Is there such a thing as news anymore?

2014-10-12T22:21:47-04:00

Is there any news channels not used to push an agenda now? It seems like some stations report extensively on one story that damages their opposing view while the other stations assist with the cover-ups by not reporting. And vice versa. I just want to go online or tv and see oh wow this happened and just the facts. Let me determine if it is worth more of my attention or not. Am I the only one out there that feels only local news can actually achieve that now?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 10:45 PM

2014-10-12T22:45:06-04:00

I don't even watch the national news on TV anymore. If I find hear of a story and find it interesting, I'll research it myself. If something happens, I don't need some bobble-head puppet relaying it to me.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Oct 12 at 2014 10:55 PM

2014-10-12T22:55:21-04:00

No they don't report facts anymore... just biased opinionated dribble... (sometime they might include something just to see who was watching/listening)

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 6:53 PM

2014-10-13T18:53:26-04:00

It does seem that everyone has an agenda these days, LTC Private RallyPoint Member. Of course, Fox News is fair and balanced! (HA HA HA!)

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 13 at 2014 7:23 PM

2014-10-13T19:23:58-04:00

News, we don't need no stinking news. We have reality TV now so who needs the one way, hyper-intensified, over-produced, hijacked versions of the truth we are force fed on a daily basis.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 9:44 PM

2014-10-13T21:44:31-04:00

I get some interesting points of view from Al Jazeera......and many of them turn out to be correct.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Oct 13 at 2014 10:18 PM

2014-10-13T22:18:20-04:00

The trick is .... there never WAS non-biased news. Newspapers came into being to push the agendas of their owners, actual information was a side-benefit. There was a brief window where news organizations made a point of trying to appear unbiased - but that was about appearance, not reality. Check into the actual history of some of the great names of "just the facts" news - Murrow, Kronkite, Rather, to name just a few and you will quickly discover that their coverage was far from "fair & balanced." They ("big media", for lack of a better, less loaded term) were just the big boys on the block and had monolithic control over the message and image.

Remember, something as simple as WHICH story gets ink or time on the newscast, or where in the paper/show it goes can skew its "importance." in the eyes of readers, even with factual "reporting." This is before getting into whether they are "terrorists", "militants", "freedom fighters", or "youths."

The closest you can come now (or ever) to "unbiased" is to get information from multiple sources with different agendas, and hope to find the truth somewhere in the middle.

The only differences are:
1. Now we know it
and
2. Fewer pretend to be neutral (which I actually prefer).

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Oct 13 at 2014 11:49 PM

2014-10-13T23:49:26-04:00

in the US the best informed citizens almost always been found to be PBS viewers of I think it is Newshour. The thing you will notice is that real news is boring. The 24 hour non stop cycle of cable news does lend to sensationalism. I personally believe that it is not possible for their to be completely unbiased news, but what I want is 100% truth in reporting. I think we all could benefit from looking at the other side's point of view, but if the other side is pumping blatant untruths, then it is not looking at the issue from another side.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 7:16 AM

2014-10-14T07:16:53-04:00

there is news. it's just that you cant get it without also dealing with all the crap that comes with it. The news network gets paid by the owner, the owner makes money by selling airtime to advertisements. the more ratings he gets, the more money he can charge advertisements for the airtime. So he makes the content of his programming fit the target demographic of the advertising. because if the advertisers get more money from the commercials they give more money to the network.

so to conclude: MONEY!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 8:01 AM

2014-10-14T08:01:20-04:00

Yes... BBC America. and then there is everything else.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Oct 14 at 2014 8:10 AM

2014-10-14T08:10:57-04:00

I believe that to a great extent, journalism is dead in our country. Local news, in my area, is still good at covering local stories, but on a national level, it seems that there is always an agenda behind every story, regardless of what media outlet you are following at the time. The population seems more interested in sensationalism than the truth, and the media is more than willing to oblige. Our only option is to follow a specific story on multiple outlets and try to deduce the truth for ourselves.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Oct 14 at 2014 8:20 AM

2014-10-14T08:20:26-04:00

LTC Private RallyPoint Member Sir it seems all the news channels have become partisan. I enjoy National news, but find it challenging to watch the bash and blame hour, consequently, typically, I watch BBC America for news.

I enjoy Fox News but always know there is an agenda. I recognize the agenda with CNN and MSNBC also.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 8:30 AM

2014-10-14T08:30:47-04:00

Truth be told the news networks are why we have our uninformed population of idiots to lazy to research facts. The only way to find the real truth is search it out.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 14 at 2014 8:49 AM

2014-10-14T08:49:05-04:00

This is why I prefer BBC... They just say what happened and move on. No hours of opinions and speculation..

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 12:56 PM

2014-10-14T12:56:15-04:00

I take the news with a grain of salt. I can tell if it's biased. Sometimes I research, and/or comment on FACEBOOK on my wall. It's called Dan's Soap Box, where I rant, and race.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Oct 14 at 2014 2:00 PM

2014-10-14T14:00:18-04:00

I find the most difficult part of 'getting the news' is finding the time to research what I want to know about. Making an attempt to "stay current" is a time investment on a daily basis. You and several others are accurate in that if you ONLY subscribe to one or a few sources of NEWS then more than likely you're getting a slanted perspective.

I do what you also do - I search a story subject line and look at multiple sources to try and get a reasonable perspective. Taking bits and pieces from many different sites actually gives you a somewhat well rounded story ... while not 100 percent accurate it is certainly more realistic than anything mass media will feed you. To think or believe that one source gets it right all the time is foolish to say the least.

You also run into trying to filter 'opinion' from actual fact. Just because you see something in print does not mean it is factual ... so you end up digging to find the facts related to what you are trying to learn about.

Thanks LTC Private RallyPoint Member for the discussion!

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jan 8 at 2015 4:18 AM

2015-01-08T04:18:05-05:00

I read a recent survey from a fact check group that said Fox is the most accurate at a whopping 24%. That's sad. There is no real main stream news source you can trust. Oh, the "Colbert Report" is one of the least accurate. I guess that's why it's on a comedy station.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jan 8 at 2015 11:08 AM

2015-01-08T11:08:11-05:00

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, I think that COL Vincent Stoneking and CPT Richard Riley have a good handle on it.