Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded

[denuseri]

way back in the day, or so my favorite american history professor would say, the Monitor used to report the news like this:

So and so on the following date at the following place and time said this: "whatever speach etc it was in its orriginal entirety" , no editorial comments no explanations that was it, the speakers words, no sumations , no "spin" etc,,,,,,,

that is why it originally achieved its stunning reputation as an unbiased news source

today the Monitor has a single page ussually dedicated to airing its own views on an issue, with a light religious overtone, if yu dont want to read it yu just skip to the next article,, i havent seen them use the "quote alone style" in thier reporting recently but that doesnt mean they have completely abandoned it eaither

i have seen them allow more reporters to editorialize pieces though, and they dont allways try to balance the piece with an opposing view point,

as far as political leanings i havent noticed the Monitor take a stance one way or the other (alltough the individual contributors sometimes do) and in that respect i think its one of the best newspapers out there and as non-partisan as it can be without resorting to thier old format (which my professor said was frankly a little lengthy and boreing as they didnt edit the reports)

i love the bbc and npr as well as colours television , pbs and link, all of which i get on satilite i also have several news blogs on my email page and i am an avid reader of a variety of books and information sources (though i will argue wikipedia is hardly a credible source as any tom dick and harry can amend whats in it) though wiki is trying to change that,,

of course an individuals perspective is dependent on a wide variety of things from the way they were raised to peer pressure ,to thier intelectual capacity etc etc, all parts of the whole,, i really dont believe any one person should be catagorized simply based on a single belief in a single topic or generalization,,, which is why it may sound like i snub ya if yu call me a radical, and i call ya one back (thats to anyone not any one)

the only way a news source could be completely "free" is if it was completely economically, culturally, politically and socially independent,

it would also have to be held to the highest ethical standards

these are things many claim (because who would claim not too) yet few approach

i have seen blatent bias in every majior news channel on tv even from cnn to fox, from msn to (my beloved) dailey show even cctv and yes on occasion bbc and npr (yes i find news on the dailey show sometimes more accurate than the regular channels)

the ultimate judge on your news is you,, take it or leave it, with or without the grain of salt

[John56{vg}]

i have seen them allow more reporters to editorialize pieces though, and they dont allways try to balance the piece with an opposing view point,

The Monitor received its reputation by doing great stories not just by regurgitating quotes. They have been a great newspaper for over 40 years.

Also, editorializing on the editorial page is perfectly legitimate and there is no need to have opposing viewpoints to editorials and opinion pieces.

And this brings up one of the MANY problems with FOX. They pride their lies and half-truths on the fact that they are "Fair and balanced." Meaning, to them it seems, that if you have some Liberal on you can say anything because you have an opposing viewpoint.

Objectivity is NOT balanced and not even fair a good part of the time. It is telling the truth of the situation as close to impartial as possible.

The way it was explained to me in J-school. If a serial killer is murdering people and he is discovered and tried and found guilty. His "side' of that issue is moot. Being fair would be him given voice to say how he lovede killing so he is not really at fault for anything.

Yes, the reporter may give us insight into why the man did it, but we do not have to give him voice to all his crazy "reasons."

And even though FOX news claims it is fair and balanced it is neither. Fox News is total fiction 99 per cent of the time.

the only way a news source could be completely "free" is if it was completely economically, culturally, politically and socially independent,

And even then personal bias would be at work. Don't get me wrong. Objectivity is almost impossible to achieve. But it is worth striving for and their ARE news organizations out there that are striving for that.

the ultimate judge on your news is you,, take it or leave it, with or without the grain of salt

I take exception to this because a person may look at the 700 club as their news source or FOX as their news source.

Any journalist can tell you those two are not valid news sources. An expert can help people refine their choices to include TRUTHFUL sources.

[Thorne]

a person may look at the 700 club as their news source or FOX as their news source.

Any journalist can tell you those two are not valid news sources. An expert can help people refine their choices to include TRUTHFUL sources.

It seems to me that ANY news source which happens to coincide, most of the time, with a person's own beliefs will always be considered valid by that person! Those news sources which tend toward the conservative side, such as FOX, are considered reliable and trustworthy by conservatives because they say what those conservatives want to hear. Those news sources which tend to be liberal are considered equally valid and reliable by liberals.

Claiming that FOX News "makes up 99%" of their stories is both irresponsible and unjustified. They would not hold on to their audience if that were true. What they MAY do, however, is only tell those parts of a story which focus on their own prejudices and agendas. This is true of ANY news media.

I'm often struck when reading articles in a newspaper or magazine by the fact that, whenever something particularly nasty and "juicy" occurs, reporters frequently claim that "so-and-so did not immediately return calls made to confirm or deny this story" or something to that effect. This tells me that the reporter or editor didn't want to print any dissenting views so they called after business hours, or at a time when no one was likely to answer and didn't wait for any return call. It's far more important to them to get the story out there, first, before someone comes along and tells the truth. Whether this is so or not I can't say, but that's what I feel when I see that, and I immediately suspect whatever story they are trying to sell me.

The only way you can hope to get the true story is to get it from many sources, both pro and con, and bet on the fact that the truth is somewhere in the middle.