News sources/talk shows

[SanteeFats]

I thought about this thread for a while and decided to go ahead with it. Post any program or show you may like or post any you don't like. Give an explanation if you choose or not. HOWEVER keep it with in the reasonable boundaries of politeness and decorum expected on this forum. IF the vitriol and vituperation get to bad your post will be removed.

I like Chris Wallace, Alex Wagner, Wold Blitzer, Megyn Kelly, Greta Van Suseteren. Why? Well from what I have seen they present at least a semi-balanced program.
I can handle Bill O'reilly at times but he is not a favorite.
I do not care for Nancy Grace, Madcow Maddow, or Hannitty. Why? They are just too damn strident and one sided from what I have seen.
I have tried to watch various shows on MSNBC and I can not get through them. IMO they are way over the top with slanted rhetoric.
I personally would love a program that offered as fair and balanced a show as humanly possible but since I did say humanly it is not possible IMO.

Anyway post if you want just remember the criteria .

[Sir Honkers]

I like the 7:30 report and I admire Leigh Sales for her take no waffle attitude.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I like Chris Wallace, Alex Wagner, Wold Blitzer, Megyn Kelly, Greta Van Suseteren. Why? Well from what I have seen they present at least a semi-balanced program.
I can handle Bill O'reilly at times but he is not a favorite.
I do not care for Nancy Grace, Madcow Maddow, or Hannitty. Why? They are just too damn strident and one sided from what I have seen.
I have tried to watch various shows on MSNBC and I can not get through them. IMO they are way over the top with slanted rhetoric.
I personally would love a program that offered as fair and balanced a show as humanly possible but since I did say humanly it is not possible IMO.

Anyway post if you want just remember the criteria .

Everyone you have listed above is either dogmatically driven, (the Fox folks), or news panderers, (Blitzer and most of CNN).

I am not sure what you mean by semi-balanced? Isn't the news supposed to be an objective reporting of facts?

We seem to have reached a point where any news that does not meet what is considered 'undying support' for one side or the other is automatically considered biased. When Sarah Palin can retreat to Fox News, as did Scott Walker this week, for supposed guerrilla ambush and "gotch'a journalism" when in fact all Palin was asked was a follow up question to "do you read... you do? What do you read?" Or Scott Walker with "as a Governor and thus directly involved with State Education standards do you believe in Evolution?" Both of these examples, and countless others, exemplify this false concept that just because the truth makes you look like an idiot does not make it partisan.

On Wolf's side, and almost all of CNN except possibly Chris Cuomo at times, there is such a pandering to the guests just to ensure there is enough filler that the process of vetting sources is essentially neglected. Any idiot with an opinion is allowed to show up and speak without cross examination followed by the diametric idiot who equally speaks without meaning all the while with Wolf nodding approvingly with thanks for providing 7 minutes of the 43 minutes he has to fill.

I am not advocating for either political stripe but rather that the news teams have all but given up doing their job in favour of some strange variant of News Entertainment.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Everyone you have listed above is either dogmatically driven, (the Fox folks), or news panderers, (Blitzer and most of CNN).
I am not sure what you mean by semi-balanced? Isn't the news supposed to be an objective reporting of facts?.

Tarkus: do you believe that Chris Wallace and the Fox Sunday News is dogmatic? They always try and have both sides of the issues they are talking about on. If one side declined they even say who it is and why. I have heard Wallace stop one side or the other when they start to get to rambunctious.
Semi-balanced is referring to the fact that humans do have leanings and no one can keep them out of conversations 100% of the time. Plus every show has an agenda of some kind!

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Tarkus: do you believe that Chris Wallace and the Fox Sunday News is dogmatic? They always try and have both sides of the issues they are talking about on. If one side declined they even say who it is and why. I have heard Wallace stop one side or the other when they start to get to rambunctious.
Semi-balanced is referring to the fact that humans do have leanings and no one can keep them out of conversations 100% of the time. Plus every show has an agenda of some kind!

Chris Wallace in my opinion is right wing dogmatically biased. Fox News, like MSNBC on the other side, set up a structure where they allow their pundits to speak their dogmatic opinions first and then they announce that 'experts', (keep in mind pundit is from the root word 'wisdom'), have provided a stance that they can then comment upon as news.

