Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
After over half century living in the US, only recently I realized how disunited this country was...I mostly blame the media for exacerbating the situation. I must have travel to at least 30 to 40 states and never thought that I was in a red state or blue state.. I was hoping that the pandemic would bring the people together to combat a common enemy...How naïve can one be...
The politicians and the press jumped on the opportunity to create this situation (to the delight of potential adversaries).
About to make a major decision in November and I think most people will choose to vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate.
Photographer
63fotos
Posts: 534
Flagstaff, Arizona, US
Most elections are won by the lesser of two evils.
In regards to the media. Journalism has not existed for quite some time.
Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
63fotos wrote:
Most elections are won by the lesser of two evils.
In regards to the media. Journalism has not existed for quite some time. Sadly, I must agree....
Photographer
Managing Light
Posts: 2678
Salem, Virginia, US
Holding your nose and voting is a long-established American tradition.
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8203
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
Why is the media at fault? They write stories that are factual, with a bias sometimes, because who doesn't have a bias? (Edit in: Of course there is some media that has gone the route of propaganda, without counting things like blogs.) Opinion pieces go one way or the other. Was the media responsible for differences of opinions before WW2? Those that wanted to be isolationist, imperialist or support the countries we did trade with? Before WW1? Before the civil war? Was media at fault for driving the divisions between the states? The creation of free states and slave states? Or where they simply reporting stories with regard to the positions of the people at the time. Did the media drive the protest of the 60s or did the media bring us together when they brought the horrors and atrocities of the war into our living room? Napalm girl? An execution? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc MM+18 https://allthatsinteresting.com/napalm-girl MM+18 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution … n_L%C3%A9m MM+18 Or the murder of George Floyd. Did we need the media to be outraged over that, or conversely to accept that he had it coming for resisting arrest? People, not all people anyway, do not need the media or anyone else to tell them how to think. If an event outrages them or pleases them, the mindset was probably already there. People exploit it. Gulf of Tonkin. Remember the Maine. Did John Brown's attack of Harper's Ferry only matter because it was reported? The sinking of the Lusitania? The bombing of Pearl Harbor? The gassing and murders of 14 million people? The fall of the Berlin Wall? The building of another wall? Did it divide us because some politician said nasty things or because the Media told us about the nasty things he said, which some people think are fine and dandy comments and policy. An acquaintance recently went off in several text messages about a certain race. The media never once reported it, but she can't text message me anymore. Isn't blaming the media a bit like shooting the messenger?
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30130
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I cross the border into the US and feel a sense of dread
because of all the things I read and see from the media
but how else would i know about these things ?
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30130
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
IMAGINERIES wrote:
After over half century living in the US, only recently I realized how disunited this country was...I mostly blame the media for exacerbating the situation. I must have travel to at least 30 to 40 states and never thought that I was in a red state or blue state.. I was hoping that the pandemic would bring the people together to combat a common enemy...How naïve can one be...
The politicians and the press jumped on the opportunity to create this situation (to the delight of potential adversaries).
About to make a major decision in November and I think most people will choose to vote against a candidate rather than for a candidate. The last time I remember the nation this divided was during the Vietnam War.
In 1972 my best buddy and I went cross country on a road trip... being college age kids from California, we had longer hair---and peace symbols on the car... which got us mugged in Missouri, and the car sabotaged in Nebraska---(couple handfuls of dirt and rocks in the gas tank, "Go Home hippies" painted on the car) (Funny thing is, I was hurrying back home so I could go to basic training)
The nation was violently divided.
Media is a pretty broad term. Media can mean serious journalism or it can mean Sean Hannity et al.
But to blame all media is dangerous. Without the media--- would ignorance be bliss?
Would we have been better off not to know about Watergate? The Iran Contra affair? The news that led to the Clinton impeachment, or the Trump impeachment?
I dont think so, but others have different opinions.
As for who we vote for--- good lord I dont remember the last time I got to vote for a candidate I was enthusiastic about---rather than simply the lesser of two evils.
Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
If I remember well the protests against the Vietnam were triggered by the draft....I don't recall too many problems regarding the half dozen wars the US got involved in since then. Maybe a draft would have made the people react.
Regarding the media, in can't recall a any particular channel having a position regarding the US involvement in Vietnam.
They just reported the protests.
Photographer
Tony From Syracuse
Posts: 2503
Syracuse, New York, US
Bias? I have never seen a media as allied against a president as against Trump. I saw Bill Mahar on his show saying we cant take another 4 more years of Trump. why? everyone got up, went to work, we stayed out of major wars, the economy was great.
its like they had a sense of what Trumps america was supposed to be like, ushering in some sort of dark ages...and it never happened, and so this left them bewildered, so they still want to claim it....like, this time we are serious!.... the dark ages are just over the hill this time!
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8203
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
IMAGINERIES wrote:
There was not time for antiwar protests relative to Grenada and Panama. There was some blowback. The liberation of Kuwait could be justified to the American public and the President pulled the plug on the fighting when strong graphic images started coming back to the American people. The opposing army was defeated, the objective to liberate Kuwait was accomplished. The overthrow of the regime in Iraq was not a goal because of public pressure, real or perceived.
Iraq and Afghanistan was easily sold given the 9-11 attacks. The wars have met with some resistance because the Administration in charge used questionable and faulty intelligence to justify invading Iraq. But the question remains if the administration knowingly used verified poor intelligence or if they just messed up on WMD. Iraq and Afghanistan have been criticized by left and right.
The withdraw from Afghanistan seems to parallel Vietnam. We are abandoning the people. Put it in the loss column if the goal was to stabilize Afghanistan and ensure democracy. And the loss belongs to the administration which surrendered and fled.
A big difference between now and the 60s is that the soldiers aren't being vilified. We recognize their sacrifice and in retrospect, recognize the sacrifice of those that served in Nam and lived to tell about it. The blame is being laid where it belongs- at the feet of the administrations. The pentagon seems to take war crimes more seriously than they did in Vietnam, which helps the image of the people in the theaters, that there aren't cries about killing babies and wiping out villages, but the administration now seems to minimize war crimes, which is not a good look.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
I think the draft during the Vietnam War forced Americans to look at what was happening. Brought the war HOME, right into your neighborhood. They were suddenly faced with sending off THEIR sons, not some faceless volunteer.
Since then, the wars have been fought by volunteers... a nameless faceless bunch that most folks never give a thought...
Then there was the Vietnam TV war aspect. Every night the news SHOWED combat footage---showed wounded and dead American soldiers. No hiding that.
Since then, sanitized news. Nothing that would upset Mom sitting at the dinner table.
We "embedded" media when we went into Iraq... and they sent back carefully choreographed bits suitable for family consumption. Biggest story was a REPORTER dying while embedded (may he RIP).
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
Tony From Syracuse wrote:
Bias? I have never seen a media as allied against a president as against Trump. [...] Really? Media was pretty tough on Bush 41---"Read My Lips" etc etc
Clinton had a pretty rough go of it--- Whitewater, Lewinsky---Impeachment...
Bush 43 made it too easy and was a constant target of the media.
How many times was Obama's birth certificate questioned?
Could it be Tony that you have a bit of bias yourself?
Could it be that it suited Trump to play up ANY criticism he got in the "fake news" as untrue? Could it be you swallowed that hook line and sinker?
Photographer
Boudoir Studio
Posts: 322
Santa Clarita, California, US
Tony From Syracuse wrote:
Bias? I have never seen a media as allied against a president as against Trump. I saw Bill Mahar on his show saying we cant take another 4 more years of Trump. why? everyone got up, went to work, we stayed out of major wars, the economy was great.
its like they had a sense of what Trumps america was supposed to be like, ushering in some sort of dark ages...and it never happened, and so this left them bewildered, so they still want to claim it....like, this time we are serious!.... the dark ages are just over the hill this time! It appears that you only watch Faux News. It is happening... Environment, Health Care, Education, Economy, Pandemic, Constantly on the Grift. Not enough media coverage on the decades of Cons / Money Laundering, Fake story about a small loan from Dad (half a billion plus bailouts) and a succession of bankruptcies. No US lenders would touch this guy... only Russian backed loans for years. Hope you did not sign up for his University program scam.
Artist/Painter
ethasleftthebuilding
Posts: 16685
Key West, Florida, US
The US is not at all divided anywhere near as much as the politicians and the media make it out to be.
The vast majority of the population get up each morning and go about their business, not giving much thought to all the BS they tell us we are supposed to be divided about.
It's the few percent (if even that much) of the population that make all the noise and scream about this side or that side. They are heard by everyone (you can't help but hear them) and each forms his or her own opinion of what they see/hear.
Photographer
Tony From Syracuse
Posts: 2503
Syracuse, New York, US
Boudoir Studio wrote:
It appears that you only watch Faux News. It is happening... Environment, Health Care, Education, Economy, Pandemic, Constantly on the Grift. Not enough media coverage on the decades of Cons / Money Laundering, Fake story about a small loan from Dad (half a billion plus bailouts) and a succession of bankruptcies. No US lenders would touch this guy... only Russian backed loans for years. Hope you did not sign up for his University program scam. You sound like a member of the crips complaining about a member of the bloods. we have Fox you have CNN, and dont think for a second there isnt a tit for tat on both sides as far as corruption and any other thing.
you tell me what would happen to me or you if the FBI requested equipment from us and we bleached and erased and destroyed the equipment. politicians children involved in huge illegal paydays, corruption, dealings with bad actor governments....its all there on your side.and the agencies of accountability looked the other way and found these a non story. thats what happens when me and you decide to join a gang. you are in the crips.....and I am in the bloods. we both think its "the other guy". but no..,.its OUR GUYS.
Photographer
Boudoir Studio
Posts: 322
Santa Clarita, California, US
Tony From Syracuse wrote:
You sound like a member of the crips complaining about a member of the bloods. we have Fox you have CNN, and dont think for a second there isnt a tit for tat on both sides as far as corruption and any other thing.
you tell me what would happen to me or you if the FBI requested equipment from us and we bleached and erased and destroyed the equipment. politicians children involved in huge illegal paydays, corruption, dealings with bad actor governments....its all there on your side.and the agencies of accountability looked the other way and found these a non story. thats what happens when me and you decide to join a gang. you are in the crips.....and I am in the bloods. we both think its "the other guy". but no..,.its OUR GUYS. Very easy to spot a Faux News disciple... The World's Sleaziest Con Man has done major damage to our country on many fronts (see above). False equivalencies are a favorite of the Faux Folks. Not a gang member here.... Try AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, NPR. Break out of the bubble before it's too late. 20,000 documented lies since taking office. FYI - being able to tell a giraffe from an elephant on an Alzheimers test does not translate to genius. Pretty sure I could type many pages of verified information but would not make any difference. Also Alternative Facts are not really facts... no matter what the Mass Murderer in Chief says.... especially when he says "Believe Me" you know the con is on.... On my news bias chart Fox is listed as "Hyper Partisan Conservative - questionable journalistic value". Sounds pretty accurate.
Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
Regardless of party colors, red, blue, green or purple.....Wall street is made of smoke and mirrors, the manufacturing will remain off shore for a very long time. Wars, lost or won, were good for business, a military budget out of control....
And none of these have anything to do with the Washington tenant. The dozen or more large corporations are in charge.
What politician in it's right mind would cut the military budget in half? Rebuilding in country infrastructure, create a more human social nation etc...
I remember 1973 you had to wait in line to get gas as soon as the price went up we where swimming in it....
A Democrat started the Vietnam war continued by a Democrat vice president and ended by a Republican....Maybe by this time the draft, the public opinion (over 50 000 death) and the picture of a naked little girl running away from her burning village made Monsanto, Dupont, and others, was bad for their image and decided that genetic engineering was the way to go.....
the more it changes the more it will remain the same.
