[Bobboau]

are you seriously implying that I am seriously implying that it ever was?

but to answer your question. No.

[Grizzly]

you are seriously implying they don't have their own agendas to push?

No, but not in the way you're implying!

Ahum.

CNN, MSNBC and Fox are all these 24 hours news networks that need constant sensationalism in order to keep people watching - The daily mail uses similar tactics. But the issue what I have with that statement of yours is that you're comparing something like Fox News to something like Aftenposten or NRC Handelsblad. There's a reason why these papers get selected for Wikileaks, and that is because their agenda is not aligned with a political party but rather aligned with the ideals of journalism itself. Can you really blame someone for having an agenda when that agenda is to be as honest as possible?

CNN and Fox and MSNBC completely suck but they are not representative for the state of media all around the world.

[Bobboau]

I can blame them when they choose "honesty" over objectivity.

[Grizzly]

I can blame them when they choose "honesty" over objectivity.

A journalist can never be truly objective. Part of their job is selecting what information is or is not important. I'd rather have someone I can trust figure that out rather then have a system that encourages dumping every sex tape online for the sake of objective truth.

Look, sorry, but you're lumping in outlets whose agenda revolves around uncovering the truth and to be truthful and accurate in their reporting with companies who can not succeed unless they keep feeding people sensationalism because else they stop watching. That is a massive overgeneralization.

[Bobboau]

They can try to be objective, they can not misrepresent someone's position. I'd rather have someone who told me what everyone involved is saying and figure it out myself than rely on someone else to make my opinions for me.

[NGTM-1R]

They can try to be objective, they can not misrepresent someone's position. I'd rather have someone who told me what everyone involved is saying and figure it out myself than rely on someone else to make my opinions for me.

Not everyone involved has equal coverage primarily because not everyone involved equally has something to say. I mean, you can pretty much assume Donald Trump disagrees with anything a news network says about him. If you couldn't draw that conclusion on your own already, then I'm not sure why you think anyone will let you figure it out on your own because you're probably not equipped.

And you're equating "misrepresentation" with "reporting" in some strange way. People will check that what they are being told is verifiable; they'll check facts; simply uncritically publishing statements is in no way "objectivity" and is really quite the opposite. "They said this, and it's not true/is true according to x" is kind of how objectivity works, rather than just "they said this, and as we are not qualifying it most people will assume that we agree".

If nothing else, it allows you to check and determine their biases.

[karajorma]

Ironically Bobboau's position is remarkably consistent with "Teach the controversy".

[Bobboau]

I have no problem with creationists having their accurate position being communicated and allowing them to make an argument for their idiotic case. I think it helps long term and I think censoring them gives them far more power.

[Grizzly]

I have no problem with creationists having their accurate position being communicated and allowing them to make an argument for their idiotic case. I think it helps long term and I think censoring them gives them far more power.

... How does censorship even play into this?

[Bobboau]

not letting a person/group present their position.

[AdmiralRalwood]

There's a difference between being allowed to present your position and being given a free platform to broadcast your position.

[Bobboau]

and there is also the case of one side being characterized by their opposition who is then given a free platform to present themselves unopposed. I am opposed to this.

[karajorma]

I have no problem with creationists having their accurate position being communicated and allowing them to make an argument for their idiotic case. I think it helps long term and I think censoring them gives them far more power.

You have no problem with creationism being taught in science class?

[Bobboau]

yes I do have a problem with that obviously.

I am rather interested in how you construed what I have been saying about how the media should handle things to say something about what should be taught in classrooms.
It is in fact the creationists failure when given equal footing that gives me confidence in opposing them.

[karajorma]

I'd rather have someone who told me what everyone involved is saying and figure it out myself than rely on someone else to make my opinions for me.

Sounds like a pretty good argument for why creationism should be taught in science class to me. If you expect the teachers to fact check and only tell the side that is actually consistent then why not reporters too?

[Bobboau]

because how am I to decide if I want creationism taught in schools or not if I don't know what creationism is? maybe they have some good point.? I now know, having heard them, that they don't. I only know that because they were given a fair chance to make their case and failed.

Just so I have a clear idea what you want, what do you consider the ideal?

[karajorma]

But why should you get to make the decision and not the kids who are to be taught in the class?


As for what I want. I'm quite happy to be told the truth by a newspaper I trust. I don't need to hear everything so I can make the decision myself when there obviously is only one side to the story.

[Dragon]

I don't need to hear everything so I can make the decision myself when there obviously is only one side to the story.

Generally, when there's "obviously" only one side to the story, it's a good cue that you're not being told everything. There's always another side to the story. Even the most despicable creatures in human skin should be allowed to state their reasons for being what they are at least once. Usually it won't change anything, but you can't be certain until you hear it.

Ultimately, even if you're told "the truth" by a newspaper you trust, you're still getting it colored by someone else's viewpoint. Even if the newspaper as a whole is supposed to be unbiased, personal agenda of particular writers might still seep through. Ultimately, I always take secondary sources with a bigger or smaller grain of salt. Good as arguments in a discussion, but when it comes to making my own worldview, it's primary sources or bust. Especially in cases like this, where there's a lot of money and a huge potential for foul play involved. I see Wikileaks as no different than anyone else, except for the times they allow direct access to material they gather.

Creationism should not be taught in a science class because, well, it isn't science (those who insist it is usually have no idea of how actual science works). It should be taught in the religion class, where it belongs. Then the kids can decide which teacher to believe. It is definitely important to hear both points of view, but they should be categorized appropriately.

[Bobboau]

well, for one thing they are children and I am an adult.
second those kids can hear the debate on the news just like me.

As for your vision for journalism... that attitude disgusts me.
So I guess we have an impassable difference of values. Fortunately I'm not prescribing what you should do, but describing why I have no faith in the media.

[karajorma]

Generally, when there's "obviously" only one side to the story, it's a good cue that you're not being told everything. There's always another side to the story.

Really? So you need to hear the "Aliens shot it down" side of a plane crash story too?