Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What Country Do I Live In Again?

Page 3 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Sep 2010, 8:49 pm

Sand wrote:
I readily admit that there is a quantity of material in Counterpunch that is emotionally driven and over the line, but there is also a core of fact driven articles which are well worth perusal and not found in standard media. Their sensitivity to basic violations of foundational constitutional rights is interesting and founded on hard fact.


I'd mostly agree, the trick is often in the sorting out of the facts from the rhetoric, a familiarity with the contributors and their biases is also helpful. I have similar feelings about some of the right leaning political blog amalgamation sites, there can be value there if you can sort it out from the hyperbole. When it comes to quoting sources here in PPR however, finding a mainstream media source for information provides a certain buffer against accusations of bias and using slanted sources to push an ideology. What kills me is that the same people here that will accuse another poster of posting "propaganda" when they link an article from Fox or Cato will turn around and link Counterpunch or Media Matters and see no conflict there...

I tried to start a thread about using biased blogs and news site a few weeks back, but it feel completely flat without a single reply, too bad cause I still think it would make a great discussion topic.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Sep 2010, 9:21 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I readily admit that there is a quantity of material in Counterpunch that is emotionally driven and over the line, but there is also a core of fact driven articles which are well worth perusal and not found in standard media. Their sensitivity to basic violations of foundational constitutional rights is interesting and founded on hard fact.


I'd mostly agree, the trick is often in the sorting out of the facts from the rhetoric, a familiarity with the contributors and their biases is also helpful. I have similar feelings about some of the right leaning political blog amalgamation sites, there can be value there if you can sort it out from the hyperbole. When it comes to quoting sources here in PPR however, finding a mainstream media source for information provides a certain buffer against accusations of bias and using slanted sources to push an ideology. What kills me is that the same people here that will accuse another poster of posting "propaganda" when they link an article from Fox or Cato will turn around and link Counterpunch or Media Matters and see no conflict there...

I tried to start a thread about using biased blogs and news site a few weeks back, but it feel completely flat without a single reply, too bad cause I still think it would make a great discussion topic.


Since my news is entirely computer based my mainstream sources are mostly the NY Times since I am a former New Yorker and NPR. Counterpunch validly points out regularly how much important news is ignored or slanted in the NY Times and I find my prejudices ally with theirs fairly well. I don't kid myself about my prejudices but events over time well justify them. I find too much poison in the reactionary media (now labeling itself as merely "conservative") to look over that content much.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Sep 2010, 7:01 am

Sand wrote:

Since my news is entirely computer based my mainstream sources are mostly the NY Times since I am a former New Yorker and NPR. Counterpunch validly points out regularly how much important news is ignored or slanted in the NY Times and I find my prejudices ally with theirs fairly well.


The New York Times. Whose motto is: All the News that fits.

ruveyn



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

29 Sep 2010, 9:20 am

Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I readily admit that there is a quantity of material in Counterpunch that is emotionally driven and over the line, but there is also a core of fact driven articles which are well worth perusal and not found in standard media. Their sensitivity to basic violations of foundational constitutional rights is interesting and founded on hard fact.


I'd mostly agree, the trick is often in the sorting out of the facts from the rhetoric, a familiarity with the contributors and their biases is also helpful. I have similar feelings about some of the right leaning political blog amalgamation sites, there can be value there if you can sort it out from the hyperbole. When it comes to quoting sources here in PPR however, finding a mainstream media source for information provides a certain buffer against accusations of bias and using slanted sources to push an ideology. What kills me is that the same people here that will accuse another poster of posting "propaganda" when they link an article from Fox or Cato will turn around and link Counterpunch or Media Matters and see no conflict there...

I tried to start a thread about using biased blogs and news site a few weeks back, but it feel completely flat without a single reply, too bad cause I still think it would make a great discussion topic.


I'm deeply frusterated by this as well. Whatever happened to the idea that a journalist is supposed to present just the facts and let the reader/viewer make up their own mind? Whenever I find a story that I'm interested in, I often have to go to great lengths just to find out the basic facts, without bias. This is why we're short on real thinkers these days.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Sep 2010, 1:31 pm

number5 wrote:
I'm deeply frusterated by this as well. Whatever happened to the idea that a journalist is supposed to present just the facts and let the reader/viewer make up their own mind? Whenever I find a story that I'm interested in, I often have to go to great lengths just to find out the basic facts, without bias. This is why we're short on real thinkers these days.

I think it's because we live in the (mis)information age where emotion-driven political memes (whether they're true or false) spread and multiply faster than the cold dry facts. I have enough intuition that I can usually smell it when some statement seems unlikely. However, the majority don't seem to be blessed with this ability and simply believe, by default, anything that fits in with the slanted world view they've already chosen to adhere to.