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8203
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
We were swimming in gas after the price went up because that was exactly what the goal of the embargo was meant to accomplish- raise the price of oil.
The Vietnam war was ended by an opportunist, after he continued it to gain re-election. A third of Americans killed in Vietnam were killed while Nixon was president. Calls from congress to end the Vietnam war came from Democrats. Nixon and Republicans do not deserve kudos for ending a war from which they profited.
Now we have a guy that knows more than the generals and could win the war in two weeks, but hasn't. He also escalated tensions in Iraq and then dismissed the severe injuries that his actions brought to American soldiers, as headaches. Of course, they were suckers and losers for being there in the first place.
Tricky Dick. Deranged Donnie. Both caught committing crimes in an effort to be re-elected. Both used their office for personal gain. Both faced impeachment. Only one had the decency to resign. In only the former instance did the Senate Republicans have the moral courage and the best interests of the country at heart. Both presidents are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and losing the wars they inherited.
Photographer
rxz
Posts: 1103
Glen Ellyn, Illinois, US
IMAGINERIES wrote:
A Democrat started the Vietnam war continued by a Democrat vice president and ended by a Republican.... Yep, started by a Democrat. I was drafted in 1965 and arrived in Vietnam on 1 January, 1966. I ended up being assigned to a helicopter company that arrived there in 1958 when Democrat Eisenhower was President.
Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
rxz wrote:
Yep, started by a Democrat. I was drafted in 1965 and arrived in Vietnam on 1 January, 1966. I ended up being assigned to a helicopter company that arrived there in 1958 when Democrat Eisenhower was President. In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions."2
By April, however, his administration revisited the question of direct intervention in the war. Though he sent no U.S. troops to the region, he authorized military aid to the French. After France surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower's administration aided anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon. Throughout his second term as president, Eisenhower remained committed to Diem's often-tyrannical regime.
Thank you for correcting my lack of knowledge!!
Photographer
nwprophoto
Posts: 15005
Tonasket, Washington, US
rfordphotos wrote:
But to blame all media is dangerous. Without the media--- would ignorance be bliss? We are living in a country with a shocking illiteracy rate.
Nescience is common and a lot of it is the fault of media.
Cherry picked stories with cherry picked facts.
Political correctness these days is more important than facts.
Everyone should be applying skepticism to the media and they are not.
Photographer
rxz
Posts: 1103
Glen Ellyn, Illinois, US
IMAGINERIES wrote:
In February 1954, President Eisenhower refused to commit American troops to the Franco-Vietnamese War. In a press conference he stated, "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions."2
By April, however, his administration revisited the question of direct intervention in the war. Though he sent no U.S. troops to the region, he authorized military aid to the French. After France surrendered to the Viet Minh, Eisenhower's administration aided anti-communist leader Ngo Dinh Diem in consolidating power in Saigon. Throughout his second term as president, Eisenhower remained committed to Diem's often-tyrannical regime.
Thank you for correcting my lack of knowledge!! I wonder how history would have changed if Truman had not persuaded France to reoccupy Indochina after the end of WWII? And how the peoples of Indochina; Khmer, Laotians, Mon, and Vietnamese would have established their own lands if left to their own means and not to the world powers at the time, mainly China, US, and USSR?
Clothing Designer
Baanthai
Posts: 1218
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
rxz wrote:
Yep, started by a Democrat. I was drafted in 1965 and arrived in Vietnam on 1 January, 1966. I ended up being assigned to a helicopter company that arrived there in 1958 when Democrat Eisenhower was President. This is a joke, right? (Ike ain’t laughin’.)
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2776
Los Angeles, California, US
Baanthai wrote:
This is a joke, right? (Ike ain’t laughin’.) Are the moderators asleep? I thought misinformation and politics as a thread were banned from the Forums. Guess not. This thread is the DEFINITION of political.
