the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

Diana,

Jeez, how can you expect to be Rich and Famous if you insist on being -reasonable- all the time? (grin)

I find myself in an odd position when it comes to edutainment, at least on political topics. I want facts, but all I can find are opinions. Being an opinionated so-and-so myself, I don’t really care what the pundits think. I used to listen to Limbaugh occasionally because he’d bring up points I hadn’t thought about, but now I find him too annoying to bear. Or maybe I’m just getting old and intolerant.

Can you recommend any news outlets with a decent signal-to-noise ratio?

Dave

Wow. Dave! Is that really you? :)

Great to see you.

I’ve been looking and asking people and reading occasional stuff, and the only outlet I know of that gives you just the news without other mess mixed in is print mediums. I find the AP a good outlet. Just the facts, Ma’am–pretty much. I’m sure an argument could be made about what “kinds” of facts/stories they choose to print and which to omit, but generally speaking, they’re a good source.

Another excellent and remarkably neutral source is the Christian Science Monitor. No kidding. :)

I expect you’re asking about non-print mediums, and I can’t point to any, unless you’re willing to give equal time to several. MSNBC and Fox probably balance one another out, for example (I watch the occasional clip and read the occasional news on both, but I don’t watch the news anywhere). CNN is reasonably neutral (which is to say, it does a pretty good job of telling you what the news is without lacing reports with loaded language intended to sway you one way or another), but again…I read it. I don’t watch it. NPR is also reasonably neutral, regardless of what some conservatives say about it. I do think it’s left-leaning, but it isn’t left-committed. :)

I’m sure there are right-leaning audio-visual sources (as opposed to Fox, which is right-committed, obviously), but I don’t know of any.

Have you tried googling that question?

d

http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/298969

Interesting article I just stumbled across. It might interest you, Dave.

d

Diana,

Yeah, sorry about the hiatus but I didn’t see any discussions I felt I could contribute to. Better to remain silent and appear the fool, etc.

Thanks for the suggestions. I know a mix of sources is the best solution. I just wondered if you had any favorites. I agree with you about the Christian Science Monitor - I even like their editorials, even when I disagree with them. NPR’s slant doesn’t bother me either; I know it’s there and can filter out the data from the analysis. I used to like the Wall Street Journal, but lately it just feels like it’s moving farther to the right. Or maybe I’m starting to lean left. Living in New York can do that to you. (grin)

I didn’t think to check out TV news web sites. I don’t watch TV much any more and the on the rare times I click past CNN or Fox there’s usually someone spouting opinions. My time is valuable and I have my own opinions; I don’t care about what an overpaid newsreader thinks. I’m not a big fan of web video or audio either, but for a different reasons - my network connection at work doesn’t support streaming media very well. Plus I can usually read faster than a presenter speaks. So I prefer written news. (Even if it hasn’t been copy edited. (shudder))

Thank you for that article, too. That’s very timely, although I wish I could get more details on how the study was conducted. (Like what does it mean that somebody was “exposed” to a rumor? I can think of a couple of definitions. Also, what were the numbers like for people who didn’t oppose the mosque’s construction? Absolute numbers and even percentages are meaningless without a control to compare them against.)

Dave

I agree about the study, Dave. I was thinking the same thing. :) I would also like more information on such things. I think the overarching idea of it is solid, though (but then, in my opinion–having listened to/read all of the sources in question and watched politics, saying that people who watch Fox News are more likely to believe lies is like reporting the “news” that we get milk from cows).

I’m with you on reading the news, but it isn’t because it’s faster for me. It’s because I can process the written word better than I can the spoken word. I’m interested (as I know you are) in thinking about the assertions people are making that they base their conclusions on, and how they got there. It’s too easy to just go along with it if it’s spoken (kinda like a preacher, another entity that you must listen to and cannot interrupt) without stopping to think about how much sense it makes, particularly if it supports your worldview.

I’ve never gotten the idea that you’re left-leaning. You seem quite centrist to me, an Independent in practice (a rarity in our bifurcated political field).

d

Diana,

Moderation in all things, that’s me. Except for eating. (grin) I used to think I was a Conservative until somebody sent me to one of those online “which one are you?” quizzes. It claimed I’m centrist with slight Libertarian tendencies. (Here it is if you’re curious: http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/) I guess I can go along with that. But over time I’ve noticed that I’m less receptive to far right ideas and slightly more receptive to leftist ideas. (I even admitted the other day that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) might not be completely worthless. He was behind the legislation that created the “Schumer box” in credit card promotional materials.)

I understand what you’re saying about spoken news delivery. I can usually pick out points in a story that need closer scrutiny, but it’s a lot harder to follow up afterward. With a written story I can go back over it and find them again. Or, sometimes I’ll find the information to fill in the gap if it was just a poorly written piece.

Dave

Good morning,

We in the world outside the US of A joke that Americans don’t look beyond their borders. Sometimes we think this blinkered view of the world leads to some foreign policy blunders that result in animosity from many quarters.

That said, might I suggest The Economist? Their international reporting and science reporting is clear and as unbiased as possible. Also the BBC World Service and Canada’s CNN called Newsworld offer print their websites or streaming audio through their radio services online.

We often joke that even the weather stops at the 49th parallel, the border, for Americans. If you look at a newspaper, that’s exactly what happens. So, for less biased reporting on main stream media, looking beyond your borders might offer a glimpse.

I also like the Utne Reader. Now that it’s gotten away from all the healing crystals and auras I quite like it as a breath of fresh air. Their Sept-Oct issue has some very different perspectives on food security that make for interesting reading.

On the good side of foreign policy and being sensitive to those outside the borders, the current president is not introduced as, “The Leader of the Free World.” Presidents come and go in the US but we outside your borders don’t consider him our leader, no matter how great a guy he is, anymore than Americans consider Angela Merkel (sp?) the leader of Europe or the free world.

Cheers,
Lorraine

It has me as a liberal-leaning centrist, Dave. I wonder what it takes to get “liberal” on their chart…. Damn. (I’m one of the most liberal people I know, and I know LOTS of liberals. It’s probably my military affiliation, you think?)

Thanks for the recommendations, Lorraine. Excellent thoughts, as usual. :)

d

Lorraine,

Thank you for the recommendations. For some things I like the Toronto Globe and Mail, although for some reason they editorialize on events in Washington kind of a lot. (grin) I think you’re right about some of our foreign policies, but you have to admit that’s a complicated field. Dealing with a nation’s government and dealing with its people are two very different things, sometimes mutually exclusive.

Diana,

Can you say “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and mean it sincerely? I suspect that’s what it’d take to max out your liberal score. You don’t seem as liberal to me as some people I’ve known. You work for what you have and expect others to also, if they’re able. You also seem like a law-abiding type - you know where your rights end and the next person’s begin. From looking at the axes on that graph I’d say we’d both have to stump for more personal freedom (to the point of infringing on our neighbors, who are free to infringe back) and less economic freedom (take what we’re given and like it) to become radical liberals.

Dave

I just tried that, in so many words, on that survey. I voted that government is too small and many vital programs are underfunded, any gov’t censorship is intolerable, no subsidies under any circumstances, the gov’t should piss off out of our sex lives, gun ownership is too dangerous, legalize ALL drugs, extend public education to day cares and universities, open the gates to immigrants, the employer requires proof to fire anyone, the draft is slavery, and taxes should be raised as necessary to support retiring baby boomers. That got me bonafide liberal/socialist.

Of course, that isn’t my opinion at all. I was just testing to see what i would take. :)

d

Diana,

I went the other way to see if I could corner the conservative market, so to speak. It was easier than trying to get to the liberal corner, which worries me a little bit (grin).

I noticed that whoever wrote that site uses the term socialist, but not fascist - just radical conservative. I wonder if that’s because fascism is so closely associated with Nazi Germany. I don’t know about you, but it really annoys me when a perfectly good word is rendered unusable because of public opinion.

Dave

Hi Dave and Diana,

Diana, you mentioned saying no to government subsidies to get to the far liberal designation in the quiz but, IMO, these subsidies are part of the picture in a social democracy. Also, in Saskatchewan where I grew up, we had tests in social studies on the difference between socialism and communism, BIG differences, probably because we had the first socialist government in North America. In Canada, socialism is not a bad word and liberal (with a big L) is the name of our middle of the road political party. The right wingers are called Conservatives and the left wing party, The New Democratic Party or usually just the NDP. They are the socialists without whom we would not have medicare, universal old age pension, baby bonuses and a number of other perks of being Canadian. Interestingly enough, it was the middle of the road party that got us into so much debt nationally in the 70s and 80s. The NDP have never been in power nationally but they have held the balance of power when we have had a minority government. We currently have a more right wing federal government than we have had in quite some time. Interesting times.

L.

Hi, Lorraine. :)

The subsidies question was phrased like this:

The government has spent billions and consumers billions more to help out certain favored industries such as farms, textile mills, steel companies and so on. Should the government help certain “important” industries using subsidies, quotas, and/or tariffs?

Choices were these:

Yes! It is high time that the US implement an Industrial Policy, guiding industries to our national purpose.
Yes. The Freedom to Farm act and free trade with Mexico have hurt too many workers. Repeal them.
Some. The current amount of support for distressed industries is about right.
No. Subsidies keep inefficient industries in this country keeping us poorer in the long run. Limit subsidies to help out in short term crises only.
NO! Giving taxpayer money to favored industries is theft, pure and simple! Eliminate all subsidies, quotas and protective tariffs.

This particular question doesn’t include things like medicare and old age pensions and such. It’s about helping out industry. I figured the far left would say no under any circumstances. I’m not quite that liberal, I guess.

I voted for limited subsidies in times of crisis only (in reality). I’m not sure about that, though. Our government subsidizes fuel, for instance, and I think that if they’d just stop doing that, our air pollution and energy waste would solve itself. Suddenly, we’ve be VERY invested in developing alternative fuels, as well as investing in cross-country mass transportation systems. I don’t see a good reason we need to subsidize most industries. Farmers, I think sometimes, such as during droughts and such. But most of the time, I don’t see a need but I see ample opportunity for corruption in the system.

d

Diana,

I think the ultra-conservative view of subsidies is the last answer - no government interference of any kind with business. Accepting help from the government is a variation of welfare, and it comes with strings attached. Government money is never free.

The liberal answer would be the first one, about an Industrial Policy. That would have the government establish goals and methods which industry would follow to achieve the “national purpose.” It’s not about helping industry, it’s about making industry better able to help the state. (The People’s Republic of China comes to mind as an example.)

Dave

You callin’ me CONSERVATIVE?!

:D

If industry did anything in particular for our “national purpose"–whatever that is–I might decide that the government should provide “subsidies,” but I’d see that as the government basically being a paying customer. As it stands, though, I can’t make such a connection.

Am I missing something?

d

Diana,

Oh, I’d never call you a conservative. I’m pretty sure you can beat me up. But I also think you’re not as liberal as you think you are.

Industry supports our national purpose all the time - just not always willingly. Say the US government has decided our national purpose (in the guise of foreign policy) requires us to provide arms to a friendly regime so they can defend themselves against a larger, richer, unfriendly neighbor. Arms manufacturers would much rather sell their products to the richer nation. (Actually they’d like to sell to both, but that’s a risky game.)

The government handles this situation by making it illegal to sell arms to certain nations and providing foreign aid to others, with the stipulation that the aid money be spent on US products. Eventually it flows back to the US arms manufacturers. But to get that money (and not go to prison along the way) the manufacturers have to accept government interference in the market, and also have to accept the price offered (and a level of profit approved by the government - federal contracts require full disclosue of all costs) for the goods they deliver.

We make these convoluted deals because contrary to what the partisans say, the government is trying to support both domestic business and international allies.

Dave