DnD on CNN

[Green Knight]

I never thought anyone could question it.

But, I'm always on the look out for a better source of news. What do you rely on?

Fox News Channel, mainly, though I do read lots of news articles from other news outlets online. I can understand how some don't like it, though. For somebody as far out leftwing as some here, I can see how in comparison Fox News can appear to be a rightwing news organization. Being rightwing, myself, I can say no it's not. Not with Greta Van Susteren, Alan Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, Juan Williams, Mort Kondracke, Geraldo Rivera, etc on it. But it's certainly a LOT more balanced news than what the BBC and NPR offers. And graphics or no, I look for CONTENT. FNC could have zero graphics, which seem to be an indicator of good news reporting to you, and I'd still prefer it over the BBC or NPR. Graphics or the lack thereof doesn't mean that the reporting you offer is accurate or unbiased. Whether you dress it up or not, crap is still crap.

 

[Wicht]

A little checking reveals that the Washington Times is still owned by Rev. Moon. As for Bill Riley, there is no one who puts more spin on the news than he does.

O'Rielly's show is unabashedly an opinion show. It is not a News Reporting show. An awareness of this before watching the show makes a difference. Thus he argues with his guest, but in the end it is the viewer that has to make up their mind which is the view most inline with the facts.

And yes the Washington Times is owned by Moon. He does not however have any part in their presentation of the news nor does he control their editorial board. Wesley Pruden is the man in charge of that. The paper is obviously conservative in nature, which is part of why I read it, but the New York Times is obviously liberal in nature, which is why I sometimes read them to get the other angle. So what exactly is your point in making this observation?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Do you mean Bill O'Reilly? And, if so, for example?

FD

Yes, that's it. I edited the post to reflect that. Here's a website with several examples - I can't speak to their absolute veracity, but it gives a sense of how O'Reilly comes across to me - very conservative, very Rush Limbaugh-ish.

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyspin.htm

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

So what exactly is your point in making this observation?

My point is that they are all very much one end of the spectrum, each with potential sources of bias. I personally have never viewed the NY Times as liberal at all, although I do see (upon a quick web search) that they endorsed Gore, so perhaps I'm wrong on that. I guess my point is "balanced news diet=good," "Getting news from sources that all parrot a party line=bad."

Myself, I read the Chicago Tribune for news (a moderately onservative but serious news paper), check the Sun-Times for more local info, check in on MSNBC and the International Herald Tribune for online news (as well as CNN.com), and watch CNN, which I feel is pretty unbiased, and refreshingly non-USA-specific. Having lived in Europe for five years when I was younger, I like to see news that acknowledges that everyone doesn't agree with the USA. Even if, on some issues, perhaps they should. My goal in news is to eliminate bias, and I have very little time for opinion shows.

I have a problem with O'Reilly calling his show a "no spin zone" and then presenting the exact opposite. I'm not going to get any further into a political discussion here - there's no point. The guy just irks me on a pesonal level. Kind of like Mancow and Howard Stern.

 

[Sigma]

Fox News Channel, mainly, though I do read lots of news articles from other news outlets online. I can understand how some don't like it, though. For somebody as far out leftwing as some here, I can see how in comparison Fox News can appear to be a rightwing news organization. Being rightwing, myself, I can say no it's not. Not with Greta Van Susteren, Alan Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, Juan Williams, Mort Kondracke, Geraldo Rivera, etc on it. But it's certainly a LOT more balanced news than what the BBC and NPR offers. And graphics or no, I look for CONTENT. FNC could have zero graphics, which seem to be an indicator of good news reporting to you, and I'd still prefer it over the BBC or NPR. Graphics or the lack thereof doesn't mean that the reporting you offer is accurate or unbiased. Whether you dress it up or not, crap is still crap.

Actually, quite the opposite. I consider graphics and opinion polls to be absolute dribble. NPR is a radio program, so it's pretty hard to have graphics of any nature on it.

But hey, this is getting awfully close to a politics debate, so to each their own.

Edit: Took out the needlessly inflamatory statement. Sorry Fox News fans, meant to be playful and get responses like those from Wicht and KC, not be rude about your political beliefs.

 

[Wicht]

Yes, that's it. I edited the post to reflect that. Here's a website with several examples - I can't speak to their absolute veracity, but it gives a sense of how O'Reilly comes across to me - very conservative, very Rush Limbaugh-ish.

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyspin.htm

hehe - anybody who thinks O'Reilly and Limbaugh think alike don't understand us conservatives.

My point is that they are all very much one end of the spectrum, each with potential sources of bias. I personally have never viewed the NY Times as liberal at all, although I do see (upon a quick web search) that they endorsed Gore, so perhaps I'm wrong on that. I guess my point is "balanced news diet=good," "Getting news from sources that all parrot a party line=bad."

The Washington Times is conservative. They do not however tout the party line. Their coverage of Bush in the editorial page is not always friendly.

