Morning thought

I’d rather read legitimate news that reinforces a belief I have than listen to a pundit express the same opinion I have.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Morning thought

  1. Mornin’ Hanlon

    Sorry to start off so OT, but I have a thought, too. Have you ever wondered why it is that rightwing asshats think it’s so important that they run around to places, where they know nobody likes them or cares what they think, and spout their drivel in the comments sections? Isn’t that just the most peculiar thing? I mean, if they have such strong opinions you’d think they’d just start their own blog or website, wouldn’t you? Perhaps they really don’t have as much to say as they’d like us to believe, or they have a hard time expressing a coherent thought unless someone else spoon-feeds them the subject. It’s a poser!

    Now, as to your post, I agree and would even say that I would rather read ANY legitimate, unbiased news, even that which is contrary to my beliefs. At least if I knew I wasn’t hearing or reading information that had been skewed left or right I could make an informed decision for myself. As it is, I spend more time analyzing what it is I think the “legitimate” news wants me to believe than the actual news itself.

    • LOL, never pulling punches!

      Honestly I like having a contrasting voice here now and again. Keeps the comments rolling! Every so often we get a couple, and I wouldn’t mind more. Discussion is never a bad thing, you know? As long as we can all do it in a respectful tone (BOTH ways), then I will never tell anyone they aren’t welcome here.

  2. Most people would. The problem is that most people would rather listen to a pundit reinforce their opinions than read legitimate news that contradicts that opinion.

    • Also a great point. I suppose it’s a bit of a blow to the ego to have someone basically say “that thing you’ve been out there fist-pumping about? It’s factually incorrect.”

      Then again, maybe if we didn’t always treat these things like a game of football, people wouldn’t have to feel ashamed or embarrassed about being wrong.

  3. If the source doesn’t report both sides’ positions truthfully, then what makes it “legitimate”? Much of what passes for mainstream media is in fact punditry with a mere pretense of objectivity.

    The way I see it, you don’t actually get much exposure to news sources that report the opposing viewpoint accurately.

    • You know, I’d hoped that you could have at least agreed with the spirit of the post that objective news is more inherently satisfying than blind punditry, but I guess that agreeing with me ever is just off the table for you.

      And regardless, “reporting both sides truthfully” is one of those things that gets twisted so often. Unless I get to see every single religious comment tampered with a calm-faced reporter saying “the flip side is that God may not exist at all”, I do not want to hear any yammering about reporting both sides.

      Sometimes both sides aren’t equal. I don’t want to hear some Tea Party nutjob screeching about how “ObamaCare” will kill old people, and I don’t want to hear some ALF maniac telling me that it’d be better to let a million people die of swine flu than test a vaccine on pigs.

      • Of course Obamacare will kill old people. Taking care of old people is very expensive, and cutting that expense will obviously cost lives.

        If you want to make your own decision about whether such a price is worth paying to cover the uninsured, then that’s objective news.

        But if you want feel-good reporting to reinforce your belief that we really can get something for nothing, then that’s just punditry in disguise.

      • No, cutting Medicare, Medicaid, gutting/privatizing social security and repealing the few meager consumer protections against the health-insurance industry the Obama administration managed to get passed will kill old people (among others) – the Republican plan as far as I can tell at this point.

        Since the health-care reform legislation saves more money than the ultimate repeal of said bill, I don’t know why you would even bring up “something for nothing” — I don’t see where anyone else mentioned it.

      • “the Republican plan as far as I can tell at this point.”

        Link to the Republican site where you found that, please. Otherwise, it’s just more leftist spin.

      • “Since the health-care reform legislation saves more money than the ultimate repeal of said bill”

        And that’s just plain nonsense, bitch. The “savings” of the legislation were fiction, and the savings of repeal are real.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s