What happened to all the war protesters? Abducted by aliens? Kool-Aid OD?

[Jerchap2]

The protesters are not covered by the MSM, for the most part.

 

[jamil]

I listen to NPR quite a bit, and they've mentioned the protesters plenty, had a few shows with experts discussing both sides, etc. (I know it isn't as fun as listening to someone angrily rant while presenting only one side, but I still find it interesting).

Looming Syria Vote Prompts Protests : NPR

If you can't find coverage of protesters, perhaps you're looking in the wrong places. Maybe tv news isn't covering it, I don't know since I don't bother with "better to be first than right" news programs.

Heh, so "better to be LEFT than right" news programs are more accurate? I think either way, truth in reporting anymore is more coincidence than journalism.

I listen to NPR as well, but only as one source among many from which to triangulate what's most likely to be real. They all have agendas whether it's trying to be first, "left", or "right'.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Heh, so "better to be LEFT than right" news programs are more accurate?

Typically, yes. There's been plenty of links to stories from NPR on these forums that were friendly to gun owners, for example. I think I get a much better understanding of an issue listening to a panel of various viewpoints discuss it. Shows like All Things Considered, Diane Rehm, etc.

Now there are shows like Tavis Smiley that I avoid just as much as I avoid any other single personality "I'm incredibly offended by "X" and you should be, too" shows on other networks.

 

[BogWalker]

NPR is leftist leaning, but I do think they at least try to be neutral about things. It is not the easiest thing to be neutral when you have a strong personal opinion towards certain topics. If NPR were staffed by Republicans it would probably be right leaning.

 

[jamil]

NPR is leftist leaning, but I do think they at least try to be neutral about things. It is not the easiest thing to be neutral when you have a strong personal opinion towards certain topics. If NPR were staffed by Republicans it would probably be right leaning.

That's the whole point. When you're personally invested in an ideology even your attempts to be objective with opposing views still ends up representing them as straw men. If you get your news from one source, you will not get the whole story. I often listen to NPR. But I would never rely on them for accurate reporting.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

When you're personally invested in an ideology even your attempts to be objective with opposing views still ends up representing them as straw men.

Unless, of course, you actively recruit intelligent and articulate people from different areas of the political spectrum who actually believe the ideas they espouse (as opposed to espousing whatever they believe will enhance ratings). Not everyone strives for the echo chamber model or the constant imminent catastrophe model of reporting, and will actively seek out those who disagree to provide a more balanced presentation or debate.

That said, the question was do I think NPR is more often accurate than television news. The answer is still yes. Any delayed media, from radio programming to news magazines, has longer to research and edit before presenting a story, and as such is less likely to present "facts" that are premature or inaccurate. TV news wants to be first so badly that they end up telling us about Capt. Sum Ting Wong and his co-pilots. TV news used to be a loss leader for television, something you lost money on but did for the prestige and to draw viewers. Now its a major profit center, primarily through the manufacture of outrage, "reality tv" style debate, and the imminent catastrophe presentation. "Is your tap water killing your children? Tune it at 11 for the answer."

 

[Hotdoger]

Problem is NPR is an ECHO chamber with leftist bent facts from leftist mindsets. Nightly news was always the most watched TV time slot and has the highest ad rates. With the advent of other news sources it became the loss leader. Also the outing of the lying leftist news producers has turned segments of the population to look for other sources. Dan Rather ring a bell?

 

[Hotdoger]

Don Wade WLS radio personality passed away. Here is the text from his famous Charlie Gibson outing.

Charlie Gibson on ACORN Scandal: 'I don?t even know about it.'

 

[ViperJock]

Source?

"This is not of court of law. And intelligence does not work that way."
"The common-sense test says he is responsible for this He should be held to account."

WH CoS; Dennis McDonough- as quoted in the Journal Gazette this morning. Topic: Lack of "irrefutable, beyond-a-REASONABLE-doubt evidence."

Why should INGO be held to a higher standard than the White House? lol

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

An interesting conundrum: Will the press cover them like they did during Republican administrations? How conflicted the MSM must feel!

Beings i havent seen a single mainstream news outlet call for the support of bombing Syria, why would they have a problem showing people agreeing with them?

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

The protesters are not covered by the MSM, for the most part.

LOL, the first site i checked this is the main story

CNN poll: Public against Syria strike resolution - CNN.com

 

[jamil]

Unless, of course, you actively recruit intelligent and articulate people from different areas of the political spectrum who actually believe the ideas they espouse (as opposed to espousing whatever they believe will enhance ratings). Not everyone strives for the echo chamber model or the constant imminent catastrophe model of reporting, and will actively seek out those who disagree to provide a more balanced presentation or debate.

That said, the question was do I think NPR is more often accurate than television news. The answer is still yes. Any delayed media, from radio programming to news magazines, has longer to research and edit before presenting a story, and as such is less likely to present "facts" that are premature or inaccurate. TV news wants to be first so badly that they end up telling us about Capt. Sum Ting Wong and his co-pilots. TV news used to be a loss leader for television, something you lost money on but did for the prestige and to draw viewers. Now its a major profit center, primarily through the manufacture of outrage, "reality tv" style debate, and the imminent catastrophe presentation. "Is your tap water killing your children? Tune it at 11 for the answer."

That may be the question you answered, but the question I asked was,

"better to be LEFT than right" news programs are more accurate?

The point was, the leftward NPR is no more reliable than right leaning "news" shows. Shows like All Things Considered, and The Diane Rehm Show are opinion shows and are no more accurate or trustworthy than the same kinds of conservative leaning shows. They are, in function, "echo chambers" for their own bent. They understandably present content with the beginning premise that their position is the "correct" one and allow just enough opposing viewpoints to say they did, and often present them in the context of straw men.

However, I will say that for headline news, their affiliation with BBC news is generally helpful. As lefty as BBC news is, I have to commend them for their initial Benghazi reporting. Shortly afterwards, while all of our networks were reporting that it was an overblown protest over a video, BBC was reporting that it was a group affiliated with Al Qaeda.

All I'm saying is, if you only listen to NPR, you'll only get their spin. You can't accurately triangulate a true position from only one point of reference. I listen to all of them, and assume none of them are telling me the full story.

 

[N8RV]

Unless, of course, you actively recruit intelligent and articulate people from different areas of the political spectrum who actually believe the ideas they espouse (as opposed to espousing whatever they believe will enhance ratings). Not everyone strives for the echo chamber model or the constant imminent catastrophe model of reporting, and will actively seek out those who disagree to provide a more balanced presentation or debate ...

In theory, I would agree. However, using Fox News as an example, in their effort to be "fair and balanced," they often have regulars and guests from the left to add balance to their analyses. The likes of Alan Colmes and Bob Beckel (I suppose your qualifier of "intelligent and articulate" excludes them) are SO entrenched in their ideologies, however, that they go to ridiculous lengths to support even the most idiotic things that the left does. When commentators of any stripe are that blind to reality, any value that they brought to the table is absent.

We all know people like that. There are some here on INGO (imagine that!) No matter how obvious something is, they go to extremes to present even an untenable opposition, just for the sake of argument. I don't get that mindset and never will.

 

[jamil]

In theory, I would agree. However, using Fox News as an example, in their effort to be "fair and balanced," they often have regulars and guests from the left to add balance to their analyses. The likes of Alan Colmes and Bob Beckel (I suppose your qualifier of "intelligent and articulate" excludes them) are SO entrenched in their ideologies, however, that they go to ridiculous lengths to support even the most idiotic things that the left does. When commentators of any stripe are that blind to reality, any value that they brought to the table is absent.

We all know people like that. There are some here on INGO (imagine that!) No matter how obvious something is, they go to extremes to present even an untenable opposition, just for the sake of argument. I don't get that mindset and never will.

See what I mean? I usually find myself disagreeing with the liberal position, but to know their best argument you have to get it from a liberal outlet. You won't get that on Fox. Colmes, Beckel, and to some extent, Juan Williams, are paid role players. They're straw men paid to let people like O'Reilly, Hannity, and others knock them down. I rarely agree with Colmes anyway, but I've often wondered when he's going to retire from being O'Reily's *****.

 

[Manatee]

I looked over at Daily Kos (dKOS) which is probably the benchmark for non-media liberal websites and have been very strong Obama supporters. The great preponderance of comments on that site over the past few weeks have been ANTI Obama and anti-war against Syria. Obama is losing the left in droves. Are they protesting? Not as much as writing their congressional reps and senators. Obama has lost a majority of the left on this issue.

 

[jamil]

I looked over at Daily Kos (dKOS) which is probably the benchmark for non-media liberal websites and have been very strong Obama supporters. The great preponderance of comments on that site over the past few weeks have been ANTI Obama and anti-war against Syria. Obama is losing the left in droves. Are they protesting? Not as much as writing their congressional reps and senators. Obama has lost a majority of the left on this issue.

I think the media has lifted the ban. It's now permitted to speak against the holy one on certain topics now that Hillary is heir apparent.

 

[Dauvis]

I looked over at Daily Kos (dKOS) which is probably the benchmark for non-media liberal websites and have been very strong Obama supporters. The great preponderance of comments on that site over the past few weeks have been ANTI Obama and anti-war against Syria. Obama is losing the left in droves. Are they protesting? Not as much as writing their congressional reps and senators. Obama has lost a majority of the left on this issue.

He's actually been losing them for longer than this issue. He started losing them well before the Occupy movement. They have not been happy on his lack of action towards the fraud that led up to the 2008 collapse.