Great News Comes From Australia

[PuroDan]

So it its hard to get news you can trust in the states these days. Lots of fake news out there. I have been watching Sky News and have been real happy with it. Anyone else watch Sky News Australia?

[MrBirdman]

At this point, I find foreign (and a handful of local) newspapers more reliable sources of news for my country - the national news organizations are all too polarized anymore in their coverage. And what’s sick is you actually don’t even get reality by watching/reading “both sides” - just double the nonsense. 

[Cairo]

1 hour ago, MrBirdman said:

what’s sick is you actually don’t even get reality by watching/reading “both sides” 

That is because the world is way more complicated than "two sides".      Accurate journalism requires a level of expertise that is often impossible to achieve in a timely manner.   As a result they quote "experts" who often have a vested interest/axe to grind.   

As Terence Mckenna used to say (approximately):  "There is no rule of nature that states we apes are entitled to know the truth."

You can test this by looking at coverage in an industry/area where you have professional expertise--you will easily identify a mushy combination of fallacies, half truths, myths, and downright nonsense in most reporting.

[RedLantern]

33 minutes ago, Cairo said:

That is because the world is way more complicated than "two sides".      Accurate journalism requires a level of expertise that is often impossible to achieve in a timely manner.   As a result they quote "experts" who often have a vested interest/axe to grind.   

As Terence Mckenna used to say (approximately):  "There is no rule of nature that states we apes are entitled to know the truth."

You can test this by looking at coverage in an industry/area where you have professional expertise--you will easily identify a mushy combination of fallacies, half truths, myths, and downright nonsense in most reporting.

 

There's a specific term for the phenomenon wherein we recognize this in our areas of expertise, but still have a high degree of trust in articles in which we are laypeople. FWIW, I'm not a "the media cannot be trusted!!11" type, I just think it's an interesting if inevitable byproduct of having to distill complex topics for the masses to understand quickly and easily.

[MrBirdman]

18 minutes ago, RedLantern said:

I just think it's an interesting if inevitable byproduct of having to distill complex topics for the masses to understand quickly and easily.

That’s definitely true when it comes to cable news. But all news has to choose what to cover, and that is where things have started to get ridiculous even in print media. 

[mprach024]

What’s funny is a lot of people are more likely to think media reports, even scientific media reports are lies, but will be believe blogs from unaccredited sources or from forum posts.  Sad state we are in.

[PuroDan]

5 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

What’s funny is a lot of people are more likely to think media reports, even scientific media reports are lies, but will be believe blogs from unaccredited sources or from forum posts.  Sad state we are in.

If they are facts that can be verified then thats all that matters. The truth/facts. Not hypothesis. The truth is the most important thing in everything. Science/media ect

[MrBirdman]

14 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

What’s funny is a lot of people are more likely to think media reports, even scientific media reports are lies, but will be believe blogs from unaccredited sources or from forum posts.  Sad state we are in.

This is a defining trait of paranoid personality disorder, and let’s be honest: paranoia is the order of the day, especially on cable news. There’s always a villain, and it’s almost always one or more other Americans. Enemies in our midst! Be afraid! And of course, tune in tomorrow for more!

It’s exhausting. 

[PuroDan]

13 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

This is a defining trait of paranoid personality disorder, and let’s be honest: paranoia is the order of the day, especially on cable news. There’s always a villain, and it’s almost always one or more other Americans. Enemies in our midst! Be afraid! And of course, tune in tomorrow for more!

It’s exhausting. 

Well said...

[Cairo]

36 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

all news has to choose what to cove

That is where the rubber meets the road.    There is no "right answer" on what to cover--so that is where the biases of the owners/managers/producers of the publication/broadcast/website are on full display.      We all have very complex cultural biases--some embedded so deeply we have no clue they exist.

As an old timer my approach is to learn something new every day--something _really_ new, something I knew _nothing_ about the day before, and to read multiple articles (making sure that at least some of the sources think the other sources are crazy).

That way I make my "news" _new_.  ?

 

[mprach024]

49 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

This is a defining trait of paranoid personality disorder, and let’s be honest: paranoia is the order of the day, especially on cable news. There’s always a villain, and it’s almost always one or more other Americans. Enemies in our midst! Be afraid! And of course, tune in tomorrow for more!

It’s exhausting. 

Yes!

[PuroDan]

I wish the news would be journalistic in nature as it once was.

[Chibearsv]

Most of what I have seen in the news for the last few years is regurgitation of stories and rumors from the internet. I haven’t seen a lot of true journalism in a while. I’ve decided to not watch or listen to any news anymore. My local paper gives me what I need. I’m only going to pay attention to what’s happening in my community. I won’t be stressed by all the talking heads telling me my world is going to change for the worse constantly. Especially since they haven’t predicted correctly yet. 

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, mprach024 said:

What’s funny is a lot of people are more likely to think media reports, even scientific media reports are lies, but will be believe blogs from unaccredited sources or from forum posts.  Sad state we are in.

agreed! 

 

6 hours ago, PuroDan said:

So it its hard to get news you can trust in the states these days. Lots of fake news out there. I have been watching Sky News and have been real happy with it. Anyone else watch Sky News Australia?

PD, i don't have it at home but often see it when i look after mum. she watches it a lot (if there is no cricket or football on). i think they do some good stuff but they have a few presenters/commentators who i would have in rubber rooms as fast as i could. 

i completely agree with you on truth and verification - media and science. unfortunately, a few of the sky Oz commentators seem to take the opposite view on science, especially climate change. any science which does not conform to some of their views (which are basically that science is wrong) is dismissed.

for me, i am still to find a news service that comes close to the PBS Newshour - the old Jim Lehrer newshour. i have posted these before but they are worth repeating. his rules for journalism - for me, the world would be a better place if all journos followed them. if i ran the journalism school at any uni, day one would be...

• Do nothing I cannot defend.
• Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
• Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
• Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am. Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
• Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
• Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.
• Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should be able to attack another anonymously.
• Finally, I am not in the entertainment business.

[PuroDan]

19 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

PD, i don't have it at home but often see it when i look after mum. she watches it a lot (if there is no cricket or football on). i think they do some good stuff but they have a few presenters/commentators who i would have in rubber rooms as fast as i could. 

i completely agree with you on truth and verification - media and science. unfortunately, a few of the sky Oz commentators seem to take the opposite view on science, especially climate change. any science which does not conform to some of their views (which are basically that science is wrong) is dismissed.

for me, i am still to find a news service that comes close to the PBS Newshour - the old Jim Lehrer newshour. i have posted these before but they are worth repeating. his rules for journalism - for me, the world would be a better place if all journos followed them. if i ran the journalism school at any uni, day one would be...

• Do nothing I cannot defend.
• Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
• Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
• Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am. Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
• Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
• Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.
• Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should be able to attack another anonymously.
• Finally, I am not in the entertainment business.

Great reply Ken. I enjoy PBS as well. Good man to look after your mom like that!  As i have stated before there is good science and bad science. That is a set of very simple straight forward rules that would help these so called journalists out. I would add one rule. Have no political agenda. I am half tempted to copy/paste and send it to CNN and Faux news. They would benefit greatly from it and "We The People" would as well.

[Fuzz]

I wouldn't put much faith in Sky News, especially any of their other programming. They have a strong bias towards the right. Considering they are owned by Newscorp, it's not surprising.

I personally watch our ABC news programs (Federal Govt funded national channel). They have a better track record in fact checking,and I find it the least biased of the other news programs in Aus (SBS being the exception, they are as unbiased as the ABC). Mind you, a lot of the ABC's other programming are left leaning, especially their comedy programs.

[Fosgate]

I never really fully understood Journalists much until two things happened in my life. One of them was loosing my sanity temporarily for 5 years as I dated and was engauged to a professor that taught journalism and mass communications at a university. I met many of her coworkers, students etc and it clicked together when I took a course on Epidemiology. Part of that class revealed in depth how scientific studies are more frequently than not skewed. The researcher has interest in their theory being correct, earning funding and being published  while corporations and idividuals with finincial strenght have an interest in a researching providing a study which works to their objective. Data that may not have a trend line will have results tossed out until a trendline they want exists. The professor advised us, often Epidemiologists simply do not understand the statistics they are discussing yet make their own conclusions. This is why he often said for every conclusion one Epidemiologist makes you can find 10 others that can make a different or opposite conclusion from the same data. 

