Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

On may 19th the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial attacking Net Neutrality: "Why ‘Net Neutrality’ Drives the Left Crazy"

*today* however, they're griping about Google's search rankings being "unfair" to WSJ because they're not highly rated since they paywalled their articles, and Google's bots can't actually read the articles now to see if they're relevant.

They want Google to make a "fair" search engine. With "fair" defined as "rates us highly". Is the irony lost on anyone?

[Playergamer]

used to like wall street journal. it's trash now.

used to like new york times. it's trash now.

used to like cnn. it's trash now.

used to like bbc. it's trash now.

used to like the economist. it's trash now.

[Strife26]

used to like wall street journal. it's trash now.

used to like new york times. it's trash now.

used to like cnn. it's trash now.

used to like bbc. it's trash now.

used to like the economist. it's trash now.

Conclusion: internet people ruin everything

[Max™]

Woody

Was gonna say, you're dealing with a whole generation that literally grew up with him as Woody to the point that the movie cast grew up with them and it was a main theme of the series, and the Rock is more recognizable as a character than any of his movie roles.

[Greiger]

Maybe it's just my parents generation talking but I was taught that you are not supposed to 'like' any of your news sources.  They are supposed to report the news in a balanced way.  If you like a particular publication's spin they are doing it wrong and you should not use it (or any single publication for that matter) as your only source of news.  Even the most neutral of publications have humans as writers and editors.  Bias is inevitable.

While I have on occasion made mistakes and jumped at only one source when I'm looking things up, or posting on my lunch breaks, or other such times when I don't have time to do a thorough check, or full access to subscriptions, we should all strive to have multiple sources whenever possible.

[misko27]

If I could pick any fictional incompetent to be President, it would be Chance the Gardener, AKA Chauncy Gardiner from Being There.

President Bobby: Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well.

Maybe it's just my parents generation talking but I was taught that you are not supposed to 'like' any of your news sources.  They are supposed to report the news in a balanced way.  If you like a particular publication's spin they are doing it wrong and you should not use it (or any single publication for that matter) as your only source of news.  Even the most neutral of publications have humans as writers and editors.  Bias is inevitable.

While I have on occasion made mistakes and jumped at only one source when I'm looking things up, or posting on my lunch breaks, or other such times when I don't have time to do a thorough check, or full access to subscriptions, we should all strive to have multiple sources whenever possible.

Now that's a neat perspective. But then aren't you at the mercy of News Aggregators instead of individual News sources? It would seem that you have to rely on a "favorite" somewhere, right?

[EnigmaticHat]

Americans think they choose their own news sources, but in truth its all from Associated Press.

Actually its interesting, I asked my friend who's family watches the big 3 news networks obsessively (they've been in politics for generations) where US news networks get their news from.  This was his answer (chopped up from the chat to remove irrelevant side conversation):

Well Fox and MSNBC are more opinion based, so they tend to comment on the news as it breaks
but they both do investigate stories and get exclusives
CNN does more than them, but usually in a less interesting manner

Like 70% of news is first reported by the Associated Press, the AP
Reuters does a bit too, as do the Washington Post and NY Times.

Combined those 4 make up a good 85% of breaking news and investigations

Edit for clarity: the third quote was in response to the second.  The big 3 weren't included in the 85%.

[Greiger]

I suppose that could be true, though I had to look up the definition of a News Aggregator.  Unless google counts or my store's news rack counts I think I may be avoiding them.  I pretty much just know a number of famous publications, and then google the publication itself, look for an article on it, and then do the same for a few more publications until I've seen a few different takes on it.

I may get a little bit of bias still. I'm not sure bias can be entirely avoided.  But I seem to be getting a good jist of both sides of the coin even if I myself often disagree with one of the sides(and not always the same one).  I like to think I'm doing lot better than if I just read only Time Magazine or WSJ every day.

I don't watch much tv so I haven't been getting much from tv sources. I probably should.

@EnigmaticHat Huh interesting. I knew a lot was AP but I didn't realize it was quite that much.

[EnigmaticHat]

Part of the reason Jon Stewart did so well (and accidentally built a TV franchise to rival that of the great Dick Wolf) is because the big news networks aren't really journalists any more.  I mean they *have* journalists, but its less and less the main point every day.  That implication was always there, news companies have always had TV crews and writers and anchors (who are really actors by a different name).  But the 24 hour news cycle has kicked things into overdrive because the ratio of man hours spent on entertainment industry stuff versus journalism stuff has skewed wildly towards entertainment.

[Sheb]

used to like wall street journal. it's trash now.

used to like new york times. it's trash now.

used to like cnn. it's trash now.

used to like bbc. it's trash now.

used to like the economist. it's trash now.

He, apart from CNN I wouldn't consider any of those trash. (Although I don't really use the BBC of WSJ that much, so I don't have an opinion).

[Gizogin]

used to like wall street journal. it's trash now.

used to like new york times. it's trash now.

used to like cnn. it's trash now.

used to like bbc. it's trash now.

used to like the economist. it's trash now.

You should really recycle your newspapers, instead of trashing them.

[Helgoland]

used to like wall street journal. it's trash now.

used to like new york times. it's trash now.

used to like cnn. it's trash now.

used to like bbc. it's trash now.

used to like the economist. it's trash now.

So what do you watch these days - Fox News? Because you don't exactly strike me as the MSNBC type...

[sluissa]

used to like wall street journal. it's trash now.

used to like new york times. it's trash now.

used to like cnn. it's trash now.

used to like bbc. it's trash now.

used to like the economist. it's trash now.

So what do you watch these days - Fox News? Because you don't exactly strike me as the MSNBC type...

Well, MSNBC has always been trash.

[smjjames]

Here we go, Trump disses another ally without knowing the full facts. Is it me or my liberal bias or does it almost sound like he is itching for things to come to blows?

And of course, he likely has absolutely no understanding of Quatars geopolitical role in the region, which complicates things further.

[Playergamer]

used to like wall street journal. it's trash now.

used to like new york times. it's trash now.

used to like cnn. it's trash now.

used to like bbc. it's trash now.

used to like the economist. it's trash now.

So what do you watch these days - Fox News? Because you don't exactly strike me as the MSNBC type...

Well, MSNBC has always been trash.

never liked Fox News or MSNBC. as for "not liking your news sources," i didn't mean because they agreed with me, i meant because they generally had good reporting of events/level-headed editorial coverage. now they're literally ISIS.