If newspapers come out and endorse a particular candidate - - why should we believe the facade that they are the least bit objective and non-biased anymore?
Not that we ever did believe that. I’m just sayin.
If newspapers come out and endorse a particular candidate - - why should we believe the facade that they are the least bit objective and non-biased anymore?
Not that we ever did believe that. I’m just sayin.
I wrote the First Edition of WordPress For Dummies, published Nov. '07. I'm currently writing the 2nd Edition, due to be published in Fall '08...read more »
IssacFrost: :d Yeah does look tempting to try it out. But seriously...IssacFrost: Thanks for the welcome Lisa! 
Mr C: You know what’s sadder than all the posts on here about...
Dawn: Don’t take the risk. It’s soooooo not worth it....
Bob: Hi Erik, Did the NASE/MEGA person leave a brochure? I am...
Lisa: @Barce and @Mike - sounds like the two of you are doing...IssacFrost: Thanks this answered my question. I’ve been...IssacFrost: Okay now I’m totally confused :- how did both of...
Mark: I’m finally doing what I love, and love what I’m...
Erik: Hey everyone- An NASE / MEGA agent came over today from 9am...IssacFrost: I can’t find a contact information… you...IssacFrost: Thanks! Well I am definitely going to Borders to pick...IssacFrost: Ah yes and the computer did die BEFORE I beat it into a...IssacFrost: This sounds like the time my computer died on me 
I...IssacFrost: I find myself in a sort of opposite effect right now. I...
8:30 am on October 25th, 2004
Very astute observation. For so very long we trusted that our newspapers were not biased, only to find out that they are often just a megaphone for a particular issue, person, or party. What this nation needs is objective new. Sad.
9:10 am on October 25th, 2004
you should always be aware of the politics of the newspapers you read. In todays age of the Internet access one can read papers from around the country and around the world, it is all to easy to take the reporting at face value. One of the worst IMHO is the Guardian, This paper is rabidly left wing and is about trust worthy as the national enquirer, maybe less, but it is a favorite quote machine for right and left wingers.
9:29 am on October 25th, 2004
Well, I’ve always thought that any newspapers that endorse any candidate shows bias and throws its objectivity out the window. But, its freedom of speech. What are you gonna do?
10:13 am on October 25th, 2004
Educate yourself and don’t take what you read at face value.
10:23 am on October 25th, 2004
People are going to read what they want to read.
People are going to believe what they want to believe.
That’s life
10:53 am on October 25th, 2004
The Guardian - rabidly left wing - a bit of an exageration there? (It’s the only paper I actually buy, the rest are full of either bigoted views strung together with cliches, or full of stories to scare middle aged middle class conservative voters into staying firmly on the right-hand side of the fence).
11:09 am on October 25th, 2004
I totally agree. Newspapers aren’t objective anymore. It’s a joke.
11:26 am on October 25th, 2004
Oh - and before anyone comes across the latest Guardian “scandal” and starts frothing at the mouth, it was only a joke …
11:34 am on October 25th, 2004
I’m not saying the Guardian doesn’t have it’s right aligned counterparts.. but it does prove you should understand the politics being pushed by a newspaper before you blindly quote from it.
11:36 am on October 25th, 2004
… were newspapers ever objective?
11:50 am on October 25th, 2004
Lisa - I was wondering this very thing yesterday. The truth is, there IS no objective news. News outlets (magazines, newspapers, network news shows, etc.) are biased simply in their choice of what to cover as “news.”
12:40 pm on October 25th, 2004
There is nothing wrong with the coverage, as long as you educate yourself about the paper’s politics and therefore can disseminate the value of what is written. This very Blog is Pro Bush, therefore you should read the contents with this in mind, Lisa is going to point out the Kerry goofs and somewhat gloss over those of Dubya, there is nothing wrong with that provided you know where she is coming from. Kindly she has her “Blogs for Bush 04″ logo proudly displayed, the newspapers and media in general are not often that well labeled so it is up to us to find out.
If you are lemming enough to swallow with out question then you deserve to be left with a bitter after taste…
1:04 pm on October 25th, 2004
Actually, if you actually look at the evolution of newspapers over the last century, you’ll see that they are, in fact, considerably LESS biased now than they ever have been. Gone are the days when a William Randolph Hearst could send the US to war. There are more media now competing for an increasingly literate and critical readership, and a stronger sense of the need for at least the appearance of objectivity.
As for newspapers endorsing candidates: there’s always a very clear division between the editorial section of a media outlet, and its journalistic staff. It’s not an impermeable barrier, of course: but that’s how it’s theoretically possible. In a way, it’s probably a good thing to know who an editorial staff endorses: it gives you a useful filter for gauging their political views.
1:42 pm on October 25th, 2004
Newspapers, shmoozepapers. What about them porn stars??? LINK
2:11 pm on October 25th, 2004
Tim, please explain the joke there. I fail to see either irony or humor in it.
My reaction is much the same as what I’d expect from Britons if I were to say “Where is John Bellingham now that we need him?”
So please, do me a favor and point out either the irony or the humor in that statement.
3:34 pm on October 25th, 2004
Personally, I don’t think any newspaper should endorse a candidate. What happened to just reporting all sides?
Look what happened to the Crawford, Tx. paper…he endorsed Kerry and then lost almost all his customers & ads!
4:35 pm on October 25th, 2004
Mickey - I didn’t say it was a good joke!
Actually, it took me aback a little when I read it - it wasn’t exactly in good taste. But it was meant as a joke, albeit a pretty sick one. Yet looking at certain news sites and blogs and stuff you’d think that the Guardian had put a ransom on Bush’s head.
4:47 pm on October 25th, 2004
I didn’t previously know who John Bellingham was ….. but I don’t think many Brits would be too bothered if someone made such a comment. Most of us would shrug it off and think “Tosser”. And then go dowm the pub.