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8203
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
I believe that this is the guideline which is current being used for threads like this. The media bias seems like a "topic that has been politicized" as opposed to a political topic. Other posts are tangential and it is all civil. Not that I am a mod. Just my opinion. Joe Tomasone wrote:
<snip>
So just to sum up the moderator's stance - threads discussing political TOPICS or threads that involve topics that have been politicized (like COVID) are OK. Arguing about politics (or other controversial topics) to the point of heated debate gets to a gray area and attacks, trolling, and other boorish behavior are over the line. Keep it civil and there shouldn't be any problems. https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19915308
rxz wrote:
Yep, started by a Democrat. I was drafted in 1965 and arrived in Vietnam on 1 January, 1966. I ended up being assigned to a helicopter company that arrived there in 1958 when Democrat Eisenhower was President. Baanthai wrote:
This is a joke, right? (Ike ain’t laughin’.) My interpretation of the post was by calling Ike a Democrat, it was the sarcastic response to the previous post which indicated a Democrat got us involved in Vietnam
Photographer
Modelphilia
Posts: 1021
Hilo, Hawaii, US
63fotos wrote:
.
In regards to the media. Journalism has not existed for quite some time. Sorry guys, but I totally disagree. My parents were both crusading journalists, my niece was a reporter, my nephew teaches journalism in Prague, and so I have always been deeply aware of the quality of journalism, good and bad. There are still many thousands of mindful, professional journalists in all corners of the country and the world, doing amazing work unearthing and exposing the foibles of governments and bureaucrats.
The real problem has been the decades-long consolidation of media into huge conglomerates, and the implementation of drastic cost-cutting regimes that have killed off most small-market newspapers, and even most of those in our larger cities. Thus, the variety of opinions has been decimated or killed off altogether.
What we have now, in the age of Fox News, are huge-scale propaganda machines. That is no accident, but rather due to the decades long efforts and successes of Rupert Murdoch, and it has also brought such outlets as Breitbart News into the picture. It is also due to the mindless consumerism of the American populace, and to their lack of political acumen, critical thinking, and political action.
Hopeful signs? The New York Times and The Washington Post (both of which I subscribe to digitally) have been doing fabulous journalism in recent years pertaining to our present-day government and social movements.
Also, we are now in the era of digital-only news organizations, many of which do notably good work (see The Daily Beast, Pro Publica, Politico, Gizmodo, Lawfare, The Intercept, Bulwark, etc.). These publications and others have taken over much of the investigative journalism that used to be done by the newspapers. SUPPORT THEM if you want to see some good work being done now and in the future.
–30–
Photographer
nwprophoto
Posts: 15005
Tonasket, Washington, US
Modelphilia wrote:
What we have now, in the age of Fox News, are huge-scale propaganda machines. How would you classify CNN and Yahoo News?
Modelphilia wrote:
Hopeful signs? The New York Times Guess you probably do not want to talk about the Nick Sandmann story.
Sure everyone remembers this NYT classic.
![https://sheriffali.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/aaaliphotos-87.jpg?w=584]()
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4472
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
nwprophoto wrote:
Guess you probably do not want to talk about the Nick Sandmann story.
Sure everyone remembers this NYT classic... I have no idea of what your point is. I seriously doubt that you're trying to claim that Fox News was so much better than the NY Times when it came to predicting the Clinton / Trump election...
---
(Fox News - Oct 16th, 2016)
"If the Republicans are not at rock-bottom, they can certainly see the bottom from where they are," says GOP pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson. "If Trump got 90 percent of self-identified Republicans and nothing else -- no Democrats and no independents -- he'd be at 32 percent.”
"Trump’s enthusiasm advantage has evaporated"
Or more from Fox News coverage of the Clinton / Trump polls:
"Don't kid yourself, the polls are usually right"
"If the numbers hold, it would be the worst popular vote defeat since 1984 (speaking about Trump), so whatever individual polls indicate, there is lots of ground to be made up."
