Mystie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,299
Jun 25, 2014 19:53:37 GMT
|
Post by Mystie on Feb 20, 2019 20:19:36 GMT
It does seem that a lot of news sources have to put their spin on things, instead of just stating the direct non-opinionated facts. I think much of this has to do with cable news shows and people not understanding the difference between "the news" and a "news show." There are still plenty of straight-up news reporting sources. AP, Reuters, etc. don't really put much spin on things at all. But when people tune in to Fox, MSNBC, CNN - are they watching "the news" or a show with a personality who puts their spin on it? Rachel Maddow isn't news. Sean Hannity isn't news. They have an audience they are selling their interpretation of events to, and they are going to put their own spin on things because that's the type of show that it is. But many people don't understand that just because it's on a news channel doesn't mean that it's a news show. All of the networks do have basic news reporting, but the prime time shows are generally led by a commentator who isn't straight news. Same thing for written articles - there are news articles, and there are opinions. Many people don't understand which is which. They can read an opinion piece and not realize that it is an editorial rather than a news article. Sometimes it's very clear - but sometimes it isn't. In my newspaper class, my students have to do an article analysis each week. Their choice of articles from any source, really. Even the National Enquirer if they wish. Some of the things I have them tell me is - what type of article is this (news, feature, human interest, review, editorial)? what is the credibility of this source (generally credible, somewhat credible, not very credible)? What biases do you detect, and how did you find them - word choice, slanted speech, etc? BY FAR the thing they have the most difficulty with is the bias question. It has hard for them to pick out exactly why the article is biased, and which words/phrases lead to the bias. If these students in a class where we devote time and energy to learning this information have trouble with it, is it really a wonder that most people who haven't taken journalism have trouble? THIS THIS THIS ALL OF THIS. I may have some strong feelings about people's inability to distinguish between news reporting and opinion/infotainment, lol.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Feb 20, 2019 20:38:56 GMT
Often, his speeches are shown on live TV. No cutting. No editing. Just Trump. Yes, you're getting the broadcast version. But no, it isn't being framed other than "here's the president giving his speech." If he says something stupid or if he lies, it's not the news making him say those things. It's coming directly from his mouth. Yes, that is sometimes true and more often not true. I'm not saying he never says odd or offensive things. He most certainly does. But every opinion stated here about him is more often than not, talking about things that weren't done live. In the words of my favorite biased political opinion spinner, Rachel Maddow, "Don't listen to what he says, watch what he does." That alone has the potential to keep me occupied for days, weeks, months, years. So you're not giving any credence to his tweets? On the record interviews? The tendency of the right to ignore objective reality concerns me.
|
|
|
Post by katlaw on Feb 20, 2019 20:52:33 GMT
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." --George Orwell, 1984
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Feb 20, 2019 21:00:11 GMT
An opinion piece/talking heads show/editorial is vastly different than reporting the news. I think people often confuse the two. And then we end up with cries of “fake news”.
Do they always get reporting news right? No. But I put that more down to the pitfalls of 24 hours news cycle more than malicious intent.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 20, 2019 21:00:37 GMT
So you're not giving any credence to his tweets? It has been stated that tweets are his official word.
|
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,909
Aug 14, 2015 21:47:17 GMT
|
Post by pilcas on Feb 20, 2019 21:07:47 GMT
No matter the angle, her shirt is VERY low cut and not appropriate, IMO. She is the survivor of a horrific sexual assault. If she's comfortable wearing that shirt, she should absolutely rock it. That doesn’t mean I want to see her boobs!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Feb 20, 2019 21:21:22 GMT
An opinion piece/talking heads show/editorial is vastly different than reporting the news. I think people often confuse the two. And then we end up with cries of “fake news”. Do they always get reporting news right? No. But I put that more down to the pitfalls of 24 hours news cycle more than malicious intent. I put it down to malicious intent.
|
|
|
Post by mygigiscraps on Feb 20, 2019 21:23:13 GMT
She is the survivor of a horrific sexual assault. If she's comfortable wearing that shirt, she should absolutely rock it. That doesn’t mean I want to see her boobs! Then pass on by the photo. She was doing a PODCAST. She probably gave no thought as to what you wanted to see when she pulled her outfit for the day. It's not like she was doing prime-time network television.
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Feb 20, 2019 21:26:24 GMT
Way back in high school we learned to determine facts from opinion in news. Words like may, might, possibly, apparently, maybe, I think, and appear to are not facts. Omitting parts of speeches or paraphrasing are not facts. Editing video to leave out or change the order of events is not presenting facts.
The sad part is I see things like this across the board on TV. It’s harder to parse if things are omitted because I’m skeptical of even reputable journalists.
|
|
|
Post by mygigiscraps on Feb 20, 2019 21:29:08 GMT
Way back in high school we learned to determine facts from opinion in news. Words like may, might, possibly, apparently, maybe, I think, and appear to are not facts. Omitting parts of speeches or paraphrasing are not facts. Editing video to leave out or change the order of events is not presenting facts. The sad part is I see things like this across the board on TV. It’s harder to parse if things are omitted because I’m skeptical of even reputable journalists. This. And can you imagine the pressure of suck a fast news cycle now? Growing up, if it happened during the day, you heard about that night on the news. Now it's within minutes.
|
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,909
Aug 14, 2015 21:47:17 GMT
|
Post by pilcas on Feb 20, 2019 21:39:11 GMT
That doesn’t mean I want to see her boobs! Then pass on by the photo. She was doing a PODCAST. She probably gave no thought as to what you wanted to see when she pulled her outfit for the day. It's not like she was doing prime-time network television. It’s not about passing on by the photo. It was a PODCAST yet her photo is out there and she should care about about what her audience thinks. If dresses like a Kardashian she will be taken as seriously as a Kardashian(And I do know I’m exaggerating a lot) There are expectations as to clothing in the different types of media.
|
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,909
Aug 14, 2015 21:47:17 GMT
|
Post by pilcas on Feb 20, 2019 21:45:46 GMT
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." --George Orwell, 1984 This! I have a hard time understanding how people can excuse/ not believe the things that have come out of his mouth. And no, they are not excerpts, they are complete sentences, complete speeches full of obvious lies and contradictions. I could say more, I have many thoughts on this issue but I don’t want to be rude.
|
|
|
Post by mygigiscraps on Feb 20, 2019 21:54:24 GMT
Then pass on by the photo. She was doing a PODCAST. She probably gave no thought as to what you wanted to see when she pulled her outfit for the day. It's not like she was doing prime-time network television. It’s not about passing on by the photo. It was a PODCAST yet her photo is out there and she should care about about what her audience thinks. If dresses like a Kardashian she will be taken as seriously as a Kardashian(And I do know I’m exaggerating a lot) There are expectations as to clothing in the different types of media. When's the last time you got your knickers in a twist over what a male journalist was wearing? When doing a podcast, there's a reasonable expectation that the focus is NOT on your clothing. Even still, did you bother to read the article about her assault? What a shame that instead of finding a way to admire her courage as a survivor, you choose to be offended by her gall at wearing a low-cut blouse.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 30, 2024 7:25:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 21:58:45 GMT
When someone SHOWS you who they are....believe it! Trump has shown himself to be an arrogant, self-centered, womanizing asshole. I do not need ANY news/faux news program for that. His actions for the last 30+ years have been enough to show me that.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Feb 20, 2019 22:14:02 GMT
No matter the angle, her shirt is VERY low cut and not appropriate, IMO. Not appropriate for what? Life? Wanting to look professional? People can wear what they want but they have to realize that what they wear does give an impression. I’ve never heard of her and know nothing about her. My opinion of what she wears doesn’t have any thing to do with her history, and I don’t really see what that has to do with her shirt. ETA that if a male journalist wore something completely revealing like that, I would say the same thing. Can’t say I recall too many situations where men let it all hang out on air, though.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 20, 2019 22:20:19 GMT
An opinion piece/talking heads show/editorial is vastly different than reporting the news. I think people often confuse the two. And then we end up with cries of “fake news”. Do they always get reporting news right? No. But I put that more down to the pitfalls of 24 hours news cycle more than malicious intent. I put it down to malicious intent. That is very convenient.
