New York Times print their corrections buried in the middle of the paper where nobody reads them.

Originally Posted by djplong

I've always been man enough to admit when I've been wrong. At times, it's been my job to find out where things went wrong and find ways to ensure it never happens again. I'd admit when things were my fault because, quite frankly, blaming someone else seemed a coward's defense. Besides, when something went wrong and it was NOT my fault, I had more credibility because of when I *did* admit fault - nobody's perfect.

Newspapers run their retractions, corrections and clarifications all the time - though frequently not with the same zest or attention-grabbing typefaces as the original error.

Now I mean this in all sincerity - is there a "Glenn Beck Oops" page where he admits or explains some of the things that I pointed out before? It's certainly easy enough to find the misstatements and errors. I mean, I only quoted a few where very exacting statements were made and skipped a few that were more vague. ...and no, I never went anywhere near Huffington-Post.

I have only seen him state his retractions, on air.

Yoda

Well, that's refreshing. Obviously the retractions haven't gained as much notariety as the initial 'mistake' - just like how newspapers bury their retractions and corrections.

Responding to Allen's point about 'both sides', I agree. But I don't really watch the visual media for news. In my browser, you'll find a "News" folder with links to:

Boston Globe - liberal
Boston Herald - conservative
Montreal Gazette - Middle of the road by Canadian standards
Nashua Telegraph - somewhat liberal
Manchester Union Leader - Uber-conservative
USA Today - sometimes seems to depend on the whim of the editor
MSNBC.COM - Well-indexed page

In addition I have highly customized Yahoo and Google News pages and a page full of RSS feeds on my phone.

I *do* get both sides of the story. Fox, CNN and MSNBC are atrocious for actually reporting news. They make what we used to call "scratching the surface" look like deep investigative journalism. Fox's slant is WAY over to the right. MSNBC seems a bit quieter about it but it's definitely to the left. CNN, on the other hand, has gone from being THE source for news to being THE place that does little more than ask it's viewers to comment on everything. These people constantly cut away from stories ("We have to leave it right there" is all to common) as if they were editing an MTV video. Oh, I forgot. MTV, Music Television, doesn't show music anymore. Fox/CNN/MSNBC seem to forget they are *24/7* channels and they DO have the time to get deep into a story.

It's shocked me to find just about the only source of DEEP reporting is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Dan Rather. He'll spend up to an HOUR on a SINGLE story on HDNet's "Dan Rather Reports".

Unfortunately, today's visual media news is the equivalent of the carny barkers on the midway, screaming for your attention for a moment or two...

I would not be so quick to lump all "visual news" together and come to a conclusion. Fox news does an admirable job of in-depth reporting. They do have their "talk shows" but their news is still the best.

In fact, "Double Dittos" to Donna2 (I just couldn't resist the alliteration!).

As to djplong...

Originally Posted by djplong

Responding to Allen's point about 'both sides', I agree. But I don't really watch the visual media for news. In my browser, you'll find a "News" folder with links to:

Boston Globe - liberal
Boston Herald - conservative
Montreal Gazette - Middle of the road by Canadian standards
Nashua Telegraph - somewhat liberal
Manchester Union Leader - Uber-conservative
USA Today - sometimes seems to depend on the whim of the editor
MSNBC.COM - Well-indexed page

In addition I have highly customized Yahoo and Google News pages and a page full of RSS feeds on my phone.

I *do* get both sides of the story. Fox, CNN and MSNBC are atrocious for actually reporting news. They make what we used to call "scratching the surface" look like deep investigative journalism. Fox's slant is WAY over to the right. MSNBC seems a bit quieter about it but it's definitely to the left. CNN, on the other hand, has gone from being THE source for news to being THE place that does little more than ask it's viewers to comment on everything. These people constantly cut away from stories ("We have to leave it right there" is all to common) as if they were editing an MTV video. Oh, I forgot. MTV, Music Television, doesn't show music anymore. Fox/CNN/MSNBC seem to forget they are *24/7* channels and they DO have the time to get deep into a story.

It's shocked me to find just about the only source of DEEP reporting is, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Dan Rather. He'll spend up to an HOUR on a SINGLE story on HDNet's "Dan Rather Reports".

Unfortunately, today's visual media news is the equivalent of the carny barkers on the midway, screaming for your attention for a moment or two...

With all due respect, you are making my point for me. Unfortunately, I am sure you cannot now see it.

Though hope springs eternal, I think it's time take the old "agree to disagree" approach and move on.

By the way, it's the New Hampshire Union Leader (not the Manchester Union Leader), but I'm sure you know that... since it is one of your primary "conservative" news sources.

I truly wish you well.

Donna - I suspect that your definition of "in depth" and mine are probably different. When I look at transcripts of what seem to be longer stories on tv news, they are, to me, alarmingly short. I guess my definition of 'in depth' would be easier to find when compared in "column-inches", to use an old newspaper term.

Allen - Respectfully, which point are you referring to? I would like to think I disproved any misconceptions that I only read/see "liberal" news. It's 'entertainment news' that I just can't bear to watch anymore. Maybe it's because I grew up with what *I* consider to be more dignified news anchors - and now I have to put up with "What's in your pantry that may be poisoning you? We'll tell you at 11!" or any combination of scare-you-into-watching bumpers. ...and another thing, what if I'm going into my pantry at 9:30?

And on those occasions when I DO watch tv news (usually weekday mornings around 5:30am) they spend their money on style instead of substance. They'll send a reporter to stand in front of a building to report on a story. There's nobody to interview there. Heck, nobody's awake. Sometimes it'll be as bad as "this afternoon - something will happen here" or "yesterday there were people here". They design and build multimillion dollar studios (in Boston, Channel 7 was the first and worst at this) that try to make Mission Control in Houston look like a home-video setup. All style, no substance.

And don't get me started on the commercials. I don't know how the 6 o'clock news is these days, but the morning news is *all* car, furniture and jewelry ads.

Why don't I watch 'visual' news more often? Because there's so little NEWS there. Between the commercials, the chatter, the promos, etc, there's little room LEFT. When I *read* something, however, 100% of that time is reading - input. Far more efficient. ...to say nothing of the fact that I can skip EVERY Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, supermodel or movie studio "news" and stick to stories that ARE news.

...and, yeah, I know it's the "NH" Union Leader, but that's a recent (to me) change and old habits die hard (I moved to NH in 1974). Since we have award-winning papers in other cities here in New Hampshire, I'll always think of them as "Manchester".

djplong, I am just curious about your source(s) for a prior post listing the items Glenn Beck said or implied that were inaccurate or misleading. B.K.

djplong,

First off...

Please do not let my reply cause Bk's question to get set aside... I do not wish to be the cause of having it "fall through the cracks" as it seems to have done earlier.

Thereafter...

Originally Posted by djplong

Allen - Respectfully, which point are you referring to? I would like to think I disproved any misconceptions that I only read/see "liberal" news. It's 'entertainment news' that I just can't bear to watch anymore. Maybe it's because I grew up with what *I* consider to be more dignified news anchors - and now I have to put up with "What's in your pantry that may be poisoning you? We'll tell you at 11!" or any combination of scare-you-into-watching bumpers. ...and another thing, what if I'm going into my pantry at 9:30?

And on those occasions when I DO watch tv news (usually weekday mornings around 5:30am) they spend their money on style instead of substance. They'll send a reporter to stand in front of a building to report on a story. There's nobody to interview there. Heck, nobody's awake. Sometimes it'll be as bad as "this afternoon - something will happen here" or "yesterday there were people here". They design and build multimillion dollar studios (in Boston, Channel 7 was the first and worst at this) that try to make Mission Control in Houston look like a home-video setup. All style, no substance.

And don't get me started on the commercials. I don't know how the 6 o'clock news is these days, but the morning news is *all* car, furniture and jewelry ads.

Why don't I watch 'visual' news more often? Because there's so little NEWS there. Between the commercials, the chatter, the promos, etc, there's little room LEFT. When I *read* something, however, 100% of that time is reading - input. Far more efficient. ...to say nothing of the fact that I can skip EVERY Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, supermodel or movie studio "news" and stick to stories that ARE news.

...and, yeah, I know it's the "NH" Union Leader, but that's a recent (to me) change and old habits die hard (I moved to NH in 1974). Since we have award-winning papers in other cities here in New Hampshire, I'll always think of them as "Manchester".

I'll readily agree with you that there is a lot of very shallow news programming out there... especially Local (I can hardly stand it) and Network news. However, Fox does provide very good coverage in their news blocks. I think you would be surprised if you actually tuned into (or recorded) Neil Cavuto at 4:00 PM, Bret Baier at 6:00 PM, Shepard Smith at 7:00 PM or even O'Reilly (commentary) at 8:00 PM... and let's not forget Beck at 5:00 PM (which is where this all started). Not that Beck's is a news program... I just think you might be surprised by all of his research and documentation.

To be fair, Beck does not like what is going on in Washington, he is very upset about what he believes Progressives want to do to this country and he "calls out" Progressives on both sides. (Progressives in the true historical sense of the term... not the intentional "sunshine and lollypop" substitution of Progressive for Liberal in the so called "main stream media" today.) O'Reilly is an Independent and as he says "he is just looking out for the folks". If you had been watching him, you would have seen that has "bent over backwards" to be fair to Obama but he does now seem to now be losing patience with him.

Can television (or radio) go into the same depth as print? Not easily in today's marketplace... I agree with you there, but if you are really looking for some semblance of balance (although I'm sure you think you already have it), I suggest you try Fox in a few of the above time slots. This may initially be a total anathema to you since you seem to be getting most of your news from a print media which has been proven to be in the neighborhood of 85% liberal political affiliation by admission on more than one occasion.

Again we are taking about balance here... if you are going to use *Dan Rather* (fired by CBS because of biased reporting) and *MSNBC* as some of your sources, the least you could do is include Fox... if not Limbaugh to balance that out. (Thought you might enjoy the Limbaugh recommendation... but I'll take Limbaugh over Olbermann and the like any day.)

Although we may not agree on a lot of things, it's been a good discussion. I just encourage you to actually watch Fox for a while and then make your judgment. There is no question that their commentary comes mostly from the right, but at least it is labeled as commentary and you know what to expect as opposed to having "bias by omission" or having it written between the lines.

Since I know you like the printed word (albeit commentary with reference to factual data in this case), here is one last link for you: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox...t-lichter.html

Finally, I think I have "about beat this horse to death", so once again... best wishes to you. Feel free to reply, but I'm "over and out" for now... perhaps someone else will engage if you wish to continue. This is all just too much fun for me... time to get back to work. Thank you.

P.S. I'm with you on the commercials, but I thank God we have them... it means continued commerce and capitalism! I have to admit though... I enjoy blasting right through them with the DVR.

Glen Beck is our new Paul Revere of the 21st century, he is a American Patriot. Heed his words and stop the Progressive movement.........

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

djplong, I am just curious about your source(s) for a prior post listing the items Glenn Beck said or implied that were inaccurate or misleading. B.K.

I did a quick google search on "Glenn Beck lies" along with "errors" and got an incredible number of responses. Some of the more vague accusations I skipped because MediaMatters.Org went to the trouble of quoting exactly when Beck said something, sometimes using the exact transcript from Fox's news site. Yahoo Answers had a guy who posted several direct links. It was while looking at MediaMatters.Org link that I found the "Misinformer of the year 2009" 'award'.

Now some people say MediaMatters.Org is 'non-partisan' but I can't say that I found much in the way of criticism for the administration. I've found far more even-handedness on Politifact.org in that they'll tell you when Obama has broken a promise and they do a good job of explaining how and why they give the ratings they do. Ok, I'm still a fan of any place that invented the "Pants On Fire" rating

Originally Posted by djplong

I did a quick google search on "Glenn Beck lies" along with "errors" and got an incredible number of responses. Some of the more vague accusations I skipped because MediaMatters.Org went to the trouble of quoting exactly when Beck said something, sometimes using the exact transcript from Fox's news site. Yahoo Answers had a guy who posted several direct links. It was while looking at MediaMatters.Org link that I found the "Misinformer of the year 2009" 'award'.

Now some people say MediaMatters.Org is 'non-partisan' but I can't say that I found much in the way of criticism for the administration. I've found far more even-handedness on Politifact.org in that they'll tell you when Obama has broken a promise and they do a good job of explaining how and why they give the ratings they do. Ok, I'm still a fan of any place that invented the "Pants On Fire" rating

Do you know that Politifact.org is sponsored by The St. Peterburg Times the most liberal newspaper in America? They use a lot of tricks when trying to pretend to be impartial. Just read their final conclusions when they are judging a Liberal vs a conservative.

Allen: I do, on rare occasions, catch Fox. There are times when I'm surfing around (I have Dish Network) and I go by the '200' neighborhood where the news is. I'm more disappointed in Fox guys like O'Reilly. I mean, I used to watch him but as the level of 'debate' got more and more juvenile - an example being the increased use of the word "pinhead" by Mr. O'Reilly - I just stopped. I can't watch MSNBC for long - and seeing Olberman is an instant threat to me spraining my thumb in trying to change the channel too quickly. CNN? Heck, I used to use Headline News as 'background noise' in the house. But that was many years ago. I tried tuning in recently.. WHAT has HAPPENED to these people?????

For Beck... It's hard for me to decide if it's all an act to get attention and ratings. After all, that's now Job #1 in "TV News" - ratings, By Any Means Necessary. I'm not fond of what's going on in D.C., either. But I don't see practical solutions being proposed. I hear a lot of "NO!" and when some bipartisanship comes up for a good idea... Well, look at the past couple of days and the news concerning the legislation that would have created a deficit review board. 7 Republicans sponsored the bill. As soon as Obama said "good idea", they were gone. They didn't even vote for the bill they sponsored. That tells me they're more interested in the power-politicking GAME than in serving the country. I'm sure Beck and I can agree on that.

About print media - yeah, I know that it slants anywhere from 70-85% liberal. Part of that, IMO, is becuase of the "If it bleeds, it leads" mentality that has been around a LONG time. But that's why I specifically seek out more conservative sources.

On Dan Rather - like I said, I was surprised to find myself saying what I said. But I've watched a few "Dan Rather Reports" on subjects like Afghanistan, black-market organ selling, truck driver training, etc. He's got time to present all sides of a story - which is refreshing when there are MORE than just two sides. I well know his history.

About Limbaugh. I used to listen to him every day on the way home from work. He *used* to be more articulate than anyone on radio. I'll give an example. He explained why he was against abortion. He didn't quote political talking points or Biblical scripture or anything like that. He said it was because he believed it was a continuing process of devaluing human life. He wasn't getting into the "at what point does life commence" argument, it was more of a philosophical objection. Now THAT, even though I disagreed, I could understand and respect. Cut to 15 years later and he now sounds like a guy who believes all his press clippings. ...though I still used his link to the IRS statistics that showed WHO pays MOST to ALL of the taxes in this country. When one has good numbers to back up one's opinion, it's usually A Good Thing.

...and, yeah, I zip through the commercials on my DVR. Of course, that means that the really good ones are all that more memorable when I actually see them

Originally Posted by cashman

Do you know that Politifact.org is sponsored by The St. Peterburg Times the most liberal newspaper in America? They use a lot of tricks when trying to pretend to be impartial. Just read their final conclusions when they are judging a Liberal vs a conservative.

...and all this time I thought the NY Times was the most liberal paper in the country!

Sorry - when Democrats get criticized alongside Republicans, and Republicans get defended as well, that tells me the people in charge of the content are being quite fair. That may not always be the case in the future, but it seems that way now.

Just doing a quick Google search I found this website called Discover the Networks . It's obvious that it is conservative. But they don't seem to hide their affiliations and funding like, in my opinion, Media Matters seems to do. Anyway, for what it is worth:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7150

Also, I have done a little research on some of the points you posted about Beck. If you are interested I can post them here. Thanks for your time. B.K.

Originally Posted by djplong

...and all this time I thought the NY Times was the most liberal paper in the country!

Sorry - when Democrats get criticized alongside Republicans, and Republicans get defended as well, that tells me the people in charge of the content are being quite fair. That may not always be the case in the future, but it seems that way now.

The New York Times is the biggest newspaper supporter of the Democrat party.
It is the worst newspaper in America. If you want a newspaper to tell the truth and print all of the news then do not read the NYT.

The St. Pete/politoco.org is the most biased in America.