# How accurate is journalism today?



## fuzionman1997

I was just wondering how many people here get their news sources from alternate venues(Internet, alternative press etc.). If so do you trust those sources more than the mass media?

I find cable news to be overly sensationalized. Fox, although claiming that it gives "Fair and Balanced" news, seems to do just the opposite. Its news stories don't seem objective in the least and don't seem very well researched. It seems to promote a strictly conservative agenda. CNN seems to not be as "in your face" as Fox, but seems to cater to a more liberal agenda. I don't know where MSNBC stands...perhaps somewhere in the middle?

Broadcast news is perhaps a little better.....for instance, I think shows such as 60 Minutes have maintained some degree of journalistic integrity(probably because much of its original staff has stuck around). I haven't seen enough ABC, NBC or CBS nightly news nowadays to be able to comment on its quality.

As for the Internet and alternative press, I think a lot of what is written is very thought provoking, and is not or at least less apt to be influenced by corporate ambition. Of course some of what is written on the Internet seems like total hocus pocus. 

As for newspapers....I rarely read one nowadays.

Well, anyhow, just some rambling thoughts off the top of my head. Does anyone have any opinions on the state of journalism today?


----------



## Brioche

I don't bother with tv news or current affairs. 
Superficial and sensationalist.


----------



## cuchuflete

Brioche said:


> I don't bother with tv news or current affairs.
> Superficial and sensationalist.



Ditto.

I also tend to give no credence to either media or forum sources that use mushy, undefined terms such as "liberal/conservative agenda".  There is neither specificity nor intellectual rigor in such nonsense.


----------



## PianoMan

I must say though, Fox news is undeniably biased, if they have to advertise that they are fair and balanced, it means that they're truly hiding something.  Anyways, my prefered source of information is Reuters and the BBC, hidden agendas or not in America, our news networks are just too superficial.


----------



## Sepia

Brioche said:


> I don't bother with tv news or current affairs.
> Superficial and sensationalist.



So where do you get your information from? You can't be running around in councils and parlaments checking up on everything yourself, can you?


----------



## invictaspirit

I tend to regard certain news organisations as the least bad, rather than the best. I have less mistrust in the BBC than most broadcasters, but that does not imply that I trust them. Other TV news sources in the UK, such as SKY and ITV, tend to be more sensationalist. The evening news on Channel 4 is excellent, very in-depth, but it's on at 7 PM and I am often doing other things then.

Buried very deep indeed in my sat platform's channel line-up is the hilarious FOX News. That is more or less the most deranged news source I have come across. I'm interested to watch Al Jazeera in English, and also France24, which come on stream here shortly.  I find US news hard to watch.  They skate far too quickly over stories.  Blink and you miss them.

Britain's newspapers are nearly all hopelessly biased. The worst are the Independent and Guardian (liberal/left) and the Daily Mail (conservative). More objective (without actually being objective) are The Times and the Telegraph.

My daily news fix:

BBC News24 at breakfast time
I listen to BBC 5Live radio in the car
I read some of the Times at lunchtime
If I have time I read some of _Le Monde_ and _El Pais _online
I sometimes watch the local TV news for my county and the neighbouring one
I always try to check a few blogs and web-based news sites in the evening before I go to bed.

I think a mixture of things keeps me reasonably up to date. I trust the mixture rather than any one source.


----------



## TRG

The news source I enjoy the most is probably National Public Radio (NPR) because they tend to go into more depth than TV news. I also find very little political bias in their reporting even though I am politically conservative. I also get a lot of news from the internet. Most every day I look at the NYT, CNN, and Drudge. 

I think the amount of opinion journalism has increased greatly and much of what is supposed to be straight reporting is loaded with opinion.

As far as accuracy is concerned, all I can say is that in every instance where I have had first hand knowledge of the events being reported, there were substantial errors. I can only assume that all of the other news, where I do not have personal knowledge, also has some errors.