At best Chris Wallace is 'semi-biased' which means he is biased. One can dismiss news sources as frauds or unsupported but essentially if you are providing the news you are supposedly providing the facts and then allow the viewers to discern their own value from that. Now granted there will always be gate keeping, ie: if the US Fundamentalist Christians south ever saw half of the anti-Christian actions of the Israeli hardliners they might not be quite so entirely supportive but this news is never shown outside of Europe, - http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ar...icle.aspx/6718 - a response from an Israeli group to discredit a non-aligned Swedish humanitarian group where it is on record that the Jewish extremists pronounced following their beating of the woman "We killed your Christ and we will kill you!" Now this is obviously not the Israeli stance but this idea that all of Israeli is a friend to the West is a bit insane but no US nor Canadian news media will ever report such actions.

During the hey day of Palestinian hijackings there was an occasion where the terrorists demanded that a German stewardess identify which passports belonged to Jews. The JDL stood outside her home afterwards demanding that she be brought to justice only to find that the Jewish passengers indicated that she in fact refused to cooperate and risked her life to protect the Jewish passengers. Did the JDL apologize? No they just announced as they left her home that "we have no use for this woman any more".

Did that hit the news?

Of course not because of gate keeping.

When 911 occurred Fox News repeatedly showed images of the Palestinians in the West Bank burning American flags and rejoicing in the streets. It was demonstrated that none of these actions actually occurred and that Fox had taken previous news segments and had played them in the current day context.

Is that news? Or just another lie based on dogmatic principle. Murdoch and the gang figured "well if we don't have any actual film of them celebrating 911 we all know it is true." Whereas in fact the leadership of Fatah was crushed to see this happen since they knew this would give the 'Hawks' and Israel the excuse to stop negotiating in good faith.

Where does gate keeping start and stop? Who knows. But at this point most of the US Cable News cycle is based on anything except that which Murrow would know and approve of.

What used to happen was at the end of the newscast the lead would say "this is my opinion" rather than what we see now where Chris Wallace who is absolutely right wing portrays his dogma throughout his broadcast.

Not the same thing.

[bigtrain45]

Having been misquoted thoroughly on the two occasions I was part of a "story" in the mainstream media, I don't trust or believe anyone's reporting, except possibly Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. I watch some of Erin Burnett's show on CNN only because I think she is exceptionally pretty, but I don't trust what comes out of her mouth either.

[Oddie999]

Here in Australia, Q&A on the ABC with Tony Jones. Fair & balanced and understands he is simply a moderator for the guest panel.

And as an Aussie, I'd also like to offer an apology to the thinking people of the world for giving you Rupert Murdoch. We thought you could take a joke...

[SanteeFats]

Okay Tarkus you see things through your tunnel vision and I will see it through my slightly larger one. It is obvious to me that you will never find a news program you like unless it fits what ever your views are.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by bigtrain45

Having been misquoted thoroughly on the two occasions I was part of a "story" in the mainstream media, I don't trust or believe anyone's reporting, except possibly Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. I watch some of Erin Burnett's show on CNN only because I think she is exceptionally pretty, but I don't trust what comes out of her mouth either.

Since you want to talk about the important stuff I wonder how tall Erin is? She has a nice pair of legs. My current CNN lust object is Alisyn Camerota. There is something odd about her but still something sexy.

Definitely both are doable and let's be honest here... isn't that what we want in a News anchor?

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Okay Tarkus you see things through your tunnel vision and I will see it through my slightly larger one. It is obvious to me that you will never find a news program you like unless it fits what ever your views are.

Actually I like PBS news and some of the network national news services in Canada/US. I used to watch BBC but thanks to my cable provider being an idiot you have to purchase both the 'all news package' and then the 'BBC add-on' to get it, (how can the have an All News Channel and not include BBC?). Plus I read the Reuters feed and news pages. Once in a while I will check out Al Jazeera not so much for an objective view but rather because quite often they are the only source for stories that most of the Western mainstream news organization gate keep.

What you are suggesting is the problem with most of TV today in that people do go to a Fox or MSNBC because they show news opinion shows that the viewer already holds to be true. So it isn't so much that it is News but rather Fox repeating that Obama is socialist born in Kenya or MSNBC indicating that every Republican thinks Ayn Rand is just too liberal.

News used to be about reporting events. Now it seems to be more about the personalities pushing their perspective.