Shocked! The New York Post has been bought!

[Dannyboy1]

The New York Post has officially endorsed McCain.

I don't want this to be a post about who's better McCain or Obama. Do not voice your opinions about either here. I want this to be a discussion about, should it be legal for a newspaper to endorse anyone? The post is a big paper with a huge number of readers. Now, it will be impossible for Obama to get anything but bad press in this paper because the EDITOR likes McCain. It seems to me Newspapers used to have more integrity, or at least they attempted to make it look like they had an unbiased opinion about the news. Now, it seems anyone can be bought. There are no journalistic rules anymore.

Here's the most important thing I'd like discussed in this thread. Regardless of who you want as president, wouldn't we all rather have somewhere where we can have unbiased news that is held accountable when they skew the news toward a bias? Somewhere we can actually get the REAL news and not rumors?? If I like a particular candidate, that doesn't mean all I want to read is propaganda about how great my guy is. I want to hear what he does wrong. I want to hear it if the other candidate has good ideas. I want to know the truth! I don't want to know who the editor likes. All I want are the unbiased facts so I can make a better decision. Isn't it scary that we can't even get educated about the candidates because anyone, even the "NEWS" can be bought off??? I think it should be illegal. I think we should have watchdogs on anything that has the word "NEWS" in the title of their tv program or magazine or paper. I think if something calls themselves "NEWS" they should be just that. We should have laws and a part of the government appointed by the people to go after these rags.

I want a place where I can get real news! Anyone with me?

[Liveformx64]

If what you are saying is true. The New York post has been in the red for a while, and maybe things got a little desperate. In the face of bankruptcy some will throw out any semblance of values they may have once had.

"It seems to me Newspapers used to have more integrity, or at least they attempted to make it look like they had an unbiased opinion about the news. Now, it seems anyone can be bought. There are no journalistic rules anymore."

That is a blanket statement, that covers all newspapers in print. I would wager some are crooked some are straight, just this time the paper happens to be in your field of view. ("back in the day" talk really stifles intelligent objective conversation)

I would argue the New York Post is generally a left wing publication, which obviously wasn't a profitable model for them. Maybe they are going where the money flows?

I think we should have watchdogs on anything that has the word "NEWS" in the title of their tv program or magazine or paper. I think if something calls themselves "NEWS" they should be just that. We should have laws and a part of the government appointed by the people to go after these rags.

Have you ever head of freedom of speech? Nobody is forced to subscribe to any "rag". If one does not agree with a certain publication, they simply do not subscribe. Do you honestly think a government funded program will produce satisfactory results?

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Liveformx64

If what you are saying is true. The New York post has been in the red for a while, and maybe things got a little desperate. In the face of bankruptcy some will throw out any semblance of values they may have once had. That is a blanket statement, that covers all newspapers in print. I would wager some are crooked some are straight, just this time the paper happens to be in your field of view. ("back in the day" talk really stifles intelligent objective conversation)
Have you ever head of freedom of speech? Nobody is forced to subscribe to any "rag". If one does not agree with a certain publication, they simply do not subscribe. Do you honestly think a government funded program will produce satisfactory results?

Um.... no I've never heard of freedom of speech. What's that? Oh, wait! Isn't that the right for me to state MY opinions? At least I'm not calling this post "NEWS".

Do you honestly think any of these newspapers are really printing the news anymore? All you have to do is read the headlines. All I'm trying to say is if you call yourself news, REPORT THE NEWS, not your opinions, not your lies, not your propaganda.

I think a government program of checks and balances would be a great start. What else would you do to make the news media more accountable?

[Liveformx64]

How would you keep your government run organizations from being affected by the special interests, and house majorities in Washington?

I would argue a publication run and governed by citizens of the U.S. is better off than one that is susceptible to special interests in Washington.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Liveformx64

How would you keep your government run organizations from being affected by the special interests, and house majorities in Washington?

I would argue a publication run and governed by citizens of the U.S. is better off than one that is susceptible to special interests in Washington.

All I'm looking for is a way to give Americans REAL NEWS, unbiased and factual. How would it be made invulnerable to bribery, though?

[Barcs]

Most media is controlled by the CFR anyway. I don't think you'll ever read a newspaper without some kind of agenda written in to it. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's true. Hasn't the NY Times already endorsed Obama?

[coollikeme]

McCain + NY Post = 1
Obama + NY times = 1

McCain wins, he will be are next President.

The one thing I know is that when I go to vote. I know McCain loves his country. He has proven that in so many ways. Can you say the same thing for Obama? I guess this means I can buy a NY paper again. NY Post has a better sport section anyway. Latest News | Top Stories | News Articles- New York PostLatest News | Top Stories | News Articles- New York Post

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by coollikeme

McCain + NY Post = 1
Obama + NY times = 1

McCain wins, he will be are next President.

The one thing I know is that when I go to vote. I know McCain loves his country. He has proven that in so many ways. Can you say the same thing for Obama? I guess this means I can buy a NY paper again. NY Post has a better sport section anyway. Latest News | Top Stories | News Articles- New York PostLatest News | Top Stories | News Articles- New York Post

This thread is not about your guess or choice for the next president. Please just keep it to the idea of unbiased news. Post your propaganda on another thread, please.

[coollikeme]

coming from you. Your the one complaining about the NY Post backing a candidate. Most news papers back Obama, I did not hear you complaining then. Most newspapers back a candidate one way or the other. It is just the way it is as long as the paper has writers that talk about both candidates. They have a right to lean toward anyone they want. If people don't like what they read, then the paper will go broke. Which most newspapers seem to be having financial trouble anyway.

McCain + NY Post = 1
Obama + NY times = 1

[Brutha]

It seems to me Newspapers used to have more integrity, or at least they attempted to make it look like they had an unbiased opinion about the news.

So it's better when they lie, about their biases?

All I'm looking for is a way to give Americans REAL NEWS, unbiased and factual.

There no such thing as a completly unbiased human reporter.
If you read something, you should always question. That gets easier if you know how the source you are taking news from is biased.

We should have laws and a part of the government appointed by the people to go after these rags.

How do you see the trackrecord of government control of newsmedia improving their amount of bias around the world?

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

I think a government program of checks and balances would be a great start. What else would you do to make the news media more accountable?

I think the LAST thing we need is government regulation of news and/or opinonated reporting. That's a dangerous, slippery slope to scale. Government censorship is not what our country needs - that is why I oppose the Fairness Doctrine. There's nothing fair about it - it takes away the free market element of news reporting and subscription - let the free media market decide who and how many tune in or subscribe to programs and news outlets. It's business, and the people will keep determining which networks and newspapers to watch and read.

I do agree with the initial point that news should be unbiased, and as unopinionated as possible, and I guess some exec's do draw the line at some point (a 'la Oberman & Matthews recent reassignments Olbermann/Matthews Demotion - Featured on BuzzFeed ). I think the most unbiased news you get is digging into various reports and documents yourself to compare and contrast facts, numbers, eye-witness reports and the like - like voting records, expense reports, meeting minutes, etc. That's an option to some extent.

It used to be the media was a more responsible watchdog to BOTH parties and I hope we steer back to that. But that takes the public calling BS in way of editorials, something I think younger generations just don't do as much as previous generations. I tend to respect publications with lots of editorials citing many views and opinions, not just one thrust of conjecture.

[coollikeme]

a slow death. They can't compete with the Internet plain and simple. I have not bought a newspaper in 7 years, there is no need from them. When you have all the info you need with a click of a mouse. I get my sports info delivered in seconds, which was the main reason I bought the paper back then. So they can back anyone they want publicly, why lie. I would rather know now, then find out later that they are pushing agenda. Not that I read the paper anyway, and from what I see not many people read the paper anymore much less take it seriously. I think you guys and gals write more entertaining stuff then the papers, and most of you make me laugh with your point of views. When it comes to politic I like listening to people from the USA, the people that are going to vote.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

So it's better when they lie, about their biases?
There no such thing as a completly unbiased human reporter.
If you read something, you should always question. That gets easier if you know how the source you are taking news from is biased.
How do you see the trackrecord of government control of newsmedia improving their amount of bias around the world?

Brutha you are taking what they said out of context.

It used to be that the news was reported without as much censorship. You didn't have a liberal news paper or a conservative TV station for example. It was much more subtle.

Should they lie about being bias. ABSOLUTELY. That would be more professional.

Why when you are writing a book that for copywright reasons you MUST quote people accurately but for news reporting its OK to misquote or to intentionally take things out of context with clever editing? This is COMPLETELY unethical.

History has been manipulated by special interests for years and now the news has been slowly taken over. Before long you won't be able to go to the doctor or they'll try to prescribe you drugs you don't need.... Oh wait thats already happening.

[Liveformx64]

History is shaped, and more importantly written by the winners. It has never been about being accurate.

Think if Hitler would have won World War 2... How would it be written about today?

Conversely what the early European settlers did to the native Americans was never taught to us in school. Instead we have thanksgiving, and the cornucopia.

Maybe we should accept the ancient Chinese law that the only things that may be written are factual documents. Punishable by death.

[Brutha]

]quote]Brutha you are taking what they said out of context.[/quote]I don't think I am. I think that transparency of political opinion is a good thing.
Creating a false impression of having no biases is lying.

Why when you are writing a book that for copywright reasons you MUST quote people accurately but for news reporting its OK to misquote or to intentionally take things out of context with clever editing? This is COMPLETELY unethical.

There a difference between recommanding a candidate and misquoting.
Misquoting is bad regardless of the person doing it.

It also bad if one of the person who campained for Obama misquoted McCain. But I still don't expect people who campain for Obama to be unbaised.

If you have on paper who is for McCain and one paper who supports Obama you can simply read both and build yourself your own opinion based on your own biases.

[schola]

This is nothing to be shocked about. Newspapers endorsing candidates for office has been going on for a very long time.

[sheffy4]

I would love to have unbiased news, but it can never be that way because the news is about people. The articles are stories about real people, and stories always have a certain point of view. Even the most unbiased U.S. news article is biased simply because it comes from an American point of view. There are always multiple sides to every story. Besides, newspapers are businesses too, and they will follow the money.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by sheffy4

I would love to have unbiased news, but it can never be that way because the news is about people. The articles are stories about real people, and stories always have a certain point of view. Even the most unbiased U.S. news article is biased simply because it comes from an American point of view. There are always multiple sides to every story. Besides, newspapers are businesses too, and they will follow the money.

There can be a line you don't cross... a set of rules. Right now, they're manipulating the facts to the point of complete fabrication to get people upset just to get them to keep tuning in. Or, they're trying to make people look way worse than they are or better because it serves their own selfish purpose.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

There a difference between recommanding a candidate and misquoting.
Misquoting is bad regardless of the person doing it.

It doesn't come down to only recommending a candidate or misquoting. Its about selective quoting over a candidate that you secretly recommend. Its deceptive and most channels do it.

As for Obama or McCain bla bla bla, its irrellevant. No matter which news channel or newspaper is being bias it shows a complete dishonesty to what NEWS is about. News should be factual and unbias.

[ar81]

I recall an article in mainstream media (cant remember the name but it was an important paper) where a guy said that ISS was "parked" in orbit doing nothing, and he suggested to send it to orbit around moon.

Due to sun + Earth + Moon gravity, ISS would crash in a matter of months.
So the proposal was silly. And the worst is that the one who wrote it said things with the conviction of an expert.

In an article of The Economist it was debated if US policy should be inflationary or deflationary.

You have

EQUATION 0

+Govt deficit
+Company deficit
+Bank deficit
+Citizen deficit
-----------------
= Excess of demand

But The Economist presented it like

EQUATION 1

+Govt deficit
+Company deficit
+Bank deficit
-----------------
= Excess of demand 1

EQUATION 2

+Citizen deficit
-----------------
= Excess of demand 2

So in they presented it, it was like choosing between EQUATION 1 AND 2.
So I wondered if they could be a reliable source about economy.

So mainstream US media is becoming as reliable as a personal blog.

[Brutha]

Its about selective quoting over a candidate that you secretly recommend.

If you quote you have to select certain things over other things because there a finite amount of space in your paper.
On the other hand you can remove the secrecy aspect. As a result I don't think that there something wrong with making that recommendation openly.

So in they presented it, it was like choosing between EQUATION 1 AND 2.

If you talk about solutions that might increase the citizen deficit but reduce the Gov't deficit like increasing the amount of taxes it makes sense to create the model of choosing between Equation 1 and Equation 2.

So the proposal was silly. And the worst is that the one who wrote it said things with the conviction of an expert.

Being incompetent is another problem than being biased.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

There can be a line you don't cross... a set of rules. Right now, they're manipulating the facts to the point of complete fabrication to get people upset just to get them to keep tuning in. Or, they're trying to make people look way worse than they are or better because it serves their own selfish purpose.

How is any of this different from how it's been done since the first newspaper was printed in this country ? Political satire and stabs have been the status quo from the start. I have to agree with someone else that what brought this up is the fact the are backing McCain. The notion that the .gov should have a say about what is printed is INSANE and would be the "beginning of the end." That is what I would expect from the far left, more government control, (because we sheeple don't know what's best for us). B-R-A-I-N-S, use em'.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by jeff3

The notion that the .gov should have a say about what is printed is INSANE and would be the "beginning of the end." That is what I would expect from the far left, more government control, (because we sheeple don't know what's best for us). B-R-A-I-N-S, use em'.

The beginning of the end wasn't the socialist government bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, or Bear Sterns?

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

The beginning of the end wasn't the socialist government bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, or Bear Sterns?

The USA is still a republic, and Fannie Mae/ Fredy Mac I'm OK with, Bear Sterns = not in our best interests.


In reality we have been giving away our freedom ever since we fought for it, it is the nature of governments to grow and expand their interests always at the cost of liberty and freedom for the masses. If the populace was disarmed we would be "subjects" in short order.

[Dan.Linehan]

Things I want my taxes to go towards:

Free college. (say 4 years max w/ with a sustained GPA)
Free health care.
Free day care.
Free dental work. (once a decade even)
Organic farming subsidies.
Solar power initiatives.
Wind power initiatives.
Early response epidemic tracking.
United States infrastructure.
Finding Bin Laden.



Things I don't want my tax dollars going towards.

Iraq war.
Hallibarton.
Blackwater.
War on drugs.
Bear Sterns CEO.
Fanny Mae CEO.
Freddie Mac CEO.
Lehman Brothers executive thieves.
Lost?
Corn syrup subsidies.
Prison industrial complex.
761 military bases across the globe.
Pharmaceutical companies.
Weapons research.
Lobbyists.
Special interest groups.



Big government isn't good or bad in and of itself. It's what you spend the money on that matters.