How would you like your news? Scrambled or Hard-boiled?

[LurkerPatrol]

Back in middle school and high school I'd watch tv a bunch. Earlier on it was cartoons of course but my parents would definitely switch on the news at night and I'd watch it. Slowly throughout high school I somewhat gave up watching TV, it just became boring, but occasionally I would keep up on news.

These days whenever I flip to the news channels all I ever see are a plethora of political debates and quarrels over banal subjects. After this election I totally gave up on the regular news channels and just watched the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

But this brought up a question (well several questions).

1. Should regular news and news journalists be completely objective and only report what has happened, or should they throw in their own opinions on the matter?
2. Should political debate shows be a little more organized, traditional, and partially objective?
3. What place do the debate shows have in the lineup of the major news broadcasting channels?

and finally, I thought I would put this question in here versus making a completely new topic.

4. What is your main source of news? CNN? MSNBC? Fox? Your local newspaper?

I don't want to let the snowball get too big right away, so I'll just let the discussion begin and let it gradually grow.

I realize I was referring to US news channels mostly, but I don't mean to limit it to just that. All people are welcome to share their feelings about the news. Besides, most of my news these days also comes from BBC.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

But this brought up a question (well several questions).

1. Should regular news and news journalists be completely objective and only report what has happened, or should they throw in their own opinions on the matter?
2. Should political debate shows be a little more organized, traditional, and partially objective?
3. What place do the debate shows have in the lineup of the major news broadcasting channels?

and finally, I thought I would put this question in here versus making a completely new topic.

4. What is your main source of news? CNN? MSNBC? Fox? Your local newspaper?

These are good questions. The easiest to answer is the last. The BBC website is my main source of news. I also read the Guardian, the Times and the Telegraph, mainly for the 'comment' sections, as they represent opinion rather than fact (fact I get from the BBC).

Do I think there should be a line between factual-news reporting and opinion? Yes. I think each should be distinctly labelled and it should be obvious which is which. I think much news should be factual : "x has happened", but there is still room for opinion : "x has happened, and I think y about it".

In the UK, I believe there are some rules that mean that (on television), straight opinion pieces (or 'straight nutjob pieces', like Bill O'Reilly), aren't allowed. There was a kerfuffle in the press about possibly changing these, but (of course) I can't find it online.

I don't have a problem with 'opinion pieces' - as I said above, I read ones in the newspapers, as I find them interesting and I like having my views challenged. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see the US "opinion pieces" on TV any time soon - we already have talking heads (usually one from each side of a debate) to cover that kind of thing.

2. Should political debate shows be a little more organized, traditional, and partially objective?
3. What place do the debate shows have in the lineup of the major news broadcasting channels?

Yes, political debates should be more objective, if possible. I don't know how they'd get much more so than at the moment, though - you already have the two candidates quizzed in TV debates, by (apparently) neutral people...

Do the debates have a place in news lineup? Yes. They are news in themselves, they are Big Events on the political calendar. It also lets them articulate their views to the public.

[anti-net]

1) Only report what happend, no Fox news/Sky news style stuff, It just means a corporation can try and change peoples opinions

2) Yes - they should try and represent all views from the major parties (easier said than done)

3) properly past 9, when stuff like Question Time is on in the UK

4) BBC, Reuters and Private Eye, Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You for the satire!!

News is getting more opinionated (not just in America) You've got to use your common sense and be willing to look into things a little bit more to even get half of the accurate picture

[LeVeL]

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

1. Should regular news and news journalists be completely objective and only report what has happened, or should they throw in their own opinions on the matter?

I wish, but they cant possible be, they will always voice their opinions even if they dont intend to do so.

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

2. Should political debate shows be a little more organized, traditional, and partially objective?

Yes please. I remember watching the CNN/YouTube debate and most of the candidates never answered the quesiton that was being asked. Hilary was the worst - every answer was just her thanking everyone and everything for various things.

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

3. What place do the debate shows have in the lineup of the major news broadcasting channels?

Debates are good - they let the people see all the candidates in the same environment at the same time and watch how they behave and compare them.

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

4. What is your main source of news? CNN? MSNBC? Fox? Your local newspaper?

Glenn Beck on CNN... the man should run for president. Other than that, whatever I happen upon - sometimes while flipping through channels, sometimes flipping through the paper at a densit's office or something, sometimes from friends and parents.

[epp_b]

1. Should regular news and news journalists be completely objective and only report what has happened, or should they throw in their own opinions on the matter?