----------



## Jana337

I gave up on traditional media long ago. I almost never follow news on TV or radio. As far as printed media are concerned, I hardly ever attempt to read their stuff without recommendation. I visit a handful of blogs I trust (not all of them are in tune with my own opinions). They write their own analyses or link to other bloggers, and they also sift out what's worth reading in newspapers. I am quite happy with the "customized" mix of information I get, and I love the Internet for the easiness with which I can, time permitting, reach a wide spectrum of topics and opinions in a few clicks.

Journalism is pretty much dead for me; blogging destroyed it.


----------



## TrentinaNE

TRG said:


> As far as accuracy is concerned, all I can say is that in every instance where I have had first hand knowledge of the events being reported, there were substantial errors. I can only assume that all of the other news, where I do not have personal knowledge, also has some errors.


I second this!  Maintain a healthy skepticism about everything that is reported, and don't rely on one source.  I've gravitated to Jana's model over the years.  I listen to NPR in the car driving to and from work, cognizant that although its coverage is generally more in-depth than other sources, it does have its biases as well.  I skim the NY Times and Wall Street Journal online to stay abreast of "headline news," then visit trusted blogs for "analysis" of the news.  

To me, the big issue is not so much accuracy as it is selectivity: what the news media choose to focus attention on and what they ignore.  I'm troubled by the corporate ownership of the major TV networks and periodicals in the U.S. and how that probably influences the agendas of their news divisions.  Finding reliable independent sources to supplement (or replace) the "big guns" seems key to staying well informed.


----------



## Sepia

I think one big problem in journalism is less the influence that big political or financial powers have rather than the tendency to produce masses of badly researched BS (sexually active vegetarian mammal + 4-letterword). This, of course, is only saleable material because readers and media-viewers buy it - which they often do, because sorting out what can be reliable or not would force them to think by themselves. However, I think it is ridiculous to put the blame for this tendency on the mass-media alone. 

Personally I try to pick up info from the widest variety of media possible and try to put the puzzle together in my mind. Pretty much the way intelligence services try to do by having teams of people listening to radio stations and reading newspapers. Sometimes I stumble over information that journalists did not even pay attention to although basic clues were visible in the news-footage they were commenting. Sometimes they say one thing, although some detail in the upper left corner of the picture combined with info from a 2nd and a 3rd source say exactly the opposite. 

I don't know if they aren't any better or if they just don't care.


----------



## roxcyn

I don't like watching the TV news or on the radio.  Many times I read BBC en español.  However the news in the States is very negative and focuses on many of the problems of the society rather than the positive.  They do so to catch more viewers which is pretty sad because I think the news should be relevant to the city and not try to exploit the community for more viewers.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

invictaspirit said:


> Buried very deep indeed in my sat platform's channel line-up is the hilarious FOX News. That is more or less the most deranged news source I have come across. I'm interested to watch Al Jazeera in English, and also France24, which come on stream here shortly.  I find US news hard to watch.  They skate far too quickly over stories.  Blink and you miss them.



Al Jazeera is quite good, no where near as biased as I thought it would be, a bit heavy on the Palestinian issue but then I guess that's to be expected.

France24 is average, I don't really understand why they have most of their programming in English and then switch to French for about 3 hours a day. It's also annoying how they insist on saying France vingt-quatre on the English newscasts but maybe thats just me.

I'd say Sky News or CNN International are probably the best out of the lot, a little sensationalist obviously but their reporting is pretty straight down the middle, unlike a certain channel beginning with F.


----------



## Brioche

Sepia said:


> So where do you get your information from? You can't be running around in councils and parlaments checking up on everything yourself, can you?


 
Actually, I do sometimes watch the TV news from Deutsche Welle - Das Journal (in German) and The Journal (in English). The English-language version has an Australian newsreader.

I listen to the radio news from Australia's ABC. Five minutes of radio news gives as much information as half an hour of tv "news". The ABC is government-funded, but anti Australia's federal government. It takes a soft-left line. It's very predictable, so you know what to automatically discount.

I read the on-line editions of newspapers, blogs and some news magazines.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

I think that the main problem with journalism is that it's too politicised and manipulated: you could hear the same piece of news reported by a dozen different TV networks and you'd hardly understand they are talking about the same event!


