I read about 2-3 hours a day on various news sites. I have found that a little left and right mixed together will give me a pretty good flavor of the real story.

The BBC is good, along with Drudge and plain old Yahoo news. There are also some loud mouth Israeli sites that tell it like it is.

Credible ?? Wanna buy a horse ?

In Britain the BBC is known to have a definite left-wing bias, which is unforgivable. It's also known for corruption within, massive salaries and travel expenses for the boys and girls in charge, whilst all the time charging a very heavy fee (~ $233/year) per household, to watch any TV, BBC or not. True socialists. It is not the benign, neutral organization that you may think it is. How this affects overseas reporting, I couldn't say, but beware of their "honest Joe" appearance - it can be deceptive.

That is correct, and that is why I mix them in.

BBC = left, Drudge = right, Yahoo = some of both.

The unbiased truth lies scattered around the media landscape like aircraft wreckage.

You need to scour multiple sources of data, then try to analyze the data (like a CIA analyst) and put together a story, which can only be a probability, at best.

Many times it is necessary to use a biased source, determine where the bias lies, and work around it.

However, there was once a time in history where the news was actually very unbiased and the media took their job very seriously. I postulate that since history repeats itself that running old reruns of the news might actually be your only and best chance at getting the real truth.

It sure would be nice to be fed the facts alone and be allowed to make up my own mind.

I've been accused of being a Fox person, but quite frankly, I can't stand it. Sure there are some facts, but the endless spin and opinion pieces make me dizzy.

The mainstream nightly news is a complete joke. Half the time I feel like I'm watching Discovery Health. They'll dedicate half the program to obesity and the risk of heart disease.......................or some heartwarming story about a dog that found it's way home. What's up with that?

I agree.

I would like to add one thing. And it's those breaking news reports. Never react to them. More times then not.... (99.9%) the news that is being reported as breaking news, is unsubstantiated, and its usually inaccurate.

However, there was once a time in history where the news was actually very unbiased and the media took their job very seriously.

That was when news is news, where now news is entertainment. I was always a news junkie. Back in the 70's I stopped watching local news, because that was just one news station trying to scoop the other. Nothing wrong with that except the only news in the area was local gossip.

I saw this creep into the national news front. but what really blew credibility out of the water, was the reporting on the first gulf war, with the smart bomb video footage and the ratings that it accrued.

Used to be 'bad news is good news'. It should be, 'substantiated bad news is good news'.

"Where does the unbiased truth live?"

It is dead.

It has been murdered by avarice and the never ending quest to have the highest ratings to sell more adverts.

Chet and David, Walter, Morley, Dan and the real newsmen of the past have been replaced by Top 10: Hot Newscasters - AskMen

I go to BBC for news. They have nothing to loose by telling the truth about us.

The BBC is far, far from unbiased. More like a long distance call.

Depends on one's point of view, doesn't it.

I prefer NPR anyway.

Let's face it. We all gravitate to the "news" that reflects our views, however biased we are.

I agree. However, if you are after unbiased truth you can't point to a single biased source and claim eureka. Nor can you expect multiple sources biased in the same direction to provide a balanced view, which was the original question.

The biggest problem I find is that the "News" is no longer the "News" anywhere you look, but nothing more than "Opinion Pieces" with a few select "Facts" thrown in for "Credibility".

There's the rub.

This isn't our fathers world any more. The days of a reporter gathering information from varied, reliable sources on both sides of an issue are mostly gone. There's no money to be made reporting just the facts.

Until a year ago, I subscribed to two newspapers (local). I quit them because I could read to same stuff on the web.

I've given up on the hope that one person can make a difference and just hope the flock doesn't run off a cliff.

Well, the reason I started the thread wasn't to get a political argument brewing.

Phoenix911 and I, got into a side conversation on another thread about bias in the news, and started hearkening back to the good old days of Cronkite and the others.

Phoenix mentioned WWII, and it dawned on me that the coverage of WWII was extremely biased. The old newsreels were intentionally designed to keep the American people excited about the war effort. If I recall, from the ones I've seen, I don't think I ever saw any dead American bodies, or ever heard of the US and our allies getting the crap beat out of us in a battle.................and yet it happened. I've heard WWII stories from some of the guys that were over there, (I could listen to them for hours), and the reality was nothing like what was being fed to the US public.

