After Climategate, that is the conclusion of the intelligent viewer.......
WAIT a minute!
There is such a thing as objective truth too you know. Trying to pass off all truth as a subjective quality of reality in my opinion is a poor excuse for poor critical thought and underhanded tactics.
What's your factual basis for saying that?
Both sides accuse different media organizations of bias. While there is bias in the media and it isn't hard to detect, I always thought people exaggerated things way too much. Of course, I really didn't know in the case of the American media because I never watched it. Recently though my roommate got all these American news channels so I started watching them.Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
The first time I ever turned on Fox news I was floored at how biased it was. I wasn't watching one of the opinion shows like Bill O'Reilly or that escaped mental patient Glenn Beck, I was watching an ostensibly straight news broadcast. It was in the late morning with some illiterate eye candy stumbling over the teleprompter. It was a few months ago and I can't remember what she was reporting on, but I think she was like "is the Democratic party in league with Al Qaeda?" I swear it was something like that.
MSNBC has an obvious bias too, but Fox News seems to pretend it has more straight news, whereas MSNBC is all opinion all the time.
CNN is more incompetent than anything. They need to just dump all their anchors and make it 24 hours of Anderson Cooper reporting shirtless from tropical locales.
Umm.. Canadian news is easy I think. The CBC leans left but I wouldn't say too much to dismiss it. If bias is detectable but not as flagrant as say Fox News or MSNBC, you'll be fine watching it. I have a hard time watching CBC because so much Canadian news I don't care...
O please. Next you'll be showing me blurry pictures that prove the existance of bigfoot.
I don't view enough of their content to have much of an opinion. I know they have some commentators who are pretty extreme, much like Fox News.
No evidence has been given to support the assertion that they were falsifying data. I've read the commissions that investigated the CRU scientists, I've read the papers in question myself, and there is no evidence that scientists were fudging the data to get the answers they wanted. In fact, their results are consistent with other prominent research groups, while using different data sets, and different methodology. That, in scientific fields, is called robust. The result is not dependent on a single group, a single data set, or a single method of analysis.
If you want to discuss this further, I suggest one of the many threads on the topic.
Michael Mann and the guy from East Anglia gave their enemies the figurative ammunition they needed to discredit Global Warming.
....I was watching an ostensibly straight news broadcast. It was in the late morning with some illiterate eye candy stumbling over the teleprompter. It was a few months ago and I can't remember what she was reporting on, but I think she was like "is the Democratic party in league with Al Qaeda?" I swear it was something like that.
The CBC has been a little better, new masters you know, but the Ministry of Truth can still let the lefty propaganda dog run wild on occasion.....I will never forgive them for the vicious campaign they led against the Reform Party........veiled as news.
IMHO, eh1eh, PBS should not be included in your blanket statement. I find the reporting - news reporting, not necessarily all their docs - to be quite fair and balanced.
Whenever you hear reports from these embattled Arab dictatorships or some other such dictatorship (like you North Korea or Burma) you'll sometimes here "state media is reporting..." and you know that whatever follows is complete bull****.
...Most Americans don't watch these channels and most are middle of the road...
This is where I get to ask you to prove that most Americans don't watch Fox News or MSNBC? You've made a declarative statement without condition or equivocation.