Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily Scoop

POLITICS & COMMUNITY

04/11/96-04/17/96: Who Can You Trust?

In an age of deep suspicion of government and large corporations it is important to know that you're getting information you can trust. When Yahoo runs stories about its own IPO, which side of the story are you getting? Where do you get your news? Do you think it's reliable? Why or why not? Can the news ever be objective?

earthcrone: The news is no more objective than history. Someone once said that history was written by the victors, I think, and I have to believe a lot of the news is slanted to reflect the writer's views. That's only human, right? Sometimes, a very skilled writer can report a story in such a way that I cannot begin to discern what his/her point is, but that is rare in the print media. The subtleties are even greater with television news; the viewer picks up, probably subconsciously, a lot of speech patterns, vocal tones, facial expressions, and body language of the reporter, no matter how hard he or she may try to repress them. This is a far less paranoid theory of how the news is slanted, and, believe me, I have had many occasions of believing that I was being spoon-fed a propaganda line that's less blatant than those one sees in wartime, but no less manipulative.

Meltdown: I get my news from several different sources including CNN,USA Today,The Wall Street Journal, The Today Show, Rush Limbaugh(radio and televison), National Review, The American Spectator,Headline news, and Liberal Opinon Week. I think it is important for people to look at both sides of an issue since it is virtually impossible to be comptely objective in anything. People are gonna spin stories to make them look good and in the best light possible

jmd: Hmm...jtl10 writes about the "rumor" that Ted Turner sets house-style vocabulary, that "pro-lifers" must be identified as "anti-abortionists", as if this somehow a less sympathetic nomer. As opposed to rumor, the fact is that CNN refused to run any advertisements from Planned Parenthood of America and NARAL, while running the Arthur C. Moss Foundation "Life - What a beautiful Choice" ads, incessantly. Words are powerful, but access to an audience is the real power. So, who do you trust? Commercial media and even NPR is somewhat beholden to its advertisers, sponsors and underwriters. (I write this as a confirmed NPR junkie.) But given the natural spin of traditional commercial media, I make efforts to read the explicitly, unabashed left - The Nation, Z, Ms. Once you've blended that into the mix of network pablum and the chunkier NPR, you have a better chance of getting a balanced information diet. And yes, it is important to read from the explicit right. I just have a hard time reading silently when I do. Ultimately, you've got to trust your own judgement, based on equal consideration of information that crosses your path, and its origin. Or turn to the Weekly World News.

xyclone: I get my news from NPR, NY Times, and PBS (Newshour). The problem with these and any outlets, is that reporters, when not on the scent of a scandal, merely report what our political leaders say. Analysis seems always to be about process, who is winning, what the polls say, and very rearly about ideas and their validity. Perhaps there was a time when politics was truly about ideas. Today politics appears to be about winning or losing,persuasion, hard and soft sells, and scorched earth victory. I really don't know where to get thoughtful, patient, carefully demonstrated analysis of our life of political ideas. An example of this was the recent furor (and its always a furor, isn't it?) about partial or late term abortions. Does anybody know how many of these are performed a year? How can anyone know if this is a real issue without knowing how important it is. Does anyone know why these proceedures might be done? Does a pregnant woman, late in her 27th week, suddenly decide she really doesn't want this baby; is she able to find a doctor who will induce premature labor and drive a scissor into the living fetus' brian? Don't these questions, which seem to beg, even demand, answers matter? I have the sense that our media, where we get our information, and determine where to place our trust, is so focused on who wins, who loses, and how that happens, that these questions are lost in the shuffle. Withour their answers, I don't know who to trust, and I blame that lack on the media.

pfortin: TV, Newspapers, and the Net It's probably as reliable as we'll ever get aside from being there. Objectivity is in the eyes of the beholder... So is anything objective, I don't think so.

mabourn: Most TV and news papers are fine for the every day "car crash at 3rd and vine" kind of stories. For political news I tend to look to C-Span. I wound rather watch a speach or debate on the house floor and draw my own conclusions than have my news filtered for me. For legal news, (being a law student) court opinions are easy to get and not hard to read with a little practice. The best general rule is to check more than one source.

graben: I ignore my local TV "news" teams. Headline News is too brief and often sacrifices credibility to be timely. I get my news from NPR, The NandO Times (on the internet), The New Republic and the local paper. I don't look to one source for my news but consult several, note the writer and then try to figure where their biases lie. The local paper is probably the least reliable of my new's sources. Stories often have factual and typographical errors leading me to conclude that if the paper's editors aren't reliable, how can you trust the writer? I try to consult news sources that are moderate, slightly left or right and go from there. I like to discuss the news with friends and probe their opinions on diverse issues to help shape my opinion. I try to keep my mind open. Truly "objective" news will never exist. Anytime a record of an event is made, the creator of that record omits information for several reasons. I get depressed quickly when I think about the possibilities that exist in the censoring and embellishment of news stories. The "free press" is often the first liberty lost when countries experience political turmoil. Stay Informed! It is important to know the world around you!

cso1: I get my news off of telivision and newspapers. Sure, it is biased, but it is the best we've got.

lonuv: Its a little frightening to read many of these comments. I hate to hear that anyone relies on anyone in the media to form their opinions about anything. So much of what is televised and reported out there is taken directly from press releases and/or from out-of-context sound-bytes.Investigative reporting is almost unheard of in the media these days. It was also disheartening to see so many people take this opportunity to discuss the news and turn it into yet another forum to espouse their political leanings and indirectly(or directly) attack those who don't think like they do. Don't we have enough out there to separate us? Who wins if we become completely separatist and intolerant? Don't let angry television personalities lead you into an angry separatist existance.

TONYBAKER: The worst part is that many people are confused and think that editorials are actually "news." Even the tripod political commentaries attempt to headline their titles in a LATEST "NEWS" STORY manner rather than leftist-editorial hype by Steve Mencher. ...of course objective news is boring.

IMSK8R: I watch the 3 major networks but take what they present with a grain of salt. I find that the newspapers in town give such a slanted point of view and selectively report on news items that I don't read them much and I don't have ready access to USAToday. I also listen to Rush but don't believe all of what he presents bcuz of his bias. NPR rounds out the source of my news. My feelings on the objectivity of news media is cynical at best. I feel that as long as those rich Liberals own teh media, we won't get what is really news but only what they want to brainwash us with. Let's define NEWS. I believe it is something which relevantly and directly affects ME. Things like direct politics, taxes and laws, to me are news items. That being said, It bothers me that some 'news items' are shoved down our throats when they are no relevant factor in my life. Case in point: Jessica DuBroff. How long have we been bombarded by this item? How much time has been devoted on national news programs like NBC Evening News, or ABC Nightly News ? Tons of stuff is important to me but they waste my time with crap like this.

AHJAZZ: I get my news from multiple sources, but I trust and enjoy National Public Radio (NPR). I also read USA Today, but from the number of retractions they print on a daily basis I don't necessarily trust them. Also, CNN Interactive is a favorite website for me. I think these sites are reliable. But when each story is strained through the filter of nationalism, xenophobia, and capitalism, there is no way anyone could completely trust them. The news will only be as objective as the sponsors will allow( CBS news and the tobacco industry is a case in point). Don't hold your breath!

wilmer: Unfortunately, objective news reporting is a mis-nomer. There is no such thing as objectivity, only varying degrees of subjectivity. Do todays reporters, (print-electronic media) care about anything or anyone other than being first with a story regardless of accuracy? Do reporters have their own agendas and biases and slant their stories? Is this anything new? Of course not, it's been going on for years and will continue in the future. The question is not, "do you trust" but "should you trust". The cynical would say no, but then if you have your own bias then can you trust yourself to be objective either. My age will show here, but years ago a professor would have you look at various view points and have you draw your own conclusions. Today's teachers and professors all say.."this is the way you should think". The answer is not liberal, conservative or libertarian or capitalist or socialist, none of these ideals alone is good. What is right is the ability to achieve, to think and accomplish, but at the same time take into consideration what is good for everyone in our society. Having said that, I don't mean that all are equal, we are not, nor could we ever be, but there is a point where the rights of the majority must override the wishes of a few to the benefit of all. Nuf said.

jononymous: I get most of my news from Headline News. It is a quick way for me to catch up on all of the news for the day. I will also watch CNBC for business news.

jtl10: I get a large part of my news from the CNN web page. Certaintly they are biased - but not in the way most people think. Ocansionally the personal views of Ted Turned do influence the coverage - for example, rumor has it that Ted Turned requested that the Pro-Life movement always be reffered to as the anti-abortion movement. However, their primary bias is in making stories more interesting than the actually are. They won't intentionally lie or falsify the news, but they will sacrifice acuracy and detail in exchange for flash and flare.

musolino: 'Reliable' is a hard to define quality when it comes to news. Why is there a presumption that objectivity is possible (or should even be a goal?)? Rather, maybe we should expect that our news is represented with the biases of those producing it (Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw reminding us occassionally that two of the three major networks are controlled by the two larest producers of nuclear power plants in the world, and that there is NO LAW or REGULATION that prevents them from exercising veto power over content and story bias). Our interactions and world is the consequence of personal interpretation and subjectivity. How, then, are we to represent it impartially? Trust is odd standard in any case. What is trust? Surrendering your interest or scepticism to another(s) who is/are supposed to look out for your interests, or something to that effect. If you frame your expectations (and reserve enough power to mandate modifications when your interests are being subverted) you can maintain trust. But we don't have this power, or even the option to frame our expectation or interests vis a vis major media, which after all, are motivated by profit generation, not out of egalitarian duty to bring you the truth. In order to build trust, we need a culture wide defintion of what media and news should provide, and establish some method of regulation so that this occurs. There are too many examples of media figures acting our of self interest or to the detriment of others to leave them to self regulations. And what about trust, you folks at Tripod? Like any suspicious servey, you give no parameters for submission and editing (are all submissions available on this site? If not, what regulatory strictures are in place? Do _you_ have an agenda? Like the little snipe at Yahoo- jealous? Feeling out if Net-zeins don't find their self-promotion reprehensible or vaguely un-ethical, does this give you the green light to so likewise? Doesn't this little survey serve you in some ways? And why don't you tell us what that is? Doncha trust us?

lizajane: Dan Rather is the most trustworthy TV guy talking about the news. I like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and co. to provide me with indepth coverage on an issue. I also listen to Don Imus and enjoy his cynicism and the way he shook up the folks who I do not trust - thoses darn Democrats! It is time for college students to believe and act on Libertarian ideas. Get rid of the politics that raids our wallets and bedrooms.

grimjack: Trust? everyone to a certain degree, however limited. Total trust? Not the media for sure. Everything/everyone has some agenda they want you to get. Discovering the hidden agenda is the problem

Robert_C: I don't agree with all the hype on the value of the net, but one thing it does for me is give me the ability to check out news stories and editorials on my own. A number of times I've read news stories and columns that sent up a few flags. Through my own research on the net, I managed to find the "real story." So, I read a lot from different sources and than if its important enough, I do my own research.

freemaker: I listen to the local radio 570 am (Seattle) which has Rush Limbaugh Kirby Wilber, Mike Segal, and John Carson. I learned to trust their opinion. But frankly, the main media is over the edge as far as fact finding is concerned. I personally can't take the TV news anymore as truth.

Daveish: I don't believe regular media news is relevant to MY life because most of it does not effect ME. I turn to This Magazine, In These Times, Z MAgazine, Mother Jones and other alternative press zines for information. Yet these publications are still bias in their own way, I still prefer to hear relevant news rather than stories about "mad Cows". I also listen to greats like Noam Chomsky and Jello Biafra who REALLY DO speak the truth.

Donna13: It's another paradox. Trust everyone, but at the same time, trust no one. If you don't expect the truth, you'll never get it, but ultimately you are responsible for sorting out the truth for yourself. Go figure.

Kimmy: I watch the news sometimes, but mostly rely on word of mouth for local/national stories. I ALWAYS take what I see/hear with a great big grain of salt, because I know the news gatherers and presenters are biased, like all of us. I rely on my involvement with Amnesty International for international news. I trust their sources completely.

Starflower: Of course you can't trust the media! No one can be completely objective because of human frailty. What good media(i.e. nothing that's on right now and newspapers) does is presents the facts the way it wants to, in as fair and evenhanded a manner as possible without losing its slant.(all have a slant.) So....it's reliable, but you have to think for yourself. Listen to what they have to say, then think anyway.(Aaagh! It rhymed! I'm Wheelie! *Transformers humor*)

Dark_Angel: Nothing is ever objective. Sure it can be a bit. But never completely. It's hard to trust any one these days.

murgatroyd: I participated in a vote between two telephone companies last year, and the companies both said that "Your privacy will be kept".... RIGHT!!! HA! They sent us a letter afterwards saying "Thanks for voting for us"... you can' even trust your phone company! And remember what they say in X-Files!!! "TRUST NO ONE"

Saulm: I'd go with no one, but http://www.nando.net is a pretty good news service.

Billzebub: All's I know is that MTV News is Liberal crap! I hope they lose some of their clout, because they elected Bill Clinton.

Guruchik: I don't watch tv at all, so most of my news comes either from word of mouth or the paper. Neither source is very reliable, and it's important to remember that some stories are cluttered with opinion, not fact.

stumpy: Trust No One. That's what I've learned in life so far.