----------



## palomnik

One of the major problems, in my opinion, is that over the years most news sources have become more polarized, and I think the internet is at least partly responsible. People have access to so many sources of news that they end up only reading those sources that support their overall outlook.

I unashamedly read the NY Times on line every morning. I'll watch one of the major US networks at night (usually NBC), although I wonder why I bother sometimes. I agree wholeheartedly with the general assessment on Fox News; an embarrassment like that could only flourish in Bushite Amerika.  I'll read Miami's Nuevo Herald to keep on top of events in Latin America, which is a major item of interest for me; they do good coverage in general, although their coverage of Cuban issues can verge on the obsessive, not too surprisingly. I'll read Al Jazeera online too, and in general I agree with Pedro's assessment.


----------



## germinal

palomnik said:


> One of the major problems, in my opinion, is that over the years most news sources have become more polarized, and I think the internet is at least partly responsible. People have access to so many sources of news that they end up only reading those sources that support their overall outlook.
> 
> I unashamedly read the NY Times on line every morning. I'll watch one of the major US networks at night (usually NBC), although I wonder why I bother sometimes. I agree wholeheartedly with the general assessment on Fox News; an embarrassment like that could only flourish in Bushite Amerika. I'll read Miami's Nuevo Herald to keep on top of events in Latin America, which is a major item of interest for me; they do good coverage in general, although their coverage of Cuban issues can verge on the obsessive, not too surprisingly. I'll read Al Jazeera online too, and in general I agree with Pedro's assessment.


 
What's a Bu?


----------



## Outsider

I do watch TV news and read newspapers every now and then, though with increasing skepticism.

On the Internet, you find more in depth analyses, tailored to every taste -- which is a problem in itself. Unless you train your critical thinking skills first, you'll just drift to whichever you like hearing best.

There's a lot of talk of media bias nowadays. I think the biggest sources of media bias do not have to do with the left-right dichotomy, but more with the upper-lower class dichotomy. There's also a patriotic bias in the news media, always.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

germinal said:


> What's a Bu?



Bushite? I think he's created his own adjective  but Bushite = follower/supporter of George Bush.


----------



## AngelEyes

Well, let's see...

I read the Wall Street Journal two nights ago. Pretty interesting story on the acquisition of a bunch of store chains who have now been incorporated into one big Macy's conglomerate. According to this report, they're doing great, business is great, the leadership is great...everything's just great. Then you go look at their stock movements and see the real picture and you understand why their stores are so empty at the mall. But, hey...if they said it and they printed it, it must be true. Maybe believing makes it so.

Next, now...
I love President Bush so I like what I see and hear on Fox. I liked Larry King last night, but only because Donald Trump was having an emotional melt-down on national TV. It was great theatre! 

I try to watch The View. I really do. But who are these women and where did they come from and why am I feeling like an alien who's in the wrong body?

Mmmm...Forbes Magazine is very interesting. Sometimes I even understand what they're talking about. 

Mad Magazine seems to cut to the heart of pop culture. You laugh, you turn the pages, you can enjoy it even if you've never watched what they're ridiculing. Now that's clear and concise writing.

I like Drudge and read him everyday. Just because he moves so fast with the filtering of headlines and information; you won't ever get bored. Plus, he has that whole list of other links to choose from. It's like a cyberspace ice cream parlor.

I don't like my news fat-free, though. I like to go for the gusto, so I'll read anything, I'll listen to anything - my thumb is flipping through my choice of over 300 channels on my TV when I can get myself to sit there long enough to look for inspiration and instruction.

Personally, everything I need to learn and know about life, I've gotten from _Seinfeld_. Now, he's deep and a wonderful source of helpful information.


*AngelEyes *


----------



## cuchuflete

This thread has re-awakened a doubt I've long had--
Do "news" organizations follow one another around?

Here's what I mean.  Years ago, when I first started using the internet, I set one of the major sites as my home page, and customized it to show both US and UK news top stories.  Most of the feeds for the US turned out to be from the Associated Press, though published by lots of different organizations.  The UK material is mostly BBC and Reuters. 


