So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[ChrisB]

When I was a youngster most folks of my acquaintance called these appliances “hot water heaters,” a redundancy of sorts. I recall the late George Carlin working that into a bit of“If the water is hot, why would you heat it?”

This is actually an accurate term, as you are constantly adding heat to already hot water just to maintain the temperature. “On demand” types should be called “cold water heaters”!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I read the Boston Globe out of lifetime habit, and the NY Daily News when I need a bit of emotional release with my news. But the Times still puts out the best Sunday magazine in the country.

I watch no TV/cable news at all. I'd sooner drink water out of the toilet. And I haven't listened to talk radio since David Brudnoy died.

 

[Fading Fast]

To Lizzie's post and to expand on mine above, specifically, I read the WSJ and NYT everyday and the NY Post and NY Daily News off and on, which, all combined, hit on both sides of the divide.

Like Lizzie, I can't stand cable news, but end up watching it here and there when it's on in the background as it is at several firms I do business with. Other than once or twice a year for some major live event, I never turn on TV news.

To Vitanola's website references, I will check out the hard right and hard left on-line, specifically, when I want to see how each side is framing the same event, but I don't go to either site regularly.

What I find most revealing as to bias is, when a story first breaks, to see how each side covers (spins) it from the start. Later on, it's less interesting as each side's angle has been established, but with a fresh breaking story, you can sometimes catch one side or the other slipping or struggling to "angle" it the way it wants to.

 

[Harp]

What I find most revealing as to bias is, when a story first breaks, to see how each side covers (spins) it from the start.

Separating the wheat from chaff in the investigation mix is often amusing; simply due to the lack of factual legal
analysis, which seemingly is given journalism short shrift in the prevailing need to lash out. While the special counsel
probe often appears imprecise itself, a Rorschach splatter window dress indictment of related drama characters
lacking relevance to factual probable cause, rather merely whimsical supposition caught in gossamer web spin.

 

[Fading Fast]

Separating the wheat from chaff in the investigation mix is often amusing; simply due to the lack of factual legal
analysis, which seemingly is given journalism short shrift in the prevailing need to lash out. While the special counsel
probe often appears imprecise itself, a Rorschach splatter window dress indictment of related drama characters
lacking relevance to factual probable cause, rather merely whimsical supposition caught in gossamer web spin.

While I sincerely appreciate the challenge of reporting news in real time without all the facts and context, I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that it is the swirl of ambiguity that causes the inaccuracies and "leans," if, 99% of the time, each site or paper didn't make "mistakes" and assumptions that - just happen to - favor its bias. Note how often corrections come from a paper and the mistake happens to be one that painted the story in a way that favored the paper's political lean.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In 1942, media critic George Seldes concluded after long examination of the daily press, that there was not a single newspaper in the United States that wasn't riddled with political and commercial slant. The Christian Science Monitor was close, in his determination, but not quite, and of all the mainstream commercial papers in the country, he believed that only the St. Louis Post-Dispatch even approached a reasonable even-handedness in the way it handled its biases. He concluded also that the Chicago Tribune was, hands down, the most illegitmate newspaper in the country for the way it edited, slanted, and often out-and-out fabricated news to suit Colonel McCormick's political requirements. Seldes argued that as long as news is edited and published as a commercial venture, the concept of a truly free press is a fraud and a fiction.

But all that said, I actually much prefer a news source that lays its biases right up front where you can see them. I know where they stand and I can draw my own conclusions about what they're trying to sell me. And I'll say that any reporter, any journalist of any kind, who stomps their foot and waves their fist and claims to be "unbiased" is either a liar or a fool. Probably both.

 

[Harp]

In 1942, media critic George Seldes concluded ... also that the Chicago Tribune was, hands down, the most illegitmate newspaper in the country for the way it edited, slanted, and often out-and-out fabricated news to suit Colonel McCormick's political requirements. Seldes argued that as long as news is edited and published as a commercial venture, the concept of a truly free press is a fraud and a fiction.

Seldes was absolutely correct. I've wondered if McCormick and Wm R. Hearst were not both models
for Orson Welles' Charles Foster Kane. My maternal grand uncle was the Chicago Tribune editor after McCormick's
era, and I wish he had penned his newspaper man memoir.

 

[vitanola]

To Lizzie's post and to expand on mine above, specifically, I read the WSJ and NYT everyday and the NY Post and NY Daily News off and on, which, all combined, hit on both sides of the divide.

Like Lizzie, I can't stand cable news, but end up watching it here and there when it's on in the background as it is at several firms I do business with. Other than once or twice a year for some major live event, I never turn on TV news.

To Vitanola's website references, I will check out the hard right and hard left on-line, specifically, when I want to see how each side is framing the same event, but I don't go to either site regularly.

What I find most revealing as to bias is, when a story first breaks, to see how each side covers (spins) it from the start. Later on, it's less interesting as each side's angle has been established, but with a fresh breaking story, you can sometimes catch one side or the other slipping or struggling to "angle" it the way it wants to.

Oh, and by the bye, The American Conservative is often interesting, at least thought provoking, as are The Atlantic Monthly and The Guardian. Oh, how I miss Mclure's and Colliers!

 

[tonyb]

This is actually an accurate term, as you are constantly adding heat to already hot water just to maintain the temperature. “On demand” types should be called “cold water heaters”!

Huh. I guess I should pay no mind to the cold water pipe feeding my water heater’s tank.

 

[ChrisB]

Huh. I guess I should pay no mind to the cold water pipe feeding my water heater’s tank.

To be precise (and pedantic) it is ininitially a cold water heater as well. Drop the adjective and you cover everything.

“Hot water heater” is the term I always heard in my youth also.

 

[tonyb]

... And I'll say that any reporter, any journalist of any kind, who stomps their foot and waves their fist and claims to be "unbiased" is either a liar or a fool. Probably both.

I take it a step further to note that any reporter unmindful of his or her own biases is considerably likelier to produce unfair news coverage than are his or her counterparts possessed of greater personal insight.

It’s darn nigh impossible to take a personally detached view without knowing where one is standing in the first place.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course, there's also the problem of the reader, listener, or viewer who bellows BIASED BIASED BIASED when encountering any material that in any way contradicts their own beliefs, while declaring FAIR AND BALANCED only when they find material that agrees with those beliefs. It never occurs to such ones that their personal views on media and other matters might be based on their own particular deep-held biases.

 

[3fingers]

In my lifetime I don't believe I have witnessed any national news that could be judged truly "fair and balanced". I'm not sure as long as humans are involved that it is possible. Uncle Walter was supposedly the most trusted man in America in his day, but he had his issues.
What passes for news today is dreadful regardless of the viewpoint of the viewer.
We no longer watch television news on any channel because of this.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The era of the Fairness Doctrine was as close as we'll ever get in this country to having a genuinely "fair" form of media. Broadcasters for decades were required by law to offer equal time for discussion of all sides of controversial issues -- until that doctrine was undermined and then abolished to satisfy the demands of political and commercial interests for whom that sort of equal-time requirement was considered too much of a burden and too disadvantageous to the points of view they wanted presented. We see the results of that decision before us.

 

[vitanola]

To be precise (and pedantic) it is ininitially a cold water heater as well. Drop the adjective and you cover everything.

“Hot water heater” is the term I always heard in my youth also.

In my day we called them "Range Boilers" and "Sidearm Heaters".

 

[tonyb]

Of course, there's also the problem of the reader, listener, or viewer who bellows BIASED BIASED BIASED when encountering any material that in any way contradicts their own beliefs, while declaring FAIR AND BALANCED only when they find material that agrees with those beliefs. It never occurs to such ones that their personal views on media and other matters might be based on their own particular deep-held biases.

All communication is a two-way exchange. About all we might reasonably expect is for people to be as honest (or not) as we are ourselves.

A dose of introspection wouldn’t hurt, either. I suspect that if people were being straight with themselves, they’d know they don’t REALLY want the straight dope, to the extent it exists at all. We take great comfort in our fictions. The danger is in not recognizing that fiction is what it is. .

 

[GHT]

In my lifetime I don't believe I have witnessed any national news that could be judged truly "fair and balanced". I'm not sure as long as humans are involved that it is possible. Uncle Walter was supposedly the most trusted man in America in his day, but he had his issues.
What passes for news today is dreadful regardless of the viewpoint of the viewer.
We no longer watch television news on any channel because of this.

This is true of British TV too. The BBC was once a paragon of fairness giving equal time to opposing political view points, refraining from adjectives that implied an agreement or disagreement. But over time, with staff changes, those now in control have a political bias and their own agenda. Like you, I haven't watched news on TV for many a year.

 

[Edward]

The era of the Fairness Doctrine was as close as we'll ever get in this country to having a genuinely "fair" form of media. Broadcasters for decades were required by law to offer equal time for discussion of all sides of controversial issues -- until that doctrine was undermined and then abolished to satisfy the demands of political and commercial interests for whom that sort of equal-time requirement was considered too much of a burden and too disadvantageous to the points of view they wanted presented. We see the results of that decision before us.

The UK has long retained the obligation of impartiality. It's far from perfect, but it certainly means that broadcast new here is far and away ore reliable than the cesspit print journalism (physical or online) has become.

This is true of British TV too. The BBC was once a paragon of fairness giving equal time to opposing political view points, refraining from adjectives that implied an agreement or disagreement. But over time, with staff changes, those now in control have a political bias and their own agenda. Like you, I haven't watched news on TV for many a year.

THe BBC - like all other UK broadcasters - is bound by the requirement of impartiality. There certainly are difficulties in applying it, as a lot depends on interpretation, and sometimes even dear old Auntie Beeb is overly cautious or just gets it wrong. The regularity with which the BBC is viciously denounced from all sides, however, does tend to rather support the notion that most of the time they're getting it right.

 

[tonyb]

I'm especially fond of this new wave of spam that has a header like "You Are My Victim," and opens with "Dear Victim," before going on to tell me that he's captured my (non-existent) web cam and has footage of me enjoying porn that he'll share with alll my contacts if I don't send him $500 in bitcoins. Personally, I think he's in league with that bonehead plumber.

Got two of those today on my business email. I read the first sentence or two and took maybe five seconds to scan the rest before deleting.

 

[HanauMan]

THe BBC - like all other UK broadcasters - is bound by the requirement of impartiality. There certainly are difficulties in applying it, as a lot depends on interpretation, and sometimes even dear old Auntie Beeb is overly cautious or just gets it wrong. The regularity with which the BBC is viciously denounced from all sides, however, does tend to rather support the notion that most of the time they're getting it right.

Really? The BBC impartial? Have you ever watched their political editor Laura Kuenssberg on prime time news? Or their US reporter Jon Sopel?