Home

Where do you get your news?
1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Ravenclaw




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 10:37 am
I really want to try getting unbiased news. I listen to Ben Shapiro’s podcast, but I have begun seeing that it’s pretty biased. He is always ranting about how not all conservatives are alt-right, but he makes all liberals out to be communists.
I still like listening though because of his cultural commentary (though I disagree with a lot of it, such as his refusal to call transgender people by their preferred pronouns).
But now I am very confused with by the whole abortion news. He says that abortion can be done for any reason up until delivery. And as many mothers here posted, it’s not that black and white.
I am really confused, because I can know what I believe, but how do I know what is true? Do I support this bill or not—that depends on what you tell me. At first I thought I was opposed, then someone said only if the mother’s life was in danger so I decided it was fine. Then I heard about the killing out of uterus and was against it again. But the annoying part is that no liberal news mentions the out of uterus part! And no conservative news mentions the endangered life part!
How am I supposed to know what to believe when no one is being fully honest ?!
Back to top

allthingsblue




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 10:39 am
I don't think there are any unbiased news sources today, unfortunately.
Back to top

amother




Smokey


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 10:45 am
allthingsblue wrote:
I don't think there are any unbiased news sources today, unfortunately.


Agreed. Politics has become so polarized that it’s become less how you feel about the issue, and more which side you’re on.
Back to top

amother




Emerald


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 10:46 am
Delete

Last edited by amother on Mon, Feb 11 2019, 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

amother




Smokey


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 11:01 am
I generally side with conservatives, and I actually agree with a lot of things that Rush Limbaugh says. The problem (on both sides) is when people paint with broad strokes. It’s all or none; always or never. When you speak like this you lose credibility.

I also dislike the mocking. Yes, I am a conservative, and I disagree with many things that liberals say or do. I may heartily disagree, but I don’t like when someone mocks or makes fun of the other side. Conservative or liberal. Pelosi or Trump.
Back to top

tigerwife




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 11:04 am
American politics has turned into a blown up color war, so I tend to avoid news sites. Embarrassingly, most of my news comes from Imamother. Some of the debates here are pretty repetitive and I already know who will answer what, but the picture ends up being balanced somwhow.
Back to top

itsmeima




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 11:09 am
Ben Shapiro and Rush Limbaugh for example, share their opinion on the news.

I listen to BBC News, NPR News and Shepard Smith on Fox News.
Back to top

ectomorph




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 12:04 pm
Marina was wrong and Ben Shapiro was right. The law does allow any baby to be killed pre delivery for any health reason. Loosely defined on purpose.

They wouldn't be celebrating if not for that.
Back to top

ShishKabob




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 12:09 pm
I like Michael Savage, I like his style in addition, I don't believe he panders to either party. I don't know why WABC doesn't broadcast him anymore.

Hey, I totally forgot! And Kol Mevaser! If you understand Yiddish. They even give you news analysis from both ends. I don't listen to it really, my sons do though and they are very proficient and up to date with all news minus the tabloid stuff.
Back to top

Ruchel




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 12:23 pm
Figaro and people in the know, mostly.

I DONT get them on: tv, Jewish sites -except maybe the non fear mongering ones like yeshivanews
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 2:04 pm
You're asking a deep question, Ravenclaw.

The first problem is defining "news." The only possible type of "news" that can be completely free of bias is the weather report. And I'm not sure about that.

Any news outlet, no matter how much it attempts to be fair-minded, is constantly making decisions about which stories to cover and which stories to ignore. Editors and producers are making decisions about what they think is importance, which may not be what you think is important.

People like Rush Limbaugh or Ben Shapiro are not news reporters; they are commentators. They and their producers are deliberately selecting stories that resonate with their listeners.

So how do you find out what the heck is going on in the world?

Here's what I find most useful. Like Marie Kondo or whatever, take what you can use and ignore the rest:

Urgent Doesn't Mean Important
Cable news channels and social media have created a 24/7 news culture that reflects urgency rather than importance. A lot of significant news gets ignored because there's no dramatic breaking story connected.

Unless the story is about the weather, a natural disaster, an order to shelter in place, or a report that someone has attacked us -- it will wait. Give it 24-48 hours for everyone to settle down and for actual journalists to do actual journalism.

Follow Smart People
Social media have two advantages that traditional media don't. First, there is no time/space limitation. You can follow as many outlets and people as you want -- you're the editor and curator. Second, people can post links to interesting books, articles, essays, and studies.

It is a deeply disappointing day for me if I don't find a link on Twitter or Parler to an article that blows my mind.

There is no one I'd rather have describe the antics of two escaped llamas than Shepard Smith, and no one knows more than Anderson Cooper about . . . well, never mind. Ronan Farrow is an actual journalist, it appears, but his family's craziness is distracting. They're like the Kardashians for people who read the New Yorker.

But there are second tiers of writers and/or journalists who have specialties or expert knowledge in various subjects. They tend to be less ideologically-driven, and more important, less driven by what they think their outlets will pay them to write or say. They often connect to those mind-blowing ideas I'm always looking for.

Some of the people in this category that I follow include Cathy Young, Chad Felix Greene, Rachel Fulton Brown, Ed Latimore, Yashar Ali, and Glenn Greenwald. Do I "agree" with them? That ranges from about 95 percent of the time in the case of Greene to about 10 percent of the time in the case of Greenwald. But that's not the purpose -- I'm just greedy to see what they're reading and thinking about.

