Mall Shooting

[UGAalum94]

Yep. It is kind of why I like internet sources; very few make claims of objectivity. By reading source A and knowing how they lean and reading source B to kind of counteract A, I can usually get some good information. You have be be careful though, because if you go too far from center, it makes you wondering if the extremist are even aware of any objective reality.

(Why did anyone at Fox think "fair and balanced" was a good slogan for a source which comes so close to owning up to the fact that they aren't? Fox tends to drive me really crazy because they as much as anybody can make conservatives look stupid. The same with right wing talk radio. Damn, some of those people are very impassioned without actually really knowing anything. At least NPR seems smart and reasonable, however left leaning, IMO.)

More than anything, I'm just not interested in any self-righteousness about how the media is best qualified to determine what should be reported when they blow it so frequently.

[UGAalum94]

I wish I could link to something to back up this memory, but I was listening to NPR and they were reporting that according to an audit, they actually tipped right. There's NO way that it's true by any reasonable measure, and yet they were reporting the results of the audit, and I guess I was supposed to say, "oh, gosh, I guess NPR is balanced in its reporting."

(I love NPR, but they clearly tip left.)

ETA: the thing I'm thinking of was before the Thomlinson shenanigans, which I think were total crap. I'm looking for a link.
Edited Again to Add: Maybe it was part of the Thomlinson stuff, but I still can't find a link to what I'm looking for.

[shinerbock]

My biggest problem with Fox News is how much attention they pay to stupid stories. They really should be based out of Hollywood, because they'd generally much rather talk about Anna Nicole or Britney. Granted, MSNBC is pretty bad about that too, but I can usually at least get some discussion of something worthwhile on there (although its like listening to a DNC discussion). CNN can be good, although it seems every time I want to watch the news on CNN they're doing some 20 minute segment on something stupid.

I've gotten to the point where I enjoy getting news from CNBC, because they generally do it from a financial perspective, which means its not as dumbed down as other networks. Despite my dislike for how anti-administration Matthews is, I enjoy his non-Hardball show. I'm not sure what it comes on, but the other night it was a discussion about the Court with Rosen and another SCOTUS scholar. Thats the kind of stuff I'd like to see on a regular basis. I wish somebody would come out with an intelligent cable network, some sort of CNN/CSPAN/CNBC/History Channel/Public Television blend.

I can see what you're saying about NPR. I hate it because its so slanted, but they're generally a little better about some things than conservative talk radio. The problem with conservative radio is that the personalities are so over the top that the program loses legitimacy. I don't mind that they're extremely conservative, but I'd much rather hear someone like George Will or William Kristol, who could actually discuss policy without feeling the need to talk about how great their new book is every 10 seconds.

[DeltAlum]

It may just be that we have a basic difference here on what it "mainline" or "mainstream" media.

I don't consider any of the cable networks to carry as much weight as the "traditional" on air networks or print media.

I'm pretty sure it is still true that ALL of the cable news networks combined don't match the ratings of the lowest on air networks when it comes to news coverage.

In fact, I pretty much agree with what Shiner says above (that's the second time this month I've agreed with him. I must be getting old or something).

The cable networks, in my opinion, struggle along to "compete," and pray for sensational stories because that's pretty much the only time they get a ratings spike.

And, very much like talk radio, most of the cable "stars" are more interested in hearing themselves talk (or shout) than report legitimate, "ballanced" (with apologies to Roger Ailes) reportage.

So, if it's cable and talk radio that you consider "main," we may not be as far apart as it seems.

[shinerbock]

I think the networks are just as bad if not worse. I never watch network news, I never check the websites, etc. Most people I know (law students, college friends) do the same. I rank network news very low on my list of credible sources.

AP articles, although sometimes biased IMO, are generally the best bet. They are devoid of the tone that accompanies cable and network news. I think the problem is that we're getting personalities to act as unbiased anchors (obviously more for cable than network, but still, Rather...). You've even got to question WH correspondents. I personally like David Gregory, but he sometimes lets his personal disagreement shine through. I think its tough for people like him, he has a right to express his views, but when I see him on Imus bashing Bush, its hard for me to take him seriously when he's reporting from the WH lawn.

[UGAalum94]

When I said mainstream media, I had in mind the three main networks, maybe CNN and FOX, the New York Times, The LA Times, the AJC in Atlanta, The Washington Post. I'd also list Newsweek and Time.

I watch local tv news probably once a week; I read the Atlanta paper online daily, and I read several general interest blogs, sort of right center in bias daily. From there, I'll search to see what I can find out if I have additional questions or something in the reporting seems fishy.

I used to really like reading the AP wire online but it seems to be harder to access for general users, and even if it weren't, they're pulling some strange crap with their Middle East coverage. I think they'd be fine for domestic news, but really sketchy for international stuff.

I adore William F. Buckley, and I subscribe to the National Review. There's no question that it's a conservative source, and I understand that about its reporting.