Here's the curious part.  When I go back to that page, no longer my home page, and glance at the headlines, I see about a 70+% overlap in stories reported by US and UK news sources.  At times it's more than a 90% overlap, except for sports, which remain 'local'.  

Another forero said earlier in this thread that Reuters is better than some US news organizations.  I went to google news, found a recent Reuters article—on the Raytheon divestiture of Beech.  Then I read the AP article.  They were nearly identical.  Both depended heavily on the Raytheon press release.  So much for "in-depth" reporting.  Neither AP nor
Reuters got into any background on the general aviation market, the competitive line up, or anything else.  It was just
a quick rehash of the press release and the stock price movement for Raytheon.   

What do I trust?  Not any TV news.  I got rid of the television years ago.  Print media- I read The Economist, and a variety of US and foreign papers, but with no regularity.  The least bad are the LA Times, NY Times, WSJ in the US market.
Radio- I join TRG in praising NPR.  Sometimes I find it too friendly to a liberal viewpoint or to a conservative viewpoint. I take that as a sign that it is fairly objective, or at least spreads its prejudice around from story to story.
Blogs- these almost always push a single viewpoint, but can be useful if you bring a reality filter to the party.  The bleeding heart lefties and Neanderthal righties are good for a laugh or a quick injection of indignant adrenalin.  They do sometimes have some interesting facts sprinkled among their self-serving analysis, which would be fishwrap were it printed on paper.


----------



## TRG

Another thing to keep in mind when considering the quality and accuracy of journalism, is that some of the traditional print media are having trouble with their business models, i.e., they are not profitable. This could have the effect of making their reportage a little edgier in order to hang on to eyeballs or it could just have the effect of lowering quality due to reductions in staff. Fox, which has drawn some criticism, is part of the phenomenon of tailoring news content for a niche market. Even if you dislike the content of Fox News, I think you would have to agree that it is a business success. I see it somewhat as an offshoot of the conservative talk radio business pioneered by Rush Limbaugh. I don't think RL pretends to be in the news business, but I think he has influenced the news business. 

As far as the quality of Fox, their programming from 3 to 6 pm (US central time) is quite good. The rest is, to me, unbearable.


----------



## maxiogee

Didn't The New York Times have a problem not too long ago with a reporter/journalist making up quotes?

All media should be taken with a pinch of salt.


----------



## TRG

It has been said, "believe none of what you hear, and half of what you read", or some such. It could be that part of the problem is that the consumers of news are not very discriminating and only want to hear stuff that reinforces their own opinion. If you have this mindset then I'm not sure there is much that high quality journalism can do to help you.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

AngelEyes said:


> I love President Bush so I like what I see and hear on Fox.



If you put it this way, it seems to be implicit that Fox TV always reports news the way Republicans would like them to be, i.e. Fox TV is NOT a reliable source for news..


----------



## AngelEyes

No, Paul,

What I meant was that, at least on Fox News, he seems to get a fair shot at having his actions, decisions, and policies presented in a more equalized light.

It's erroneous to assume that everyone at Fox News kisses his butt and throws nothing but support his way.

That is, simply, not true.

I've heard him criticized a lot on that station. His weak stand on immigration, for example, was highlighted.

Brit Hume is not a far right conservative. Chris Wallace seems pretty fair to me.

Since I admire and respect George Bush, the man, I admire and respect any news organization who is willing to give airtime to him and present the many sides of his Presidency.

Good and bad.

Over at CNN, Wolf Blitzer gives me a headache, although I don't know if that's from his actual reporting, or his zombie-like monotone delivery that threatens to put me in a coma when I listen for any length of time past 5 minutes.

But to answer your post, since I don't agree with everything President Bush does and says, I wouldn't want to tune in everyday to a news anchor who, in my opinion, comes across as leaning either one way or the other in reporting on him. But still, I like President Bush and I want to listen to news stories that are talking about what he did on any particular day, and I want to be able to do it without the snide remarks of someone reporting a story who hates him and you know and it shows. I'm sick and tired of being bashed right along with George just because I do support him. I get that from some of the mainstream media. *That's* the main reason I like Fox News.They are fair to the man in more ways than other stations.

