#1 Buzzettes Fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:57 am
Rest in Peace Roger Mosley! It's very strange that a few days ago I picked up a used sony 400 disc dvd changer and put all my discs inside to re-watch the series... (Last time was four years ago already.) then I saw the sad news after coming back to the forum here. The only news site I see these days is Epoch Times so I don't follow celebrity type news. I'm so grateful to have caught MPI in the 80s as a kid and then later on dvd as well. I tell everyone it is my favorite show ever. I owe a lot of thanks to all the cast and crew and today especially to the superb character TC. God bless.
I generally find it disconcerting when someone says they only follow one news source. By definition, limiting oneself to a single source of information is inherently biased. I know I’m more liberal than many of the forum members, but I have had wonderful conversations with them over the years. Some might say I have had interesting and even contentious conversations, but I honestly find it troubling that people admit to openly limiting their information sources. Reading a wide variety of perspectives can’t be a negative? Less information can’t be good? A narrow source of information is honestly troubling to me. Just my two cents.
Pahonu, it's actually pretty simple. One tends to watch things (news or even our favorite TV shows that we discuss here) that are to our liking and that align with our views. You say you watch multiple news sources but something tells me you don't spend too much time watching Fox News (am I correct?) as they probably don't align with your views and you probably find other news sources more worthwhile. That's the same reason some of us choose not to watch CNN or the top 3 networks (though I do tune into ABC World News from time to time). We find other sources that align more with our views. And if it's just one news source that we trust or agree with then so be it.
It's like this -- if I watch a news source and I see a constant narrative that continues to piss me off then why would I keep tuning in? I'll find another news source that I find more balanced, which you may find less balanced by the way. But hey, that's the way it is. We're all different and are affected differently by things we see and hear. Same reason I won't continue to watch a TV show that I either have no interest in or I find offensive. Why would I? So many better things to choose from out there (mostly from the past).
Pahonu wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:11 am
I generally find it disconcerting when someone says they only follow one news source. By definition, limiting oneself to a single source of information is inherently biased. I know I’m more liberal than many of the forum members, but I have had wonderful conversations with them over the years. Some might say I have had interesting and even contentious conversations, but I honestly find it troubling that people admit to openly limiting their information sources. Reading a wide variety of perspectives can’t be a negative? Less information can’t be good? A narrow source of information is honestly troubling to me. Just my two cents.
I understand that sentiment, and I generally agree with it, but I don't agree with it in this case. The reason: the MSM (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc) cannot be considered news at this point. They are so obviously and strongly biased, and they obviously run narratives, that they cannot be relied upon for any sort of "news."
In general, I agree with the notion of using more than one news source. The problem is: What news source, other than The Epoch Times, is unbiased at this point? (The Epoch Times is biased against CCP; that's the only bias I find in their reporting.) I used to like WSJ news reporting -- it used to be unbiased, even as their opinion/editorial page was right-leaning -- but even WSJ is running left-leaning narratives at this point.
It's truly sad to see, the state of "news" reporting today. I really wish we could get back to the 5 Ws. I'd be very happy to use more sources. To be honest, I'd be happy to use left-leaning sources that aren't running a narrative, but I don't know of any at this point.
Today, my sources are, in order: Not The Bee (an aggregator, not a news organization, and with a Christian perspective), The Epoch Times (as unbiased as I have found), and Daily Wire (obviously right-leaning).
Every news source has bias in varying degrees and their position is entirely relative to other sources. Describing information as not news, isn’t meaningful. This range of bias means of course that if one is left leaning, then most other media seems biased to the right… because it is, relative to a leftist perspective. The same would be true to those with right leaning views. I have friends who sometimes make similar comments to yours and I point out that they are correct that most media is left of their views, BUT it’s because they are more conservative. If they had more centrist views it would seem less left leaning.
The various media bias charts that plot news source bias can be very helpful. They don’t support any particular perspective but simply show a spectrum of the various news sources. They are also very open and transparent about the methodology used to create the charts. On this wide spectrum, the WSJ news is still relatively centrist, though their editorials lean right. Of course, if you hold views further to the right then they are left of you, but compared to the wide range of reporting they are still more central on the chart. It’s important for everyone to understand that we all have biases and that’s okay, but understanding where one’s political views reside on the spectrum of political discourse is important. Those on the left and the right, particularly either extreme, who believe they are the possessors of non-bias are truly problematic.
Pahonu wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:29 pm
Every news source has bias in varying degrees and their position is entirely relative to other sources. Describing information as not news, isn’t meaningful. This range of bias means of course that if one is left leaning, then most other media seems biased to the right… because it is, relative to a leftist perspective. The same would be true to those with right leaning views. I have friends who sometimes make similar comments to yours and I point out that they are correct that most media is left of their views, BUT it’s because they are more conservative. If they had more centrist views it would seem less left leaning.