---
By the way, I am NOT criticizing Fox News for getting the Trump / Clinton election so wrong. I can criticize Fox News for many things (but I'm not going to "bite" on your political argument - re: Fox News), however on that story they were like all the rest.
---------
On a separate note, I appreciate Modelphilia's comments. I'd also add The Guardian for having remarkably good coverage of international and, specifically, U.S. news. Plus they've broken more than a few major U.S. news stories before the big U.S. networks have. Another excellent source.
https://www.theguardian.com/international
Photographer
Modelphilia
Posts: 1021
Hilo, Hawaii, US
nwprophoto wrote:
How would you classify CNN and Yahoo News?
Guess you probably do not want to talk about the Nick Sandmann story. First of all, I gave up on television 30 years ago, so what I get of any network is in whatever articles and clips I see online.
Secondly, pointing to one libel-suit in the NYT's history hardly negates all of the good reporting and journalism they do every day.
I've never paid any attention to Yahoo News, considering it just a marketing ploy and news-by-algorithm. And CNN, while it does some good reporting, and takes an aggressively inquisitive journalistic position, is also a part of the oversized media group, sometimes seeming to take sides, but more often just digging in to stories that need to be covered aggressively.
You seem to fall to one side in the OP's "great divide". I am talking about the state of modern journalism, which has been completely denigrated under the Trump regime. It's no accident that you are thinking along the lines that you do. You've been told to think that way for the last five years –while fascism raises its face on the near horizon. Care to think for yourself anytime soon?
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
Modelphilia wrote:
[...]
Hopeful signs? The New York Times and The Washington Post (both of which I subscribe to digitally) have been doing fabulous journalism in recent years pertaining to our present-day government and social movements.
Also, we are now in the era of digital-only news organizations, many of which do notably good work (see The Daily Beast, Pro Publica, Politico, Gizmodo, Lawfare, The Intercept, Bulwark, etc.). These publications and others have taken over much of the investigative journalism that used to be done by the newspapers. SUPPORT THEM if you want to see some good work being done now and in the future.
–30– Good journalism can only go so far. If people continue to choose Facebook and Twitter etc as their main sources of news, all the Pulitzers in the world wont matter.
Equally important when reading the news is to realize EVERY source has some sort of bias. It can be blatant - like Fox or MSNBC or more subtle. Regardless it is important to KNOW the bias of your sources.
I read the NYTimes and Washington Post daily--- both excellent papers with long records of award winning journalism... But they have a left leaning bias, generally mild, but occasional pretty loud. Knowing that, it is easy to filter the bias out. IMHO they are currently among the best sources for news in the US.
By reading multiple sources, the inherent bias of any single source is diluted...
There are a lot of excellent journalists, doing their best to bring reasonably balanced news to the public. Then there are the fringe extremists with their talk shows--- they SHOULD NOT be confused with journalists.
Photographer
Modelphilia
Posts: 1021
Hilo, Hawaii, US
rfordphotos wrote:
Good journalism can only go so far. If people continue to choose Facebook and Twitter etc as their main sources of news, all the Pulitzers in the world wont matter.
Equally important when reading the news is to realize EVERY source has some sort of bias. It can be blatant - like Fox or MSNBC or more subtle. Regardless it is important to KNOW the bias of your sources.
. . .
By reading multiple sources, the inherent bias of any single source is diluted...
There are a lot of excellent journalists, doing their best to bring reasonably balanced news to the public. Then there are the fringe extremists with their talk shows--- they SHOULD NOT be confused with journalists. HEAR, HEAR!
Photographer
nwprophoto
Posts: 15005
Tonasket, Washington, US
LightDreams wrote:
I have no idea of what your point is. I seriously doubt that you're trying to claim that Fox News was so much better than the NY Times when it came to predicting the Clinton / Trump election... I am certainly not defending Fox or any other of the multitude of biased news sources
In your opinion does the NYT deserve venerating given its history?.
