|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Fox News is trash that attempts to divide our nation using lies and deception for political purposes. So is Michael Moore if that makes you feel better. |
Add CNN, MSNBC, and most other cable news networks, then add the New York Times and several other print media sources, exclude NPR and PBS, and no more than a small handful of other good information sources, and we can agree, Fox. |
Would you mind showing an example of a story CNN distorted with the corresponding untainted NPR story?
By the way, I follow an investigative reporting blog critical of the biospychaitry paradigm and as it happens, NPR was brought up recently as "another example of lazy, unquestioning reporting of mental health issues by a mainstream media outlet."
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/10/nprs_biased_reporting_on_mental_health.html
| Quote: |
| In an 8-plus-minute piece, her reporting was almost completely flavored with bio-psychiatry biases (diagnoses are unquestioned, meds and treatment always work, etc.) and there was no information about, for example, the FDA's black box warning on anti-depressants which are specifically aimed at the under-25 set. There was nothing about recent research showing diagnoses of bipolar disorder are wrong almost 50 percent of the time and that in a large percentage of cases the disorder resolves by a human's mid-30s. That would've been useful context to have in such a piece and its absence makes me wonder what kind of game NPR thinks it's playing (I should note that NPR has long been heavily-underwritten, in part, by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the big public health foundation begun by one of J&J's founders) and who is editing its science and health reporting. If NPR is not interested in contrary points of view, then it really needs to get back in touch with its journalistic values. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NPR conspiracy theories? I do not have time for that. It is far from the ever unobtainable "objectivity," if that is what you are getting at. It has its politics just as we all do. I agree.
My point, however, was to identify it as "a good source of information," a relative term, along with PBS, and I will add BBC and the Economist as well, as opposed to those sources which, in Fox's construction, exist as "trash that attempt to divide our nation using lies and deception for political purposes."
He only places Fox News in that category. I disagree. Quite a few, if not all, cable news networks fit that description, if that is indeed the level of discourse we are going to use. And that is my point. No more no less. If you have an ax to grind against NPR, by all means, grind it. But it has little to do with the point I was making with Fox. And I will not get into any discussion that cites a blog -- the worst source of information I can imagine -- as an authority on anything at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
NPR conspiracy theories? I do not have time for that. It is far from the ever unobtainable "objectivity," if that is what you are getting at. I agree.
My point, however, was to identify it as a good source of information, along with PBS, and I will add BBC and the Economist as well, as opposed to those sources which, in Fox's construction, exist as "trash that attempt to divide our nation using lies and deception for political purposes."
He only places Fox News in that category. I disagree. Quite a few, if not all, cable news networks fit that description, if that is indeed the level of discourse we are going to use. And that is my point. No more no less. If you have an ax to grind against NPR, by all means, grind it. But it has little to do with the point I was making with Fox. And I will not get into any discussion that cites a blog -- the worst source of information I can imagine -- as an authority on anything at all. |
No conspiracy theories. Everyone takes the biospychiatry assumptions for granted. In fact, the reason NPR was singled out was because they're known for being good at taking an unbiased stance on stories. Sounds like you're looking for trouble where there isn't any. I'm genuinely interested in seeing the point you're trying to make while presenting you with a counterexample fresh in my memory from the blog I regularly follow. As I see it right now, the bias NPR demonstrated on this issue I care about seems about equivalent to the bias CNN might demonstrate, which is why I'd prefer you give me an example-- just a link to a story CNN distorted and a link to the same story NPR covered in a less biased way.
As for blogs, this blog is run by a freelance investigative journalist and the guy's cited by plenty of writers in more "reputable" forms of media, although that's a pretty lame prejudice to have. A blog is just a vehicle for writing like any other; you look at the merits of each individual case if you want to come to a conclusion on source reliability. And especially with the idea that psychiatric diagnoses are "brain diseases" being so ingrained in the politically correct mainstream media on both sides of the two party divide and the way anyone critical of this paradigm is smeared with the BS Scientology gets into, you pretty much have to go to blogs if you want to read a variety of stories about the issue I happen to care about.
EDIT: Here's a rundown of some of the guy's credentials:
| Quote: |
For the last several years, I have been reporting extensively on mental health issues, locally and nationally, primarily at Seattle Weekly, where I was a staff writer until November 2006. In that time, I have interviewed patients living on the streets, in homeless shelters and in state mental hospitals, as well as patients leading more ordinary lives. I have interviewed researchers and doctors great and small. Adding together my formal reporting work and more informal encounters with patients going back to 1989, I have interviewed hundreds of people with mental illness.
...
As far as fancy stuff like journalism awards go, I won awards from the National Mental Health Association for my newspaper reporting in 2005 and 2006, and have won a half-dozen local and regional awards from the Society of Professional Journalists for my reporting on mental illness. In addition, I have won a national award for food writing, and 14 other SPJ awards for government reporting, investigative reporting, science reporting, feature writing and religion reporting. |
I can tell you he's also been used as a reference in the Philadelphia Weekly a number of times through Liz Spikol's segment and his following Fundraiser post gives a good list of what he's accomplished recently:
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/09/fall_fundraiser_begins.html
Last edited by Street Magic on Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You have a biopsychiatry ax to grind against Scientology and the meanstream media, then? I am not sure what your point and your concern with how NPR covers mental illness has much to do at all with my own point here re: cable news networks and uniform political bias, which Fox has called "distorting and lying," and wrongly applied only to the cable news network whose politics clash with his own.
If you cannot see the point I am making by now, I doubt you will no matter what else I write here.
Further, re: blogs. They are terrible sources of authority. No peer review process, no editor, no accountability whatsoever. Bloggers simply write what they please. I would never cite a blog in my points and authorities on anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
You have a biopsychiatry ax to grind against Scientology and the meanstream media, then? I am not sure what your point and your concern with how NPR covers mental illness has much to do at all with my own point here re: cable news networks and uniform political bias, which Fox has called "distorting and lying," an wrongly applied to only the cable news network whose politics clash with his own.
If you cannot see the point I am making by now, I doubt you will no matter what else I write here.
Further, re: blogs. They are terrible sources of authority. No peer review process, no editor, no accountability whatsoever. Bloggers simply write what they please. I would never cite a blog in my points and authorities on anything. |
Those are qualifications of side points. My overall point was to get you to clarify why NPR was superior to CNN by giving me links to their takes on the same story. The point of my bringing up that investigative journalism piece which happens to have been delivered in "blog" format was to show you an example of distortion and bias in NPR, one of the few media sources you cited as reliable in contrast to the other sources you grouped in with Fox News.
EDIT: You can review the claims in any source yourself. This is the same argument posed against wikipedia. I wouldn't cite a blog or wikipedia in an academic paper, but in a forum exchange I don't see why I shouldn't bring up an issue that you can easily look up yourself. The guy provided links to the NPR transcripts. There's nothing to fact check (although you can fact check the claim he makes about the underwriting). Make up your own mind.
EDIT2: And is it that much to ask that you post a link to a distorted CNN story and a link to a better covered NPR story? It's pretty obvious how evasive you are over this issue. I haven't asked for much and haven't made much of an argument. I just threw a counterexample out there (which you could easily have checked rather than dismissing it as either worthless for being blog material or irrelevant for not relating closely enough to the original topic) and asked for a very specific example of what you're talking about. That's really all I had to add. I don't understand why you're getting so defensive over such a simple request and a relatively mild counterexample.
EDIT3: (Irrelevant details ahead) As long as I'm on an editing rampage, "biospsychiatry ax to grind against Scientology" makes no sense. It's irrelevant to this argument, but just to make that detour clear, I'm critical of the biopsychiatry paradigm, as is Scientology, which is the problem because Scientology is known for having a bizarre religious infatuation with psychiatrists as alien nazis or something, which makes non-ridiculous critics of biopsychiatry look ridiculous by association. "Biopsychiatry" is just the underlying assumption that psychiatric diagnoses exist because of physical defects in the brain rather than because of social, emotional, or other less tangible problems, which is only a big deal because of the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry has exploited biospsychiatry.
Last edited by Street Magic on Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a snapshot of the headlines as various news sources are running them right now, listed in alphabetical order by news agency:
I. CNN:
Girl Gang-raped at Homecoming Dance
Family Seeks "Truth" about Sweat Lodge
Sex Assault Victim Loses Insurance
52 Kids Found in Prostitution Crackdown
Liz Taylor Tweets Jackson Film Praise
II. Fox News:
Will It Work? (Nasa story)
U.S. Official Quits over [Afghanistan] War
Reid: Public Option "No Silver Bullet"
White House Criticism Boost$ Chamber [yes, it is annoying the way they wrote that one]
"Hot Morman Muffins" Calendar Pokes Fun at Group
III. MSNBC:
Statisticians Reject Global Cooling
NASA Readies Key Test of New Rocket
Deadly Hours in Afghanistan
NTSB: Wayward Pilots Were on Laptops
"Crash" Director Haggis Quits Scientology
CNN, more than the others here, reads like a sensationalist joke. It is also running a story on a "dancing boy" turned "sex slave." You might want to recall how CNN covered the W. Bush administration vs. how it has covered its Messiah since the election season, too.
And here is NPR, for good measure:
China Spends Billions in a Global Spree for Oil
Reid Gambles on Public Option in Health Care Bill
Obama Says He Won't Rush Afghanistan Troop Plan
Israel's "Cold" Peace with Egypt, Jordan Grows Chillier
NASA to Launch World's Tallest Rocket
It reads like a far more serious news source than the others, Street Magic.
Finally, who is getting "defensive?" You are resorting to a simple and tired tactic here of mischaracterizing someone you are exchanging with in order to artificially create a superior, self-assured position. I repeat: If you cannot see the point I am making by now, I doubt you will no matter what else I write here. So, no, I do not plan to comply with your homework assignment and write a detailed analysis breaking down a CNN and NPR story here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Here is a snapshot of the headlines as various news sources are running them right now, listed in alphabetical order by news agency:
Finally, who is getting "defensive?" You are resorting to a simple and tired tactic here of mischaracterizing someone you are exchanging with in order to artificially create a superior, self-assured position. I repeat: If you cannot see the point I am making by now, I doubt you will no matter what else I write here. So, no, I do not plan to comply with your homework assignment and write a detailed analysis breaking down a CNN and NPR story here. |
Thank you.
I didn't ask for a detailed breakdown. I didn't mischaracterize you. I just asked for an example of CNN compared to a corresponding example of NPR in addition to defending why information from a blog entry can be just as valid as information from anywhere else depending on the particular circumstances of the individual case in question.
I don't intend to be superior or self-assured. I intended to see an example of what you were getting at and I intended to defend a writer I happen to enjoy a great deal. That's all.
EDIT: Nitpicking here, but there's a difference between "defensive" and "evasive." I thought you were evasive (before; I'm cool with the example you gave me in your last post now) because:
1) You didn't provide the simple one to one comparison I asked for, given that this was the basis of your main argument (a few sources like NPR are legit, while everything else is roughly similar to Fox News).
2) You attacked my example for being from a blog when I could've just as easily linked directly to NPR and said what the blog writer said.
EDIT 2: Never mind, it's 3 in the morning here and I forgot I actually called you defensive right after I called you evasive. My bad.
Last edited by Street Magic on Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
More like "Fox News is not so different from everything else," but yes, what you say more or less encapsulates my position. Most of these sources embrace their own politics. I will say I enjoy CNN's Wolf Blizter's news. But Anderson Cooper? Or "Mr. Moderate?" Spare me.
Did you know you can buy your "Obama" t-shirt at CNN.com, Street Magic? And see "news stories" such as this one...?
Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Coverage of Obama's "Swagga"
Also, you are certainly entitled to read and enjoy any source of information you please. I did not mean to suggest otherwise.
But I am not going to accept a blogger as an authority on any topic. Where I come from, it does not count unless it has survived a stringent double-blind peer-review critique and selection process.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:20 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
You are certainly entitled to read and enjoy any source of information you please. I did not mean to suggest otherwise.
But I am not going to accept a blogger as an authority on any topic. Where I come from, it does not count unless it has survived a stringent double-blind peer-review critique and selection process. |
In that case, I found this NPR piece to be pretty biased towards the politically correct "brain disease" psychiatry assumption. Here's a link to the transcript:
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=113835383
Just sayin', it doesn't really matter when the entry is essentially a link to the primary source.
| Quote: |
More like "Fox News is not so different from everything else," but yes, what you say more or less encapsulates my position. Most of these sources embrace their own politics. I will say I enjoy CNN's Wolf Blizter's news. But Anderson Cooper? Or "Mr. Moderate?" Spare me.
Did you know you can buy your "Obama" t-shirt at CNN.com, Street Magic? And see "news stories" such as this one...?
Obama's Swagga' |
Haha, that's pretty weird. To be honest, I don't watch a whole lot of the mainstream news, so I really was being genuine in treating our exchange as a learning process for me more than a straight up argument. Maybe it's just Fox News' associated audience that makes me suspect they're in a league of their own, or how suspect the convenience inherent in making symmetrical claims about media bias in a two party system is.
You mentioned Jon Stewart earlier. Do you have any particularly bad examples of news misrepresentation in mind for him? Anyway, I'm probably done for the night/morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soakitincider
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In order to be a conservative you have to have something to conserve. I teach english in Korea, nuff said? Don't like Fox, change the channel. But wasn't there something about freedom of speech on one of those "old pieces of paper"? Seek the facts, use your mind.....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| soakitincider wrote: |
| In order to be a conservative you have to have something to conserve. I teach english in Korea, nuff said? Don't like Fox, change the channel. But wasn't there something about freedom of speech on one of those "old pieces of paper"? Seek the facts, use your mind..... |
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. No one is suggesting we deny Fox News the ability to put its message out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. No one is suggesting we deny Fox News the ability to put its message out there. |
Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to lie? Or just not for an outfit that purports to be a news agency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. No one is suggesting we deny Fox News the ability to put its message out there. |
Doesn't freedom of speech include the freedom to lie? |
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie, but it doesn't include freedom from criticism. Yes, Fox News is free to lie, and all of us -- including the Obama Adminstration -- are free to call them out on those lies and treat them with contempt because of those lies.
An attack on Fox News' freedom of speech would be a suggestion to legislate in order to prevent them from broadcasting their lies. That's not happening, so freedom of speech is not relevent to the conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Fox News is trash that attempts to divide our nation using lies and deception for political purposes. So is Michael Moore if that makes you feel better. |
Add CNN, MSNBC, and most other cable news networks, then add the New York Times and several other print media sources, exclude NPR and PBS, and no more than a small handful of other good information sources, and we can agree, Fox. |
I don't agree those organizations lie and distort anywhere near as often -- or anywhere near as systematically -- as Fox News or Michael Moore does. They have their biases, and it colors their reporting, but their actual news reporting is no where near as bad.
|
Michael Moore, Glen Beck or anyone else has the right to say what ever they hell they want. They're not the problem. The problem is when media Moguls actively try and distort reality in order to advance their own agenda's.
Anyway I don't quite see how Micheal Moore (one man) equals Fox news (news organisation). Also I've never yet seen Michael Moore suggest or imply that Americans need to resort to violence in order to be heard. Can the same be said about Glen Beck????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