The various media bias charts that plot news source bias can be very helpful. They don’t support any particular perspective but simply show a spectrum of the various news sources. They are also very open and transparent about the methodology used to create the charts. On this wide spectrum, the WSJ news is still relatively centrist, though their editorials lean right. Of course, if you hold views further to the right then they are left of you, but compared to the wide range of reporting they are still more central on the chart. It’s important for everyone to understand that we all have biases and that’s okay, but understanding where one’s political views reside on the spectrum of political discourse is important. Those on the left and the right, particularly either extreme, who believe they are the possessors of non-bias are truly problematic.
The problem for me isn't so much the bias, it's the narrative. MSM "News" organizations at this point no longer report the 5 Ws. They decide on a narrative, and then they build a story around that narrative. What's worse: the MSM sources do it in lockstep, so CNN == ABC == NBC == CBS == ... at this point.
I've seen the allsides media bias chart, and I think it was correct about a decade ago but needs to be updated, because so many have shifted leftward. It is probably still useful as a relative chart, for most.
I mean, come on: Newsweek is absolutely not centrist at this point. I would likewise not consider Reuters or Forbes to be centrist. I don't know about the others in the "C" column, because I don't use them.
#1 Buzzettes Fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:57 am
Rest in Peace Roger Mosley! It's very strange that a few days ago I picked up a used sony 400 disc dvd changer and put all my discs inside to re-watch the series... (Last time was four years ago already.) then I saw the sad news after coming back to the forum here. The only news site I see these days is Epoch Times so I don't follow celebrity type news. I'm so grateful to have caught MPI in the 80s as a kid and then later on dvd as well. I tell everyone it is my favorite show ever. I owe a lot of thanks to all the cast and crew and today especially to the superb character TC. God bless.
I generally find it disconcerting when someone says they only follow one news source. By definition, limiting oneself to a single source of information is inherently biased. I know I’m more liberal than many of the forum members, but I have had wonderful conversations with them over the years. Some might say I have had interesting and even contentious conversations, but I honestly find it troubling that people admit to openly limiting their information sources. Reading a wide variety of perspectives can’t be a negative? Less information can’t be good? A narrow source of information is honestly troubling to me. Just my two cents.
Pahonu, it's actually pretty simple. One tends to watch things (news or even our favorite TV shows that we discuss here) that are to our liking and that align with our views. You say you watch multiple news sources but something tells me you don't spend too much time watching Fox News (am I correct?) as they probably don't align with your views and you probably find other news sources more worthwhile. That's the same reason some of us choose not to watch CNN or the top 3 networks (though I do tune into ABC World News from time to time). We find other sources that align more with our views. And if it's just one news source that we trust or agree with then so be it.
It's like this -- if I watch a news source and I see a constant narrative that continues to piss me off then why would I keep tuning in? I'll find another news source that I find more balanced, which you may find less balanced by the way. But hey, that's the way it is. We're all different and are affected differently by things we see and hear. Same reason I won't continue to watch a TV show that I either have no interest in or I find offensive. Why would I? So many better things to choose from out there (mostly from the past).
My initial response was based on a simple premise as well. Having just one source of information creates the potential for massive bias, left or right. If someone chooses to learn only things presented from a single news source, that seems reminiscent of the state controlled media, like Pravda in the former Soviet Union. The Soviet citizens only got one perspective… by force, yet some are choosing this when we have so many options? It’s disconcerting in my view.
I don’t watch much FOX News but I do read their articles in my newsfeed frequently, and they pop up there because I make a conscious decision to read different sources. The algorithm wouldn’t show them if I never read them. I get stories from random newspapers around the US and the UK because I do this.
I don’t really get angry when I read news articles. I guess I’m not as emotional as some who get heated by reading something they disagree with. I find it interesting to see what other people think even if I completely disagree. That’s just me, I suppose.
#1 Buzzettes Fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:57 am
Rest in Peace Roger Mosley! It's very strange that a few days ago I picked up a used sony 400 disc dvd changer and put all my discs inside to re-watch the series... (Last time was four years ago already.) then I saw the sad news after coming back to the forum here. The only news site I see these days is Epoch Times so I don't follow celebrity type news. I'm so grateful to have caught MPI in the 80s as a kid and then later on dvd as well. I tell everyone it is my favorite show ever. I owe a lot of thanks to all the cast and crew and today especially to the superb character TC. God bless.
I generally find it disconcerting when someone says they only follow one news source. By definition, limiting oneself to a single source of information is inherently biased. I know I’m more liberal than many of the forum members, but I have had wonderful conversations with them over the years. Some might say I have had interesting and even contentious conversations, but I honestly find it troubling that people admit to openly limiting their information sources. Reading a wide variety of perspectives can’t be a negative? Less information can’t be good? A narrow source of information is honestly troubling to me. Just my two cents.
Pahonu, it's actually pretty simple. One tends to watch things (news or even our favorite TV shows that we discuss here) that are to our liking and that align with our views. You say you watch multiple news sources but something tells me you don't spend too much time watching Fox News (am I correct?) as they probably don't align with your views and you probably find other news sources more worthwhile. That's the same reason some of us choose not to watch CNN or the top 3 networks (though I do tune into ABC World News from time to time). We find other sources that align more with our views. And if it's just one news source that we trust or agree with then so be it.
It's like this -- if I watch a news source and I see a constant narrative that continues to piss me off then why would I keep tuning in? I'll find another news source that I find more balanced, which you may find less balanced by the way. But hey, that's the way it is. We're all different and are affected differently by things we see and hear. Same reason I won't continue to watch a TV show that I either have no interest in or I find offensive. Why would I? So many better things to choose from out there (mostly from the past).
My initial response was based on a simple premise as well. Having just one source of information creates the potential for massive bias, left or right. If someone chooses to learn only things presented from a single news source, that seems reminiscent of the state controlled media, like Pravda in the former Soviet Union. The Soviet citizens only got one perspective… by force, yet some are choosing this when we have so many options? It’s disconcerting in my view.
I don’t watch much FOX News but I do read their articles in my newsfeed frequently, and they pop up there because I make a conscious decision to read different sources. The algorithm wouldn’t show them if I never read them. I get stories from random newspapers around the US and the UK because I do this.
I don’t really get angry when I read news articles. I guess I’m not as emotional as some who get heated by reading something they disagree with. I find it interesting to see what other people think even if I completely disagree. That’s just me, I suppose.
In the case of "Pravda" ("truth"... yeah right... ) in the soviet union... yeah you pretty much had that one source of information and that's it. You didn't get to choose a different viewpoint because there wasn't one. Even if there were other news sources they just parroted the same thing as "Pravda". It's all state-controlled. So they all report the same thing. Actually come to think of it... it's not different than the current mainstream media here in the U.S. reporting one viewpoint. Too many major news sources (all left-leaning) parroting the same thing. That's why folks choose to look elsewhere for their news. In the soviet union you didn't have this option. But here you can choose to go with multiple news sources or just a single one, if that's more to your liking. I don't see the harm in that. In soviet union the state put limitations on you. Here you can choose to put limitations on yourself if you so choose. Free country and all that.
Pahonu wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:29 pm
Every news source has bias in varying degrees and their position is entirely relative to other sources. Describing information as not news, isn’t meaningful. This range of bias means of course that if one is left leaning, then most other media seems biased to the right… because it is, relative to a leftist perspective. The same would be true to those with right leaning views. I have friends who sometimes make similar comments to yours and I point out that they are correct that most media is left of their views, BUT it’s because they are more conservative. If they had more centrist views it would seem less left leaning.
The various media bias charts that plot news source bias can be very helpful. They don’t support any particular perspective but simply show a spectrum of the various news sources. They are also very open and transparent about the methodology used to create the charts. On this wide spectrum, the WSJ news is still relatively centrist, though their editorials lean right. Of course, if you hold views further to the right then they are left of you, but compared to the wide range of reporting they are still more central on the chart. It’s important for everyone to understand that we all have biases and that’s okay, but understanding where one’s political views reside on the spectrum of political discourse is important. Those on the left and the right, particularly either extreme, who believe they are the possessors of non-bias are truly problematic.
The problem for me isn't so much the bias, it's the narrative. MSM "News" organizations at this point no longer report the 5 Ws. They decide on a narrative, and then they build a story around that narrative. What's worse: the MSM sources do it in lockstep, so CNN == ABC == NBC == CBS == ... at this point.
I've seen the allsides media bias chart, and I think it was correct about a decade ago but needs to be updated, because so many have shifted leftward. It is probably still useful as a relative chart, for most.
I mean, come on: Newsweek is absolutely not centrist at this point. I would likewise not consider Reuters or Forbes to be centrist. I don't know about the others in the "C" column, because I don't use them.
#1 Buzzettes Fan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:57 am
Rest in Peace Roger Mosley! It's very strange that a few days ago I picked up a used sony 400 disc dvd changer and put all my discs inside to re-watch the series... (Last time was four years ago already.) then I saw the sad news after coming back to the forum here. The only news site I see these days is Epoch Times so I don't follow celebrity type news. I'm so grateful to have caught MPI in the 80s as a kid and then later on dvd as well. I tell everyone it is my favorite show ever. I owe a lot of thanks to all the cast and crew and today especially to the superb character TC. God bless.
