Is Glenn Beck Bad For America?

[venkman]

I just think it's hilarious that Beck has ended Obama's string of 402 billion consecutive weeks on the cover of Time.

I also find it ludicrous that so many in the media who operate under the freedom given them in the 1st Amendment want to silence Beck. He doesn't worship Obama. Boo hoo. Get over it Time and all others.

Well said, Paddy.

[wuapinmon]

Wuap, I'll pick this up with you tomorrow. Atako fa ilay fotoana no tokony ho marina, fa tsy lainga.

Whether it's fair or a lie, I don't care. Bring it.

Vizaka aho itena.

[JohnnyLingo]

No, we're not. Time, not Times, is a newsmagazine. It doesn't have to hold itself to any standard.

From Wikipedia:

It set out to tell the news through people...

Nowhere does it say that the magazine set out to "give America an intentionally slanted and biased view of the news."

Are they going to change centuries of practice because Glenn Beck, who IS MAINSTREAM MEDIA TOO, says that it should, through you, his portavoz?

As I established, there is a distinct difference between Glenn Beck and Peter Jennings.

No, they're not going to, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. People don't subscribe to magazines, news or otherwise, because they want straight facts.

Should we take a poll on that?

Oxford: magazine, n. A periodical publication containing articles by various writers; esp. one with stories, articles on general subjects, etc., and illustrated with pictures, or a similar publication prepared for a special-interest readership.
The use of the word (rather than periodical) typically indicates that the intended audience is not specifically academic.

"Not specifically academic" doesn't mean facts shouldn't be presented with as little bias as possible.

Look, bottom line is that I do look to news reports for unbiased news, and in my opinion, biased news is not the news at all. Take a report where a car hit a bicyclist. If Archaea wrote the article, and allowed his biases to take over, he would condemn the driver and treat the cyclist with kid gloves, regardless of what actually happened. Do you not see a problem with that?

[Non Sequitur]

Look, bottom line is that I do look to news reports for unbiased news, and in my opinion, biased news is not the news at all. Take a report where a car hit a bicyclist.

You know, everybody says that, but I don't think most people mean it. I know lots of people who listen to FoxNews religiously because they say they want unbiased news. Honest question: where do you typically go when you're looking for unbiased news?

[wuapinmon]

Look, bottom line is that I do look to news reports for unbiased news, and in my opinion, biased news is not the news at all. Take a report where a car hit a bicyclist. If Archaea wrote the article, and allowed his biases to take over, he would condemn the driver and treat the cyclist with kid gloves, regardless of what actually happened. Do you not see a problem with that?

I don't know anything about Archaea other than people have told me that we are very much alike in our attitudes about frank discussion of sex. Other than that, I don't know, but I can deduce that he's a cycling enthusiast. Regardless, the greater point here is that if you look to news reports for unbiased news, this explains much about you. There is no such thing as unbiased. Writing is an act of violence. For every idea you put down on paper, you've cut away a thousands more. Reporting is subjective because one person writes it. Opinion will always be interjected.

If you want to do another poll, be my guest. I quote Han Solo when I say, "Don't get cocky." Roosters get boiled when they piss people off.

[wuapinmon]

You know, everybody says that, but I don't think most people mean it. I know lots of people who listen to FoxNews religiously because they say they want unbiased news. Honest question: where do you typically go when you're looking for unbiased news?

The North Pole, to Santa's house. I don't believe in unbiased news.

[JohnnyLingo]

I don't know anything about Archaea other than people have told me that we are very much alike in our attitudes about frank discussion of sex. Other than that, I don't know, but I can deduce that he's a cycling enthusiast. Regardless, the greater point here is that if you look to news reports for unbiased news, this explains much about you. There is no such thing as unbiased. Writing is an act of violence. For every idea you put down on paper, you've cut away a thousands more. Reporting is subjective because one person writes it. Opinion will always be interjected.

Yes, but there is vast difference between the natural bias that comes in through selecting what information to portray and the bias of letting your own opinion drive the story. I'm not arguing that writers can remove 100% of their bias from their work; I'm just saying they should make every effort to do so unless the piece is clearly marked as opinion.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

You know, everybody says that, but I don't think most people mean it. I know lots of people who listen to FoxNews religiously because they say they want unbiased news. Honest question: where do you typically go when you're looking for unbiased news?

Prayer.

[wuapinmon]

Yes, but there is vast difference between the natural bias that comes in through selecting what information to portray and the bias of letting your own opinion drive the story. I'm not arguing that writers can remove 100% of their bias from their work; I'm just saying they should make every effort to do so unless the piece is clearly marked as opinion.

Semantics. Putting "opinion" on it is redundant. I don't want unbiased news; I want to know what people really feel. Anyone worth half their salt can see through BS anyway.