|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
It's funny how liberals are always talking about how FOX lies, but they don't think MSNBC does. I try to watch a little of all the news in order to get a somewhat balanced picture. The other night, Debbie Wasserman Schultz said on MSNBC that PACs, special interest groups, and big business are not helping Obama. How much Koolaid has she imbibed?? Guess she doesn't know about Priorities USA Action and Priorities USA?? And the big business that backed Obama in 2008? Yeah, right. And no one on MSNBC even attempted to correct her, either. Like it or not, MSNBC is an Obama cheerleader, just as much as FOX is an RNC cheerleader. I think CNN is the fairest and least biased.
I try to stay neutral and may register as an Independent. All the news programs are biased in my opinion. They cater to the sponsors and those who "support" their views.
No different than the politicians who are supported by lobbyists,yet another promise broken.
CNN can be biased sometimes.
The "Hell of ALL" is that if I want to know what is going on in this world of ours, I have to actually flip through; MSNBC, FOX, CNN and several web sites.
Then, I have to sit back and filter all of the OPINIONS, LIES and actual BS, for something resembling the truth.
I also watch BBC News, but even they will tilt things, at times.
And of course the more subtle censorship by suppressing certain news items and just giving you what they want you to know. And then there is the deliberate disinformation - both practices have increased manyfold in the last year and especially the last few months.
Don, I have to do exactly the same thing! What happened to our so-called journalists?
Their paycheck now depends on saying what the station wants, and their paycheck depends on what the network wants to hear.
This is also very true of Fox news the major investor in which is a Saudi prince. Do not expect an expose on the treatment of women and children by Muslim culture on any news network - even that crazy right wing fanatical hate ridden darn near skin head fundamentalist endtimesareacomin homophobic sexist agist racist thisist thatist Fox news.
Wow, I couldn't even repeat all of that in head without pausing for breath.
I bet it did.
That was truly inspired, UCV!
I actually thought you were rappin, UCV. I think you may have missed your vocation.
The true honest journalists have been fired or quit while they still had their integrity.
Hm...... I thought msnbc was conservative proud like fox. Go figure. You mean to tell me, I have been watching the wrong news channel this whole time? Oh wait a minute, thats right, I remember now, I dont watch news channels like msnbc. It didnt take me long to figure out for myself that entertainment driven news channels had gotten so unreliable... Seriously though are you sure msnbc is a left wing affiliate channel?
The other day my teenager had a project due in debate class that was about entertaining journalism and its impact on American policies... So he was up early watching parts and
pieces, and on CNN the newscaster starlet was prank calling businesses, as a way of polling peoples opinions. Go figure... At least its was entertaining, because he thought that was too funny.
There is and can never be objectivity. It is evidence supported opinion that is presented as news, history, etc.... As human beings we take with us into every social situation, yes presenting or commenting on the news is a social situation, ourselves - we are inextricable from the stories we tell. Our personal weltanschauung is ever present and colors every social situation - it cannot be eliminated. When confronted with quantifiable facts two alternatives exist - either reorder one's thinking or reject the facts.
We seek, always, to keep our world view(weltanschauung) intact, often at the cost of logic, reason, fact, evidence. We reject that which clashes with our world view, because it clashes with our definition of self, as biased, false, etc.... We create a universe that will protect our notions of self. That is why after three full years in office it is still Bush's fault not Obama's and why after just 8 months in office it was Bush's fault not Clinton's.
I cannot tell you the last time I watched Fox for any reason except that Greg Gutfeld makes me laugh - he is the only one I watch and the only reason I watch Fox. I do not watch any other television news. In fact, most "news" to me is trivia or fluff not fact, evidence or even informed opinion. Print is nearly dead - thank God - and liberal journalists, editors and publishers killed it. Internet news is so ideologically driven that those precious things, fact, evidence and informed opinion, are difficult to find.
Make mine raw data please, at least there I won't have to listen to that Limey gasbag Pierce my Morgan.
Great post habee.
Journalism has gotten really worse these days. In fact they are influenced by special interest groups and corporations too.
The ones I most admire are those who are out in the field risking their lives to get at the truth. Or at least challenging the power-brokers and not accepting lies and propaganda.