You don't like my president, so you probably feel differently. Go ahead. It's your right.

But these feelings and opinions of mine are what prompted my statement. Maybe these words have clarified them further.




*AngelEyes*


----------



## PianoMan

Personally, despite me being liberal, I'd still rather have an unbiased news network then one hinting towards the left-wing, let alone conservative bias on Fox. I prefer to see our Democrats' point being proved through true facts displayed on the news rather than the assistance of a media leaning to one side.

100th Post


----------



## John-Paul

I think this is an excellent question because it touches on what we seem to take for granted: democracy. A democracy is only possible when the members of a democratic society are well informed. Well informed means that they are, on all issues, aware of opposing opinions. As a news-junky myself I'm really bothered by the commercialization of the news media. It's shocking to see how shallow the American news media is when it comes, for instance, to reporting about Irak or Afghanistan. I'm also watching the Dutch news via satellite and therefor able to compare what I call the "hero-reporting" versus the real news. It's not a surprise that only now people in the US are starting to comprehend the dimensions of the chaos they're in in Irak. Would they have been informed properly I'm sure the government would have taken action earlier (or not at all). I agree with most of the posted criticisms about blogs (propaganda), TV/Radio (shallow) and the print media (disappearing). The problem is that high standards depend on resources, unfortunately (except for NPR) these resources are not available. In an ideal situation the consumer would be the person to interpret and weigh the news. Unfortunately, many people today are not able to do that because they feel the need to be entertained and don't feel they should be the ones who'd do the thinking. The lack of political interest in global warming in many countries is a good example of the negative result of a populist media. Ask yourself, which countries are serious about global warming, which aren't, and what is the correllation with the usage of serious media.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

AngelEyes said:


> No, Paul,
> 
> What I meant was that, at least on Fox News, he seems to get a fair shot at having his actions, decisions, and policies presented in a more equalized light.



I beg to disagree. On Fox he gets every decision he makes supported, the only times I've heard him criticized is when he isn't to the right enough i.e. on immigration.



AngelEyes said:


> It's erroneous to assume that everyone at Fox News kisses his butt and throws nothing but support his way.



Excluding Alan Colmes, Juan Williams and Neil Gabler I know of no-one on the channel who criticizes him, no-one. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are the biggest names on the channel, and also the biggest Bush supporters. That really says it all.




AngelEyes said:


> Brit Hume is not a far right conservative.



Have you heard him on Fox News Sunday?????? Just yesterday he was asking could the US have won WWII with today's media (i.e linking that war to Iraq)!



AngelEyes said:


> Since I admire and respect George Bush, the man, I admire and respect any news organization who is willing to give airtime to him and present the many sides of his Presidency.



I think Bush has been a disaster for the world as president but that said the media should give him a fair go, I agree. But Fox is not fair, it's a right wing outlet run by a staunch right-winger, Roger Ailes, who pushes Republican talking points daily. I mean, if everyone is criticizing someone you like then another person supports him wholeheartedly does that mean the latter is being fair to him?

To be honest Fox isn't a news channel, it's an entertainment one. What Rush Limbaugh is to radio, Fox is to television. Biased, idiotic and untrustworthy.


----------



## AngelEyes

Yes! PianoMan,

I like your style. And, if implemented, your suggestion would produce very informative and constructive point/counterpoint.

If we could take the "personality" out of both sides of the reporting arenas, the viewer/reader/listener would benefit greatly.

I like the way you think.


*AngelEyes*

Congratulations on getting to 100.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is yet another fair and balanced opinion.

Any news media that makes reference to a 'liberal agenda' or to a 'conservative agenda' should not be trusted, as those terms are usually just a way to demonize the viewpoints contrary to that of the medium.

