Ukraine Crisis

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I start with CNN, knowing full well they electioneer for Democrats, but that doesn't completely obscure the . . . news. The headlines. What's happening around the world, that's new. Put a bunch of new's together, and it's news. What's news? What's new. (False etymology right there, to be clear.)

CNN basically reports all the news that's worth being on most news outlets' front pages. I also look at the New York Times, just the headlines. Whenever I do this I see what CNN already told me, so NYT corroborates that CNN isn't blowing smoke.

But NYT also electioneers for the Dems, and I know this full well. Particularly the columns, opinions and editorials on NYT, and all other links, clearly indicate it is homebase for Dems.

And when I click to the Wall Street Journal (before it 'cookie-crashes' their webpage) I see the same headlines there as I see in CNN and NYT. WSJ electioneers for Republicans.

The headlines are unanimous. They are bipartisan. They are a supermajority. All the serious, professional journalists report the news, the headlines, the new's of the day. They slant, they spin, they rhetorically explain and they tell their narratives, but you can see through that, to the actual news.
I used to do the same thing with the CBC on the radio until 2019 when they caught orangemanbad fever
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Well, tell that to those who claim they're being lied to and who have access to multiple media where they can corroborate news for veracity while the likes of Russia have no such luxury.
When I was a boy and was taught about journalism and research, we were always told that more sources was always better than just one source. That was before Fox News (perhaps) started to transparently overtly (like professional wrestling) blur the line between news and journalism and tabloids. But Fox News was only reflecting what had been going on already for a long time in television news, which is that even the most respected news outlets were subtly and secretly and therefore deceptively, electioneering for the Democratic party.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
lol I do listen to NPR too. Keep your friends close; the saying goes.
I used to enjoy the CBC overnight when they would do public radio from other countries like Deutsche Wella and Africa Watch. Occasionally I'd catch something from France or Belgium too.

Nothing from the Middle East or the Orient, nothing from South America. Curious
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
When I was a boy and was taught about journalism and research, we were always told that more sources was always better than just one source. That was before Fox News (perhaps) started to transparently overtly (like professional wrestling) blur the line between news and journalism and tabloids. But Fox News was only reflecting what had been going on already for a long time in television news, which is that even the most respected news outlets were subtly and secretly and therefore deceptively, electioneering for the Democratic party.
Well, it stands to reason that multiple sources are better than just the one else how could that one source be questioned, verified or debunked? As before, it's a case of discerning those sources that in the case of serious news and not just tabloid sensationalism are worth delving into and the credibility associated. Heck, even the tabloid press gets things 'right' on occasion but that's because the 'story' is all over the place, verified and can't be falsified. Even amidst any given bias there's enough to source that gives credible news and the likes of Russia don't have that. In the West, we do.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Saw a report from Ukraine on CNN this evening. (05-24-22)
Reporters near the front were under fire from artillery, and mentioned the over-head, Russian drones.
Then they entered a "root-seller" where they said the Ukrainians had been hiding "for weeks"... as the shelling got closer.
The reporters fled, after having supplied the Russian drone with the location of the "cellar".
I would call the reporters double-agents for Russia.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
I start with CNN, knowing full well they electioneer for Democrats, but that doesn't completely obscure the . . . news. The headlines. What's happening around the world, that's new. Put a bunch of new's together, and it's news. What's news? What's new. (False etymology right there, to be clear.)

CNN basically reports all the news that's worth being on most news outlets' front pages. I also look at the New York Times, just the headlines. Whenever I do this I see what CNN already told me, so NYT corroborates that CNN isn't blowing smoke.

But NYT also electioneers for the Dems, and I know this full well. Particularly the columns, opinions and editorials on NYT, and all other links, clearly indicate it is homebase for Dems.

And when I click to the Wall Street Journal (before it 'cookie-crashes' their webpage) I see the same headlines there as I see in CNN and NYT. WSJ electioneers for Republicans.

The headlines are unanimous. They are bipartisan. They are a supermajority. All the serious, professional journalists report the news, the headlines, the new's of the day. They slant, they spin, they rhetorically explain and they tell their narratives, but you can see through that, to the actual news.
I used to watch CNN Headline news back in the 1990s. Just 30 minutes of my precious time and I'd be all caught up on national, international and sports news. Believe it or not they were actually objective back then.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
But Fox News was only reflecting what had been going on already for a long time in television news, which is that even the most respected news outlets were subtly and secretly and therefore deceptively, electioneering for the Democratic party.
Exactly. The left are the ones who made Fox News necessary. They have no one to blame but themselves for the existence of Fox. If they would have just remained relatively objective Fox News would not exist today. But no. They couldn't restrain themselves. They went full libtard. The natural result was the right clamoring for a counterbalance.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
I used to watch CNN Headline news back in the 1990s. Just 30 minutes of my precious time and I'd be all caught up on national, international and sports news. Believe it or not they were actually objective back then.
I remember that. I'm just talking about the website. I spend probably 10 minutes all week on CNN, but that's plenty to see if there are any surprising headlines, which is all I'm looking for.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Exactly. The left are the ones who made Fox News necessary. They have no one to blame but themselves for the existence of Fox. If they would have just remained relatively objective Fox News would not exist today. But no. They couldn't restrain themselves. They went full libtard. The natural result was the right clamoring for a counterbalance.
(I don't agree with all your language but) Yes! It was their own fault, they shot themselves in the foot.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
And, like I say, they are lying to you.
Again, that whole discernment thing. Unless you're unhinged enough to think that all journalists and all media reporting consists of lies then it's easy to sift whereby truthful news is being reported. Or hey, maybe there's no such invasion of Ukraine going on and it's all just made up?
 
Top