More or Less Informed?

[3855WIN]

I follow Reuters and BBC as some of my news sources. Not necessarily anymore truthful, but a different angle on the news.

 

[noharleyyet]

I follow Reuters and BBC as some of my news sources. Not necessarily anymore truthful, but a different angle on the news.

Hard to find an objective source, and paywalls (the ultimate click) are just as biased.

 

[SAJ-99]

There are two medias in the country today. The 90% that chase clicks and $$$ (think MSNBC & Fox) - and the 10% that has decided their role is to shape society in their own woke image (think NYTimes).

I believe we had this discussion before and I pointed out the WSJ being mostly opinion and less actual information. I can still tell the difference, or like to think I can. But I agree with you on the importance of the 1A, so let the sheep be led. But if a political poll is 45% to 43%, each voter thinks they know the real truth and the other side are all sheep.

 

[Sytes]

This can apply to each candidate equally.

The radio interviews that Biden did with two black radio hosts were with 8 pre approved questions from the WH, and they could ask any 4 of them. Clearly that is lame in the extreme.

The interview with Biden last night did not assuage my concerns, at all. IMO, Biden's ego and diminished intellect make it so he can't see the obvious.

Trump is not hitting on every cylinder either. Hence all of the talk about electric boats and sharks, and dinner with Hannibal Lector. You can add in he has done enough shady things to cost a fortune in legal fees. It is only fitting than so many of his attorneys find themselves disbarred.

Maybe I missed the big elephant in Ken's comment though my read left me sensing his comment related to both parties.
Hell, it's been quite apparent on HT I despise both parties currently so maybe there was an elephant giving me a bidet i didn't feel...

 

[Sytes]

Not making this about Biden though this seems to be a prime example of media manipulation for sake of political gain, honest journo work if directed to ask only X questions if they want Biden on their program... Seems less informed if we're not gaining true responses from questions...

I know this occurs. This happens to be of a recent example.

2nd local radio host says they were given questions ahead of Biden interview

"Yes, I was given some questions for Biden," Earl Ingram of CivicMedia told ABC News.

abcnews.go.com

 

[VikingsGuy]

WSJ being mostly opinion

The op-ed section of WSJ is entirely opinion, as is the op-ed of every paper. But several non-partisan watchdogs have the business and main news sections of WSJ fairly neutral.

As we have discussed prior. The business and main news section of WSJ, the local news and sports section of my local paper (the Red Star and Sickle - aka StarTribune), the Economist, and the BBC, meet 95% of my news information needs with only 15% of the BS that fills other sources. I am plenty informed, but not "too informed".

Also, anything that even slightly touches science is a no go for any press summarization. Either read the actual scientific papers or skip altogether. Skipping altogether leaves you more usefully informed than reading some liberal arts trained journalist's interpretation and expansive speculation. Same with most reporting on legal cases.

 

[Bonasababy]

I wonder what TR would be saying about the open borders & multiculturalism of the left these days??

"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." - Theodore Roosevelt

So you can't be from a culture different from yours and be a loyal American?

 

[Bonasababy]

I follow Reuters and BBC as some of my news sources. Not necessarily anymore truthful, but a different angle on the news.

Reuters has all kinds of good reporting...many stories not reported by major US media and with stories reported by both, they do a nice often more detailed dive into stories.

 

[Bonasababy]

The op-ed section of WSJ is entirely opinion, as is the op-ed of every paper. But several non-partisan watchdogs have the business and main news sections of WSJ fairly neutral.

As we have discussed prior. The business and main news section of WSJ, the local news and sports section of my local paper (the Red Star and Sickle - aka StarTribune), the Economist, and the BBC, meet 95% of my news information needs with only 15% of the BS that fills other sources. I am plenty informed, but not "too informed".

Also, anything that even slightly touches science is a no go for any press summarization. Either read the actual scientific papers or skip altogether. Skipping altogether leaves you more usefully informed than reading some liberal arts trained journalist's interpretation and expansive speculation. Same with most reporting on legal cases.

Examples? I find the STRIB does a decent job. And have some ability to gauge that on science topics.

 

[Sytes]

So you can't be from a culture different from yours and be a loyal American?

Theodore Roosevelt's comment is based on welcoming immigrants to the U.S. Let's not misconstrue his speech to be anything less...

As for the topic - not relevant to this topic. Move on.

 

[Bonasababy]

Theodore Roosevelt's comment is based on welcoming immigrants to the U.S. Let's not misconstrue his speech to be anything less...

As for the topic - not relevant to this topic. Move on.

"Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all."

Might be just me, but that quote you used doesn't seem all that welcoming. I learned about the "melting pot" in grade school though, perhaps I was being brainwashed?

 

[Bonasababy]

Not making this about Biden though this seems to be a prime example of media manipulation for sake of political gain, honest journo work if directed to ask only X questions if they want Biden on their program... Seems less informed if we're not gaining true responses from questions...

I know this occurs. This happens to be of a recent example.

2nd local radio host says they were given questions ahead of Biden interview

"Yes, I was given some questions for Biden," Earl Ingram of CivicMedia told ABC News.

abcnews.go.com

I will grant you that isn't a good look especially after the debate performance, but that kind of thing is very normal and has been for both parties for a long time. Talk to a debate sponsor sometime about all the demands candidates make.

 

[Sytes]

I will grant you that isn't a good luck especially after the debate performance, but that kind of thing is very normal and has been for both parties for a long time. Talk to a debate sponsor sometime about all the demands candidates make.

Agree. As mentioned, "I know this occurs. This happens to be a recent example".

It's about more or less informed. This is a common means to control the narrative and / or in this case, I believe damage control to rebuild from a disastrous performance with our tabloid lying American President, Trump.


Regarding the topic not related to this thread as shared earlier and prior to that when initially brought up regarding borders by @RG300 who respectfully moved away from the topic as well.

Start a new thread if you think it will stay the test of Randy's forum. I don't believe it will. Thus, please move on. It is not related to this thread.

 

[ismith]

I believe we had this discussion before and I pointed out the WSJ being mostly opinion and less actual information. I can still tell the difference, or like to think I can. But I agree with you on the importance of the 1A, so let the sheep be led. But if a political poll is 45% to 43%, each voter thinks they know the real truth and the other side are all sheep.

It’s fascinating how the human brain must work. A thinking man can’t rule out “simulation theory”, if he’s honest.

 

[BigHornRam]

Schellenberger gets the story right, and doesn't have to write a novel doing so.

Case in point.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1809233688418287988

 

[Bonasababy]

Not sure "unelected" meets any test of accuracy, and it has met exactly zero tests in courts across the country.

If there were a hall of fame for confirmation bias social media kings, Shellenberger should be in easy though!

Not surprising since his primary talent and occupation is public relations. Not exactly a field known for truth and honesty.

To be truly useful as information, positions need to stand up to scrutiny for accuracy.

 

[SaskHunter]

I pretty much question everything I see or read. I like to form my own opinion on things and will change it if I realize I am wrong or biased for no good reason.

I follow several different news source, BBC, Al Jazeera and local/national news. All that together paints a decent picture of the world if you can identify the source's biases and focus on the facts.

Another good way to find diverging opinions is Reddit. I read the comments and always learn something new, or SMFH, and it overall helps me create my own opinion on a subject.

One thing I started doing is also not caring about certain things. I find that by not having a particular opinion on everything prevents me from always picking a side, which IMO is how tribalism starts.

But to answer your question. I strongly believe we are MORE informed, just on the wrong things.

I do believe there is hope, political tribalism was at an all time high here in Canada a couple years ago, but the last year has been very hard on the ruling party and they/our Prime Minister has completely lost face and the support of die hard Liberals. I think this is a good thing, not because I despise the man, but because at least one side of the political spectrum is willing to conpromise and change theit voting habits to rid ourselves of this shitshow of a government that has absolutely ruined what was once a great country.

 

[Nick87]

I pretty much question everything I see or read. I like to form my own opinion on things and will change it if I realize I am wrong or biased for no good reason.

I follow several different news source, BBC, Al Jazeera and local/national news. All that together paints a decent picture of the world if you can identify the source's biases and focus on the facts.

Another good way to find diverging opinions is Reddit. I read the comments and always learn something new, or SMFH, and it overall helps me create my own opinion on a subject.

One thing I started doing is also not caring about certain things. I find that by not having a particular opinion on everything prevents me from always picking a side, which IMO is how tribalism starts.

But to answer your question. I strongly believe we are MORE informed, just on the wrong things.

I do believe there is hope, political tribalism was at an all time high here in Canada a couple years ago, but the last year has been very hard on the ruling party and they/our Prime Minister has completely lost face and the support of die hard Liberals. I think this is a good thing, not because I despise the man, but because at least one side of the political spectrum is willing to conpromise and change theit voting habits to rid ourselves of this shitshow of a government that has absolutely ruined what was once a great country.

I agree with a lot in those first couple paragraphs and find myself in the same boat.

 

[shelbycoltd]

I follow Reuters and BBC as some of my news sources. Not necessarily anymore truthful, but a different angle on the news.

ive been enjoying bbc.

 

[Dave N]

ive been enjoying bbc.