The Fox-News Channel is not Conservative, though they have conservatives on it and present the conservative view. They also, as us conservatives are well aware, because we see them, present the liberal view, trying to generally give equal air time to both. I will agree that Fox-News is more America-centric then CNN but I actually like that shrug.

Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative and if there is a party line he will support it 9 times out of 10. What those who are not conservatives I think fail to understand is that this is not because he is in lock step with the party but because the party line agrees with what some of us already believe.

In the end though, I read the new for facts and read the opinion pieces for opinion. The front page of the Washington Times does not present opinion it presents facts, same as New York Times and Fox. Usually the stories from one to the other even read the same. As long as I understand upfront whether I am reading an opinion piece or a news piece it does not matter to me what the actual source of the story is.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Yes, that's it. I edited the post to reflect that. Here's a website with several examples - I can't speak to their absolute veracity, but it gives a sense of how O'Reilly comes across to me - very conservative, very Rush Limbaugh-ish.

Lord knows, being conservative means you are a "spinner". Thank god the liberals are there to show us the virtues of honesty.

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyspin.htm

First, do I believe some of this is true, sure- people make mistakes. However, a lot of the stuff on this site is rather silly.

for example: Paragraph 2-4, none of these statistics disagree with each other.

Para #2: 58 percent of single-mom homes are on welfare

This takes a count of single-mother families and does a check on how many are on welfare.

Para #3: 52 percent of families receiving public assistance are headed by a single mother

This does a check on the number of families on public assistance and computes the percent that are single-mothers.

Para #2 does not have to equal #3 for it to make sense.

Para #4: About 14 percent of single mothers receive federal welfare benefits

This is talking about federal aid. Most aid comes through states- the stat does not necessarily disagree with the first two.

Second, the one on the percentage of foreign aid from the GDP has to be off. I don't have time at work to do the research- but the US funds a large amount of WHO, UN activities, and the IMF. Heck, the money we give to Isreal alone would stagger the numbers.

Third, NPR- I listen to them a bit, and they are rather left leaning. I am not surprised the guy on the site can't see it:

"Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who as a global warming skeptic represents a tiny fraction of the scientific debate, was on NPR three times last year"

A tiny fraction of the debate? Wow. I am by no means a science expert, but I read a lot of magazines and journals- it is hardly a tiny fraction- and would there be a debate if the other side was so tiny? Where are the number for the times Global Warming experts were on?

For the record, that ulta-conservative O'Reilly believes in Global Warming.

the network quoted Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee 11

Cool, Rush quotes liberals every day. He must be fair and balanced as well.

Finally, look at the source at the bottom of the page: fair.org

Ahh, well, that ranks up there with Cornell as a reliable source for the "truth". (Yes, I am not believing work by an Ivy League Institution- I work at one.)

Ugh, well, *shrug* believe what you want, but I would rather have a better example- as one of those evil conservatives.. I know O'Reilly irritates me at times with some of his stances.

FD

 

[Sigma]

This is what I get for being bored and trying to kill time before a vacation day (sorry moderators!).

Maybe we should take this to nutkinland if we want to continue this debate *cough* flamewar *cough*.

 

[KnowTheToe]

On a lighter note, I am Aaron Brown and I was offended you thought I did not know what I was talking about. I poured my heart and soul into that story and tried to show the dark grim world I surround myself with the shining light of gaming, but even when I try that I am cut down by my bothers at EN World.


Is this the vision Morrus and Eric Noah had for this site?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Third, NPR- I listen to them a bit, and they are rather left leaning. I am not surprised the guy on the site can't see it:

"Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who as a global warming skeptic represents a tiny fraction of the scientific debate, was on NPR three times last year"

A tiny fraction of the debate? Wow. I am by no means a science expert, but I read a lot of magazines and journals- it is hardly a tiny fraction- and would there be a debate if the other side was so tiny? Where are the number for the times Global Warming experts were on?

For the record, that ulta-conservative O'Reilly believes in Global Warming.

I'm gonna let most of this go by - I don't claim to know whether the anti-O'Reilly site has their facts 100% straight. Neither do I claim that NPR is unbiased. They're pretty amusing at times in their liberal-ness. What they do do is give long looks at issues to a greater extent than most news outlets, which is nice, so longas you are aware of the bias.

As for Global Warming and Bill O'Reilly's belief in it, good for him. President Bush buys it too, apparently. The new US position on global warming isn't that it won't happen, but that we'll have to live with it. Even that it coud be a good thing - opening new areas to crop cultivation, etc.

Which may well be the case; It's actually an argument that I can buy, as opposed to saying that it doesn't exist, like they have for the past two decades.

Kind of like the vegetarian debate - You can't convince me to go veggy because its cruel to animals. The argument for it being unhealthy, however, has more weight to it. Not that that's gonna stop me from having some bratwurst tomorrow...

In any case... politics on ENBoards=bad! I know that! I'll try ot stay to less volatile subjects, like do you get an extra 5' step with a Haste spell...