They're not going to bow to pressure from editorial demands or advertisers sensibilities.
I get most of my news from the internet anyway from various sources. But as for Obama, he's definitely a Wall St man. Bought and paid.
What's that? The Mainstream Media is biased in every way shape and form?
No news there.
Maybe that's why countless independent media outlets are springing up from underneath the giant rotting corpse.
Tell me If any News channel on this planet has no agenda. lol
The key idea is to expose yourself to different perspectives. However, rather than overwhelming yourself with a large quantity of different sources, many of which are low-quality, highly biased, and/or just regurgitating the same stories, I find it more fruitful to focus on a few publications with a strong track record of editorial integrity and offering unique perspectives
All major news networks on both sides are biased-- they have to sell to their audience!
I agree. MSNBC is the left-leaning counterpoint to FOX's right-leaning.
Unfortunately, what Don Bobbitt says is exactly so. Truth-seeking takes a lot of work and research. There is no single always credible source.
It's like constantly playing Russian roulette with the truth. You never know who's going to have the biggest lie. You just know that he odds of any of the "usual suspects" being honest/truthful on any consistent basis is a longshot.
MSNBC is biased greatly toward the Democrats, but they are much more factual than Faux News.
So factual that their big name, Rachel Maddow, is in fact,unknown to the Jeopardy crowd. Too funny. I wonder how Limbaugh would have fared.
Everybody knows that blowhard. He got famous by comparing Chelsea Clinton to a dog...remember?
Problem with journalists today, on all the news shows, is the project their own opinions or that of their advertisers. They have become salesmen saying whatever is necessary to generate money from their advertisers? Actual news ended years ago. Now it's just a money trail for ratings. Follow the money.
I agree, Fox, MSNBC and to a much lesser extent, so is CNN. However, a distinction has to be drawn. Just because people are sitting behind nice desks with a lot of high tech gadgetry, so not mean it is a news show, no more than Comedy Central is a news show.
I read my local newspaper, which carries national news. I look at a number of sources on the internet, mentally filter out the junk and keep the rest.
Many if not most of you are too young to remember the Huntly-Brnkley Report on NBC. Two news men, one in Washington D.C. and the other in New York would give a 15 minute capsule of the day's events plus whether or not the Dow was up or down.
A decision was made when I think I was about 7 that the evening network news shows would be expanded to 30 minutes. The jokes on the variety shows were about how are they were going to fill the time.
So now we have 24 hour instant news, which is nice when there is some real news to report. Otherwise, you get a lot of yelling and repeating. Fox, as the ultra-conservative subscribes to the theory that if you yell it loud enough and repeat it enough people will believe it. MSNBC, as the more liberal news channel, just sneaks in more sarcasm into the "news." I have notice that doctors’ offices with wide screen televisions in their waiting rooms always have it tuned to Fox. My bank shows the UPI report--I have no idea where that is coming from--I thought UPI died a long time ago.
Television news has always had a problem with objectivity because unlike the printed words in a newspaper you are also processing facial expressions, voice qualities and other intangible features.
For breaking news, you cannot beat television. However, all news is not breaking--some of it is just happening and I can wait until tomorrow to read about it.
Yes, I know newspapers can be bias. However, there is a clear division between the opinion content and the actual news content.
As a former reporter, one of the hardest things to do is to keep your personal bias out of your news stories. Most of the time I was successful and a few times, unfortunately I was not. When the paper came out and I saw that I may have worded something that was factually correct but left the wrong impression, I either did a follow up the next day, or offered an explanation and apology in the opinion column I wrote twice a week.
Finally, the main reason we have such bias in our news coverage is because the people enjoy it--they like to have their views vindicated by one station and like to voice their criticism of the other network.
I may do a hub on this in the near future, because this is an issue that is close to me, even though I was never on big time television.
I second that.
I wished I could had been in that lineup. You could learn more about world events in 15 and later 30 minutes, and by reading your local newspaper, than you can today in watching 24 hours of non-stop news, repeated news, repeat of the repeated news, the frequent comments and the countless talking heads. In the past, reporters would question these people off air, present the story and maybe air a quote from each. Now, you have to listen to 15 to 30 minutes of a person saying what is favorite candidate was really saying, when in fact he said something else.
Again, thanks for including me in that lineup.
Sure thing, Larry.
And here's a tip of the hat to Tim Russert, RIP.
When it comes to news availability, more is not necessarily better.
Mass proliferation of news/entertainment programs and the blogosphere have eroded the very principle of objective journalism.
Thanks for the compliment. TV news was never in the cards for me--not a great voice and too little hair. I do have to admit that was a younger person, when the national political conventions actually meant something, I always wanted to cover one--never got the chance. Now, everything is decided in the primaries and caucuses. The incumbent never has any real opposition from his party, so the conventions have just become very long and boring political commercials.
The older newsmen like Huntly, Brnkley, John Chancellor, and that group could cover a story in person, without becoming a story. They could keep their celebrity status in check and do a good job. Chet Huntley, actually had a brief acting career. He was in the Dizzy Dean movie, where the big league pitcher played himself.
David Brinkly has been my all time favorite. He had a speech impediment as a child, and someone taught him how to effectively speak in those short and concise phrases that made him famous. There have been other good TV reporters over the years, but the ranks are getting thinner all the time.
Again, thanks for the compliment, it made my day.
Just what is a liberal? I come to my own conclusions by watching all the news stations and not swayed by any one. As explained by msnbc on tonights news, MSNBC's counter attack on the GOP definition of liberal.
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ … -liberals.
One defintion of liberal is one who takes other people's money and spend it on what they think is best, but then scream holy murder when someone wants to take theirs.
Then I would have to assume the opposite of a liberal is a person who cares only about himself? One who hoards his wealth, while others die? Interesting, are these non liberals as you describe non Christains as well? Or do they just not care about their fellow man in general?
No, the opposite would be someone who gives their own money to help others. You know conservatives donate more to charity, right? I think most moderates see the benefits in both types of charitable giving.
They give to charity because they can deduct it from their taxes....but changing the tax system to make it more fair? Oh no.....they will fight to the death on that.
For the most part.
So when liberals passed civil rights bills, social security, medicare, medicaid, and disability they intended to give then take it all back. I believe the Republicans are the ones wanting to take those back.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see conservative Ds and Rs trying to manage those funds better so that they'll be there for the next generation. You do realize that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was pushed by Republicans and filibustered by Democrats, right? 82% of R senators voted for the bill, as opposed to 69% of Ds. In the House, 80% of Rs voted for the bill, and 63% of Ds voted for its passage.
If it hadn't been for the efforts by John Byrnes, a Republican, we might not even have Social Security, SSDI, Medicare, or Medicaid.
I agree that without John Byrnes help, the democrats over whelming vote would not have passed. With his bipartisan input along with 12 fellow Republicans, they were able to push it through even though the vast majority of Republicans were against it. This shows what can be accomplished if both parties work together for a common end. Unfortunately that is not happening today.
I agree, and I only see it getting worse. I just read an article that said Rs are getting more conservative and Ds are getting more liberal. The number of moderates is rapidly dwindling. Gee, I could have told them that without their having to do all their research!
Did you enjoy your dinner out with the fam?
Had a good time but as usual, ate wayyyyy too much. I get a kick out of the little one, he always ends dinner with not one, but two, heaping bowls of ice cream! lol
Not sure Dems are getting more liberal. Some are but not Obama and the ones making party policy. Obama is about where Clinton was on most issues--slightly left of center. The Tea Party clearly has pulled the GOP to the right.
The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. As it turned out, only one Republican senator would participate in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights in Congress than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
Really? Bill Gates, Chelsea Handler, Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Chris Rock and Barack Obama, to name a few, say they should pay more!
Aren't they liberals?
Meanwhile, it's the conservatives who don't like paying taxes...
Like Romney, who thinks he should pay less, and Paul, who thinks he should pay none.
On what do you base your opinion?
I think liberals who say, "I should pay more," should shut their hypocritical cowardly mouths and just pay more. No one is stopping them - at all - what so ever!!!!! No one is commanded to pay less, at all - what so ever - ever.
Liars don't mean they should pay more. What they mean is they want everyone to do what they think they should do. Pay more. If they actually had the courage of their lying, cowardly, hypocritical, foolish liberal convictions(that is to strong a word) - impulses, feelings is better- they would just pay more. But they don't they lie and lie and lie.
Warren Buffett's secretary is a legend now but makes around $200k owns more than one house and pays income taxes at the same rate that lying hypocrite Warren Buffett would pay if he took his money as regular income instead of the lower taxed capital gains. That lying liberal gasbag could pay his secretary enough to off set the expense of her taxes. He could just write a check for the difference between income tax rate and capital gains tax rate and mail it to the IRS.
I'm pretty sure I read that Buffett's secretary makes $50k.
I read a range from $50 - 200k but lets see how many secretaries to billionaires can buy a second home on $50k a year. If that billionaire liberal tool is paying his most valuable propaganda masterpiece only $50k he is not only a useful idiot for liberals he is a selfish, greedy jerk.
One problem with being older is that you can remember when things were different than they are now.
Now, we could all write a book on this point, I am sure.
But, let me mention one little fact about the news media, specifically the video media that we have today.
OK, here goes.
If you can think back, just a few decades ago, the news media would faithfully present the NEWS to the American public. Unwashed and fresh!
Then, around 20+ years ago the media started presenting their own COMMENTARY on the news. And, they labeled it as such .... Commentary.
Sad to say, Today, the media presents us with COMMENTARY, from the guy on the battlefield, to the one observing the junta in Africa, to the hoard that are now covering politics and finances. Everything is Commentary, actually, and all of these opinions are wrapped around very meager and edited FACTS!
And the AVERAGE AMERICAN? No one told him that this happened!
He actually believes all of the Crap put out by the latest network EXPERTS and their OPINIONS!
Don, I get tickled sometimes when the news folks have to explain to us what we just heard, like after debates and after big speeches. I guess they think we're too dumb to decipher it. Of course, they have to "spin" it for us. lol
This is a fantasy. Walter Cronkite admitted that he opposed the Vietnam War and sought its end. The Tet offensive was a dramatic military failure for the NVA and Vietcong but the news media turned it into the reason to get out of Vietnam. If the news media had been so objective in handling their facts people would know that as soon as Congress cut off funding to the South Vietnamese military the end was guaranteed. What was that end, the slaughter of over 2 million people by the communists.
But because news has always been biased, few people will ever understand that.
It is as it has always been, the difference today is the availability of alternative sources. NBC/ABC/CBS was television news and the New York Times/AP/UPI were print news. Not so today.
I think the bipartisanship has decreased a lot in the past 6 years. People just want jobs and a good life. They understand right-wingers support business and spend abroad on wars/conflicts. They understand the left-wingers just spend nationally and sometimes abroad. Any intelligent person knows that the media is biased. I agree with you on CNN. I like the CNN UK shows when not in the US. BTW, I am drinking Tang.
The only plain, unvarnished, truthful news, in print or TV, is that you make yourselves. Trust me. And even that can be slanted.
Hmmm, conservative charity. I just came from a meeting where the executive director of a local nonprofit charitable organization whose mission is "to provide services to low income clients" said that $10/hr is an "outrageous" salary for a skilled administrative assistant. He went on to say that he employees "two ladies" in his office who are "happy to work for $8.50 an hour, and one of them has been there 10 years."
Now, I looked it up. This guy makes over $90,000 per year. I'm not sure what is officially considered to be "low income" but I'm guessing his $8.50/hr skilled office workers probably fit the criteria. Wouldn't low income workers be better served by paying them for their skills and experience? Wouldn't you think a charitable organization would better serve their community by paying their Executive Director a little less and their staff a little more?
Sorry, I've lived in predominantly liberal areas and am now in a predominantly conservative area. I don't care how much these people give to charity. Their attitudes about the value of work is destroying their own communities. If people make barely enough money to pay for housing, food, and transportation, then they have almost nothing to contribute to help the local economy thrive.
I'm truly disgusted by the attitudes I see here. "Christians" who charge their neighbors 397% interest on loans just because they can (no regulations here). Business owners who complain about the quality of workers yet ask for years of experience while offering $8-9/hour pay. Then they wonder why they get no loyalty or commitment from their employees.
And I'm sick of hearing about "charity." Charity includes treating your fellow human beings with respect and valuing their contributions, which in my opinion, means paying your workers a fair wage. I don't see that here among most conservatives. To many conservatives around here, it's always that other guy who doesn't deserve a living wage, the other guy who's bleeding the economy dry, the other guy who's leeching off of the government. Of course, earning $90,000 salary from a nonprofit that gets much of its money from government grants is completely deserved.
I know this is off-topic, but I had to get this rant out of my system.
If it is receiving government grants is it a charity? Perhaps the whole system of government grants should end. I worked for a not-for-profit and the pay was better than that available for similar work in the for profit sector. The highest paid on average right now are federal employees - their pay comes from those making far less and the option not to patronize or contribute to doesn't exist.
Government pay is way up while those who work in the productive economy - government produces nothing - are forced to provide that great pay and stable employment while watching their pay cut and their fellows laid off. Perhaps it is time to get rid of government employees - starting at the top.
See, this is part of the problem. You make no comment about the attitude toward workers and ridiculously low pay, but instead decide this is a problem caused by the government, and of course, recommend doing away with government workers. No, it is a problem caused by stingy, selfish people who think it's always the other guy who is the problem and as long as they have theirs, then who cares about anyone else. These same people turn around and donate a few hundred dollars here and there to charity and attend church several times a week and feel oh-so-holy, yet they will deny their own employees a lousy few dollars for a job well done.
I have absolutely no respect for their short-sighted attitudes and lack of vision for the future of their own communities.
+++ Even the Democrats have apparently decided that mentioning the poor doesn't get votes so they continually talk about doing something for the middle class. The poor and the unemployed are the forgotten Americans. Why? They don't give big bucks to the Dems or Republicans.
I cannot keep up with all the political updates so maybe people are still trying to decipher the hidden codes within the news. I find the censorship on the news broadcasts increasing; and as you said,the recap often slants the message for those of us mindlessly listen and make decisions. I would like to see a debate where the politicians actually state their policy and how they are going to make a difference.
National news, NY Times, Washington Post etc., as Judge Judy says: "If their mouths are moving they are lying".
Drop them an email, Habee, and ask them if they can spell "George Soros"...he has more PAC type operations hanging around that most. He also has his hand right up the back of Obama's suit working the lips. WB
Hand up the back of Obama's suit - you are a nice man Wayne Brown.
He'd better! He has to counter the Koch Bros and Adelson, who have teamed up to beat Obama, in "the fight of their life".....
If I ever doubted if I was on the right side...I don't doubt it now.
Big oil money and Big polluters.....take a hike!
You must admit Fox news is anything but fair and balanced. Even Canada has banned Fox under it's Canada Radio Act. Canada doesn't allow any false or misleading news. Canadians have it right, they want honest non-partisan news. Maybe its time to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine", that President Reagan abolished in 1987. And I would agree MSNBC is more democratic then republican. And CNN is somewhat fair but biased. But to be fair, all are biased and reporting their opinions in hopes of having you vote for their candidate.
by Scott S Bateman23 months ago
I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand Fox News. It has a successful business strategy of appealing to people's conservative biases, which is why a majority of viewers are conservative Republicans.Fox is...
by gulnazahmad7 years ago
Which news channel is least biased?
by TheWatchman7 years ago
I gotta get this off my chest....Networks like FOX and even CNN absolutely reek of heavy bias in their reporting...i cant believe most people watch and accept what these networks say as fact..but i know there are some...
by Josak5 years ago
In counter to any logic or evidence.Obama is a MuslimObama was born in KenyaThe Media is controlled by liberalsSnopes and factcheck are liberal agencies Obama is going to take away our guns with the international arms...
by A B Williams12 months ago
Tuned into the News this morning, first Story;a man, Oscar Lopez Rivera, involved in over 100 bombings across America, was being Honored in a Parade...on American soil.2nd Story; A Play, Shakespeare...
by arizonataylor12 months ago
Why do so many people hate Fox News?There are many biased channels that do not receive the negative statements Fox News receives. Whether you believe Fox News is biased or not, why does it receive so much negative...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.