
 
  #8  
Old 11-11-16, 11:45 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,399
I am also perturbed by all the "experts" and "analysts" telling me their opinion of why something happened the way it did as if I were too stupid to come to any meaningful decision by myself. The old line of, "Voter's didn't understand ..." especially rankles me. More often than not I think it is actually the other way around, the "experts" don't understand the mood of the electorate.

That stated, ALL news is biased to some degree. The trick is to first know it is biased and then do your best to determine the direction of bias from any particular source and compare it to the bias from a different source.

Amazingly, I find that my local FOX affiliate has the best news reporting in the area but they rarely have anything that is directly from FOX news. I think this is because this station is still locally owned where the other three are not. One station that was previously fairly liberal is now mostly sensationalism at its worst. The station that was ultra liberal is now rather sedate and boring And the station that was formerly owned by the LDS church (or member's thereof) is probably the most balanced on all fronts.
 
  #9  
Old 11-11-16, 12:25 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 427
Clearly it would be great if news was unbiased but it's not and people's bias always slips in. MSNBC is far too liberal and FOX is far too conservative. After all, there isn't a single truly conservative show on MSNBC or a liberal one on FOX. MSNBC makes believe with Morning Joe and FOX doesn't pretend beyond calling itself fair and balanced.

We all know that, but we're still able to sort through it and filter the bias out.

For me personally, think I'd be making a mistake if I limited my information to only getting if from those who told me what I wanted to hear.
 
  #10  
Old 11-11-16, 01:57 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 3,138
I agree that listening to multiple sources is the best bet for getting a reasonable balance. In addition to a variety of US based outlets, I enjoy listening to the CBC and BBC to add further perspective.

I do find it bemusing that most cries about the "liberal" media come from those far right of center. *OF COURSE* most media is going to seem liberal to someone on the right. My politics are somewhat left of center and I know it. I know that means that a "balanced" source, to the extent that that is even possible, is going to seem too conservative to me. I don't go around hollering about the conservative media.
 
  #11  
Old 11-11-16, 02:59 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
I agree that the "news" comes most reliably from local stations, whether they be affiliated with a larger "news" organization or not. The larger organizations don't report news, they analyze it, pick it apart and tell us what they want us to hear, whether it is right or not.

"It's 6 o'clock, and here's what we want you to think"
 
  #12  
Old 11-14-16, 05:03 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,575
I predict the New York Times will endorse the Democratic nominee in 2020. Remember Tow Guy said it first.
 
  #13  
Old 11-14-16, 07:30 AM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: MI
Posts: 2,561
Friday a co-worker & I were bemoaning the loss of integrity of the news outlets. We are both old enough (barely) to remember when the TV news departments took their role of finding & reporting news seriously, and straightly--without trying to grab ratings with outlandish headlines or overstuffed cleavages.
We both agreed that the market is wide open for a respectable new news organization to step in and wow us with the truth.

We're sick of (example) candidates that make a claim and their opponent makes the opposite assertion without the news ever fact-checking and telling us who is lying. They can't BOTH be right! Bring back Investigative Reporting! Do they only teach journalists how to re-write newswire releases without verification or asking the "W's"?

We're sick of passing off opinions as news and out-of-context sound bites chosen to support their opinion. Stop trying to tell me what to believe--just give me the facts and I'll draw my own EDUCATED conclusions.

We're sick of predictions. The political "experts" were just as wrong about this election as your typical weatherman. So don't make predictions on elections or the price of gas, thank you.

The internet may be the only outlet for truth right now but unfortunately everyone has figured out that while you can't stop the truth from getting out, you can easily bury it in lies.
 
  #14  
Old 11-14-16, 10:01 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,341
The internet is probably the worst of all. Even Snopes, a one time reliable fact checker, has crossed over to the biased side.
 
  #15  
Old 11-14-16, 11:26 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 427
I copied this from an earlier post. I'm not trying to suggest he's any more right or wrong than anyone; just that I've seen this a lot:

The internet may be the only outlet for truth right now but unfortunately everyone has figured out that while you can't stop the truth from getting out, you can easily bury it in lies.

I take exception to the notion that one group is any more honest or dishonest than another: conservatives / liberals, Republicans / Democrats, FOX / MSNBC, print media / broadcast news / cable news / internet bloggers. They're all made up of people, some of whom are more willing to bend the truth than others.

I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming one source is inherently better than another.

The fact is, "One man's truth is another man's lie". And that's the truth, or so I've been told.
 
  #16  
Old 11-14-16, 02:05 PM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wet side of Washington state.
Posts: 18,399
Tony, I couldn't agree more. I try to get information from many varied sources and then run it all through my own filter. I toss the most illogical parts and cross-check as many "facts" as I am able before coming to the conclusion that we are all doomed, no matter who we believe or what we do.
 
  #17  
Old 11-14-16, 02:28 PM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,575
And I agree, too. Problem is there are so many more liberal-leaning major media outlets than conservative ones. Nearly all big-city major newspapers lean that way as do most of the national TV and cable networks (plus 95% of the big name Hollywood folks). What you get is a news outfit providing crib notes to a candidate before a debate. Really unbiased reporting there. It's no wonder Republicans/conservatives rose up this election even if they didn't particularly care for the candidate.
 
  #18  
Old 11-14-16, 02:29 PM
Norm201's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 6,034
If you're lucky enough to view news from another country (in my case CANADA) you will get a more realistic view of it. Or at least an unbiased view.
 
Closed Thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes