Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

To Baldy's point regarding journalists should not confront, here's a good primer on journalism. Let's start with:

[/quote]Being impartial or neutral is not a core principal of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective. But journalistic methods are objective.[quote]

And go from there.

https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/ ... -observer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is the state of journalism these days?

Who are America's best journalists?

FAGGOTT!!!

kalm wrote:To Baldy's point regarding journalists should not confront, here's a good primer on journalism. Let's start with:

Being impartial or neutral is not a core principal of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective. But journalistic methods are objective.

And go from there.

https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/ ... -observer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is the state of journalism these days?

Who are America's best journalists?

I believe journalist used to be try to do this, I think they have pretty much given up on it. They certainly can present the facts and leave the interpretation up to the audience but they choose not too. I don't like many journalists, I prefer the hots ones with big boobs. Makes it easier to swallow all the drivel they spew out.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

kalm wrote:To Baldy's point regarding journalists should not confront, here's a good primer on journalism. Let's start with:

Being impartial or neutral is not a core principal of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective. But journalistic methods are objective.

And go from there.

https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/ ... -observer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is the state of journalism these days?

Who are America's best journalists?

I believe journalist used to be try to do this, I think they have pretty much given up on it. They certainly can present the facts and leave the interpretation up to the audience but they choose not too. I don't like many journalists, I prefer the hots ones with big boobs. Makes it easier to swallow all the drivel they spew out.

andy7171 wrote:

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:Being impartial or neutral is not a core principal of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective. But journalistic methods are objective.

I believe journalist used to be try to do this, I think they have pretty much given up on it. They certainly can present the facts and leave the interpretation up to the audience but they choose not too. I don't like many journalists, I prefer the hots ones with big boobs. Makes it easier to swallow all the drivel they spew out.

Latent FAGGOT!

As long as a media source has a board of directors and an editor or producer who wants to keep his job there will be bias - it's inherently human. Because of that, I have to bounce around to try to hear a story from a few angles and hope the individual biases cancel one another out.

Fox news - can't watch it or surf it much, too far right

CNN - same as Fox but the other direction. Plus Nancy Grace.

CNN headline news - made to keep your toddler or golden retreiver entertained while you're out of the room. Robin Meade is pretty hot, but too silly to keep me focused.

Today Show - generally what I keep on in the morning even though I'd like to put a fork in Matt Lauers' forehead

NBC Evening news - generally what I watch at night. I thought Brian Williams actually wasn't bad until I found out that his pants were on fire much of the time, but I like Lester Holt. Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd do make me want to punch a baby at times.

Morning Joe - not bad for my commute to work

As far as web, I hit ABC/NBC/CNN/Fox/Atlantic/Guardian/BBC and hope the truth lies somewhere in between.

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one"

I know what it is not: Fox News
People who watch Fox News are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

The central theme of that web of links appears to be that a journalist's chief function is to provide, and to verify, information so the public can form its own conclusions.

Since the demise of the newspaper, the fragmentation of TV into hundreds of cable channels, and the rise of the Internet as a source of information, we are far removed from the era when a few key journalists like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Lippmann could inform public opinion. We've been forced to rely more on bloggers, most of whom are deservedly obscure. The issue of "bias," in my view, is less serious now, because of the wide range of sources of information available. If you can't stand Greenwald, flip over to Breitbart.

No, I'll posit that the problem with journalism today is its failure to perform its essential function of providing high-quality, reliable information. And with the popular attention span as short as it is, good luck with that.

Ivytalk wrote:The central theme of that web of links appears to be that a journalist's chief function is to provide, and to verify, information so the public can form its own conclusions.

Since the demise of the newspaper, the fragmentation of TV into hundreds of cable channels, and the rise of the Internet as a source of information, we are far removed from the era when a few key journalists like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Lippmann could inform public opinion. We've been forced to rely more on bloggers, most of whom are deservedly obscure. The issue of "bias," in my view, is less serious now, because of the wide range of sources of information available. If you can't stand Greenwald, flip over to Breitbart.

No, I'll posit that the problem with journalism today is its failure to perform its essential function of providing high-quality, reliable information. And with the popular attention span as short as it is, good luck with that.

I'd add that the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and the need to provide filler stories muddy the water for the average news consumer immensely.

ASUG8 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:The central theme of that web of links appears to be that a journalist's chief function is to provide, and to verify, information so the public can form its own conclusions.

Since the demise of the newspaper, the fragmentation of TV into hundreds of cable channels, and the rise of the Internet as a source of information, we are far removed from the era when a few key journalists like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Lippmann could inform public opinion. We've been forced to rely more on bloggers, most of whom are deservedly obscure. The issue of "bias," in my view, is less serious now, because of the wide range of sources of information available. If you can't stand Greenwald, flip over to Breitbart.

No, I'll posit that the problem with journalism today is its failure to perform its essential function of providing high-quality, reliable information. And with the popular attention span as short as it is, good luck with that.

I'd add that the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and the need to provide filler stories muddy the water for the average news consumer immensely.

All good points.

I'll add that consolidation of the msm into just a handful of companies and "journalists" that run in the same social circles as politicians and CEO's to gain "access" has also muddied the waters.

Offending your interviewee or subject of an article is bad for business.

Aho Old Guy wrote:"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one"

I know what it is not: Fox News
People who watch Fox News are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

I don't watch Fox News
But I think your observation depends on what "informed" means exactly..?

Sure: As an example...
Christians score lower on tests about the Bible than Atheists do
But if you're saying Republicans (or Conservatives) are less informed than Liberals I don't think that's true
Both groups have their uninformed segment



I think Fox News is just trying to sell advertising (like everybody else)
and they've figured out exactly how to do that

Chizzang wrote:

Aho Old Guy wrote:"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one"

I know what it is not: Fox News
People who watch Fox News are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

I don't watch Fox News
But I think your observation depends on what "informed" means exactly..?

Sure: As an example...
Christians score lower on tests about the Bible than Atheists do
But if you're saying Republicans (or Conservatives) are less informed than Liberals I don't think that's true
Both groups have their uninformed segment



I think Fox News is just trying to sell advertising (like everybody else)
and they've figured out exactly how to do that

Fox viewers are no less informed than MSNBC viewers....they're just DIFFERENTLY informed.

Being impartial or neutral is not a core principal of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective.

You can't be objective if you have to make decisions?

JohnStOnge wrote:

Being impartial or neutral is not a core principal of journalism. Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective.

You can't be objective if you have to make decisions?

How existential of you John...

I don't think "bias" by itself is a problem in journalism- and it isn't a newsflash that journos are biased. They're human like the rest of us.

What bothers me is that many journalists (most, actually) are very susceptible to confirmation bias, to the point that they will literally vet no source or lead if it fits their preconceived assumptions.

This was never so well illustrated as in the recent Rolling Stone UVa rape story. The entire editorial board there committed gross malfeasance because the story was just too good to check.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I don't watch Fox News
But I think your observation depends on what "informed" means exactly..?

Sure: As an example...
Christians score lower on tests about the Bible than Atheists do
But if you're saying Republicans (or Conservatives) are less informed than Liberals I don't think that's true
Both groups have their uninformed segment



I think Fox News is just trying to sell advertising (like everybody else)
and they've figured out exactly how to do that

Fox viewers are no less informed than MSNBC viewers....they're just DIFFERENTLY informed.

Perhaps, but Fox viewers are less informed than people who don't watch news at all.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Fox viewers are no less informed than MSNBC viewers....they're just DIFFERENTLY informed.

Perhaps, but Fox viewers are less informed than people who don't watch news at all.

I don't believe that for one second, but let's take a look at a chart from that "study".



According to this study, EVERYBODY is uninformed. The "best" were Donks who watch MSNBC. They were able to answer on average 1.8 out of 4 questions correctly. With statistics that horrible across all ideological spectrums, you're more or less trying to argue who is the tallest midget in the room.

CID1990 wrote: This was never so well illustrated as in the recent Rolling Stone UVa rape story. The entire editorial board there committed gross malfeasance because the story was just too good to check.

I think it also has more to do with the perceived 'horror' of fact checking any allegation of rape - particularly when the alleged victim is a college student. All accusations must be assumed to be 100% true. Any questioning or doubt of the story is attributed to "rape culture" or "rape apology."

Yeah, Rolling Stone shit the bed on that one for sure - but, it goes well beyond a journalistic problem, imo.

Aho Old Guy wrote:"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one"

I know what it is not: Fox News
People who watch Fox News are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

You've proven yourself to be an idiot of massive proportions.

Congrats!

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Fox viewers are no less informed than MSNBC viewers....they're just DIFFERENTLY informed.

Perhaps, but Fox viewers are less informed than people who don't watch news at all.

Prove it.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Perhaps, but Fox viewers are less informed than people who don't watch news at all.

Prove it.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BOOM!

Grizalltheway wrote:BOOM!

However, the study concludes that media sources have a significant impact on the number of questions that people were able to answer correctly. The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.
“These differences may be small, but even small differences are important when we’re talking about millions of people,” said Cassino. “We expect that watching the news should help people learn, but the most popular of the national media sources – Fox, CNN, MSNBC – seem to be the least informative.”

A three year old survey of 1,185 people. I wonder how many of those respondents said they SOLELY watched FOX News? Here's a hint: VERY FEW.

Despite that most people get news from multiple sources, the aim of researchers was to isolate the effects of each type of news source. The effects were calculated using multinomial logistic regression, a technique that allows researchers to isolate the impact of one variable on an outcome. The results described control for the effects of partisanship, age, education and gender, all factors, which commonly predict vote choice.

WAFJ. And then we're going to broadly paint the entire population with that brush?

Oh, and this:

Similarly, while moderates and liberals who watch Fox News do worse at answering the questions than others, conservatives who watch Fox do no worse than people who watch no news at all.

Stupid liberals. Dragging down the numbers per usual.

Provide something better if you don't like it.

Until then, quit whining. You asked - I provided.


Edit. And, the fact that you don't like the sample size tells me you either don't understand sampling.

What were the questions?

I've done polling...questions can be easily skewed to produce desired results.

And smelly...sampling is often inaccurate.