|
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,909
Aug 14, 2015 21:47:17 GMT
|
Post by pilcas on Feb 20, 2019 22:24:11 GMT
It’s not about passing on by the photo. It was a PODCAST yet her photo is out there and she should care about about what her audience thinks. If dresses like a Kardashian she will be taken as seriously as a Kardashian(And I do know I’m exaggerating a lot) There are expectations as to clothing in the different types of media. When's the last time you got your knickers in a twist over what a male journalist was wearing? When doing a podcast, there's a reasonable expectation that the focus is NOT on your clothing. Even still, did you bother to read the article about her assault? What a shame that instead of finding a way to admire her courage as a survivor, you choose to be offended by her gall at wearing a low-cut blouse. My knickers are not in a twist. I am not offended. I do think if you are in a profesional setting you should wear profesional clothing. I probably wouldnt even have mentioned it except someone brought it up and this is a place for discussion. And I feel the same way about a male broadcaster. I did not read the article this time around but I recall the incident. It was all over the news at the time.
|
|
|
Post by workingclassdog on Feb 20, 2019 22:35:38 GMT
I have kinda followed her for a few years on 60 minutes.. I have always liked her reports. Honestly I have never seen her once (in a professional setting) in such a low cut shirt and quite surprised by it. Usually I have seen her dressed head to toe in combat gear..
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2019 22:59:20 GMT
It does seem that a lot of news sources have to put their spin on things, instead of just stating the direct non-opinionated facts. I think much of this has to do with cable news shows and people not understanding the difference between "the news" and a "news show." There are still plenty of straight-up news reporting sources. AP, Reuters, etc. don't really put much spin on things at all. But when people tune in to Fox, MSNBC, CNN - are they watching "the news" or a show with a personality who puts their spin on it? Rachel Maddow isn't news. Sean Hannity isn't news. They have an audience they are selling their interpretation of events to, and they are going to put their own spin on things because that's the type of show that it is. But many people don't understand that just because it's on a news channel doesn't mean that it's a news show. All of the networks do have basic news reporting, but the prime time shows are generally led by a commentator who isn't straight news. Same thing for written articles - there are news articles, and there are opinions. Many people don't understand which is which. They can read an opinion piece and not realize that it is an editorial rather than a news article. Sometimes it's very clear - but sometimes it isn't. In my newspaper class, my students have to do an article analysis each week. Their choice of articles from any source, really. Even the National Enquirer if they wish. Some of the things I have them tell me is - what type of article is this (news, feature, human interest, review, editorial)? what is the credibility of this source (generally credible, somewhat credible, not very credible)? What biases do you detect, and how did you find them - word choice, slanted speech, etc? BY FAR the thing they have the most difficulty with is the bias question. It has hard for them to pick out exactly why the article is biased, and which words/phrases lead to the bias. If these students in a class where we devote time and energy to learning this information have trouble with it, is it really a wonder that most people who haven't taken journalism have trouble? Exactly. Hannity. Entertainment show. Not news. Breitbart. Hard core conspiracy theories. Not news. Ingrahmn Angle. More entertainment. Not news. RT. Definitely not news. CNN is much better rated at truthfulness, than Fox News, but isn’t perfect. Fox News. They have gone off the deep end, sans a few on air people (I.e. Chris Wallace) who try to get the truth out there. It’s sad that there are a group of people who use these sources as “news”. Try NPR, Reuters, WAPO, BBC.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,978
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Feb 20, 2019 23:05:22 GMT
Often, his speeches are shown on live TV. No cutting. No editing. Just Trump. Yes, you're getting the broadcast version. But no, it isn't being framed other than "here's the president giving his speech." If he says something stupid or if he lies, it's not the news making him say those things. It's coming directly from his mouth. Yes, that is sometimes true and more often not true. I'm not saying he never says odd or offensive things. He most certainly does. But every opinion stated here about him is more often than not, talking about things that weren't done live. The media doesn’t frame his twitter feed. My negative view of him is based more on his tweets than his speeches. And the people he chooses to put into posutions of power. No one had to “spin “ the absurdity of putting Betsy DeVoss (sp?) in charge of education or Ben Carson in charge of HUD. Or the conflicts of interest regarding appointees in charge of energy, government lands, etc.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,739
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Feb 20, 2019 23:08:53 GMT
I agree that the door swings both ways. That is why critical thinking skills are so very important. Read things from multiple sources and do your own research. I have to be careful when going through my daily feed from the Washington Post to be sure I don't read any "opinion" pieces. I don't want to read opinions. I want the news reported from multiple sources so I can determine what to believe. Don't be scared to read opinion pieces, or avoid them! Add them to your mix - so long as you recognize that they are opinions, they can be a healthy way to help form your own views on things. Even if it's an opinion you disagree with, it's helpful to see an issue from various viewpoints. Sometimes you will learn something new, or see something in a new light after reading an opinion.