The Democratic party has no coherent agenda, other than to be against the "conservative agenda".  You may judge that to be a good thing, but if someone accuses me of following a "liberal agenda", I'll ask them what that is supposed to imply about my positions on NAFTA, federal support of mass transit,
foreign policy in Europe, the ERA, and tax reform and on and on.  Try to find three Democrats who have common positions on policy, then look hard to see how much of it is liberal, and how much is a staunch defense of the status quo.  Have a look at the "conservative agenda" as perceived outside of Florida.  Remember when Nixon and Kissinger were—properly—lauded for recognizing the existence of China, under Mao?  That was good conservatism, or realism, at work.  But what about Cuba?  Pretend it doesn't exist.  Follow a bogus policy of restraining trade while allowing remitances.  Sure...all part of a nominal 'conservative agenda'?  Bah, humbug, and Merry Christmas.

Be sure to tell Robert Byrd of West Virginia that he follows a 'liberal agenda'.  He might not have noticed.  

The agenda labels are a good tipoff that you are in the presence of sloppy, biased journalism.  Factual news reports don't use such terms, because they are not needed, and are misleading.


----------



## Blehh.

I find the BBC to be a highly objective, accurate source for news, as is CNN International. I don't bother with network news anymore either, but I do enjoy watching Current TV. It's a channel where viewers submit short movies known as "pods," and many of them cover issues that mainstream media normally ignores. 
However, I don't think it would be considered an "objective" source of news, because in order for these pods to be put on the air, it must be put on the Current TV website and garner enough votes from viewers. Most viewers of Current TV are young and liberal, so a pod that doesn't fit well with those particular views may not be aired.

edit: Ah, yes. How could I forget the epitome of quality journalism? The Daily Show and The Colbert Report!


----------



## TRG

John-Paul said:


> I think this is an excellent question because it touches on what we seem to take for granted: democracy. A democracy is only possible when the members of a democratic society are well informed. Well informed means that they are, on all issues, aware of opposing opinions. As a news-junky myself I'm really bothered by the commercialization of the news media. It's shocking to see how shallow the American news media is when it comes, for instance, to reporting about Irak or Afghanistan. I'm also watching the Dutch news via satellite and therefor able to compare what I call the "hero-reporting" versus the real news. It's not a surprise that only now people in the US are starting to comprehend the dimensions of the chaos they're in in Irak. Would they have been informed properly I'm sure the government would have taken action earlier (or not at all). I agree with most of the posted criticisms about blogs (propaganda), TV/Radio (shallow) and the print media (disappearing). The problem is that high standards depend on resources, unfortunately (except for NPR) these resources are not available. In an ideal situation the consumer would be the person to interpret and weigh the news. Unfortunately, many people today are not able to do that because they feel the need to be entertained and don't feel they should be the ones who'd do the thinking. The lack of political interest in global warming in many countries is a good example of the negative result of a populist media. Ask yourself, which countries are serious about global warming, which aren't, and what is the correllation with the usage of serious media.


 
I would like to disagree just a little on this point. In a representative/republican democracy such as we have in the US the people get to vote for representatives who make policy decisions and pass laws, but for the most part, they do not do this directly. IMO, it would not be a good idea to have everything decided by direct popular vote because not everyone has the time or ability become sufficiently well informed on every issue in order to cast an intelligent vote. But they can vote for a responsible person to represent them and to speak for them. I would not care to live in a country where everything was decided by "the people". It has been said that everyone should say at least once a day, "I don't know". It is a phrase we do not hear often enough.


----------



## Outsider

I don't think John-Paul ever suggested that everything should be decided collectively by the people, only that the people needs to be well informed in a democracy. I honestly don't see where you got that from.


----------



## TRG

Outsider said:


> I don't think John-Paul ever suggested that everything should be decided collectively by the people, only that the people needs to be well informed in a democracy. I honestly don't see where you got that from.


 
Perhaps I inferred too much, but I don't think it's a completely unreasonable inference because the notion that "the people" should weigh in on every issue is a very popular idea. But, I still wish to disagree slightly, and again, with the idea that in order for democracy to work the people must be well informed. In the US, democracy seems to work and less than half the people even bother to vote. I think that is ok. This is getting a little off topic so I will stop.


----------