Anyway, I think the realization of how much power they wielded, came to the US media during the Vietnam war. They embedded reporters with the troops, and the stark ugly reality was spashed across our screens every night. I think those images on the news had a whole lot to do with souring the public attitude and helped to get us out of there.................and I'm glad for it. In the case of the Vietnam war coverage, I still believe the media was biased.............they were biased against the war, and the cold, hard truth happened to fit the agenda.

I also started the thread just out of interest, to see what others here watch or listen to. And, I would genuinely like to find a place, I'm guessing on the web, that is truly without bias. Just be able to log on and find out what was happening in the US and around the world in the previous 24 hours. I guess my primary interests would be political and economic news. Not political commentary, just what happened that day.

Good Morning, Vietnam kind of shows comically where it veered off. From a propaganda numbers game.

I should add, that I also use some paid intelligence subscriptions (for my job) as a vehicle to understand world events.

These can be a bit costly, but you get real information that never makes it to the news.

The reason is that news organizations focus on events that are likely to generate the largest revenues in ads, or that may be agenda driven for that organization. Many of the analysis found in these paid subscription typically represent longer term events or potential geopolitical events that could span years or decades. Most people just want to know what happened today and who had wardrobe malfunctions.

AH. Would it be possible for the folks at CR4 to subscribe to these intelligence subscriptions and run them as a feature here?

I'm not kidding. Having the ability to see unfiltered, unbiased world news right here, would be awesome.

The problem with paid subscriptions is that reproducing it and posting it at CR4 would likely spell trouble for the person posting it and even more trouble for the site hosting it.

It is unlikely that a paid subscription source would authorize reproduction of their work. That would defeat the purpose of it being a paid subscription.

Yeah, as cool as that would be, I knew it wouldn't happen, as I was writing.

On the other hand, and I'm sure I'm still dreaming, if CR4, (or somebody), had these subscriptions, without doing a copy and paste job, they could simply report the events themselves, without going into lots of detail. CR4 could just expand on the daily news section to include interesting and unreported things that are outside the engineering realm. The people in admin that are charged with filling up space on the front page every day would probably be happy to be able to expand the subject matter.

Remember what happened to Julian Assange? Or what is happening to him as we speak? News is what you pay for, if you can't you might end up in the wrong circles. Left or right? We are living (surviving) in the twenty first century, we aint seen nothing yet Mate. What is dished out is what we deserve. I spider in its web can teach me more than ...............

Forget about it Mark, some are just more samer than others.

Cool

Ky.

Good point!

He's one of my heroes. I read a pretty lengthy interview with him a few weeks ago..............................man, he's in deep doo doo.

I wonder why everybody's so upset with him? The governments of the world are only interested in the betterment of humanity right? Yeah, sure.

I'm able to bounce around and get, what I think, is a pretty good idea of what's going on. It takes a little effort, but it's possible to get around the agenda driven bias.

It's the stuff we don't hear about at all, that worries me.

To watch the network news in the US, you'd think that the US economy is humming along nicely, and the whole world is in a state of relative peace....................nothing to worry about at all.

The fact of the matter is, that whether we lean to the left or right, there are a lot of extremely important things going on that simply aren't reported at all............or if they are, it requires a lot of digging.

At the risk of sounding like I have an agenda, I get a lot of my information from what are considered right wing hate sites. I think that Glenn Beck is completely insane, but the blaze tends to report the facts. Beck turning the political atmosphere into a holy war is just crazy, but if I ignore the spin, I haven't found any outright lies.

There are others. Drudge, breitbart.

From the left, I'll check the huffington post.

I really don't care if a particular source has an agenda, as long as what they are reporting as facts, are indeed facts. I can skip over the agenda.

It's actually a good thing that there is a right and left. They work hard to dig up dirt on each other, and somewhere in the mess, we can get an idea of what's really going on.

We're total toast if we ever wake up to discover that everyone in Washington is getting along and on the same team.

For them to have done what they did should be illegal. In fact, once the smoke clears, I wouldn't be surprised if Zimmerman didn't have a strong case for defamation of character. Remember Richard Jewell? The poor guy's dead, and I still feel bad for him. He never did anything wrong and the media essentially executed him on the news.

It's quite apparent that we can't escape bias unless we completely tune out. In cases like Jewell and Zimmerman, I personally believe that their behavior is criminal, (the media). Rodney King is another. We've got a media that is happy to foment racial hatred, I'm assuming, because once the riots start, they will have breaking news.

Thanks in part to our media, people are being beaten around the country for walking down the street. Retribution for Trayvon.

