• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The Most Trusted Name In News Is...

"Trusted" by whom? Liberals?

I don't trust any news outlet further than I can throw them, and that includes Fox News. I'll get the facts and make up my own mind, thank you, and if that involves going to every so-called "news organization" plus several dozen blogs and websites, so be it.
 
PBS has news? THAT is news to me.

That it is 'most trusted' makes me wonder whether GfK Roper limited their survey to Manhattan's lower east side. ::)
 
And clearly, in recent years, CNN has shedded its "most watched" title as far as cable news is concerned...
 
regardless of your political ideology, you should NEVER trust a news source that relies on government
funding for it's' financial survival
 
FreddyE1977 said:
regardless of your political ideology, you should NEVER trust a news source that relies on government
funding for it's' financial survival
Click to expand...

Why not? There are MANY things that the government does very well: military, police and fire protection, weather forecasting, space exploration, Medicare according to many seniors who would otherwise be uninsured, national parks, etc.

Apparently, Freddy, you've been watching too much FOX infotainment and not enough real news. Real news challenges your intellect; infotainment just yells and screams about unimportant nonsense.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
regardless of your political ideology, you should NEVER trust a news source that relies on government
funding for it's' financial survival
Click to expand...

There is a difference between 'state-run' media, and 'state-sponsored' media. PBS didn't shy away from reporting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush presidency or the 2008 election. How can PBS be both liberally biased yet survive on government funding during the Bush administration? Apparently, they are the one organization in this country who can have it both ways (or we are all infusing our own biases into this conversation).
 
formeraa said:
There are MANY things that the government does very well: military, police and fire protection, weather forecasting, space exploration, Medicare according to many seniors who would otherwise be uninsured, national parks, etc.

Apparently, Freddy, you've been watching too much FOX infotainment and not enough real news. Real news challenges your intellect; infotainment just yells and screams about unimportant nonsense.
Click to expand...

Hate to break the news to you formeraa, but each of the categories you've listed has undergone significant cuts in recent years. Also, toss out the police and fire departments - those are funded by local and not the federal government (at least not directly). Even if they all do a fine job, they certainly have to follow orders. If individual officers are openly critical of their bosses, they often go away quietly. Poor analogy.

As for space exploration, our dear leader just whacked the manned space program in favor of chasing lillies in the field and calling it GHG research. Apparently, unlike you, he believes that manned space exploration can be better accomplished by the private sector: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOW3kyIifI

Note that I actually linked to a Keith Olbermann byte; that's the friendliest spin that can be put on that plan. Medicare? Also on the chopping block in favor of universal health care that will not favor seniors in any way.

Poor, poor analogies.

As for your dismissive comment to Freddy, perhaps YOU need to watch a little more of FOX to get a more well-rounded world view rather than the idealistic notions that prevailed in your post. It couldn't hurt.

Can PBS' "news" be trusted? Probably not quite as much as that from an organization that doesn't depend on the government for funding. Even if the gov't has NO say (which seemed to be true during 8 of the last 9 years), PBS features journalists with a decidedly left of center slant. It certainly impacts the way in which they frame their coverage.
 
Now if you want news with no Tiger, no Brittney and no fluff, the News Hour is the place to be. Interesting that the hordes who claim to want no fluff aren't watching.
 
MarkLaRoi said:
FreddyE1977 said:
regardless of your political ideology, you should NEVER trust a news source that relies on government
funding for it's' financial survival
Click to expand...

Well said!
Click to expand...

If that's really true, how come it doesn't apply to corporate news sources? It would be one thing if there were genuine competition, but our media are increasingly in the hands of a corporate oligopoly. Recent years' history of corporate integrity or otherwise suggests that we should be even more wary. And we can change governments much more easily than we can change corporations - or we could before the Supreme Court opened the door to unlimited corporate election spending.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom