Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I like many on the internet am a regular reader of Cracked.com and had a good guffaw at this article: is http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-weve-stopped-trusting-media/ which if you don't feel like clicking through four reasons we've stopped trusting the media. Thinking on it though, most of my friends who are actively engaged in politics and current events don't trust the News Media at all. I know I personally don't. If CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc said the sky was blue I'd probably check it. I do admit to giving the BBC the benefit of the doubt more regularly then I should but the US media especially is lying until proven otherwise. I'm still not quite sure when that change occurred in me but I do think it's a change for the better given the average gak spewed during the 24 hour news cycle.

How do you all feel about the media and what are your perceptions of it? Do you have a certain point where you knew that you knew that you couldn't listen to them or trust the media any more?


For the purposes of this thread, The Media, refers to the major 24 hour news networks such as CNN, Fox and the BBC.

I get my knews from the Onion They're version of the world is funnier.

I'm a big fan of the Duffleblog for military news myself. It's amazing how many people will think either of those sources is real...

Hell the last Duffleblog article I linked on Facebook had a couple people concerned it was real, it was about a Marine Corporal having to commit seppuku for dishonorable behavior. Even included his death poem in the article.

Duffleblog is hilarious. I saw one article... "Army Invents Revolutionary Woodland Camouflage Uniform"

I identify as a liberal, but sometimes I get sick of all the snarky bullgak and sarcasm from MSNBC, so I watch Fox News. As much as I hate to admit it, a lot of the "journalists" on MSNBC are just whiny little spankers who blab all day about nothing. Rachel Maddow is the queen of them. I can listen to her talk, but her facial expressions make me want to punch out a wall and run around the house yelling.

I wouldn't mind fox news if the liberal viewpoints weren't torn apart and forced to sit in the corner while three or four white, middle aged men circle jerk themselves over how right they are and refuse to accept other viewpoints.

Hmm. So basically, I guess I like to listen to all the viewpoints, and decide what to think by myself. As a result, my interpretation or reaction of current events is usually ambivalent, or cold. I think it's better to have a stupid opinion and know the facts than to have a regurgitated opinion with no basis in fact. I like to hear both opinions (or however many present themselves), and dissect them. There's certainly a lot I can agree with with both sides.

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
Duffleblog is hilarious. I saw one article... "Army Invents Revolutionary Woodland Camouflage Uniform"

I identify as a liberal, but sometimes I get sick of all the snarky bullgak and sarcasm from MSNBC, so I watch Fox News. As much as I hate to admit it, a lot of the "journalists" on MSNBC are just whiny little spankers who blab all day about nothing. Rachel Maddow is the queen of them. I can listen to her talk, but her facial expressions make me want to punch out a wall and run around the house yelling.

I wouldn't mind fox news if the liberal viewpoints weren't torn apart and forced to sit in the corner while three or four white, middle aged men circle jerk themselves over how right they are and refuse to accept other viewpoints.

At work we have to keep a constant awareness of whats going on in the world, since our (my units) job involves sending military aircraft everywhere in the world. As such we have a bunch of tv's mounted on the walls and their usually stuck on various news channels. MSNBC never fails to crack me up. People always slam on Fox News, but I never hear the level of vitriol towards MSNBC when they make not one single effort to conceal that their in the bag for Obama and will do and say anything to make Romney look bad. I recall one day a few weeks ago where the entire 8 hour shift the only thing I saw them discussing was how bad of a person Romney was, not one single mention of any real news item in this country, just Mitt Romney. Even our "token liberal"* co-worker can't stand them.

I'll shamelessly admit that if I have a choice in what to watch for mainstream news, it's Fox. I can pick out when the talking heads are going over the top, and they at least make an occasional effort to look at things from the other side, or they'll have people on their show who will. That and they've got Red Eye.

*Say that because so many in the military are conservative/right leaning moderates. It's not very often you find those totally in the bag for the left.

Yeah, exactly. I can usually tell which of them are getting "out there" before they start talking too much, and I tune it out.

During the afternoons, while MSNBC is talking midday nonsense, I can usually tune into Fox for a couple segments of just plain old news, with minimal commentary, and a decent concentration of facts

Liberals have the right ideas with a lot of things, and leave religion out of things. However, in place of religion, they spread their sickening morals and expectations. They point the finger, but in a backwards and indirect way.

Fox News leaves the religion in, but are often slightly more level-headed about serious issues, or more to the point. There's always someone who wants to flame and point fingers, but it's less common than it used to be.

It's not that I don't trust the media for lies, it's more so that I don't trust the media for biases. Don't give me an opinion, just tell me the facts.

Also, the jon stewart option was too hilarious to pass up

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Do you have a certain point where you knew that you knew that you couldn't listen to them or trust the media any more?

This is a bit roundabout, but I remember being in 5th grade and listening to the OJ Simpson trial in the principle's office and, more importantly, all the commentary of the office staff. All these authority figures and most of them couldn't agree about the guilt of OJ, my 10 year old mind eventually realized that if they couldn't come to consensus about something so frivolous I had no reason to listen to them regarding things that weren't frivolous. I eventually extended this to any kind of authority, including the media.

This also lead to more time in the principle's office.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:

At work we have to keep a constant awareness of whats going on in the world, since our (my units) job involves sending military aircraft everywhere in the world. As such we have a bunch of tv's mounted on the walls and their usually stuck on various news channels. MSNBC never fails to crack me up. People always slam on Fox News, but I never hear the level of vitriol towards MSNBC when they make not one single effort to conceal that their in the bag for Obama and will do and say anything to make Romney look bad.

MSNBC needs to be attacked way more than it is, though it is worth noting that it basically just copies Murdoch tactics and has seen a rating boost due to that. People like them their pats on the head.

MSNBC would probably be more of a target if it had any viewers.

 Ahtman wrote:
MSNBC would probably be more of a target if it had any viewers.

They're the second most watched news network. (I don't count Comedy Central as a news network).

djones520 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
MSNBC would probably be more of a target if it had any viewers.

They're the second most watched news network.

When did this happen?

 Ahtman wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
MSNBC would probably be more of a target if it had any viewers.

They're the second most watched news network.

When did this happen?

Ratings I saw posted onl drudge yesterday. Showed Fox as the top dog. Comedy Central's show's where in second, and the top three MSNBC pundits were in third.

These, that don't show CC, show's them in second on all categories.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/28/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-september-27-2012/150564/

I don't pick out any one MSM station for vitriol... all of them suck hard though I barely acknowledge MSNBC exists.

I'd like to think though, that as a nation we can all agree that Nancy Grace is completely evil.

djones520 wrote:

These, that don't show CC, show's them in second on all categories.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/28/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-september-27-2012/150564/

It shows them as third.

 dogma wrote:

djones520 wrote:

These, that don't show CC, show's them in second on all categories.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/28/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-september-27-2012/150564/

It shows them as third.

They're listed third, check the actual numbers though. The don't list the channel by rank.

You're right, I should have noted that.

 dogma wrote:
You're right, I should have noted that.

It's late, happens to the best of us.

Depending on what your looking at there is obviously a lot of truth in the media. But there is also a lot of spin, and a lot of made up rubbish.
I would like to think the majority of people are sensible enough to work out what's worth reading and trusting. But some people will for example only ever buy the same paper, that's their source of news, and the believe everything written in that paper. It's odd.

Most of the media stuff I 'interact' with, is football (soccer) related, or just sport in general. And so much rubbish is reported, misquoted players, one tiny out of context comment spiralling into a big debate, rumour that are just completely made up yet still make it into newspapers. You can't even trust the match stats from some places.

To many sources of media are owned by too few. There's a distinct problem with government having to court the media in order to either get backing or to shape the issues of the day a certain way. It's not that they misinform for the sake of it, it's that there are a lot of agendas feeding in that result in the end product being a distortion of reality.

The hypocrisy of tabloid newspaper for example, where they say things that directly contradict themselves from week to week depending on which way various winds are blowing with corporate or government interests, or how they wish to feed public opinion. Their readers must live in some 1984 world of doublethink where they just forget everything that has come before. These are the same newspapers that without irony will put an article crying about the increasing sexualisation of the young opposite an article drooling over some celeb in a bikini or even less.

Any of the hot topics like immigration frequently boil down to the lowest denominator and there's no attempt to inform, it's all about selling copies and feeding people's fears and morbid curiosity. The main problem is that a large part of the public don't have the reasoning abilities to separate out bs from the fact and spot fallacious arguments when they see them. And they also seem more interested in hearing gossip than real news, or even caring about any ethics in the press. The outrage over the phone-hacking of murdered children and harassment of innocents didn't seem to last long once the next pics of some celeb getting their tits out were published.

Bread and circuses, the public lap this rubbish up in droves so that's all that many sources of media deem worth to feed them.

Looking at the poll, here's my reaction:

C'mon people, you're giving yourselves far too much credit... I think people would *ideally* love to be the objective guy who honestly reads everything from Al-Jazeera to Pravda and then forms a conclusion that he submits to the world as a 5,000 word essay.

Do people TRUTHFULLY read all the sources they can? As someone that holds down a job/enjoys his hobbies I certainly don't have the time to do that. For me, it's just a read of BBC News and Al-Jazeera; the former for my basic prole-friendly news and the latter for the international 'we include everything' perspective.

When it comes to trust I think too many sites carry an agenda (hell I think even the BBC omit a lot of information deliberately) - The Guardian is the most inflammatory of our newspapers I think, maybe tied with the Sun (that is, for advancing a political cause). I'll just flat out discount these sources.

Do people TRUTHFULLY read all the sources they can?

Depends on the subject. I'm not going to read a thousand articles about how President Obama went golfing instead of doing... Whatever it is Fox News expects him to be doing.

Immigration reform though. Pretty much forced to read a dozen different things (and read beyond the general media) just to get a real grasp on the issues involved.

I trust the BBC to be at least objective if not always factually accurate (but they seem to do well enough in that regard). I don't trust any other media outlets, especially print media.

I have to say that I would never trust anything from an American "news" source without having checked it. The BBC is generally pretty good for non-partisan, factual reporting.

Jon Steward and Dakka OT is all I need for news.

I used to trust the media
To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now I've seen the payoffs
Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?

"Revolution calling" by Queensryche.

- Wise words when I heard them back in the late 80s.
Still appropriate now.

 Blitza da warboy wrote:
It's not that I don't trust the media for lies, it's more so that I don't trust the media for biases. Don't give me an opinion, just tell me the facts.

Also, the jon stewart option was too hilarious to pass up

It's worth pointing out that the Daily Show is the only news show in the world to have Sir Patrick Stewart as a Senior Replacement Correspondent.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-26-2012/the-daily-show-correspondent-strike

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Blitza da warboy wrote:
It's not that I don't trust the media for lies, it's more so that I don't trust the media for biases. Don't give me an opinion, just tell me the facts.

Also, the jon stewart option was too hilarious to pass up

It's worth pointing out that the Daily Show is the only news show in the world to have Sir Patrick Stewart as a Senior Replacement Correspondent.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-26-2012/the-daily-show-correspondent-strike

Patrick Stewart makes everything better. Most likely would not have made it through TNG without him.

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
Duffleblog is hilarious. I saw one article... "Army Invents Revolutionary Woodland Camouflage Uniform"

I identify as a liberal, but sometimes I get sick of all the snarky bullgak and sarcasm from MSNBC, so I watch Fox News. As much as I hate to admit it, a lot of the "journalists" on MSNBC are just whiny little spankers who blab all day about nothing. Rachel Maddow is the queen of them. I can listen to her talk, but her facial expressions make me want to punch out a wall and run around the house yelling.

I wouldn't mind fox news if the liberal viewpoints weren't torn apart and forced to sit in the corner while three or four white, middle aged men circle jerk themselves over how right they are and refuse to accept other viewpoints.

Hmm. So basically, I guess I like to listen to all the viewpoints, and decide what to think by myself. As a result, my interpretation or reaction of current events is usually ambivalent, or cold. I think it's better to have a stupid opinion and know the facts than to have a regurgitated opinion with no basis in fact. I like to hear both opinions (or however many present themselves), and dissect them. There's certainly a lot I can agree with with both sides.

You mispercieve the greatness of Fox news: Hotties. They have lots of hotties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Blitza da warboy wrote:
It's not that I don't trust the media for lies, it's more so that I don't trust the media for biases. Don't give me an opinion, just tell me the facts.

Also, the jon stewart option was too hilarious to pass up

It's worth pointing out that the Daily Show is the only news show in the world to have Sir Patrick Stewart as a Senior Replacement Correspondent.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-26-2012/the-daily-show-correspondent-strike

I saw that. Awesome!

I don't know what her name is, but the lady Fox has talking at like 3 in the afternoon is so hot. Like, not even in an ironic way. She just straight turns me on.

MSNBC has a new lady. Really deep voice, kind of tall and built, and wears hip glasses. Really hot. hnnngggg. Brb, watching the lewd news

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
I don't know what her name is, but the lady Fox has talking at like 3 in the afternoon is so hot. Like, not even in an ironic way. She just straight turns me on.

MSNBC has a new lady. Really deep voice, kind of tall and built, and wears hip glasses. Really hot. hnnngggg. Brb, watching the lewd news

Her? Megyn Kelly?


Dana Perino?

Andrea Tantaros?

Kimberly Guilfoyle?