I generally find it disconcerting when someone says they only follow one news source. By definition, limiting oneself to a single source of information is inherently biased. I know I’m more liberal than many of the forum members, but I have had wonderful conversations with them over the years. Some might say I have had interesting and even contentious conversations, but I honestly find it troubling that people admit to openly limiting their information sources. Reading a wide variety of perspectives can’t be a negative? Less information can’t be good? A narrow source of information is honestly troubling to me. Just my two cents.
Pahonu, it's actually pretty simple. One tends to watch things (news or even our favorite TV shows that we discuss here) that are to our liking and that align with our views. You say you watch multiple news sources but something tells me you don't spend too much time watching Fox News (am I correct?) as they probably don't align with your views and you probably find other news sources more worthwhile. That's the same reason some of us choose not to watch CNN or the top 3 networks (though I do tune into ABC World News from time to time). We find other sources that align more with our views. And if it's just one news source that we trust or agree with then so be it.
It's like this -- if I watch a news source and I see a constant narrative that continues to piss me off then why would I keep tuning in? I'll find another news source that I find more balanced, which you may find less balanced by the way. But hey, that's the way it is. We're all different and are affected differently by things we see and hear. Same reason I won't continue to watch a TV show that I either have no interest in or I find offensive. Why would I? So many better things to choose from out there (mostly from the past).
My initial response was based on a simple premise as well. Having just one source of information creates the potential for massive bias, left or right. If someone chooses to learn only things presented from a single news source, that seems reminiscent of the state controlled media, like Pravda in the former Soviet Union. The Soviet citizens only got one perspective… by force, yet some are choosing this when we have so many options? It’s disconcerting in my view.
I don’t watch much FOX News but I do read their articles in my newsfeed frequently, and they pop up there because I make a conscious decision to read different sources. The algorithm wouldn’t show them if I never read them. I get stories from random newspapers around the US and the UK because I do this.
I don’t really get angry when I read news articles. I guess I’m not as emotional as some who get heated by reading something they disagree with. I find it interesting to see what other people think even if I completely disagree. That’s just me, I suppose.
In the case of "Pravda" ("truth"... yeah right... ) in the soviet union... yeah you pretty much had that one source of information and that's it. You didn't get to choose a different viewpoint because there wasn't one. Even if there were other news sources they just parroted the same thing as "Pravda". It's all state-controlled. So they all report the same thing. Actually come to think of it... it's not different than the current mainstream media here in the U.S. reporting one viewpoint. Too many major news sources (all left-leaning) parroting the same thing. That's why folks choose to look elsewhere for their news. In the soviet union you didn't have this option. But here you can choose to go with multiple news sources or just a single one, if that's more to your liking. I don't see the harm in that. In soviet union the state put limitations on you. Here you can choose to put limitations on yourself if you so choose. Free country and all that.
I guess that’s where we differ. I do see harm in people choosing to limit their knowledge and perspective. I don’t argue their right to choose ignorance over knowledge, or a single news source over many, but I do see potential harm to society because of it.
T.Q. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 5:13 pm
We should have kept it strictly Roger E. Mosley.
Okay, in all seriousness, I really, truly liked TC's character as portrayed by RE Mosley. I liked all 4 characters, and it's tough to pick a favorite, but Mosley was just awesome. His delivery, his acting, I absolutely loved it.
I understand that many of TC's nuances that made him such an interesting and lovable character (his knowledge of books, opera and ballet, abstaining from drink or smoking, and generally being the adult in the room when Magnum and Rick could not) were things that Roger fought the writers and producers for early on in the series, when they wanted to make TC with rougher edges. Clearly he made the right call. Thank you Roger for sticking to your guns and giving us an unforgettable core character. You will be missed.
) in the soviet union... yeah you pretty much had that one source of information and that's it. You didn't get to choose a different viewpoint because there wasn't one. Even if there were other news sources they just parroted the same thing as "Pravda". It's all state-controlled. So they all report the same thing. Actually come to think of it... it's not different than the current mainstream media here in the U.S. reporting one viewpoint. Too many major news sources (all left-leaning) parroting the same thing. That's why folks choose to look elsewhere for their news. In the soviet union you didn't have this option. But here you can choose to go with multiple news sources or just a single one, if that's more to your liking. I don't see the harm in that. In soviet union the state put limitations on you. Here you can choose to put limitations on yourself if you so choose. Free country and all that.