As far as journalism goes there is some big star chasers involved. It seemed like a huge percentage of them loved hanging out on celebrity gossip sites and watching gossip like TMZ and a few others. Who married who as a business contract, who's not straight, whos divorcing, casting cough etc. Within all this they really look at the journalists out there as A list celebrities, Katie Kouric, Matt Lauer, and many more. How they even looked at the local reporters on camera was a gossip fest as "When I was a paige for senator.... she had sex with senator..." Really mind boggling how intertwined many of them are with politicians at an early age. 

With their interactions with public figures and pursuit to become celebrities themselves they inevitably look like they want the holy grail and often Walter Cronkite comes to mention. He had an entire society hanging on his every word and held public influence unparallelled by any other. But that is what they want. Hollywood often jokes about that ego in films like Bruce Almighty and the Anchorman, but there is some truth to that. They all want to be celebrities and will pitch what sells, sex, conflict, bad news etc. To get what they want which is ratings. I see it on both sides of the political spectrum how they want all eyes on them. In turn even at the local level the give up on independent reporting. I've seen two local stations use the same Drudge Report/Associated Press down to the photos and even using identical forecasts from the National Weather service in local reports down to the same grammar errors. They used to not do that. Now they just regurgitate the news from around the country as their parent company dictates with a few local sports highlights or negative press that they can find or help along. 

You cant even rely on fact checking sites anymore. Pretty much the rule is if someone saw an event, wrote a report on an event. The report is broken down, simplified and spit back out to sell or push some company or individuals beleifs. If you want the real facts the best source is to see the full context yourself. This is why I see a report that interests me I'll try to find the full video to come to my own conclusion. Otherwise your news is really just being spoonfed to you by someone with an agenda. 

With that I'll leave with an epidimiology joke to drive the point. 

There is a group of five statisticians on a train. At the next stop, five epidemiologists get on. They all seemed to know each other and started chatting. It transpired that each of the epidemiologists had bought a ticket, but the statisticians had only bought one between the five of them. "Why did you do that?" asks one of the epidemiologists. "Surely you're going to get caught and be asked to leave the train". "Just wait and see!", smiled one of the statisticians. As the ticket inspector was approaching to check everyone's tickets, the statisticians went off to the nearest toilet -the inspector passes the epidemiologists and inspects all their tickets then moves on and notices that the toilet is locked. "Tickets please!" shouts the inspector. One of the statisticians pushes their ticket under the toilet door, which the inspector checks and returns under the door. Once the inspector has gone, all the statisticians return to their seats to the awe and amazement of the epidemiologists. "That's incredibly clever!" says one of the epidemiologists. A few weeks later they all find themselves on the same train again. They sit together and start chatting once more. "We've done what you suggested", says one of the epidemiologists, "and just bought one ticket between the five of us!". "Oh really", says one of the statisticians, "we haven't bought ANY tickets this time!". The epidemiologists look at each other in amazement. "OK, one ticket between you is fine but not buying any at all is ludicrous! " As the ticket inspector approaches the epidemiologists hurry off to the toilet. Once they're inside the statisticians follow them. "Tickets please! " shouts one of the statisticians. The ticket appears under the door and they take it away and all bundle into a different toilet. The inspector gets to the toilet with the epidemiologists in it. "Tickets please!" he shouts. No reply. "Tickets please!". The epidemiologists admit defeat and come out of the toilet only to be thrown off at the next station. The moral of this story: Epidemiologists should not attempt to use statistical methods they do not fully understand.

[Deeg]

5 hours ago, Fuzz said:

I wouldn't put much faith in Sky News, especially any of their other programming. They have a strong bias towards the right. Considering they are owned by Newscorp, it's not surprising.

I personally watch our ABC news programs (Federal Govt funded national channel). They have a better track record in fact checking,and I find it the least biased of the other news programs in Aus (SBS being the exception, they are as unbiased as the ABC). Mind you, a lot of the ABC's other programming are left leaning, especially their comedy programs.

I didn't want to be the first one to say it, but yeah - Sky would be the last place I would look for unbiased news.  It's agenda-driven.