The strongest way to develop your own opinions is by challenging them.
after I get my news from news sources I don't mind and like reading opinion pieces. They can sometimes enlighten me to another point of view adding an idea/thought that I may not have come to myself. Sometimes it changes my opinion, sometimes it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Feb 20, 2019 23:42:49 GMT
An opinion piece/talking heads show/editorial is vastly different than reporting the news. I think people often confuse the two. And then we end up with cries of “fake news”. Do they always get reporting news right? No. But I put that more down to the pitfalls of 24 hours news cycle more than malicious intent. I put it down to malicious intent. If that's the case, then what do you see as the motivation?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 21, 2019 0:38:13 GMT
Yes, that is sometimes true and more often not true. I'm not saying he never says odd or offensive things. He most certainly does. But every opinion stated here about him is more often than not, talking about things that weren't done live. In the words of my favorite biased political opinion spinner, Rachel Maddow, "Don't listen to what he says, watch what he does." That alone has the potential to keep me occupied for days, weeks, months, years. So you're not giving any credence to his tweets? On the record interviews? The tendency of the right to ignore objective reality concerns me. Exactly! Just read his tweets!!!
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Feb 21, 2019 2:33:00 GMT
I no longer care if the average libtard spouting, snowflake spewing true patriot comprehends the difference between actual news and what is shown on FOX, MSNBC, etc. If you choose to be willfully ignorant or are simply unable to comprehend that the AP and Reuters are different than Tucker Carlson and Chris Hayes, there is nothing to be done about it. But Lara Logan does know the difference. So when she "calls out media for propaganda-like coverage" she is playing the same game. She reels in the suckers and gets herself some clicks and maybe gets a chance to resurrect her now defunct news career as a newstertainment personality on FOX or "reporting" for Blaze or Newsmax or Breitbart or any of those outlets that make their money by making suckers terrified and full of rage. So much winning. I have only one thing to say since I didn’t make it past your first sentence. Anytime you add “tard” to the end of the word to imply some sort of insult, you’re in fact implying that mental impairment is some sort of an insult. In fact, as the aunt of a fine young man with Down Syndrome I take offense to this.
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,368
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Feb 21, 2019 2:37:03 GMT
Yes, that is sometimes true and more often not true. I'm not saying he never says odd or offensive things. He most certainly does. But every opinion stated here about him is more often than not, talking about things that weren't done live. In the words of my favorite biased political opinion spinner, Rachel Maddow, "Don't listen to what he says, watch what he does." That alone has the potential to keep me occupied for days, weeks, months, years. So you're not giving any credence to his tweets? On the record interviews? The tendency of the right to ignore objective reality concerns me. According to the last fact checking report I read, less than 5% of the “facts” he uses are actually true. Say what you want about Obama but there is no way in hell he lied or skewed the truth 95% of the time. And he sure the hell didn’t whine about SNL roasting him.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Feb 21, 2019 2:43:07 GMT
1. Who is she? I’ve literally never heard of her. 2. Is calling out Donald Trump on his lies (some so blatant they’re RIDICULOUS) propaganda-like? 3. Most of the opinions I have of Donald Trump come from listening to HIM. I don’t need other people to tell me he’s an idiot. He does a great job of it all by himself. 1. She's a journalist and the former chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS. 2. When particular other politicians do negative things and even lie (some so blatant they’re RIDICULOUS) and the media reports on it with justifications and support for those particular politicians, but then doesn't apply that same justification and support for Trump, then yes it's propaganda-like. 3. I seriously doubt you're standing next to Trump when you hear what he has to say, so I'm sure you're getting it from the news. News reported, clipped and framed in the way they want to present it. Which is of course, minus all of the support and justification they provided for the previous administration's lies and negative issues. So no, the negative impact you're getting from Trump, often isn't from Trump himself. Nah....I just read his tweets.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 21, 2019 2:47:50 GMT
I no longer care if the average libtard spouting, snowflake spewing true patriot comprehends the difference between actual news and what is shown on FOX, MSNBC, etc. If you choose to be willfully ignorant or are simply unable to comprehend that the AP and Reuters are different than Tucker Carlson and Chris Hayes, there is nothing to be done about it. But Lara Logan does know the difference. So when she "calls out media for propaganda-like coverage" she is playing the same game. She reels in the suckers and gets herself some clicks and maybe gets a chance to resurrect her now defunct news career as a newstertainment personality on FOX or "reporting" for Blaze or Newsmax or Breitbart or any of those outlets that make their money by making suckers terrified and full of rage. So much winning. I have only one thing to say since I didn’t make it past your first sentence. Anytime you add “tard” to the end of the word to imply some sort of insult, you’re in fact implying that mental impairment is some sort of an insult. In fact, as the aunt of a fine young man with Down Syndrome I take offense to this. Well, maybe you should have made it past the first sentence, after all. Sarah*H wasn’t calling anyone names. She was was referring to how some right-wingers address liberals, Democrats ... well, Trump haters of any stripe. Please don’t jump to such a conclusion without actually reading the post.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 21, 2019 2:59:50 GMT
Well, maybe you should have made it past the first sentence, after all. Sarah*H wasn’t calling anyone names. She was was referring to how some right-wingers address liberals, Democrats ... well, Trump haters of any stripe. Please don’t jump to such a conclusion without actually reading the post. Agreed. I actually went back to see if Sarah*H had said it........ Then finished reading the content.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Feb 21, 2019 5:53:34 GMT
An opinion piece/talking heads show/editorial is vastly different than reporting the news. I think people often confuse the two. And then we end up with cries of “fake news”. Do they always get reporting news right? No. But I put that more down to the pitfalls of 24 hours news cycle more than malicious intent. I put it down to malicious intent. Really? Why? I’m really wondering what they’d have to gain by getting stuff wrong deliberately. They look silly or like they jumped the gun when they do.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Feb 21, 2019 6:06:21 GMT
I no longer care if the average libtard spouting, snowflake spewing true patriot comprehends the difference between actual news and what is shown on FOX, MSNBC, etc. If you choose to be willfully ignorant or are simply unable to comprehend that the AP and Reuters are different than Tucker Carlson and Chris Hayes, there is nothing to be done about it. But Lara Logan does know the difference. So when she "calls out media for propaganda-like coverage" she is playing the same game. She reels in the suckers and gets herself some clicks and maybe gets a chance to resurrect her now defunct news career as a newstertainment personality on FOX or "reporting" for Blaze or Newsmax or Breitbart or any of those outlets that make their money by making suckers terrified and full of rage. So much winning. I have only one thing to say since I didn’t make it past your first sentence. Anytime you add “tard” to the end of the word to imply some sort of insult, you’re in fact implying that mental impairment is some sort of an insult. In fact, as the aunt of a fine young man with Down Syndrome I take offense to this. . I take offense to the phrase libtard too. Except in this instance she wasn’t insulting anyone with it. Merely using a word (one likely often directed at her, as a liberal), to make a specific point. Context is everything.
|
|