American news

[Ruso]

Unfortunatelly, it is extremely hard to find an unbiased news source. A time ago, I received an edition of Granma, the Cuban official paper. It is amazing how they can manipulate the readers by just altering certain news, which are filled with subtlety hidden messages. The same happens when you read any paper from a democratic country, although their loyalty is not necessary determined by force(as it is in Cuba).

Journalists are humans, and as such, they are not freed from subjectivity, regadless of how hard they might try. (The same with historians)The best thing for us to do is to read from more than one source, and with all that information, with all those different opinions and perspectives, form your own. You'll then realice how relative truth is.

[RiversideGator]

C-SPAN is live politics at its best, and you can't get any less selective/biased than watching it.

This is true.

You'll then realice how relative truth is.

Truth is not relative, it is absolute.

[Ruso]

This is true.

Truth is not relative, it is absolute.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh! We could begin to discuss a subject that has been questioned by many philosophers for centuries.

Truth is interpreted by men. Men's minds are extremely vulnerable to subjectivity. Therefore, truth's absolutism is altered by men's relativism. One's opinion is based on their truth, and there is nothing more relative that one's opinion.

Again, in a "physical" way, truth is absolute. But, it is translated and interpreted by humans, making it relative.

Think about it: For the Nazis, what was said about the Jews was true. Now, we know it is not.

Fidel Castro is a heroe and a savior accordig to some, that is their truth. For others, he is nothing but a butcher.

[Viper]

Oh! We could begin to discuss a subject that has been questioned by many philosophers for centuries.

Truth is interpreted by men. Men's minds are extremely vulnerable to subjectivity. Therefore, truth's absolutism is altered by men's relativism. One's opinion is based on their truth, and there is nothing more relative that one's opinion.

Again, in a "physical" way, truth is absolute. But, it is translated and interpreted by humans, making it relative.

Think about it: For the Nazis, what was said about the Jews was true. Now, we know it is not.

Fidel Castro is a heroe and a savior accordig to some, that is their truth. For others, he is nothing but a butcher.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Truth isn't relative, opinion is.

[Ruso]

Truth isn't relative, opinion is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And opinion is based on each person's truth. I repeat, truth might be absolute, but it is interpreted by men, who are subjective . That is why there is all kind of biased versions of truth.

[Ruso]

Then again, this discussion about the nature of truth has been the subject of many books. It is quite interesting.

[TheBostonian]

My thoughts on news:

I'm very disappointed at how much of the Boston Globe's national and world reporting is straight from the wires. It seems like 90% of their section A is AP, Reuters and even stories credited to other papers. However, the rest of the Globe (City/Region, Arts, Sports) is for the most part original reporting. But it doesn't please me that the paper is owned by the New York Times.

I also don't see much use in CNN and its competitors except for some interesting debate they offer. But again, these news sources are wire service heavy. I subscribe directly to the Reuters RSS feed, which makes me feel like the newspaper editor from the 1950s reading the Telex printouts--the old fashioned actual wire services. This direct access for everyone to wire service news is a great advance. We can skip CNN, NBC or our local affiliate's packaging of the news and see what only the editors would see in the good old days. And of course it is amazing to be able to read every news source online. Anyone searching Google News has access unimagined only a few years ago. These advances just about offset increasing media conglomeration.

I've learned that much of TV news is merely radio on television. Although I see the value in watching TV coverage of this recent hurricane, usually the audio itself is fine. After listening to the NBC Nightly News podcast, I no longer feel the need to see Brian Williams' face or the graphic next to it. That podcast actually makes for a high quality radio show that almost seems like it was meant to be just that. And for some reason NBC offers the podcast commercial free. So it is a nice little 20 minute news summary. Try it. Meet the Press is the same. I've heard 60 Minutes and Meet the Press in audio only and nothing is missed without video.

[monsoon]

One wonders why this article is not being covered by the news. Looks like Iraq got the money that was intended to improve the New Orlean's dike system.

[RiversideGator]

That was an opinion piece by Sidney Blumenthal, an extreme leftist and former Clinton aide, not a news article. He should know better than to use a natural disaster to advance his policies and to criticise the administration in a foreign magazine.

[monsoon]

That was an opinion piece by Sidney Blumenthal, an extreme leftist and former Clinton aide, not a news article.  He should know better than to use a natural disaster to advance his policies and to criticise the administration in a foreign magazine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The questions raised in that article are valid. It doesn't matter if it is a foreign magazine or not except from the view point that its not being covered in the USA media.

[Ruso]

That was an opinion piece by Sidney Blumenthal, an extreme leftist and former Clinton aide, not a news article.  He should know better than to use a natural disaster to advance his policies and to criticise the administration in a foreign magazine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is absolutely valid. It seems to me like that you have a prejudice against anything that might challenge what is oficially established.

[Viper]

So the coincidence of this nature is cause for what?

That opinion piece also only states the cuts led to a hiring freeze....that's it.

Besides, that should most definetly be a state funded system anyway. We could reverse blame here and put it on Louisiana for relying on federal dollars to maintain levys to protect its biggest city from the obvious potential of natural disaster.

It also tries to make it look like Bush revoking the 'No net wetland loss' program was responsible for the flooding. This revokation came in 2003. I highly doubt in 2 years time, the whole wetlands area was developed.

[l-trap]

The questions raised in that article are valid.  It doesn't matter if it is a foreign magazine or not except from the view point that its not being covered in the USA media.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you seemed to get your hands on it fine.

[MR-2]

There really isn't much depth into the news issue: the United States is a conservative leaning country. Our definition of "moderate" is relatively conservative compared to other first world countries' definitions of "moderate." Thus while the cable news media might be "moderate" as a whole... in the grand scheme of things, they tilt conservative.

Those of you saying CNN, NBC, CBS are liberal probably haven't seen a liberal network. Air America is a liberal network. Listen to a bit of that, then watch a bit of CNN, and you might detect a "slight" demographic difference between them.

Let's establish one thing though: the terms "liberal" and "conservative" aren't popularly used according to their definition. And they have two: the first is liberal favors societal change over stagnation, while conservative favors preserving the status quo. By that scale, almost everyone is liberal, and all of our politicians are certainly liberal. Nobody stays in office with the platform "preserving the status quo."

The other definition is economic. A totally liberal economy is heavily controlled by the government, or something similar. A totally conservative one embodies the free market. That says nothing about social issues. The two terms don't have any meaning in the context of social issues.

Libertarian and Authoritarian are the main scale for that.

Now that we have everything nice and divided into neat little categories: The news media is corporate in nature. This generally makes it more conducive to conservative economic practices. Socially it's popular to hate whoever is in charge. Reactionary coverage gets viewers all riled and interested.