Both. It needs be first presented from a purely objective point of view, but there's nothing wrong with the reporter presenting their own subjective opinion, as long as they make it very clear when doing so.

I can't stand CNN, it's just political this, political that all stinking DAY LONG!

Don't people get sick of it?

[teeb]

Originally Posted by epp_b

I can't stand CNN, it's just political this, political that all stinking DAY LONG!

Don't people get sick of it?

Hint :

You're not meant to watch CNN for 3 hours in a row.

Actually, I enjoy reading and watching about politics, and I hoover news up about it. I like to think I'm well informed about it, anyway.

[Momentum57]

Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show they are all entertainment.

If you watch any of these things you are not getting news, you are getting soundbite trash. None of the major cable news organizations actually delves into anything more than surface reflection. If you are in the states turn on PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer tune in to NPR and read. The in depth reporting of these sources will allow you to debate the most harden CNN junkie and leave them saying "I didn't know that"

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post are all great sources to throw in someones face too. Plus the Washington Post has AP video included on its website.

The best thing I ever did was take my New York Times and stack them up for a year of school following the Plame affair. Yes I looked like a nut but I was able to prove every thing I said rather than just regurgitate what Jon Stewart jokes about.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Momentum57

Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show they are all entertainment.

Exactly. And the cable shows have a lot more programming slots to fill. You can find straight up news on the networks in the evenings, like NBC, ABC, and CBS....and they get a ton more viewers than any cable news show.

I don't watch CNN, it's a channel I'll pass and stop if something catches my eye. I watch Morning Joe, Verdicts w/Dan Abrams, O'Reilly Factor...Occasionally Hardball w/ Chris Matthews.

Depsite what others may say (like some of these hosts), i've found MSNBC to be the most balanced of the 24 news networks. Since Joe Scarborough went to mornings, their nightly programming has only "liberal" hosts...but they usually balance it out with their guests.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Momentum57

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post are all great sources to throw in someones face too. Plus the Washington Post has AP video included on its website.

The best thing I ever did was take my New York Times and stack them up for a year of school following the Plame affair. Yes I looked like a nut but I was able to prove every thing I said rather than just regurgitate what Jon Stewart jokes about.

It has been some time since i've actually picked up a paper versus sourcing them online.

[Symbotic]

TV news programs should report whatever they want to report. If people are stupid enough to watch them, which most are, then so be it.

The debates should be like the old Lincoln-Douglas debates where they just went after each other. These days the moderators are always the talking heads from network TV and the questions they have are easy for the candidates.

I get most of my news from either the internet or talk radio, like Beck. I also like Savage sometimes. He can get over the top, but some of the stuff he says is spot on.

[LurkerPatrol]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Exactly. And the cable shows have a lot more programming slots to fill. You can find straight up news on the networks in the evenings, like NBC, ABC, and CBS....and they get a ton more viewers than any cable news show.

I don't watch CNN, it's a channel I'll pass and stop if something catches my eye. I watch Morning Joe, Verdicts w/Dan Abrams, O'Reilly Factor...Occasionally Hardball w/ Chris Matthews.

Depsite what others may say (like some of these hosts), i've found MSNBC to be the most balanced of the 24 news networks. Since Joe Scarborough went to mornings, their nightly programming has only "liberal" hosts...but they usually balance it out with their guests.

I don't trust CNN either. Which is ironic as they tout themselves as "The most trusted news channel". They come off with very meaningless topics and questions and drag them on till the very end.

MSNBC is good but I'm not really a fan of hardball and countdown anymore. After those 2 (matthews and olbermann) interspersed the election news and facts with their own discriminatory and biased views of the candidates, I realized these guys weren't the source. I stopped watching all election coverage, and kept to the daily show and to the colbert report. Anything else I find online.

I'm with you on Morning Joe though. He seems more mellow and it seems more informative. That stupid lady that they have on that show that makes noises every 3 seconds is really annoying though. She serves no purpose other than to play the role of a circus monkey. She doesn't provide any valid insight into any topic.

[Firecat]

I've never watched a full hour of Olbermann. And yeah, Chris Matthews was totally for Obama (when he was running against Hillary).

Mika on Morning Joe is just really supposed to deliver the news, I think. I'm sure being the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski she has some insight into politics, but probably want to come across as being too biased....like most news anchors.

[Censport]

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

1. Should regular news and news journalists be completely objective and only report what has happened, or should they throw in their own opinions on the matter?

If the former were possible, we would only need one news network. Since it's human nature to relay events from one's perspective, we need multiple sources so we can draw our own conclusions.

