How much TV/radio NEWS do you believe?

[Mystic]

Next question.

 

[spicer]

Having a fairly long, on going PM conversation with the OP I do not think he is being “disingenuous”. The problem is the political hacks that can’t control themselves, both blue hat and red hat wearers are equally guilty.

My hats purple BTW

Politics permeates everything, so does religion, two most important things in life. As tools they capture and separate, especially when working together. Myself, I don't wear a hat. What is, is.

I do not believe the OP was disingenuous, particularly with any sense of cynicism which is it's twin.

 

[hjames]

Don't you think he was perhaps being a little disingenuous, knowing that the thread would eventually turn political, regardless of his "pleas"? Isn't political discourse a natural evolution of this topic?

I think there are some very civilized folks here on both side,
capable of giving an answer without the WHY that takes it political.
I opt for keeping this going and keeping it clean.

 

[GChief]

Myself, I don't wear a hat.

That was kind of my point with the purple hat thing

 

[Quadman2]

The poll was created to assess the trend of how NEWS was appreciated, and not to derive political stances which oft times brings out the worst in people, as it evokes value systems, wherein one takes sides. This is "political", as it involves evaluation of governing powers.

So, based on the above definition, I was trying to ascertain the degree of belief in the overall NEWS sources and how they are perceived in terms of percentages, without the "nuts and bolts" that creates the input of media information.


Q

 

[hjames]

Sorry folks - argument cleared- please continue

 

[eiraved]

Don't listen to mainstream news much, except for sports news and even then only my favorite teams. It doesn't matter where they skew the narrative in that case, I'll read it.

 

[spicer]

OK, OP not AWOL, but FUBAR soon!


The poll was created to assess the trend of how NEWS was appreciated, and not to derive political stances which oft times brings out the worst in people, as it evokes value systems, wherein one takes sides. This is "political", as it involves evaluation of governing powers.

So, based on the above definition, I was trying to ascertain the degree of belief in the overall NEWS sources and how they are perceived in terms of percentages, without the "nuts and bolts" that creates the input of media information.


Q

I don't know how this might be put into a percentage but how it, much TV radio news, is perceived by me as a yardstick for lunatics. Renegades not with standing.

 

[Late Boomer]

The poll was created to assess the trend of how NEWS was appreciated, and not to derive political stances

This is not possible, because independent media and complete objectivity do not exist. Every news channel has an agenda. I prefer to get news about a country or a regime from a news resource outside of the country or opposing the regime. Such news are more trustworthy than news about a regime by the regime itself.

 

[noogies]

Having a fairly long, on going PM conversation with the OP I do not think he is being “disingenuous”. The problem is the political hacks that can’t control themselves, both blue hat and red hat wearers are equally guilty.
My hats purple BTW

I had similar, hence my own opinion.

I also own a hat like yours.

 

[Quadman2]

I don't know how this might be put into a percentage but how it, much TV radio news, is perceived by me as a yardstick for lunatics. Renegades not with standing.

If not sure how to react...then don't if you find you can't assess using this measurement tool. I could have used semantic criteria as" "none, some, often", but thought a % would eliminate some of the inherent emotional response as you have shared. So, just use a lower % for your overall take. That in itself reflects your opinion.


Q

 

[Quadman2]

This is not possible, because independent media and complete objectivity do not exist. Every news channel has an agenda. I prefer to get news about a country or a regime from a news resource outside of the country or opposing the regime. Such news are more trustworthy than news about a regime by the regime itself.

I agree, objectivity from neither media nor individual does not totally exist, as we/they are not Spock. And, every news network has a degree of bias built in.

But, considering all the above influences, I think most have an opinion one media source might be more believable than some of the others. On the other hand, some listeners have a belief that all NEWS is fake news, and not to believed. The Belief Pendulum swings, and I was hoping to see if I could get an POV from those aboard AK, without any outside interference.


If you look back to my initial intent, I was solely looking for percentages to gauge an overall take on media as a whole.


Q

 

[spicer]

If not sure how to react...then don't if you find you can't assess using this measurement tool. I could have used semantic criteria as" "none, some, often", but thought a % would eliminate some of the inherent emotional response as you have shared. So, just use a lower % for your overall take. That in itself reflects your opinion.


Q

Oh, well let me add sociopaths to the yardstick for lunatics. Not all sociopaths are lunatics but combined there is a synergy. Okay, the measurement tool. Renegades and emotions not with standing I'll peg it at one percent. Since there are no zero percents that is an absolute one.

 

[Pio1980]

Most network news mirrors AP, serious news departments tend to be underfunded appendages of the entertainment behemoths that carry them as a public service justification for the cash cow content.
Otoh, irresponsibly inflammatory opinionated commentary passing as "entertainment" seems to find popular funding. Validation trumps factual content, veracity doesn't matter if flagrant lieing supports the agenda narrative.

 

[spicer]

Most network news mirrors AP, serious news departments tend to be underfunded appendages of the entertainment behemoths that carry them as a public service justification for the cash cow content.
Otoh, irresponsibly inflammatory opinionated commentary passing as "entertainment" seems to find popular funding. Validation trumps factual content, veracity doesn't matter if flagrant lieing supports the agenda narrative.

I hear you on both sides. Thing is, if it's censored I look into it rather than take at face value what is said about it and make my own assessment. History is awash with vindicated people ahead of their time with physics or current events. Time Magazine had Chancellor you know who as man of the year with picture adorning the cover as Shirer was edited by Murrow. What is one to do.

 

[init4fun]

I know that this might be setting up a thread to get shut down due to its polarization make-up, but was hoping to get an over all picture, more so in the way of %.

So, this might be a poll where you share an opinion by selecting just how much you see as being the truth, WITHOUT getting into the WHY you think as you do.

However, if you can side-step your take on gov't as it is, and not taking a side, or lamenting specifically what is being done or not...it might be best, before the political fangs/claws come out.

So, keeping in mind the above constraints, share a %.

And if you can want to make a comment, keep it on the neutral side, without name calling or finger pointing, as this poll will be shut down in short order... as it should for opinions being emotionally charged.

Q

Hi Quadman, I voted 40% because I believe about 40% represents the local news & weather reports that aren't deliberately slanted to push an agenda.

It seems to me that the further from home the news being reported is about, the further from the truth it tends to become.

 

[onwardjames]

Most network news mirrors AP, serious news departments tend to be underfunded appendages of the entertainment behemoths that carry them as a public service justification for the cash cow content.
Otoh, irresponsibly inflammatory opinionated commentary passing as "entertainment" seems to find popular funding. Validation trumps factual content, veracity doesn't matter if flagrant lieing supports the agenda narrative.

And yet again, Pio succinctly puts this into perspective.

Having watched the news at night and hear them regurgitate the same exact rip and reads I did that morning (being an AP news affiliate at two radio stations of my employ) on most of the big 3, I cannot upvote this enough.

 

[spicer]

That was kind of my point with the purple hat thing

I know that Chief and understood. It's a hat though, and a purple one. We know the reference is to what's under your hat, as in, what are you hiding or keeping obscure or secret. That is why I said I don't wear one.

 

[noogies]

I know that Chief and understood. It's a hat though, and a purple one. We know the reference is to what's under your hat, as in, what are you hiding or keeping obscure or secret. That is why I said I don't wear one.

I'm not sure you did understand, at least not entirely.

GC isn't hiding anything.

 

[spicer]

I'm not sure you did understand, at least not entirely.

GC isn't hiding anything.

I understand. GC isn't hiding or identifying with either side and expressed it referencing a purple hat. Part of the landscape, that's all.