Photographer
nwprophoto
Posts: 15005
Tonasket, Washington, US
Modelphilia wrote:
You seem to fall to one side in the OP's "great divide". Care to think for yourself anytime soon? For the most part all I see on either side are agendas using anecdotal evidence
to support their biased stories. Do I pass the cognitive test?
Photographer
LightDreams
Posts: 4472
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
nwprophoto wrote:
I am certainly not defending Fox or any other of the multitude of biased news sources
In your opinion does the NYT deserve venerating given its history?. Does NYT times deserve a lot of respect? Yes. With 122 Pulitzer Prizes and citations, more than any other news organization in America? Yes that helps their credibility.
Do I take everything they say as absolute truth? Of course not. But when they're breaking a major new story that no one else has, I'll careful listen to their evidence and digest it for myself. Usually, though, the other major organizations will then jump on it (trying to either prove the NY Times wrong or right) and dig up their own evidence. More often then not, it either supports or builds on / slightly adjusts the original NY Times story.
By the way, the Washington Post LOVES to "wreck" a major NY Times "scoop" that they can prove wrong. And vice-versa. It's just fairly rare for that to happen, in a major way.
No one is perfect, but with the very strong records of the NY Times, the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and, surprisingly, the Guardian (especially over the last few years), that's a pretty good starting point for breaking "investigative" news.
In some particular cases, the various biases of the various organizations, do not serve them well. Fox News doesn't even pretend to have been anywhere near accurate when it came to their first 4 months of COVID-19 claims and coverage.
As has been pointed out, it's handy to know the modern day track record and biases (major or minor) of any news organization that you are getting information from. And add that into the mix when you're considering major breaking news stories that may deserve "very careful / critical" consideration...
Photographer
rxz
Posts: 1103
Glen Ellyn, Illinois, US
Baanthai wrote:
This is a joke, right? (Ike ain’t laughin’.) Yes, I know Eisenhower was a Republican. And he ain't laughing because I refered him as a Democrat, or because he authorized the sending of armor and helicopter units manned by the U.S. military in support of the ARVNs? Again, more than 2 years before Kennedy became president. I have taken an interest in the Vietnam war given I was there for 15 months. I was never injured but a round did enter the Huey I was in that missed me by a foot, striking the back wall of the crew area. I never heard it. I did read many years ago that Kennedy was not happy with the corrupt government and was threatening to withdraw U.S. forces in the summer of 1963 if the government didn't clean up their act. When Johnson became President, U.S. military involvement increased. There were around 75K troops in country when I arrived in Jan 1966 and around 250K troops when I left in Mar 1967. My company had around 160 members, pilots with support crew and maintenance personnel. In my 15 months over 2 dozen went home in boxes. One combat death. The rest accidental, crashes from pilot error or helicopter failure. For what? In the end the Cong and North Vietname won out.
Photographer
nwprophoto
Posts: 15005
Tonasket, Washington, US
LightDreams wrote:
Does NYT times deserve a lot of respect? Yes. With 122 Pulitzer Prizes and citations, more than any other news organization in America? Yes that helps their credibility. Your a lot more forgiving than me on the Sandmann story apparently.
Had not been to their site for awhile. Looked tonight. Bias was still obvious.
Did not take long to find an agenda piece using argumentum ad populum.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
nwprophoto wrote:
Your a lot more forgiving than me on the Sandmann story apparently.
Had not been to their site for awhile. Looked tonight. Bias was still obvious.
Did not take long to find an agenda piece using argumentum ad populum. Kindly point us to a better, less biased news source...
Photographer
Joe Tomasone
Posts: 12600
Spring Hill, Florida, US
 Moderator Note! The OT rules against political threads are being revised.
Basically, “be civil and do not engage in personal attacks” will be the prevailing rule as opposed to just stopping argumentative topics. Argue all you like, but be nice about it. If you have to walk away from a thread for 10 minutes (or forever) to contain yourself, that’s what you likely should do.
Photographer
Camera Buff
Posts: 924
Maryborough, Queensland, Australia
Redacted: A poster's error was identified and acknowledged in an earlier post.
|
Moderator Note!
