This Guys Pretty Much Nails It

[Mitch f]

Good job, Justin. Thanks for restoring my faith in people...for a brief moment.

The boxer, Simon and Garfunkel

Give us a challenge Eric!!

[eric1978]

The boxer, Simon and Garfunkel

Give us a challenge Eric!!

Unfortunately it's a challenge for most people. I'll go more obscure next time.

[Al Agnew]

Al, here is what I want ( this is just me though ). I want News that pertains to my area first ( Local ) second I want News from the ( Region ) and then National News. Let me be specific though. National news should be news about the NATION not some doctor being found guilty of Murder for abortion or some High Speed Pursuit in Cali. Those are Local events and need to stay Local. Even Sandy Hook was a local event and had it stayed that way we would not have gone through the great Gun Grab Scare of 2013. In fact if you look at many of the " National News Stories " they are politically motivated the Dr I mentioned above should have never made national news But here we have it being used to fuel the Abortion Debate! This is not Journalism this is Media influencing Political Agendas! The media is suppose to be unbiased yet clearly covers these type of stories to fuel ratings when they are nothing more than local events.

Frustrating when you look at so many events that shouldn't be anything more than local coverage or a mention on the news that are used for politics.

Here's where I think you're wrong. You see the abortion doctor story as showing the media has bias, just by their extensive coverage of the story. Same with the Sandy Hook story. But you also say the media covers these stories to fuel ratings. Bingo. They cover those stories because they are dramatic examples of things PEOPLE ARE ALREADY INTERESTED IN. Bias has nothing to do with it, ratings have everything to do with it. The problem there is not the media, it's that people are apparently interested in that stuff. Does media shape what we're interesting in? Not nearly as much as it once did, given that people have so many other sources of "news" besides the networks. The networks pay close attention to what is happening all over the internet, and gauge the peoples' interest in topics accordingly.

The national media won't cover a story unless it has national interest. They don't care about a school board meeting in Kansas...unless that school board meeting results in banning the teaching of evolution, which makes it a national story because there are people all over the country that are passionate about that topic.

I still question the amount of bias in media. On any given subject, no matter what my leanings are on that subject, I usually come away from the national news being very dissatisfied with the amount and quality of coverage. If it's something that is a complex issue that I know something about, I usually think the coverage is inadequate and often wrong. What I see happening a lot is that the coverage so often quotes one "expert" or advocate who says something that I KNOW is wrong or distorted, and there's never any follow-up with somebody else pointing out where it's wrong or distorted, so the original statement stands. I want to scream at the TV or radio and shout, "Wait a minute, don't let him get away with saying that!!" And as you know, I tend to lean liberal on some subjects.

What I see is a national media that are not so much biased as superficial, attempting to give both sides but not doing justice to either side, because they have to give most of their attention to the spectacular and the fluff, and then a lot of obviously partisan sites who only give one side but cover it to death. It does not make for the average person getting good information, unless they are willing to listen to the obviously partisan sites on both sides of an issue. There are very few places where you can go and get unbiased and IN-DEPTH coverage of both sides.

[ozark trout fisher]

There are very few places where you can go and get unbiased and IN-DEPTH coverage of both sides.

I agree with that. Which is why no one ever should rely one one news source. If you just rely on Fox News, or just on MSNBC, you are going to have a really, really distorted view of the world one way or the other.

As for the other issue, yeah, most national news outlets are pretty superficial, but I'm not sure there's any avoiding that. There are simply too many stories of too many different kinds to be covered for each and every one to be the quality we hope for. These guys can't be experts on everything. Sad reality but when you consider the number of stories on even one newscast you can understand why they can't give everything its due. It's why there are more specialized media outlets about individual issues for more indepth coverage. It's unreasonable to ask for that on most things from a broad, national news outlet.

[ness]

I think you've got a few good points, Al. Yeah, they're superficial and ratings driven. Trotting out a so-called expert to color a story has become SOP -- but there's little true journalistic effort. It's mostly filling time with eye candy and promising even better stuff right after the commercial.

Last night I broke my rule and flipped around the cable news channels looking for information on the OKC tornado. Now, I understand that it's very fresh and things are unfolding, but what a flipping waste of time that was. And aggravating. CNN put a swimsuit model and a slicked-back grease ball in front of some fancy animation. They weren't content reporting the EF4 and 1 mile wide info that the authorities had put out -- they had to jack it up to a 5, and put it at two miles wide. No support for that, no explanation, no context. They just moved up to the next whole number. But, she was hot.

I find the best news coverage in a handful of the large newspapers -- New York Times, LA Times, other big-city papers (Phillie, Boston, Miami, etc.) Sadly, I can't put the Star in that category. Network (not cable) news (web, not TV) is secondary. They'll get into some depth and usually keep it pretty 'newsy'. Our local TV stations web sites are a joke. The writing is poor, with typos and grammatical errors, and often factually incorrect. They're so cluttered up with advertisements, bikini-clad women or tantalizing Kardashian teasers that it's laughable. Our local business rag misreported our earnings release last week, calling a $5 million gain a loss. It's not the first time they goofed.

I'd love to think Scott Pelly's point will gain some traction, but I doubt it will anytime soon. I think the news reporting system as it stands now isn't sustainable. There's just too much with too little quality to keep people coming back. We've seen newspapers and news magazines fail, and others go to online only. My tummy tells me that trend continues, but also that local channels and network news -- especially 24-hour cable-style -- are going to need to drastically change their model. I'd bet there are a lot less of these outlets 5 to 10 years down the road.

[eric1978]

NPR and PBS carry the most credible and unbiased reporting and news coverage that I can reliably find...even though one side of the political spectrum puts them in the same category as Planned Parenthood and Acorn. Why they're so afraid of them I have no idea...I guess because straight journalism doesn't jibe with their narrative. FOX and MSNBC are less of a threat to each other because it's easy to put them in the same camp, although I think it's a somewhat false equivalence...to one degree or another.

Regardless of my political convictions, I try my best to digest information as objectively as possible...I'd only be defeating the purpose of paying attention if I didn't. And NPR and PBS are the two "mainstream" sources I find to be closest to the realm of "fair and balanced."

[ozark trout fisher]

NPR and PBS carry the most credible and unbiased reporting and news coverage that I can reliably find...

I have to agree with that.

[ness]

NPR is great. I love Car Talk and Wait, Wait. I do read news on their website occasionally, but it seems kind of hit-and-miss (focus on a few stories, pass on a lot of others) so I end up elsewhere more often than not. I listen in the car on my commute, and what I hear then is pretty lightweight from a news perspective. Some of it's just plain bad. I can't do Diane Rehm. Don't know what else there is.

I don't know enough about PBS news I suppose. The show I do see is on opposite our local news, and I usually opt-out on their show in favor of more general and local news. I just won't watch Washington/political stuff anymore.

Regardless -- I try to think about what's being said, listen with a healthy dose of skepticism and filter out the BS. And, if they're shouting at each other I'm outta there.

[Mitch f]

Relative to this topic, I find it strange that the death toll from the Moore, Ok tornado actually dropped from 51 to 24. Seems funny they would jump the gun on a death toll.

[Flysmallie]

In the spirit of this topic, I find it strange that the death toll from the Moore, Ok tornado actually dropped from 51 to 24.

That was odd. I remember after the Joplin tornado they would update the death total on the news everyday like they were talking about Powerball. The media loves this stuff. Too bad they don't have the decency to back off.