Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL
I agree with you until you say, "then go to independent sources for the full factual story." That's a neat trick if you can determine who is truly independent. I have never found any such source that is truly independent. I think some sources are just better than others at hiding their biases.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you explained that you do not own a television nor choose to own one?
I agree that the television news stations slant the news any which way they wish to. If truth be told, we are so sick of the evening news, of which we do watch two.......ABC's Diane Sawyer and David Muir (whom I prefer) and Scott Pelley on CBS. However, we occasionally turn on CNN and it's just a bunch of talking heads, repeating the same exact news every 15 minutes. Those young women seem to babble their way through the repeated news, trying to sound enthusiastic over something they've repeated a dozen or more times.........
I do read the major newspapers online from all the major cities, including D.C. and N.Y.C., etc...........and everyone would be surprised how "different" their coverage was of the U.S. Ambassador's assassination in Libya ..........compared to what the ARAB newspapers online printed actually happened. So, who to believe. Some newspapers did try to print the truth.
The days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite; Chet Huntley and David Brinkly are OVER. That's when t.v. news was basically straight news. Everyone knows who owns ABC. Disney. So, entertainment is stressed with just short soundbites of more serious news..........unless they truly believe the American viewing public no longer have an attention span?????
My hubby's pet peeve are those pharmaceutical ads which all have "side effects" far worse than the original ailment they are trying to "treat".
Like, what would we rather have.........arthritis or take the drugs and possibly get lung cancer, blood cancer or even death as they claim on the t.v. ads. Go figure.