Olbermann, O'Reilly, etc

[Orangey]

Originally Posted by Risen

Question: Does the bias of the mainstream media and the bias "journalists" make you guys equally ticked off, or do you mainly focus on people who try to express their views from the other side of the issue? And are you so sheepish that you cant look at different sources of information and discern for yourself what is right and true? Or do you believe people should (and are only able to) listen to a favored source of information and take everything they say as fact?

Folks, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In the real world, nobody is going to be perfectly objective, not yourself and certainly not any figurehead in the media. That's just a pipe dream. If you have a mind of your own, it is your own responsibility to determine what is worth listening to and taking as fact. If there are some people you don't like, then so be it. Some people are going to appeal to you, and others might turn to different sources. It all harps back to the simple fact that human intelligence and perception hinges on a SUBJECTIVE reality.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go invest in some gold and watch more of Glenn Beck .

Sure, and I've determined that ideologues such as O'Reilly are not worth listening to. So what are you complaining about again?

[Risen]

Originally Posted by Orangey

Sure, and I've determined that ideologues such as O'Reilly are not worth listening to. So what are you complaining about again?

I was making a point mainly in response to Aimahn and Jennifer. No matter what figurehead you choose to listen to, I don't (and NOBODY should) take every single thing they say as being factual. It is up to each individual mind to determine the worth and value of their words. If I seek information from someone, I don't care much about their character, I care about the integrity and validity of what they say and proclaim to be truth. If what they say holds water, I'll take it. If not, I'll throw it out. I don't particularly care what source it comes from as long as I have an alternative means of validating what was said so I can determine for myself the validity of it. That is where the balance of the mainstream liberal media and conservative talk radio comes in. It is a balance because they offer alternative viewpoints to people, giving them more freedom to make choices on what they think is true.

Where I discriminate between the mainstream media and the more conservative sources of info is really, truly based in my subjective view of reality, as it is for everyone. I appeal to the conservative sources of information because I find the facts they present to be of much greater quality and validity. For the most part, they are also not journalists. They don't claim to be practitioners of objective journalism as the mainstream media does; the mainstream media that so horribly fails to uphold that standard and falls into the pit of its own biases while still claiming to be objective. At least the conservative media doesn't make such false hypocritical claims, and I'd say it's the main reason why I gravitate to the other side. That's not to say the conservative sources are always right. What is true requires individual discernment...

Now I'll stop rambling . Funny how this discussion is dominated by INTP's...

[Enyo]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

There's a difference, of course. Agreeing with O'Reilly, which isn't universal by any means, is kind of like when I happen to agree with an SJ. Totally different reasons for the same conclusion.

I don't like any one-sided preach TV because it collectively damages truth and society.

And this is precisely why I like to go with two sources that are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

I'd be watching Glenn Beck right now, but I really should be reading Hesiod's Theogony instead of posting here or watching TV.