I agree
Christian Scientist themselves are a hard one to tolerate though, but I got to respect their beliefs
I hope your head doesn't explode, but the Christian Science Monitor is actually one of the better news sources you'll find.
http://www.csmonitor.com/
In what way? Liberal or conservative? The lead article today is about Benghazi...I see a lot of facts reported...what aspects of the article do you find biased?Yes it is better but its still biased.
I don't necessarily agree with their ideology...but I don't have any trouble whatsoever tolerating them. Must be a liberal thing.I agree
Christian Scientist themselves are a hard one to tolerate though, but I got to respect their beliefs
In what way? Liberal or conservative? The lead article today is about Benghazi...I see a lot of facts reported...what aspects of the article do you find biased?
This. Although when pressed for time, NPR and, surprisingly, the Christian Science Monitor are pretty darned good.It doesn't exist and never has. Reading multiple publications is THE only way to get a relatively balanced perspective (notice I didn't say unbiased) .
I listen to NPR a lot. I see their bias in the tough questions they don't ask liberals but have no qualms about asking conservatives. A typical interview with a liberal is mostly softball questions imo. When they do ask a tougher question, they let them slide off the hook much too easily without a direct answer. They never let conservatives "slide" in this manner. This is one of the reasons I like Chris Wallace so much...he asks tough questions for everybody and he doesn't let anyone bullshit their way through it regardless of whether they're a conservative or liberal.This. Although when pressed for time, NPR and, surprisingly, the Christian Science Monitor are pretty darned good.
I don't necessarily agree with their ideology...but I don't have any trouble whatsoever tolerating them. Must be a liberal thing.
I'd agree with both of those points, but I seldom get the feeling that NPR is intentionally carrying water for the left. Rather, they are the left, but I think they do make a conscious effort to be fair.I listen to NPR a lot. I see their bias in the tough questions they don't ask liberals but have no qualms about asking conservatives. A typical interview with a liberal is mostly softball questions imo. When they do ask a tougher question, they let them slide off the hook much too easily without a direct answer. They never let conservatives "slide" in this manner. This is one of the reasons I like Chris Wallace so much...he asks tough questions for everybody and he doesn't let anyone bullshit their way through it regardless of whether they're a conservative or liberal.
I'm leaning toward Stewox as my only news source. As a sheltered first worlder the fact is that I don't require much connection with reality to get by and Stewox's world is never dull.
The term is BIASED, not "Bias".
RT is russias Fox News fwiw.
I hope your head doesn't explode, but the Christian Science Monitor is actually one of the better news sources you'll find.
http://www.csmonitor.com/
I listen to NPR a lot. I see their bias in the tough questions they don't ask liberals but have no qualms about asking conservatives.
Note that I listen to and enjoy NPR. But I don't think that it's reporting differs qualitatively from other radio stations. My perception is that all media has a bias.Some have questioned Roberts' objectivity as a journalist. While working in Guatemala in 1989 helping poor indigenous Guatemalans how to read, Sister Dianna Ortiz, a Catholic nun from New Mexico, was abducted, raped and tortured by members of a government-backed death squad, who believed she was a subversive.[14] During a subsequent interview, Roberts contested Ortiz's claim that an American was among her captors. (The United States provided significant military aid to Guatemala at the time.) Roberts implied that Ortiz was lying about the entire episode, despite the fact that Ortiz later won a lawsuit against a Guatemalan general she accused in the case.[15] It was later revealed that Roberts' brother Tom Boggs' advertising firm Patton, Boggs, & Blow, was paid by the Guatemalan government to promote a more positive image of the regime, which was widely criticized internationally for human rights abuses
I'm speechless and can only shake my head in disbelief. I spent about 5 minutes after my initial reaction rereading your post and thinking about a possible response beyond this...I came up empty.Yeah - because you yahoos site them all the time.
:thumbsdown:
Doesn't mean much if you aren't siting them. Then again, not much Obama bashing in the CSM, is there?
Yeah - because you yahoos site them all the time.
:thumbsdown:
Doesn't mean much if you aren't siting them. Then again, not much Obama bashing in the CSM, is there?
Yea RT has gotten worse since the Olympics. For a long time RT had some reasoble news hours with the programing that was broadcast from the USA. Now you can tell there is a deffinete slant. Sucks
The Kieser Report (moslty buisness) is still good.
In a similar way, reporting on a story that your brother is a paid lobyist to represent one of the parties seems to lack transparency as well. For example:
Note that I listen to and enjoy NPR. But I don't think that it's reporting differs qualitatively from other radio stations. My perception is that all media has a bias.
Uno
I'd agree that Roberts in particular is one of the least ethical mainstream reporters in the business. I can recall her earnestly reporting on political issues without ever mentioning that her husband was in fact the Democrat party member in charge of that particular issue. You are correct, they all have their own particular biases. I do however believe that NPR has within the last few years recognized that and that most of NPR attempts to report honestly.I like NPR. And I am fortunate to live where I can receive two different NPR stations.
That said, I find their lack of transparency concerning certain issues disappointing. For example, take Cookie Roberts and Nina Totenberg. Both of Roberts parents were democratic congressional representatives. Totenberg's former husband was a democratic senator as well.
While being related to a democratic politician shouldn't disqualify anyone from being a radio announcer, hiding that relationship seems to lack transparency.
In a similar way, reporting on a story that your brother is a paid lobyist to represent one of the parties seems to lack transparency as well. For example:
Note that I listen to and enjoy NPR. But I don't think that it's reporting differs qualitatively from other radio stations. My perception is that all media has a bias.
Uno