How Trustworthy Are U.S. & Western ‘News’ Media?

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by poncho, Jul 12, 2015.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    During the days of the Soviet Union, and in all dictatorial countries, the ‘news’ media were and are actually propaganda-media, which filter out information that the aristocracy (the people holding the real power, which in the Soviet Union were the Communist Party bosses) don’t want the public to know. Is the United States like that now?

    I first came to the conclusion that the U.S. is a dictatorship in 2002, when I found proof that George W. Bush was lying to claim that he possessed proof that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his WMD (weapons of mass destruction) stockpiles, and when the U.S. and UK ’news’ media hid this crucial fact that their heads-of-state were lying. Bush and British Prime Minster Tony Blair were arguing in 2002 against sending IAEA inspectors back into Iraq in order to verify whether or not Saddam was rebuilding his WMD stockpiles; they alleged that they (Bush-Blair) already possessed proof that he was accumulating WMD.

    Here is how I found out that they were lying about that: On Saturday 7 September 2002, the White House issued “Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Tony Blair in Photo Opportunity Camp David” (still googlable at here), with the following exchange between a journalist and Bush-Blair:

    Continue . . . http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/trustworthy-u-s-western-news-media.html
     
  2. Melanie

    Melanie
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,779
    Likes Received:
    5
    Without reading the article , but based on personal experience, I judged 98% are lies and the other 2% mis communicated but having a germ of truth tucked away. Mass Media is a business as is Health, sales are what is important nothing else, not even national security! News only sells if it is titallating, fear making etc.
     
  3. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,304
    Likes Received:
    394
    How trustworthy is Russian news media?
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    That's irrelevant.
     
  5. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,304
    Likes Received:
    394
    Why? They do not have their own agenda?
     
    #5 Rolfe, Jul 13, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
  6. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,304
    Likes Received:
    394
    Old Russian saying about Pravda and Tass: No news in the truth and no truth in the news.

    Little has changed under Putin's rule.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Because this thread is about "U.S. & Western ‘News’ Media".
     
    #7 poncho, Jul 13, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
  8. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,650
    Likes Received:
    312
    the question is no more of a rabbit trail than some of your posts on other threads.
    And the English alphabet version of the Russian is:
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    How trustworthy?

    Not at all. About the same as the source for the OP.
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...13/only_6_rate_news_media_as_very_trustworthy


    Only 6% Rate News Media As Very Trustworthy


    Fifty-six percent (56%) of all voters regard the news reported by the media as at least somewhat trustworthy, but that includes just six percent who think it is Very Trustworthy. Forty-two percent (42%) don’t trust the news media, with 12% who believe the news it reports is Not At All Trustworthy.
     
  11. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,467
    Likes Received:
    138
    The only thing I trust these media sources for is the sports report and the weather! :laugh:
     
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yeah and it shows up in all your threads. :rolleyes:
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...of-news-fox-news-ranked-first/article/2561252

    Poll: MSNBC least trustworthy source of news, Fox News ranked first


    For American voters, MSNBC is the least trustworthy source of news in U.S., while Fox News is the most trusted, according to a new Quinnipiac survey.

    The poll, which was conducted from February 26-March 2, found that 29 percent of 1,286 registered voters ranked Fox News first when asked to compare the trustworthiness of coverage offered by organizations including NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC and CNN.

    "The days of the three major network newscasts being the voice of leverage and trust are over," Quinnipiac's Tim Malloy told the Washington Examiner's media desk.

    In comparison, CNN scored 22 percent of the vote, while NBC News and CBS News each came in at 10 percent and ABC News registered at eight percent.
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    ‘Pants On Fire’: Analysis Shows 60% Of Fox News ‘Facts’ Are Really Lies

    Fox News leads the major TV networks in broadcasting lies, but that doesn’t mean CNN or MSNBC are far behind.

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/pants-on-fire-analysis-shows-60-of-fox-news-facts-are-really-lies/205563/

    At Fox and Fox News, 10 percent of the claims we’ve rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.

    That means about 60 percent of the claims we’ve checked have been rated Mostly False or worse. Here’s how it breaks down (as of Jan. 27, 2015):

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jan/27/msnbc-fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/
     
    #14 poncho, Jul 14, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2015
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Means nothing.

    They only measured claims made by talk show hosts.

    Not the News anchors and your subject is "News".

