Remember the golden days of the market when journalism was objective and unbiased and people got the true facts on everything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst

Yeah...

Everyone would be better off if they stopped holding the media to such high esteem because they're just as biased as you and everyone else. It's hilarious when people complain about NBC News or Fox reporting things certain ways, as if they're defying the news gods.

In the 19th century, a time that a number of you people hold up as a much freer time when the market and Rational Individuals were allowed to make more informed market choices, you didn't just have yellow journalism, you had major newspapers published by political parties (why do you think you have papers called "The Democrat" in some cities?).

So read the news you want. Parse through. Realize there is a bias and in the end your opinion is up to you. It's not up to the media to become robotic reporters. Then again, how many of you also believe that markets are always rational? I'm sure rational individuals will be able to parse out the true truths.

Quote :

"The only thing I ever saw that came close to "objective journalism" was a closed-circuit TV setup that watched shoplifters in the General Store at Woody Creek, Colorado. I always admired that machine, but I noticed that nobody paid any attention to it until one of those known, heavy, out-front shoplifters came into the place... but when that happened, everybody got so excited that the thief had to do something quick, like buy a green popsicle or a can of Coors and get out of the place immediately. Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail."

[Edited on October 19, 2009 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2009 12:31:13 PM

10/19/2009 1:03:26 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

10/19/2009 1:17:43 PM

if any bias exists today, it's one in favor of sensationalism and the bottom line, like hearst would love.

they could have spent thursday talking up that health care plan and afghanistan, but instead we got Balloon Boy. what does that say?

and is that even bad?

[Edited on October 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2009 3:33:36 PM

Oh, it's been for sensationalism and bottom lines for a while now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_O%27Leary

10/19/2009 4:07:58 PM

For the sake of a counter-argument . . .

I do accept that there never will be truly "unbiased" journalism. However, let's not confuse journalism that is "biased" with journalism that purposefully twists the facts and often outright lies (knowingly) in order to further the goals of constituents.

10/19/2009 4:24:44 PM

I've been arguing for a long time that papers should take specific editorial stances on issues. Journalistic integrity would compel them to assemble as many facts as they could, check them for accuracy, but interpret them in accordance with their journalistic / world philosophy.


It'd work a lot better than watching Chris Matthews spew on about injecting Tea Party Protesters with sodium pentathol to determine which ones were racist while attempting to maintain a veneer of "integrity".

10/19/2009 7:13:16 PM

i guess you missed the last 15 seasons of SNL? Matthews was nuttier during the Clinton years.

10/24/2009 8:42:01 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_White_Girl_Syndrome

10/24/2009 11:12:59 AM