2. Should political debate shows be a little more organized, traditional, and partially objective?

I think they're too organized as it is. At least here in the U.S., where any debate hosted by CNN will be filled with leftists asking leftist questions, whether it's a GOP primary debate, DNC primary debate, or a general election debate. And then you've got staged townhalls, such as MTV 's unintentional parodies. They had scripted questions (boxers or briefs? PC or Mac?) to college students and say "You want to be on MTV? Ask this candidate this question on this que."

I think open townhalls should be the rule, where ordinary Americans can ask their own questions. Oddly, although both of our remaining candidates promised to do townhalls, one of them has since changed his mind. *cough*Obama*cough*

3. What place do the debate shows have in the lineup of the major news broadcasting channels?

Take the biggest, most popular "reality" contest show off the air and replace it with the unscripted townhall debates.

and finally, I thought I would put this question in here versus making a completely new topic.

4. What is your main source of news? CNN? MSNBC? Fox? Your local newspaper?

Everywhere. CNN, Fox (which does a better job of presenting both sides than any other network), BBC, NPR, the Internet, etc., etc. The only sources I don't use are the ones long since proven to be hacks, such as The Daily Show, Olbermann (is that guy even sane?), and any show hosted by a former member of a previous presidential administration (Matthews [Carter], Stephanopolis [Clinton], etc.).

The New York Times has had so many scandals (Jayson Blair, Rick Bragg, Dowd is a hack, exposing secrets of national security programs and weak points in our soldiers' body armor), that I'm skeptical of anything they print.

Firecat, I find it ironic that you're opining about MSNBC being the most balanced, considering your avatar. Sure, they'll have conservative guests on, but are they treated the same as liberal guests? Remember the treatment Matthews gave Michelle Malkin about someone else's book?

As for news-tainment, I'll agree with LeVeL: Glenn Beck is the best thing out there. He claims to not be about Right vs. Left, but about right vs. wrong, and he actually lives up to it.

[smib]

I love eggs, cooked pretty much any way.

[tigger]

1. Opinions have their place in editorials or debates. Journalists should strive for objectivity, although readers shouldn't expect objectivity from any source.

2. I've enjoyed the less structured format of the more recent US debates. I hope the trend continues. It gives the politician time to actually say what they need to say, instead of just throwing a few insults at their opponent before the bell sounds.

3. I don't watch much television news, but the few TV news "debates" I've seen have just been pitched battles between hippies and nazis. Pointless, as far as I'm concerned.

4. I get my news principally from newspapers and the internet. During the summer months I pretty much unplug completely, but once the school year starts I'll go back to reading a paper or two a day, when time allows.

Originally Posted by LeVeL

Glenn Beck on CNN... the man should run for president.

When I watch his show, I find myself either in total agreement ... or wanting to hit him with a brick.

Originally Posted by Momentum57

Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show they are all entertainment.

If you watch any of these things you are not getting news, you are getting soundbite trash.

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the Washington Post are all great sources to throw in someones face too.

I couldn't agree more. During the school year I have the opportunity to get a ton of papers for free. On days I have time, I read the Kansas City Star, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Censport

Firecat, I find it ironic that you're opining about MSNBC being the most balanced, considering your avatar. Sure, they'll have conservative guests on, but are they treated the same as liberal guests? Remember the treatment Matthews gave Michelle Malkin about someone else's book?

Not really sure how my avatar factors in. Anyway...

I didn't see the interview between Matthews and Malkin. I did see him interview Ann Coulter, and he was fine with her. I think they treat their conservative guests fine. But how should someone like Malkin be treated? She is an attack dog, and she hardly ever makes any sense...so she really doesn't deserve any respect. Ann Coulter may be just as hateful, but I can tolerate her.

[Censport]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Not really sure how my avatar factors in. Anyway...

I didn't see the interview between Matthews and Malkin. I did see him interview Ann Coulter, and he was fine with her. I think they treat their conservative guests fine. But how should someone like Malkin be treated? She is an attack dog, and she hardly ever makes any sense...so she really doesn't deserve any respect. Ann Coulter may be just as hateful, but I can tolerate her.

You've got Che Guevara in your avatar, and you can't see the irony? Then you add more by calling Malkin an "attack dog". Nice.

Malkin was on HardBall to promote one of her books, and Matthews jumped her s#!t over the Swift Boat guys, which she had nothing to do with. She just happened to follow one of their people on Matthews's show. Still think she deserved that?

[Firecat]

I'd have to see the video first.

I really don't see how me having a Che Guevara avatar and saying the MSNBC is a more balanced network than CNN