Now see, abge, you just asked an open-ended question.

@obi: Limbaugh is just as much "entertainment" as Olbermann... unless you mean the quality, not the genre (that is, Olbermann was funny/witty/whatever and Limbaugh was not). Overall point stands, though.

I'd definitely hesitate to brand any of these folk as "journalists," good or bad, though.

That was my question, abgemacht--where ARE the good journalists today?

FOX is filled with FOX and Friends, Hannity, O'Reilley...MSNBC had Olbermann...Anderson Cooper's not all that much better on CNN...Limbaugh and the Right own the airwaves...

Where are the Walter Cronkites? Heck, I'd take a tim Brokaw right now...a real journalists, NOT a pundit, that's my point, it seems all that's left on the news is pundrity (though I WOULD ask the UK readers if it's the same for you...I actaully watch BBC America, and they seem to actually be a lot more balanced, so maybe England's got a better handle on this and still has actualn journalism...or maybe it's fairness borught about by distance, I don't know.)

O'Reilley, Limbaugh and Olbermann are analysts, not journalists.

NPR has a number of good journalists.

NPR is biased as hell. Give me a break. they may speak in some nuetral monotone, but the bias comes out just as much in what they say and decide to report on as what they DO NOT SAY and DO NOT report on.

Anyone that thinks NPR is somehow pure journalism is...well...not worthy of having this discussion with.

If *anyone* is looking for "journalism", the only way they will find it is through personal legwork. I listen to NPR...I listen to Limbaugh...I read the Washington Post...I read AP posts...I read sources from ALL OVER so that I can get a broad scope of a topic and form a more realistic opinion.

I suspect most on here that say "X is bad...Y isn't so bad" probably never actually listen to X, but have their bias and stick to it. NOT ALL OF YOU...but most of you are probably as judgmental as the journalists/entertainers you ridicule/support and won't listen to all of them in order to not be persuaded by the bias of the chosen.

@krellin: You'll note that abgemacht didn't say that all of NPR is good journalism - just that they have a number of good individual journalists.

I appreciate the support, Eden, but let's not rain on krellin's parade.

In other news, has anyone ever noticed that obiwan makes these posts and then always leaves right after without having a discussion?

Not raining on my parade. NPR has some good journalists. Fine. Granted. Fox News, too, has *some* good journalists. Let's see if you have the integrity to admit that. CNN, etc all have *some* good journalists....but the stations, the networks, have a bias. NPR is biased, and despite having a good journalist, his stories are still going to be somewhat dictated by *management*, who will push a good journalist to certain stories and/or cause him to avoid other stories. "Good Journalist" does not equal "unbiased reporting".

Honestly, I haven't watched CNN, FOX, or any TV News in years, so I wouldn't know. But, I have nor reason to suspect that there are no good journalists on those stations.

And, while I will admit that NPR certainly has a bias, I still think it is of a noticeably higher quality than any TV news.

what's npr

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=npr

DAMN. You beat me abgemacht. lmgtfy FTW

what's lmgtfy

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lmgtfy

^ win

what's http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lmgtfy

This is always good for a laugh:

http://live.lmgtfy.com/

The primary difference between NPR and most cable TV "news" is that NPR does, in fact, report a lot of "news" and have "news-like" programming (which is full of bias in how and what they report, I *must add*). TV - particularly FOX, CNN, MESS-NBC, etc - are news AND commentary/opinion, in which most often the opinion is blatantly mixed with the news, and half the time the "news" is simply commentary on other stations news. (whew....does that make sense?) Rush Limbaugh, for example, does 3 hours a day MOSTLY just commenting on what others have reported and how they have reported it. he scans the news and comments on it. So does FOX, CNN, etc.

When these stations DO "report" news, it is with heavy bias. So, yes, NPR is of "noticably higher quality" if you are looking for a "news" broadcast as ooposed to commentary....but...puhhhhhh-lease! If you can not understand that WHAT you report...HOW you report it and what you choose to NOT say doesn't influence your opinion, then you just don't get it.

Let take, for example, Christianity, and the example of Christ's death on the cross. In Christian circles, Christ IS God, and He dies on the cross ***and then*** (MOST IMPORTANT) rises from the dead to conquer sin. (NOT looking for relgious debate here, this is just an example.).

NPR would report it as such, "Christ, God, died...." end of story. The bias is clear. What they said is technically true, but the REST of the story, and therefore the REAL importance of the story is missed/lost/ignored.

PLEASE do no suggest that NPR is not biased, and do not make the ridiculous claim that they are "higher level" journalists, because anyone who pays attention to a broad spectrum of the media knows this to be a lie. On NPR, Sarah Palin is an idiot. On Fox news, she is a goddess. In reality, she is just as smart, just as capable, just as whatever as any other average American...including Barrack Obama, who has no real credentials to his name prior to his election. She had a career, then went into politics locally, then went on to Governor, then VP candidate...and now has influenced elections all over the nation.

Whether you like her or not, she is a very successful person - this can NOT be denied.

Yet in the liberal press, *including* NPR, she is made out to look like a buffoon. I heard her besmirched just today on NPR - belittled like she is an idiot. And yet, she makes a hell of a lot more money and has more influence than the jackass that was belittling her!!! THAT is bias.

Again....you don't have to like Sarah Palin - but the fact that she draws soooo much emotion - love and hatred - makes her a prime example of media bias. In truth, very, very, very few people know jack shit about her, know jack shit about her stances on any given issue...and yet ***everybody*** has an opinion about her. And WHAT informs this opinion???? THE MEDIA. The NEWS. NPR.. CNN. FOX. MESS-NBC....etc they all suck equally.

Goodness, krellin, who are you talking to? I admitted that NPR has a bias, so who was this rant even for?

There is another very important difference between NPR and TV News. TV news is inundated with commercials and gimmicks to get people to watch. I swear, in one hour of TV "news", it's 1/5 commercials and 1/5 them telling me "what's up next." It's a fucking nightmare.

Again, since you clearly didn't see me say it last time: Yes, NPR has a bias.

With that being said, I'm a busy person and don't have time to spend my whole day hunting for unbiased news.

Hahaha, Olbermann is fucking hypocrite. Donating after castigating Rupert Murdoch for donating to the GOP. In this case it was a lot less, but still :)

I have watched a little bit of Fox News, it seems a lot like Today Tonight or A Current Affair that we have over here.

Clearly you havne't rea my posts then - there IS NO unbiased news! Who is the rant for? Who the fuck are you to proclaim my opinion a "rant" I expressed my opinion and backed it up with solid examples. If you can't handle that...and you are so damned busy...then don't reply to my post. If you are UN-busy enough to monitor this forum, then maybe you should scan some news sources and educate yourself...

Regarding your comments: as a matter of FACT (NOT BIAS) you simply said NPR has good journalists. You did NOT say they are biased or unbiased.

You said this ABOVE you last post. In your very last post, you FINALLY ADMITTED NPR has bias.

That rant went:

NPR presents news -> but has bias -> therefore bad -> they mention Palin -> Palin is awesome and cool and shit -> RAWR LIBERALS HATE PALIN -> that was SO. RELEVANT. YEAH. -> MEDIA BLAAAAAAAAAAAH

coherency is sooooooooo out-of-fashion.

"And, while I will admit that NPR certainly has a bias, I still think it is of a noticeably higher quality than any TV news."-abgemacht

Well, this has been fun, but once again you've shown that you'd rather just yell to hear yourself talk than actually discuss anything.

P.S.

Your "solid examples" consisted of a made-up story about Christ and an anecdotal story on Sarah Palin.

And for future reference, these threads go in chronological order from *top to bottom*. Not the other way around. I admitted NPR was biased well before your giant Sarah Palin rant.

I admit, I must measure Krellin's Kredibility based on one statement:

"In reality, (Palin) is just as smart, just as capable, just as whatever as any other average American". So let's see: First, the average American has an IQ of....gosh...100. Would we want a President with an IQ of 100? Probably not. If one had a truly objective journalist, would it be surprising that they might exhibit a small bit of disdain for a person putting themself forward for office with such "credentials"?

To anticipate the response: Yes, I consider a person who claims the ability to see Russia from their state as foreign policy credentials...to indeed have an AVERAGE IQ and therefore be unsuitable for office. And YES, I saw the entire interview. Personnally, I'd much rather have krellin for president, you make more sense than she does....

...though your kredibility is suspect....

threads go from top to bottom? damn....and I thought I was suddenly able to predict what I was going to write! darn!

Actually, the example of Jesus dying on the cross is why NPR is probably the least biased.

They reported the facts. Jesus died on a cross. They didn't get into a religious debate about it, they didn't pass on opinions as fact, they reported verifiable facts. Jesus died on a cross.

And that is the best we can expect out of news... the reporting of facts. Its a lost art, and I'm the first to say even NPR doesn't get always right.

Also: Krellin... umad bro?

Krellin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPjUsu2-QMQ

I would argue that you can't really complain that "real journalism" went away, since I don't think it was around in the first place, in the sense that journalism was always biased. The style has certainly become more overt, but every media organization has had it's biases.

I would argue that there are degrees of bias, and that a station like NPR could consider itself less biased, if simply because they do present the facts, as opposed to pundits who present only opinion. I think NPR's bias is more in the stories it presents than in the facts it presents.

Then again, I'm liberal, so I wouldn't think that their facts are biased.

Oy.....yep, we have no good news left......NPR, FOX,CNN, MSNBC, they're all biased....

David Brooks. Robert Seagull. Charlie Rose. Center for Public Integrity.

There is no thing as unbiased news, what there is such a thing as is decent and honest news which attempts to eliminate its bias as much possible.

Oh right. Krellin. Btw. I *will* take you up on NPR. NPR *is* better than Fox and MSNBC.

Here is why: for one thing, it's radio, so they don't have the benefit of distracting you with images that may or may not enhance the reporting... sometimes (a lot of the time) they hide behind irrelevant stock footage and maps and so on.. but that's just a problem with TV in general.

So, does NPR have a liberal bias? Yeah they do, it's pretty clear. Here's how you can tell: they interview academics (notorious for being liberals...) they have an academic tone (read: they use big words), and they talk about topics conservatives don't give a flying fuck about (places like Nepal, poor Americans... etc).

Am I being a bit polemical? Yeah... let me say what I really mean.

In their quest to be genuinely unbiased, they offend certain people. Because they actually ask critical questions about both Dem and GOP policies and ideas, the side being criticized will tense up and be offended. So, no, they DO NOT make Sarah Palin out to be an ignorant fool, even though they probably think that's what she is. They bring in analysts to talk about what she means for America, her strategies, how she thinks, etc. They INTENTIONALLY and with great care refrain from actually criticizing her.

And so it is with all people. Even scumbags like Mugabe get the same treatment.

When I hear people NPR is soooo biased... what I hear is: "I wish they would bring on more pseudo-academics and misrepresent things in my favor more often."

Newsflash: unbiased reporting is not the same as balanced reporting. Sometimes, there *is* a better idea, a better candidate. So they bring in analysts and talk about that, why that might be, etc. So... when it comes to Palin not knowing any major newspapers or making up words... they're not going to shy away from that. They won't be disrespectful like some mouthpieces of the left though.

And that's why people who aren't leftists listen to it. Because it's tolerable and interesting, important, and relevant to every American. That's what makes it good. The *quality* of reporting. Robert Seagull and Michelle Norris have been voted the most trusted news anchors in America, and NPR is one of the few news outlets to be expanding of late. This is no accident. And they *clearly* try to stay away from their personal biases, something that other outlets simply do not do.


I might add that Marketplace is rather pro-business... just so you know.

However the Center for Public Integrity is reallllly legit. THAT is good journalism. Those people are legendary.

Thucy +1

@ obi's thread's description: I'd say it's in part because of the 24 hour news cycle, which does two things: it make "journalists" desperate to get any and all "news," becoming vultures on the look out for any sensationalistic or sesationalizable story. Second, they get so much attention this way that they get inflated heads and think they do not have to play by the rules of civil law, common decency, or journalism itself.

You cant get away from bias, all writers are propagandists.

a few places I get my news.

democracynow.org
inteldaily.com
english.aljazeera.net
http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/
http://narconews.com/
http://www.indypendent.org

What do you think of the BBC Sicarius?

+1 baumhauer

I dont know. I trust it more on american issues since its not american news.
Like any news I guess, take it with a grain of salt and try to filter out the shit.

I could be opening a can of worms here, but does anyone have an opinion on Juan Williams?

well juan williams certainly has opinions

lol