I can't figure out exactly what the agenda is, but they are playing, (what I think), is a very dangerous game. The majority of the populace has been conditioned to believe everything that comes out of the TV. It's a much more powerful medium than most people realize..................and it's being abused.

Which version of the above mentioned scenario sold more adds?

I think that most of us (in the USA, at least) have selected our news sources because they tell us what we want to hear. Their views align with ours. They dish the dirt on people we already hate, so we go there.

I think Rush is a flaming idiot, but he makes a whale of a lot more money that I do, so, who's the real idiot here?

He is annoying. I listen to him for the same reason that I listen to Jon Stewart.

I have a certain degree of respect for both of them. At least they don't put on a serious face and proclaim that they are sources of valid news.

Agenda driven entertainment is fine....................as long as they are honest about what it is they are doing.

I know a lot of people that haven't ever heard what Rush has to say. The sound of his voice alone is worse than fingernails on a chalkboard. I used to be one of them.

Bill Maher used to be funny. Then he woke up one morning and decided that he was a respected statesman of the left...............................now he's just mean and ugly.

Presentation.

Two opposite cultured journals each can take one single exact fact and report on it.

And you have two very different comentarys or reports that is 180 degrees of each other.

I also am still reading Rolling Stone magazine. The political pieces are truly amazing.

Whether it's the right or the left, the ability of people to take facts and completely shape our perception of them astounds me.

you have a link....maybe

Like Lyn, my greatest source is NPR. Lesser sources are PBS, local news on TV, and newspapers when I get my hands on them (I don't subscribe to any, and I don't get out much!) I make a point to avoid CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. k-g

Thanks kimberly. I listen to NPR also, however, while it doesn't appear to be biased, there are a lot of things that I feel should be reported, that are simply skipped altogether.

Another thing about the WWII coverage....................all film and photos were shot by military personel, and the news was released by the government. I don't think any of us would be comfortable with that situation today.

"WWII coverage"

What "WWII coverage"?

Talk about bias!

Where did, "WWII coverage" come from?

What else don't you like about NPR? Don't hold back!

One the funniest, and probably most honest sources of my news, when I get around to watching him................is Jon Stewart. The guy is a riot. I don't care who he's making fun of.

The next Al Franken?

Stewart's probably too smart to get involved in politics.

Yes your correct.

The point was, the news was suspended for a higher cause. To win the war.

Can you imagine, and thats all what we can do is imaging what turn of events if they would have reported everything.

I can see the headlines. "FDR, How can a Cripple run a Free Nation?".

Or, the "Japs fighting for survival, Should the U.S. Stay out of the Pacific Rim?"

that was the point.

I have to say, that the news should temper politics, thats the way it was..

Problem is now, its currently all noise.

Back to the original subject....................you guys feel free to post links to your sources of information. I'll check them out regardless of what they are. This isn't about passing judgement on anyone.

I understand that the BBC is biased. I do include them as one of my sources though, because they have a different take on what happens in the US. The same facts are run through a different prism.

Here's where my TV is almost always tuned:

Cartoon Network | Free Games and Online Video from Ben 10, Star ...

Or, Disney Channel (Who doesn't love Donald, Goofy and Mickey?)

I find the most unbiased reporting and opinions are here.

I thought the Disney channel was safe.......................wrong.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but the vast majority of the content and language is inappropriate for my 5 year old daughter. Despite the perception that I'm sure a lot of people have of me................I don't cuss around my kid, and I don't get my beer/whiskey buzz going until after she's asleep.

As far as she knows, I'm just a doting dad. I keep my alter ego safely hidden on the pages of CR4 and FB.

Unfortunately,

Having raised three different sets of children over 40 years, I assure you that lots of 5 YO's can already turn the air blue.

Present group of boys is 6,7 and 13. My biological son is 41/daughter 36. We all still live within 20 miles of each other.

Unless you move into the hills and home school them, the only thing you can do is hope that you are a good role model and they stay out of jail. (We know each others past history here)

We can only do the best we can.

Back to the bias..................now that the weather is nice, the TV pretty much stays off. I've got bluegrass playing on the front porch and Emily is building a fort in the yard. The garden is another primary focus...............she did most of the planting this year.

The degree of propaganda that is laced into the kid's TV is astounding. You really don't notice it until you actually sit down and pay attention.

You've seen my FB rants..............I don't care if it's the right or left, shaping my kid's thought processes and world view is not the job of the government, teachers, television, or anyone else.

It's not mine either. To the extent that it's possible, I present her with the facts and allow her to formulate her own opinion.