Worry Less About the Bias and More About the Logic and Analysis
People often brag that they get their news from multiple outlets that reflect a diversity of views. That's like asking the cat and the dog what you should serve for dinner. It's a "diversity of views," but none of them are particularly worthwhile.

Focus instead on the quality of the thinking that produced the conclusion. The Intercept, Greenwald's outlet, is very strongly leftist, and I disagree with most of their conclusions. But the reporting and analysis generally build evidence-based arguments rather than firing shots over the emotional bow. That, to my mind, is more important than whether we agree on the conclusion.

Marina once started a thread where she asked posters to make an opposing argument to a position in which they believed. I didn't have time to participate then, but it's the kind of thing you want to do constantly in your head. If you hear an argument for or against something and your inner response is, "I can't even!" or "Only a liberal/conservative/cat/dog would think that," then your problem isn't bias from news sources; it's lack of logic.

Or just stick to celebrity gossip. That works, too.
Back to top

Mayflower




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 2:30 pm
I read the New York Times and occasionally check the foxnews website to see what is going on in the parallel universe. I stopped reading frum news publications...

O and John Oliver and Seth Meyers of course Laugh
Back to top

FranticFrummie




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 2:42 pm
I get most of my news from Fox. The poster, not the station! LOL

But seriously, I try to get a view across the spectrum. I will not turn up my nose at a liberal site, and I will not swallow whole anything from a conservative site.

As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

IMHO, the important thing is to be informed about what impacts your daily life, what you have control over (like voting) - and then letting the rest go. Don't get all worked up over things happening outside of your sphere, unless you really enjoy debating world policy or the price of tea in China.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 3:25 pm
FranticFrummie wrote:
IMHO, the important thing is to be informed about what impacts your daily life, what you have control over (like voting) - and then letting the rest go. Don't get all worked up over things happening outside of your sphere, unless you really enjoy debating world policy or the price of tea in China.

One of the most insightful comments ever made, IMHO, occurred during the Fox News broadcast a few years ago when Shepard Smith was describing the escaped-llama situation in Sun City, Arizona.

"Why are we spending this much time reporting on a pair of loose llamas, you ask? Because there's nothing else going on today and everybody likes llamas." I'm paraphrasing; you can get the exact quote on YouTube if you're so inclined.

We would be no less informed and world would be a better place if cable news networks were permitted one hour of politics and world events and were required to allot the other 23 hours to cute or funny animal stories.

At least our insults would be more entertaining. "How could you vote for SoAndSo? You're the kind of person who likes baby otters better than baby flying fox bats!"
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 3:34 pm
I’m against “news” as such - it’s mostly brain clutter.

I get my information about what’s happening in Ukraine and Israel from: 1. People who are there, directly involved in whatever’s going on, 2. Trustworthy sites like arutz sheva, 3. Facebook
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 4:03 pm
All news is not created equal and legitimate news sites are diligent about reporting the facts without bias. This myth of all news being biased is really dangerous because it prevents people from being able to differentiate between reliable news sources and those which are disguising opinions for facts.

The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times are NOT biased in their news reporting. Other excellent sources of news are some that are posted above such as BBC or even NPR.

Fox News is biased as would be MSNBC. CNN when it reports the news is not biased although it has evening talk shows in which the host is presenting a specific world view.

Breitbart is biased - Daily Kos is biased.

Rush Limbaugh is biased - Rachel Maddow has her biases although she bases her opinions on facts whereas Limbaugh and Coulter play loose with the facts and are more interested in entertainment value than facts.
Back to top

amother




Smokey


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 4:08 pm
Amarante wrote:
All news is not created equal and legitimate news sites are diligent about reporting the facts without bias. This myth of all news being biased is really dangerous because it prevents people from being able to differentiate between reliable news sources and those which are disguising opinions for facts.

The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times are NOT biased in their news reporting. Other excellent sources of news are some that are posted above such as BBC or even NPR.

Fox News is biased as would be MSNBC. CNN when it reports the news is not biased although it has evening talk shows in which the host is presenting a specific world view.

Breitbart is biased - Daily Kos is biased.

Rush Limbaugh is biased - Rachel Maddow has her biases although she bases her opinions on facts whereas Limbaugh and Coulter play loose with the facts and are more interested in entertainment value than facts.


Have you ever read anything from the NYT or BBC regarding Israel and the Palestinians? They can definitely be biased.

Somehow I don’t see you listing any conservative outlets as unbiased...hmmm...
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 4:21 pm
WaPo is EXTREMELY biased.
Back to top

urban gypsy




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 4:27 pm
Fox wrote:
Follow Smart People
Social media have two advantages that traditional media don't. First, there is no time/space limitation. You can follow as many outlets and people as you want -- you're the editor and curator. Second, people can post links to interesting books, articles, essays, and studies. It is a deeply disappointing day for me if I don't find a link on Twitter or Parler to an article that blows my mind.


I thoroughly and wholeheartedly agree with every word of this. I live on Twitter and every day I learn life-changing information on there. People think I'm crazy when I say that but Fox is 100% right, social media isn't about sharing what you had for dinner, it's about following smart people. Smart people will lead you to more and more smart people and tbh I think I've learned more on Twitter than I've learned from any news station and probably from my college degree.
Back to top

amother




Ruby


Post  Wed, Jan 23 2019, 4:39 pm
I'm surprised noone said primary sources. Read the laws for yourself. Watch Trump's ridiculous speeches and read his crazy Twitter posts. Then formulate your own opinions. I don't need any "smart" people to digest the primary sources and regurgitate their opinions to me, thank you very much
Back to top
1, 2  Next Recent Topics

Page 1 of 2 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics
Jump to: