lonnie wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:18 am
It seems "journalism" has been replaced with "activism".
Sad but true... Nobody every wants to hear both sides anymore. They only want to hear from people that agree with them. Scary times!
And when they do "talk" to each other it's only yelling at or past. Look at college campuses. In our day kids are never taught civil discourse and seeing both sides.
Don't blame my generation for the lack of civil discourse when your generation is the one that buys into Fox News and voted in Trump.
Let me fix your post: Replace "FOX" w/ "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, Gannett, ad nauseum" and "Trump" with "Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Schiff, Boxer, Jackson-Lee."
lonnie wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:18 am
It seems "journalism" has been replaced with "activism".
Sad but true... Nobody every wants to hear both sides anymore. They only want to hear from people that agree with them. Scary times!
And when they do "talk" to each other it's only yelling at or past. Look at college campuses. In our day kids are never taught civil discourse and seeing both sides.
Don't blame my generation for the lack of civil discourse when your generation is the one that buys into Fox News and voted in Trump.
Let me fix your post: Replace "FOX" w/ "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, Gannett, ad nauseum" and "Trump" with "Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Schiff, Boxer, Jackson-Lee."
I'm here to help.
“Replace?” Are you suggesting that the boomers are all about their MSNBC and Obama?
"Video game violence is not a new problem. Who could forget in the wake of SimCity how children everywhere took up urban planning." - Stephen Colbert
I quit watching PM shows because they are just plexiglass tables with MaMa and BaBa Chatty Cathies who spew their canned talking points till the next commercial break. I quit watching most of the news networks due to their hypocritical complaints that they are just so stressed trying to fill the 24 hour news cycle, yet in March 2019, they all got smoked by the Nebraska Through the Lens Facebook group and by Frankie, an autistic fellow living in rural New Brunswick who has a YouTube channel who both had better coverage of the flood. With all the millions of dollars in gear, and the affiliates all over the flooded part of Nebraska, these "News channels" couldn't compete with an autistic chap in Canada? I quit watching ABC news because of the gross political bias and because they spiked the story on Jeffrey Epstein for an interview with Princess Kate. I mean, I am sure that she is a nice person, but newsworthy? Just how many girls getting raped is Princess Kate worth?
lonnie wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:18 am
It seems "journalism" has been replaced with "activism".
Sad but true... Nobody every wants to hear both sides anymore. They only want to hear from people that agree with them. Scary times!
And when they do "talk" to each other it's only yelling at or past. Look at college campuses. In our day kids are never taught civil discourse and seeing both sides.
Don't blame my generation for the lack of civil discourse when your generation is the one that buys into Fox News and voted in Trump.
Let me fix your post: Replace "FOX" w/ "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, Gannett, ad nauseum" and "Trump" with "Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Schiff, Boxer, Jackson-Lee."
I'm here to help.
“Replace?” Are you suggesting that the boomers are all about their MSNBC and Obama?
I don't labor under the prejudice that one demographic or another is monolithic, any more than I resort to ageism. Therefore, not only do I not know the doctrinal description of a 'boomer', I don't care in the first place.
damonhynes wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:09 pm
And exclusive of the media, the political parties are doing a lousy job of selling their ideology. R and D lie about theirs, while L and I can't get any traction.
Too much infighting with the L's, and I think a lot of people view them as anarchists who want legalized heroin and a Bitcoin economy.
damonhynes wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:09 pm
And exclusive of the media, the political parties are doing a lousy job of selling their ideology. R and D lie about theirs, while L and I can't get any traction.
Too much infighting with the L's, and I think a lot of people view them as anarchists who want legalized heroin and a Bitcoin economy.
We can all agree that the boomers ruined everything (at least anyone that’s not a boomer), and that cable news has begun to prioritize profit over true reporting. They’ve turned talk shows into something as close to a reality tv show as possible because it gets more “clicks” in the way I think of it. They cater to a specific political audience because a more dedicated base of viewers will come back every night to hear the things they want to hear. Both sides are guilty of this, but Fox News is a complete propaganda machine that somehow is worse than congressional R’s when it comes to misinforming the public. It’s reached more than a political bias.
I swear I saw this media bias chart sometime earlier this year and it was debunked as biased as well. I despair of finding good news sources. We typically watch CNN, Fox, and PBS Newshour to try and get a balance of bias. Everything is opinion any longer, not news. Even with supposed news anchors, I can pick out the words that let me know exactly which side the anchor is pushing.
For the most part, bias doesn't bother me. I'm more interested in whether or not they are telling the truth. The older I get, the less patience I have with nonsense and out and out lies. Political websites, blogs and cable outlets should be sued out of existence if they deviate from the truth. There's enough willful ignorance in this country as it is.
Everyone has there own take on truth. With the skill level of the media when it comes to deletional bias (the process of not covering stories that make your side look bad), they can speak unimpeachable truth and still be biased.
I have decided that usefulness is the scale I want to use. Most outlets are just not useful, so I dump them.
lisanstan wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:15 pmI swear I saw this media bias chart sometime earlier this year and it was debunked as biased as well.
There are several versions of this chart floating around. The one above is dated 2018, far from current.
The one thing that caught my eye is that Fox News is clearly in the "red" on the chart above and I don't recall ever seeing it in that position in any of the "official" charts.
The current one should always be on line here: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ (Note that the above cited MediaBiasChart.com redirects to the link I posted)
lisanstan wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:15 pm
I swear I saw this media bias chart sometime earlier this year and it was debunked as biased as well. I despair of finding good news sources. We typically watch CNN, Fox, and PBS Newshour to try and get a balance of bias. Everything is opinion any longer, not news. Even with supposed news anchors, I can pick out the words that let me know exactly which side the anchor is pushing.
This is exactly what we have to do in 2019. You should be forming your own opinion on the information you’re receiving rather than regurgitating what the cable news hosts tell you is correct.
I will say though that I cannot stand watching an echo chamber happening live in front of me. Even my lib-a$$ can’t stand to watch the majority of MSNBC talk show hosts, nonetheless Judge Jeanine
As long as you stay away from the editorial personalities in the evening, both Fox News and MSNBC aren't that bad. Although, I can's stand Fox News' website; it reminds me too much of the Yahoo homepage.
jessep28 wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:29 pm
As long as you stay away from the editorial personalities in the evening, both Fox News and MSNBC aren't that bad. Although, I can's stand Fox News' website; it reminds me too much of the Yahoo homepage.
The PM shows of all the cable "news" channels are useless. Basically human chatty cathy dolls sitting around plexiglass tables and spewing their |expletive| till the next commercial. Doesn't matter who is correct as they just yell at each other till the next crew gets in the chairs.
Journalists |expletive| about the "24 hour news cycle" yet when confronted with stories that would fill the freaking 24 hour cycle for days, ignore them. To wit the lack of coverage of the floods we had in March. Coverage began after the peak and was basically drone video, helicopter video, or other B-roll with some east coast based anchor telling what had happened three days prior. When people who are professional journalists, who went to college for this, and who work for networks that have stringers and affiliates all over this country get scooped by facebook groups and by Frankie (the autistic guy from New Brunswick), you have to just give these companies the big nauseating dump of an F. The kind where you can tell how bad you did because people can smell your report card even up wind of where you are.
Add in the gross liberal bias of most networks, and you just come to the conclusion that none of them are useful and are therefore worth less to me than the time I could spend playing with my dog.
bigredmed1 wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:02 pm
Everyone has there own take on truth. With the skill level of the media when it comes to deletional bias (the process of not covering stories that make your side look bad), they can speak unimpeachable truth and still be biased.
I have decided that usefulness is the scale I want to use. Most outlets are just not useful, so I dump them.
I will sometimes watch the cable news outlets to get their 'take' on a particular issue, but what I'm referring to are those who purposely lie to achieve a particular political objective. Several narratives in recent history should never have been raised; for example, Obama's birth certificate, the Sandy Hook 'inside job' conspiracy theories, the Seth Rich conspiracy nonsense, the 9-11 'Jewish conspiracy' garbage, the dozen "Clintons had people murdered' tropes. All lies, and all promoted by "news" outlets, all the way up to the White House. This is the world we live in. I remember when this stuff was only promoted by delusional crackpots standing on street corners, handing out leaflets. Now we have hot babes in tight skirts on major outlets pandering to the idiocracy.
bigredmed1 wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:02 pm
Everyone has there own take on truth. With the skill level of the media when it comes to deletional bias (the process of not covering stories that make your side look bad), they can speak unimpeachable truth and still be biased.
I have decided that usefulness is the scale I want to use. Most outlets are just not useful, so I dump them.
I will sometimes watch the cable news outlets to get their 'take' on a particular issue, but what I'm referring to are those who purposely lie to achieve a particular political objective. Several narratives in recent history should never have been raised; for example, Obama's birth certificate, the Sandy Hook 'inside job' conspiracy theories, the Seth Rich conspiracy nonsense, the 9-11 'Jewish conspiracy' garbage, the dozen "Clintons had people murdered' tropes. All lies, and all promoted by "news" outlets, all the way up to the White House. This is the world we live in. I remember when this stuff was only promoted by delusional crackpots standing on street corners, handing out leaflets. Now we have hot babes in tight skirts on major outlets pandering to the idiocracy.
It really might have been Seth Rich that gave Wiki-leaks all those DNC e-mails. It sounds about right to me. Sounds much more believable then the story that Trump is some kind of James Bond super spy who got together with the Russians and conspired to steal the DNC e-mails.
I've been following this story from the beginning, since I know his brother Aaron. I may be the only poster here who's actually met Seth, although we've never had a conversation. A few years back, an investigative reporter for the Washington Post traced the story back to a right-wing conspiracy loon who admitted that this whole thing was just a "theory". Fox (especially Sean Hannity) ran with it anyway (for years, BTW), and was eventually forced, by Fox, to retract his nonsense. The story still lives on-line on various right-wing outlets. I believe Aaron's lawsuit against Fox is still working its way through the courts. You've been suckered, Grandpa. Stick to legitimate news sources for your information.
ricko wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:17 am
I've been following this story from the beginning, since I know his brother Aaron. I may be the only poster here who's actually met Seth, although we've never had a conversation. A few years back, an investigative reporter for the Washington Post traced the story back to a right-wing conspiracy loon who admitted that this whole thing was just a "theory". Fox (especially Sean Hannity) ran with it anyway (for years, BTW), and was eventually forced, by Fox, to retract his nonsense. The story still lives on-line on various right-wing outlets. I believe Aaron's lawsuit against Fox is still working its way through the courts. You've been suckered, Grandpa. Stick to legitimate news sources for your information.
Long story short my source is the famous journalist Sy Hersh. The Seth Rich story never got my attention until I saw Hersh speak about it in an interview. Sy Hersh is one of my favorite reporters ever. He is in his 80's and still pretty sharp. He is the real deal old school reporter.
P.S.- I don't like CNN, MSNBC or Fox News one bit but if I had to pick which one of those turds smells the foulest it would be hands down FOX News!
ThatGuy wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:17 am
It really sucks that the newspaper is owned by a poor man who probably owns 5% of the world's wealth.
Had he not bought it, it would have either folded or been bought by Gannett or other news conglomerate.
He bought it because it could turn a profit. Now it is in a death spiral. The more news it carries, the more it costs. The more it costs, the smaller their potential market. The smaller the market, the higher cost per unit. And that is why a daily paper is now $2.
In 1962, the World Publishing Company, owned solely by heirs of the Hitchcock/Doorly families, was on the verge of selling the World-Herald to the Newhouse chain, but instead accepted an offer from local construction magnate Peter Kiewit, whose namesake company is a member of the Fortune 500. When he died, Kiewit left provisions in his will to ensure that the paper would remain locally owned, with a large part of the plan securing employee ownership.
I got this from wikipedia but I do remember this as part of a case study in college.
To the one who says that it suck that the paper is owned by a rich man, would you prefer that it was owned by a huge newspaper conglomerate?
ThatGuy wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:17 am
It really sucks that the newspaper is owned by a poor man who probably owns 5% of the world's wealth.
Had he not bought it, it would have either folded or been bought by Gannett or other news conglomerate.
He bought it because it could turn a profit. Now it is in a death spiral. The more news it carries, the more it costs. The more it costs, the smaller their potential market. The smaller the market, the higher cost per unit. And that is why a daily paper is now $2.
The World Herald is so transparent and honest er I mean who knows what these shady dogs are up to these days for sure. I figure even they can not believe that there are still a few people buying the paper so they just decided to milk the remaining suckers for as much as they can.
To the one who says that it suck that the paper is owned by a rich man, would you prefer that it was owned by a huge newspaper conglomerate?
Let's see--Gannett: Flaming lib organization and fairly unapologetic about it. Famous for style over substance. Look at the Indy Star and Des Moines Register.
Buffett-Harold: Owned by a progressive kleptocrat who buys congressmen and senators. Run by Lee, the same crew that oversees the inevitable decline of the St. Louis Pist-Disgrace. Famous for neither style or substance.
Gee, the difference is clear as a freakin' bell, innit?
Brad wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:36 pm
Remember the good old days when the OWH had a full photography staff and actually posted photos of the restaurants with their stories....
austins.JPG
I was genuinely surprised by this picture. They really couldn't get at least an exterior shot of Austin's. Wow.
We were out of town for Thanksgiving, and I used the W-H website to put my paper on vacation hold. I then called their phone number the next day to confirm they had it down correctly. I was put on hold after punching through the voice prompts, then told it would be “at least 30 minutes” to speak with a CSR! W T F? I decided to hold for a while, as I was driving on errands and it was on speaker phone. After about 2 more minutes the system disconnected me. So I held my breath that they wouldn’t keep tossing papers in my driveway during our absence.
I returned last Saturday, relieved to find no papers in my driveway.
But on Sunday my neighbor brought me 4 newspapers, saying she didn’t want to see them keep piling up in my driveway! Ironically one was for the Wall Street Journal, which we have never subscribed to.
So there is that.
I called the paper on Monday morning to complain, and the CSR I spoke with was actually polite, and sympathetic to my frustration. I asked where he worked and he said Northern Colorado.
Last edited by nativeomahan on Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The KC Star announced that they will no longer publish a print version of the paper on Saturdays. They will print an "expanded edition" of the Friday and Sunday editions.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:22 pm
The KC Star announced that they will no longer publish a print version of the paper on Saturdays. They will print an "expanded edition" of the Friday and Sunday editions.
This actually makes sense. They also stopped Saturday print editions in Key West over the past year. I predict that will happen in Omaha within a year or two.
Brad wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:36 pm
Remember the good old days when the OWH had a full photography staff and actually posted photos of the restaurants with their stories....
austins.JPG
A friend of mine was the main photographer for many of the food shots.....he left a few months ago and he now works for UNMC.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:22 pm
The KC Star announced that they will no longer publish a print version of the paper on Saturdays. They will print an "expanded edition" of the Friday and Sunday editions.
This actually makes sense. They also stopped Saturday print editions in Key West over the past year. I predict that will happen in Omaha within a year or two.
The Tampa Bay Times in the last month or so started giving Sunday subscribers the Wednesday edition for 'free'. I think it was a way to get their mid week ads out to people.
Brad wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:36 pm
Remember the good old days when the OWH had a full photography staff and actually posted photos of the restaurants with their stories....
austins.JPG
A friend of mine was the main photographer for many of the food shots.....he left a few months ago and he now works for UNMC.
damonhynes wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:10 pm
Price going up--$1.85/day now. For a paper that a score of ants can carry off.
Just another money grab before the whole thing crashes and burns. They know they have no customers left except the hard core readers and they are going to milk them for everything they can. The customer pays in advance thinking they have paid up for a year and then they raise the rates and suddenly the customer is only paid up for 11 months. Pretty obvious.
