Decent reporting: does it exist any more?

Linus · 11-11-2009, 09:38 AM

I originally thought about asking why Fox News is considered such an authority in the US (they have the lion's share of the viewing audience, although that might be more due to location on the cable bill than anything else). I remember growing up on the likes Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite et al. where they did research, presented the research and then, maybe, once in a while, did an opinion piece separate from the news they told. Has this become a dying art?

To be fair, it's not just Fox News but many news channels are biased one way or another. It seems like the idea of truly unbiased and well researched news has been tossed out the window in favour of tabloid-like reporting. It's the 10-second grab and toss if you will and the juicier the news, the more we want it (hello FUD).

And speaking of Fox News, I don't get it (well, I kinda do -- it appears to the natural FUDing nature of people). The more I learn about what they do, the more I ask how the FCC et al. can allow them to exist. Two events recently made me go "Whaaaatttt?" (I laughed when he said that he was considering removing Fox News from Google search engine -- ya. Good luck with that, dude).

The first was an interview with Rupert Murdoch. During his interview he admitted that Glenn Beck was right at saying that Obama "doesn't like white people much" but that doesn't agree in saying that Obama is racist. Uh... huh? I could have sworn he just said that.. didn't he?

And I have to admit an affinity for the likes of Colbert and Stewart (along with Maddow and Olberman -- hrmm.. I may be skewed but I also like the CBC, BBC et al., which aren't necessarily liberal either). But a recent comment by Stewart made me do another double-take.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...rotest-footage

They actually make up news? I mean, is that really allowed to mislead people like that? I thought there were rules about this stuff or is it just the advertising?

Sigh.

Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned to want stories that were well researched and without a forced opinion so that I could form my own thoughts and opinions. It is 1984. I don't need a uniformed-tyrant to control the state; the mass media with it's distortion does a fine job, it seems. And it would appear that Marshall McLuhan was right: the medium is the message.

11-11-2009, 09:38 AM	#1
Linus The Planet's Technical Bubba How Do You Identify?: FTM Preferred Pronoun?: He/Him/Geek Relationship Status: Married to my forever! Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Redondo Beach, CA Posts: 5,440 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,929 Thanked 10,743 Times in 3,176 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	Decent reporting: does it exist any more? I originally thought about asking why Fox News is considered such an authority in the US (they have the lion's share of the viewing audience, although that might be more due to location on the cable bill than anything else). I remember growing up on the likes Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite et al. where they did research, presented the research and then, maybe, once in a while, did an opinion piece separate from the news they told. Has this become a dying art? To be fair, it's not just Fox News but many news channels are biased one way or another. It seems like the idea of truly unbiased and well researched news has been tossed out the window in favour of tabloid-like reporting. It's the 10-second grab and toss if you will and the juicier the news, the more we want it (hello FUD). And speaking of Fox News, I don't get it (well, I kinda do -- it appears to the natural FUDing nature of people). The more I learn about what they do, the more I ask how the FCC et al. can allow them to exist. Two events recently made me go "Whaaaatttt?" (I laughed when he said that he was considering removing Fox News from Google search engine -- ya. Good luck with that, dude). The first was an interview with Rupert Murdoch. During his interview he admitted that Glenn Beck was right at saying that Obama "doesn't like white people much" but that doesn't agree in saying that Obama is racist. Uh... huh? I could have sworn he just said that.. didn't he? And I have to admit an affinity for the likes of Colbert and Stewart (along with Maddow and Olberman -- hrmm.. I may be skewed but I also like the CBC, BBC et al., which aren't necessarily liberal either). But a recent comment by Stewart made me do another double-take. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...rotest-footage They actually make up news? I mean, is that really allowed to mislead people like that? I thought there were rules about this stuff or is it just the advertising? Sigh. Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned to want stories that were well researched and without a forced opinion so that I could form my own thoughts and opinions. It is 1984. I don't need a uniformed-tyrant to control the state; the mass media with it's distortion does a fine job, it seems. And it would appear that Marshall McLuhan was right: the medium is the message.