CNN Just Lost All of Its Credibility

[TCO]

Gatekeeper, et al.

I would think journalists would expect very little from TV news. A lot of times they just use the wire services and the papers to decide what to cover anyway. It's all about what the face looks like on the set.

Galis, et al.:

NPR is a joke. It is very left-leaning. It is also quite pseudo-intellectual (trys to act like it is really insgightful while being lightweight in reality.) And has an annoying throaty style of speech.

If you want some good journalism read The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. 2 are liberal, 1 is conservative, but all are both more honest and more diligent than puffy stuff like NPR or CNN or Fox. You will get a good balance as well as getting good work/reporting. Added benefit of reading the news is that you can cover much more info more quickly and that you can tailor what you read or how deep you go into a subject.

(This of course implies that you read rather than watch or listen. And that you are a critical thinker not a knee-jerk passive little neoliberal yellowjacket.)

[TCO]

Originally posted by paiktis22


This is the paramount principle of journalism, yes.

But isn't Turner out of the loop now?
Meaning that he doesn't hold any position in there any more?

After the merger of Time Warner with AOL didn't he quit from his post?

Not sure, just asking.

Was waiting for someone to not this...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Paiktis:

True, but as a journalist I've been told in no uncertain terms to never let my *personal* feelings on an issue affect my quality of work. That same principle should hold true for the "kings" and "queens" of journalism as well, not just for us "groundpounders."

Gatekeeper

You really believe that? All news media are biased in some fashion. There's none that is perfectly objective, and I don't think it is possible.

You can put a spin by the arrangement of information, what goes into the headline, etc.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP
(This of course implies that you read rather than watch or listen. And that you are a critical thinker not a knee-jerk passive little neoliberal yellowjacket.)

Or a knee-jerk, aggressive little uberconservative dittohead (FOX's constituency).

[TCO]

Read my whole friggen comment, yankee! Try to remember that I am making a point about print versus broadcast...and that my big gripe with NPR is NOT it's bias but it's faux sophistication.

[Boris Godunov]

You were talking about achieving balance and critical thought, and then seemed to imply it was only folks on the left who needed this. I was just asserting that the right does as well, johnny reb.

[TCO]

Oh pull the d*k out of your ear. Reread my post. I slammed Fox and then recommended two lib papers.

If you read the whole anti-lib comment...you will not the word yellowjacket. That shows that comment was designed for Galis in particular...the friggen Varsity-burger eating GT bow-ay!

[Felch]

Originally posted by paiktis22
if arabs somehow managed to stop production or shipping of oil to the US and the west, the world would grind to a halt. (ok, it would at least malfunction, national reserves can do only so much)

Two things - One, the US is the second largest producer of oil in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. The third largest is Russia, IIRC, and there is no great love for Muslims in Russia today.

Second, the effect on the non-Arab economies would be relatively mild compared to what would happen to the oil-producing states. I'm not saying that we would come out unscathed, but oil is essentially the only source of income for many of these countries. If they stopped selling it, they would rapidly descend into deep poverty. Without cash flowing in from oil sales, they wouldn't have the money to buy new military equipment, maintain their infrastructures, pay salaries, have investment capital, or in some cases even afford food. The US is constantly accused of committing a terrible crime because of the sanctions regime (One which was put in place by the UN, not the US by the way) on Iraq. Iraq however is selling small amounts of oil. If all Arab countries stopped selling oil, they would be bringing about an humanitarian catastrophe on themselves.

[TCO]

He's a liberal jacket too...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Felch X


Two things - One, the US is the second largest producer of oil in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. The third largest is Russia, IIRC, and there is no great love for Muslims in Russia today.

Second, the effect on the non-Arab economies would be relatively mild compared to what would happen to the oil-producing states. I'm not saying that we would come out unscathed, but oil is essentially the only source of income for many of these countries. If they stopped selling it, they would rapidly descend into deep poverty. Without cash flowing in from oil sales, they wouldn't have the money to buy new military equipment, maintain their infrastructures, pay salaries, have investment capital, or in some cases even afford food. The US is constantly accused of committing a terrible crime because of the sanctions regime (One which was put in place by the UN, not the US by the way) on Iraq. Iraq however is selling small amounts of oil. If all Arab countries stopped selling oil, they would be bringing about an humanitarian catastrophe on themselves.

crack the cartel...

[markusf]

Uhm here are the real stats from 2 years ago. Right now russia is about to become the biggest oil producer in the world.

[TCO]

USA!!!

[markusf]

uhm GP, that is net importer Others are all net exporters.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by GP
Gatekeeper, et al.

I would think journalists would expect very little from TV news. A lot of times they just use the wire services and the papers to decide what to cover anyway. It's all about what the face looks like on the set.

The wire services — such as The Associated Press, Knight Ridder Tribune, Reuters and so on — are, indeed, the raw source of news for a good number of media organizations that come to trough, so to speak.

Also, the larger the media company, the more likely they are to send over their own crews/reporters to a "happening" news story (ex. The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune and so on). But all media companies do rely on the wire services from one degree to another.

Technically, we're all journalists no matter the medium we use to convey what we cover: TV, radio, print and Internet. There is, however, a healthy rivalry among the mediums and I happen to have much faith in the print and Internet mediums. That's 'cause I work for a newspaper.

The nice thing about the wire services is that you often have only the reporter and an editor between you and what's going on. Two people, most of the time. From there the wire reports are picked up by other news organizations and made to fit whatever format it's going to appear in. I happen to think that the print and Internet mediums allow for the most in-depth coverage of issues at hand while television and radio allows you to get snatches of news, which is good for "breaking news," but aggravating in other circumstances.

Gatekeeper

[markusf]

What do you think of this newspaper?

http://www.independent.co.uk/