    Try again.
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    How Stupid Happens t

    No, PolitiFact did not show that half of Fox News statements are false.

    he headlines were inevitable: “Fact-Checking Site Finds Fox News Only Tells the Truth 18 Percent of the Time,” “Analysis: Over Half of ALL Statements Made On Fox News Are False,” “Fox News wins battle for most-false cable network.” One particularly dim-witted account, written by Jameson Parker, reads: “A new analysis by PunditFact found that of every statement made by a Fox News host or guest, over half of them were flat-out false. What’s more, only a measly 8 percent could be considered completely ‘true.’ In other words, a fancy review of hundreds of hours of video confirmed what many who watch Fox News with any regularity already know: Fox News lies. A lot. Like all the time.” The “study” from PunditFact (a subdivision of PolitiFact), which is not really a study, says no such thing. You do not have to rely on my word for that: PunditFact itself warns against using its figures “to draw broad conclusions,” e.g. that Fox News lies “like all the time.” (Like, is this like a 1980s Valley-girl movie, or are you just, like, functionally illiterate?) That is because the study is an exercise in drawing nonsensical conclusions from arbitrary data. The most obvious problem — though certainly not the only problem, not even close — is selection bias: PolitiFact is a readership-driven online publication, and thus it exercises a great deal of discretion about which statements it chooses to evaluate and why. The most obvious factor is that it evaluates only statements that are disputed. Specifically, it evaluates only statements that are disputed and that its editors believe will be of some interest or benefit to its readers. Fox News is a personalities-driven opinion network with occasional news reports; it is inevitable that its broadcast hours will be more rapidly punctuated by controversial statements than those of, for example, ABC. Unsurprisingly, the opinion-heavy Fox News and MSNBC both have relatively high falsehood scores on the PolitiFact report card, while CNN doesn’t. It’s not as though Michaela Pereira never says anything that might be disputed — she simply never says anything that is interesting, true or false, so nobody cares. Or, as PolitiFact puts it: “We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything. And we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly.” No kidding. Say what you will about Bill O’Reilly, nobody ever made a living out of pretending to be Rachel Maddow. (No, Chris Hayes doesn’t count.) PolitiFact’s kindergarten-level methodology here is to take the total number of statements it evaluates, tally up the “mostly false,” “false,” and “pants on fire” ratings, and then do a little division. Given the underlying selection issues, this amounts to nothing more than doing meaningless arithmetic on meaningless data. If PunditFact editor Aaron Sharockman spent more than 20 minutes on this so-called research, he should demand a refund from his university. (Given that he has a B.A. in journalism, he should demand a refund on general principles.)

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/382851/how-stupid-happens-kevin-d-williamson
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Good post, Rev.
     
  18. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    How honest is the National Review Online?

    How honest can anyone be when they only see things from one perspective?

    Read some of the other articles the National Review Online publishes, "It's the lefties! It's the lefties! It's the lefties!

    No they aren't partisan or anything.

    In this article for instance the author is still claiming Assad used WMD's "on his own people" when the inspectors found evidence it was Washington's Islamic proxy forces who actually used the WMD's.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390725/biggest-lie-victor-davis-hanson


    And this aritcle in which the author claims "the Assad regime was losing its grip on power in early 2012".

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357492/frightening-truth-about-syrias-wmds-stanley-kurtz

    That's strange because if it were true Washington wouldn't have to keep funding and arming it's Islamic proxy "regime change" forces and flying air cover and bombing missions for them. It's now the middle of 2015 and Assad is still in power despite all the media demonization and increasing amounts of weapons and money Washington keeps sending to it's Islamic proxy forces there.

    And that's just two articles from the National Review Online.

    Two articles, two lies.

    Nice try Rev, "you can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on" George W. Bush

    Here's another example of how the media lies, or more accurately works to reinforce the government's narratives.

    Pentagon military analyst program And nobody in the media thought to ask who they were actually working for? Such is the state of journalism in this country.

    I'm sure Carpro remembers these guys, he parroted about everything they said here for awhile to defend the Bush regime and it's nation building experiments. But who can blame him, these guys were all red white and blue and wrapped in the flag and rooting for the neocons and that's what made them so "credible". Perception is everything.

    Here's another example of the National Review Online carrying water for the neocons.

    There were all sorts of untold amnesias about Iraq. No one remembers the 23 writs that were part of the 2002 authorizations that apparently Obama believes are still in effect. They included genocide, bounties for suicide bombers, an attempt to kill a former U.S. president, the harboring of terrorists (among them one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers), and a whole litany of charges that transcended WMD and were utterly unaffected by the latter controversy. How surreal is it that Obama is preemptively bombing Iraq on twelve-year-old congressional authorizations that he opposed as trumped up and now may be relevant in relationship to dealing with Syrian and Iraqi stockpiles of WMD?

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390725/biggest-lie-victor-davis-hanson

    Evidently this author suffers from amnesia about Irag too. Like "Curveball" admitting he lied, the whole "incubator babies" story, the Downing Street memo, Powell's speech at the UN . . .

    C'mon Rev you aren't being consistent with your "new found" reverence for the facts if you don't bother checking out the fact checkers "facts" or more importantly their lack of "facts" in order to skew reality to fit party talking points and the government's narratives.
     
    #18 poncho, Jul 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2015
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    On this subject? A lot more honest than yours.

    The only question is ...did you know how dishonest your source was being before you posted it?

    Since you are the self proclaimed purveyor of the real "truth" here on BB, I have to believe you did.
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    Oh you must mean like politifact.
     

Share This Page

Loading...