Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's called fractulization. There are more news outlets than ever. Internet, radio, TV, print, and more and more of it is going niche. Lots of conservative talk radio hosts nibbling on that slice of the pie. Dozens of all-news stations competing with the networks. Millions of Internet sites. Thousands of newspapers and news magazines. All competing for our attention every day. And while it's easier than ever to find news that tilts however you'd like, it's damn hard to find truly non-partisan coverage. I don't know that it ever existed.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << it's damn hard to find truly non-partisan coverage. I don't know that it ever existed. >> Fox news is as close as you are going to get.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer No, it isn't. Try the Newshour on PBS. No other news broadcast gives people in the news as much time to talk without getting shouted down as Newshour.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Yes...PBS is the most overlooked but likely the most impartial provider of the news in the States today.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I suspect there are a lot of viewers at FOX and CNN that couldn't spell PBS...let alone find it on their televisions.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I suspect there are a lot of viewers at FOX and CNN that couldn't spell PBS...let alone find it on their televisions.>> Actually, the BBS News on PBS is also very direct and seemingly balanced. They too allow for more than 30 seconds per news "Sound-Bite" story.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If Fox news is so slanted, then wht are their ratings so high, and why are they crushing the blatant liberal networks like CNN and MSNBC?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The reason FOX is high is because O'Reilly has a following and when 6 networks go liberal and 1 goes conservative the 6 end up splitting viewers while the 1 gets all of the conservative viewers.
Originally Posted By itsme Wahoo is treading waters here with some of his comments that are gonna get him lib'ed. Actually if you look at all the cable news/shows ratings they are pretty sad also. But against each others #'s i guess someone has to crow about high #'s.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I am a long way from being labled a lib according to my wife and father-in-law but I get tired of Conservatives making me look bad. The bottom line is that the country is in a shambles right now and I don't see any Republican or Democrat that I am convinced can turn things around. I believe it is time for an end to the two party system because most of us are somewhere in between but the Beltway power players are only interested in focusing on the extremes of their parties.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I believe it is time for an end to the two party system because most of us are somewhere in between but the Beltway power players are only interested in focusing on the extremes of their parties.>> Never going to happen. Totalitarianism proves that it doesn't work. And a three plus party system doesn't work because the two strongest parties will always pull votes from the third. It comes down to human nature, not the Constitution.
Originally Posted By itsme >> but I get tired of Conservatives making me look bad. ------ Im with ya brother, but it hasnt stopped me from gettin lib'ed. Due to talk radio and cable news shows, politics are what they are and will probably be for the foreseeable future. They have to play to the hard core to get talked about and make their money. Anybody who is not power hungry but would like to make a difference is not going into politics cause of people like them.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't believe it will never happen. Jesse Ventura got elected governor of Minnesota because the people had it with the Republicans and the Democrats. If Ross Perot wouldn't have dove off the deep end during his campaign he had a pretty strong chance of running the table. The failure of a three plus party system has nothing to do with votes being pulled from each other. It has to do with money. And, if there were a strong third party candidate you can bet the corporations would be scrambling to jump on board with their wallets in hand.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I believe it is time for an end to the two party system because most of us are somewhere in between but the Beltway power players are only interested in focusing on the extremes of their parties.<< I agree. It can't happen soon enough to suit me.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<The failure of a three plus party system has nothing to do with votes being pulled from each other. It has to do with money.>> Historically, many elections come down to pulling in Independent voters by Dems or Republis. <<And, if there were a strong third party candidate you can bet the corporations would be scrambling to jump on board with their wallets in hand.>> But that means usually that a strong Dem or Republi wasn't chosen by their party and they run on the Independant ticket. Very few "strong candidates" endorse the Independant Party 24/7. Again, the two party system exists solely due to human nature and always hoping to be on the winning side, not necessarily the best side.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Totalitarianism proves that it doesn't work. And a three plus party system doesn't work because the two strongest parties will always pull votes from the third. It comes down to human nature, not the Constitution.>> Your wrong it is the Constitution. I heard an intresting conversation today about the two partys system and something I never thought of. The electoral college gives an ALL vote. By splitting up the electoral college ( such as what Colorado proposes ) it would allow the different voting districts to vote for different candidates for office. In other words if 20% of the people in Colorado voted Liberitarian and 50% voted Democrat and 30% Republican then ALL the electorial votes would not be Democrat. The electoral votes would be split. This would better allow for a more viable third party electorial in the US.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So they may or may not be painting a complete picture either. Certainley they're coming to the subject with an agenda, at the very least.> Ya' think?? It's also worth noting that a tendency towards negativity is partly the nature of the news beast. To look at a typical NY local newscast at 6:00 or 11:00, you'd think we were still the crime-ridden place we were in the 80's. It's always a shooting here, a push on to the subway tracks there. "If it bleeds, it leads," as they say. Are there good news stories too? Schools improving, businesses opening, etc. etc. Of course. But that's seen as dull. Unless there's a fluffy "human interest" story, it's normally 10 minutes of the bloodiest or most crisis-like thing that happened that day. 5 minutes of national news recap, then the weather, sports, and entertainment news. And that's your local report. Transpose that to Iraq, and we're always going to get the suicide bomber leading the stories, even on Fox. Schools opening and the like don't have much "bang-bang" (which is an actual news-biz term). The elections DID get a lot of play on cable news just before and during, but afterward they disappeared... about as fast as election news disappears here the Thursday after election day. They're always on to "next!"
