I bet Dustin Hoffman was your favorite in Rain Man!

I was doing a form of Abbott and Costello.

Winx--but news is shaped by the world-view held by those reporting it. Generally there is an element of truth in news reporting but we love the headlines and the more sensational a story, the more it is read. One of my local three news stations is a station called KOMO 4. KOMO has a "most read" section on their news site that lists the popularity of the stories--the most read. What is is amazing to me is that it is generally the most depraved or sick story that is number one. A while back a woman threw boiling water on her boyfriend causing him massive and disturbing burns. It was news (I suppose) but it was the number one story for two days. There was a lot of other stuff going on at the time and yet this domestic confrontation was the leader. That seems to be the mentality of my local area viewers. Right or wrong, they gravitate toward that stuff.

This is directly related to the Fairness Doctrine in that we would then have to set up a "balanced" committee to determine if the slant given the news was indeed balanced. That committee would then be maligned by both left and right alike as playing favorites and not reporting fairly. It would never end.

In an age of instant news and with the Internet so full of news, people should be able to sift through the coal to find the diamond. People are on TV all the time trying to tell us what to buy, how to vote, at what rate to re-fi our homes. We have to filter all of that, not just the news. I will therefore stand by my original post argument that government controlled news (or a doctrine that forces things to be balanced) is highly unconstitutional in that protected speech is not just the stuff you and I agree with. Should the news be accurate? Yes, but if it's not, we the viewers need to boycott it and let the chips fall where they may.

--Drew

Cool thread. Of the 3 major major cable "news" outlets I believe CNN spends the most time reporting "news" while Fox and MSNBC are primarily outlets of right and left commentary respectively. In prime time, while I vehemently disagree with Hannity and usually with O'Reilly, I do see them having guests with opposing views. Hell, Hannity's sidekick Clomes is a "LIB" as quickie would label him. As for MSNBC, I am politically aligned with their editorial viewpoint, but I believe they are less balanced than Fox. I love Keith Olberman, but there's hardly ever a dissenting view on his show. Pat Buchanan offers a conservative viewpoint on MSNBC, but aside from he and Joe Scarborough, there's little from the right on MSNBC.

As for the "fairness doctrine," it absolutely should be a requirement of reporting news, but not commenting on it.

Drew,

Due to people not reading the first few pages of a thread and jumping to the end, you are probably going to have to repeat yourself over and over and try to get your point across over and over as new people join the conversation at the most recent page. Someone else did this to me on another thread.

Tina

What's your point? Should my opinion have been different?

No, it would just be nice sometimes to all of those who have been following this conversation from the beginning if they didnt have to backtrack every time a person doesnt want to go back and read.

No offense. Just a statement.

I read most of the thread and then wrote my opinion. I really didn't focus on "Drew's" particular positions.

refute his words...not his actions...

I know.

There Fairness Doctrine sounds good in theory but it is a bad idea in practice.It could stifle free speech.

There's just no way to define 'fair'. And since there's nothing that keeps it from being 'fair', then I say let it alone.

But the news isnt in the free speech biz, there in the delivery biz, its there job to deliver the news in a fair and just manner. What can go wrong if they we to show the other side of the story?

That's just it. Each side only sees the one side.

The problem is that if the news is reported as straight news, with no political leaning then there, be definition cannot be another side to the story. If I am a news director and I report the quoted text below, what is the "other side"?

"Good evening. Today, in downtown Shelton, WA, four armed men with ski masks and automatic weapons walked into a local church, killing nine people. Survivors reported hearing the men decrying the "West" before opening fire. More details will be made available as the investigation continues."

What is the "other side"? If that is all that is known at the time the story is reported then it seems to me that the story is factually correct. The other issue here is that if every news channel reported identical news, there would be no difference in them. But each needs a share of viewers and each needs to create a trademark of sorts.

My point here is that if news sticks to reporting facts then by definition there need not be another side. If however the news reports only part of a story or crafts a story to their own political view then you'd be correct in that a great deal was left out.

So, we agree, Brandon, but again, if facts are reported then each news agency should be held accountable for those facts and the stories they report.

-Drew

The Fairness Doctrine didnt work out when we had it( for a variety of reasons), so thats why we got rid of it.The best "fairness" is gonna get is the way we have it right now.

Maybe it's YOU who aren't reading what people are really saying... bringing up the whole muslim thing is not the message here. Your (and others) complete disregard for what people are really saying is what's not "civil," to coin your phrase.

All the silly talk about secret muslims (whatever that is) and "radical" college professors (that nobody cares about)are some of the main reasons the republicans got beaten so badly.

You obviously don't read these threads. I already acknowledged confusing threads. I didn't bring up the muslim thing.. I responded to it. What's amazing is that I somehow think we're on the same side of this issue. Everyone else here has been very civil and we've all had a very good debate. No names were called and there were no personal attacks until you got here.