I built this fort for my 4 y/o grandson. He won't even watch tv anymore !

Oh man.....................that's sweet!!!!!

I'm jealous of the kid, and I'm 50.

Nice job! When I was a kid, I don't think TV was an option. It wouldn't have mattered. The only thing us kids wanted to do was get out in the woods and away from our parents. Getting us out of the house wasn't a problem..................it was finding us and getting us in for dinner.

That is exactly how I grew up. We lived on a farm in rural Virginia. My 4 brothers and I (all about 1 year apart) didn't watch 1 hour of TV in a week.

Very nice.

Thanks. It's about 100 yards from the house under some trees. He doesn't even know I can spy on him !!

I was thinking more of South Park.

Or better still, I was thinking of the earlier Non Political Correct Saturday Night Live (SNL) Skits such as Point/Counterpoint

<unsubscribe>

You're right. Why delve into this stuff when we can read a front page of capitalized, unclear internet queries, followed by links on how to search the internet?

Excellent point!!! Totally political neutral and non threatening.

I'm not going to unsubscribe, since I started the thread. See you on the front page!

Long, but good post as usual. I like the truth. I'd rather be on the receiving end of the ugly truth, than "feel good" BS.

Maybe I should just relax and try to drink more beer, but visions of armed moderators that frown on political discourse, roaming the streets to keep us from arguing and disagreeing, are looking like they may be closer to reality than we think.

Freedom was fun.

I'm not judging the CR4 team...........................I'm talking real life.

It boils down to this: news is deemed to be entertainment for the consumer and it is considered to be revenue by the agency that presents it.

The only caveat to that is many agencies also have their own agenda as to the politics behind it. So, it is not always about the money, but ideology, too.

I watched this last night for the first time ever. She's good at what she does, I'll say that. A totally different spin than what I'm used to listening to..................very believable too.

Thanks, kramarat.

Variety is the spice of life, as they say. Glimmers of truth can be found in even the most biased of viewpoints. That is to say, most viewpoints begin from some ideal. It's the "everything I say is correct" drumbeat that wears one out. That, and the vilifying of anyone with a different view. Tolerance is key to compromise. And recognizing the common ideals helps, too. (Aren't there enough members here to fill Congress? )

(Aren't there enough members here to fill Congress?

Ha, More than enough hot air..... but atleast on this site you can challenge.

Having to mediate with problem projects, processes and people.

I have found and from my experiences now always felt, that there are two views to every story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

It's getting to the meat of any issue, can at times be a challenge. I had touched off on a similar post on another thread about a week ago.

News is no different.

I don't disagree. Responsibility is the bottom line. Blame is just another word for assigning responsibility. It has more of an edge to use the word blame, that's all.

And that lack, in the various financial boondoggles and failures, is what galls most Americans regardless of political persuasion.

As far as the "meat" of an issue, that is almost impossible. I would submit it has been for decades, if not longer. For most of my adult life I have wished someone would enact a rule that, proposed legislation has to be "single issue" legislation. No riders or earmarks (using the more modern reference). Put all such spending in one or 2 "super" earmark bills every session. Let every member of Congress who wants money for their district pony it up in a bill everyone knows is just earmarks. Hidden riders sometimes keep a representative from voting on legislation they would otherwise support, because of these hidden (or almost) riders and earmarks. Likewise, representatives get "convinced" to support legislation in return for something in another bill that doesn't even have anything to do with said legislation. This is how a lot of waste gets passed into law in the first place. Then votes could more easily be tagged to the debate on the main legislative issue. And voting records wouldn't be so skewed. I want to know how representatives feel about the issue and legislation at hand, on its own terms. If earmarks were overtly lumped together, I think many of them would fall by the wayside. At least a lot of needless spending would be more transparent, than if hidden in legislation it has nothing to do with.

Even then, how many of us follow every bill and know all of it's language and ramifications? Who benefits? Why? Are the benefits for the public at large, or for a relatively few? This is where TV could really be a service to the public. Imagine if CNN had a daily show which followed all legislation, at least by mention, and then tracked the more important pieces in detail. And don't give it silly names, like, "The Situation Room." This is the entertainment aspect that has been mentioned in this thread that we could do without. Also, don't bury it in afternoon time slots. Put it in prime time where most working people can watch it if they want. Or maybe even 2 nights a week. A small sacrifice for Piers Morgan's time slot. It has the potential to have the same effect (intended, anyway) as any "occupy" movement.

And the public shouldn't have to demand something like this. CNN and other news organizations should do this because it is a good idea. Sure, there are sites on the web where one can investigate legislation in detail, but the average working person isn't going to do that for lack of time and the boredom of reading through it all. Like it or not, if you want something talked about (and even discussed ) the next day, put it on CNN, in primetime, not in some blog on the Internet. And do your best to pick people who can analyze and discuss the legislation without buzz-words and catch-phrases. Just straight analysis. Maybe it would encourage people to start researching more on their own. (One of my pet peeves is the abuse of statistics. Statistical lies are insidious.)

Why has no news organization offered this? It doesn't have to be as laborious and time-consuming as C-SPAN. (Although, the nation was riveted by the Watergate hearings. It can be dramatic. I think the testimony of Harry Markopolos in the Madoff hearings was pretty interesting to watch.) Since it probably isn't going to be attempted, we viewers have to read between the lines in ways the media might think is baseless or unfair. What is their agenda? Is it to serve the public in the best ways possible? Does the profit motive always lead to the best outcome?

The political process should grow and adapt to the technology of the times. (Except for voting. I think electronic voting is too susceptible to manipulation. Likewise for "Internet voting.") I would also like to see a rule that every member of Congress would have to appear on national TV for questioning and cross-examination by the public at large on a regular basis (??). They do represent their district, but they vote on Federal legislation. They are, de facto, national representatives. Just some ideas.

Obviously, this kind of venting could go on. I'll stop.

Even then, how many of us follow every bill and know all of it's language and ramifications? Who benefits? Why? Are the benefits for the public at large, or for a relatively few?

which reminds me.

I hate double speak, long winded responses, attorneyize contracts, laws and regulations and political correctness.

Sorry for the long-winded response.

Blame is just another word for assigning responsibility.

That is the problem, as I mention earlier. Our culture is changing to make it unprofessional to use Harsh Words, or words with an edge. Its to the point, its a challenge and I expect a response.

The kind of responses that seems to be unacceptable now-a-days.

short version:

• Had a process blender that was not performing.
• The design of it was under powered
• Mechanically it was under designed/engineered (shafts too light, drive chains too light, kinematics failed, ect.....) no engineering done what so ever.

I addressed the issues to the engineer who was in charge and had actually engineered/designed it.

p911: The Blender does not perform what can be done about it?

engineer: thats a matter of opinion

p911: Really, whats your opinion?

After dead silence, his response was,

Engineer: your mean. (or close to that effect)

I was taken aback from that

p911: I'm not here to be your friend, I was hired here to get to the bottom of this. Now what can we do to turn this project around.

needless to say, he didn't have an answer, and frankly the blender did not have a foundation to actually correct it. The engineer soon put in his resignation, interesting to say, I was called into where this same engineer had worked and then bolted on other equipment that did not perform. (this engineer should have been competant, he did have a B.sC in M.E. from Michigan Tech.). Thats why I challenge everything to get to the bottom.

I believe the problem we have now and can also be address to the news media is that "being unaccoutable" is okay. And that I have a problem with.

It doesn't have to be as intensive and boring as C-span. We've got too few people in charge of way too much money...................they have become addicted to spending it like a bunch of crack addicts. I don't think they know how to stop.

My suggestion, (that I've made before), is to use the internet like they use it to vote on American Idol or Dancing with Stars. Not to vote per se, but to allow citizen input on the things they are spending money on. The various earmarks could be as simple as a list, with dollar amounts and a yes or no check box. The people could either log on with their computers or phones and let them know how they feel.

We're getting pretty long here on an off topic discussion for CR4. See my latest thread. Looks like a better place to have these talks.

My suggestion, (that I've made before), is to use the internet like they use it to vote on American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

Initially, thats interesting, takes a load off of representive, but you have to realize the larger metropolitan cities and such would have a huge advantage over rural.

Not if everybody in the rural areas got on and said, " Hell no, we don't want a bridge to nowhere. Why do you want to do that???!!!!"

Quite! Entertainment and revenue have destroyed American TV. We got rid of it 5 years ago. If I see a TV program in a shop, airport etc., I cast an eye over the poor wretches glued to the screen and cringe. It's not a feeling of superiority, but pity, that they cannot see it for what it is and how they are being manipulated by the dastardly media. All that marvelous color LCD & digital technology wasted on utter drivel.

The concept of a world news program being interrupted frequently by adverts for "Chuck's New Mini Bite-Sized Burgerettes" puts the whole thing in perspective. How can you take this seriously?