In all the years that I have been reading the Post Star, I don't ever remember thinking that the paper was biased. I have lived in Virginia, Alabama, and Texas and read their papers also. I have found that I am reading an account of what has happened, not an opinionated story about a particular event. This BS about papers being biased is the ignorant rantings of a man-baby! All of this BS really took flight because of an over inflated ego, and so many were eager to hop on that misinformed train with him. When you ask these idiots what exactly is biased, you will never get an answer, because they REALLY don't know, they are just blindly repeating what they hear, and are simply not intelligent enough to actually figure it out for themselves. Are mistakes made? Of course, but I have always seen how quickly the Post Star has made the corrections, and publicly acknowledged it. I have supported the Post Star in the past and will continue to do so until they prove me wrong. Sorry this is so long. 😊
June - I certainly believe that you are in the majority because we always stood for getting it right and had not interest in the political games. People used to ask me where the editorial board stood on the political spectrum. I often said, we wanted to get it right.
The public has been taught that they shouldn't believe their own eyes, ears or experiences. Instead they should believe what they are told by their favorite TV station with an opinion. If what they see and hear doesn't match, somehow that has been manipulated by the news organization to fit their own agenda, not in reporting the truth. Certainly the expectation is that a journalist will get as much information as possible from all sides involved and present it ALL for others to make their own judgements. That takes a lot of work. I'm not sure if others are finding the same but it also takes courage and open mindedness to reflect on ALL of the information which many are not willing to do. I have parents that will read nothing but the New York Post and watch Fox 24/7. They would never consider listening to the Jan. 6th hearings because it is all made up or manipulated. They believe that the only people that are telling the truth are the Rush L., Hannity and Carlsons of the world. Everyone else is not only bias but liars if their narrative doesn't fit. I'm not sure how we ever get back to a world before "opinion" TV and newspapers. A place where information isn't left out or only one side is presented as convenient. Can we? The problem isn't the newspapers being biased. It is the refusal of so many to even read and consider the facts if they don't fit with what Carlson or Ingraham tell them they should believe.
I heard so often from readers “I just want the facts.” But printing the facts without context or explanation does not lead to an understanding of complicated problems. It starts with trusting journalists to do their jobs as best they can.
This post gets at the heart of the "Great Divide" with a major link to the closed mind and confirmation bias running amok. This is where Elise lives wheeling and dealing in an expert manor. If a media outlet tells the truth, the automatic response from one side of the Divide is to throw a label on it and go in the opposite direction.
In the words of Stephen Colbert, "The facts have a liberal bias"...I know he was making a joke, but what makes it funny is the truth in it. I also had a conversation recently regarding the Jan 6 hearings and a fellow said he thought it was all Trump's enemies pilling on, I reminded him that all of the witness were Republicans, and most former members of Trumps staff. To which he replied that they were all being paid off and threatened by the committee to say what they saw. I am aware that we all suffer from confirmation bias, we shine a light on that we are inclined to agree with. Turning to another funny guy, John Cleese who opined that some are too stupid to know that are stupid. I wish I saw a way out, but it seems to be getting worse.
When you’ve got people who believe Democrats are Satan worshipping, baby blood drinking pedophiles I’m pretty sure believing formerly loyal Trump supporting staffers are being “paid off” by the J6 committee is a low bar to clear.
Or not. I don’t even know where I first came across it and my media consumption is pretty milktoast.
It’s funny, but I probably spend more time reading NeverTrump conservatives than anything else. Highly recommend Bulwark every morning. ❤️ Tim Miller, Charley Sykes and all the writers there. Grown fond of Michael Gerson at the Washington Post as well who sadly may not be with us much longer. I believe he received a pretty serious cancer diagnosis.
A journalist's job is to present the facts and findings. Unfortunately, many times, it reveals transgressions, lies, falsehoods and misleading statements by the politicians/businesses/people. The most recent example is Trump. It has been proven that he is a prolific liar. But, those who like Trump, don't like hearing that and therefore, label newspapers who report the truth as "being on the other side," or as liberal. I'd rather think that over the years, journalists do so much digging and so much fact-finding that the truth-twisting points to those who violate it the most. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/
Thank you, Ken...I do believe you and the Post Star (and local newspapers, of which we have fewer and fewer) do play it straight, trying to give balanced coverage and do reality checks and have different points of view. I know that the "conservatives" talk about bias, two sides, right down the center..., but i think of thoughtful and factual, raising issues and questions, giving a broad perspective. I know that BBC and Democracy Now are both rated "fair and unbiased." And,clearly, Fox is not, the only station that cannot even mention the relation between our catastrophic disasters and carbon emissions in their weather reports. I also know that the "accusation" of bias often makes a paper or t.v. person talk "republican points"--like they do now, going on about inflation and crime, promoting (as they did) the Iraq war (even though the majority of people around the world questioned our "facts" about weapons of mass destruction) and giving Trump much more coverage than Hilary when they were running. I read Ralph Bunch, Heather Cox Richardson and about 7 others...because i want to hear different points of view, want an historical perspective.....And a question: is the telling of history "biased" if it is accurate in its portrayal, for example, of CIA action in Chile, Central America, Africa? And do two sides mean that an anti-semite and a Jew or a Klan member and a person of color each should have equal time. The now REpublicans are not "conservative"--they are conspiracy theorists and Trump loyalists...There is a reality, there are facts, there are intentional lies and propaganda. It's a hard line, but i think the Post Star does well. As an aside: i really love to learn what i don't know and so, I believe, am open to other points of view. But again, the "right wing" becomes so vocal--without evidence--of bias that often commentators adopt their script...
I feel newspapers have to more aggressively check the facts because today we have so many deniers of the truth. They continue to spout the big lie that our last election was not a valid one.
In all the years that I have been reading the Post Star, I don't ever remember thinking that the paper was biased. I have lived in Virginia, Alabama, and Texas and read their papers also. I have found that I am reading an account of what has happened, not an opinionated story about a particular event. This BS about papers being biased is the ignorant rantings of a man-baby! All of this BS really took flight because of an over inflated ego, and so many were eager to hop on that misinformed train with him. When you ask these idiots what exactly is biased, you will never get an answer, because they REALLY don't know, they are just blindly repeating what they hear, and are simply not intelligent enough to actually figure it out for themselves. Are mistakes made? Of course, but I have always seen how quickly the Post Star has made the corrections, and publicly acknowledged it. I have supported the Post Star in the past and will continue to do so until they prove me wrong. Sorry this is so long. 😊
June - I certainly believe that you are in the majority because we always stood for getting it right and had not interest in the political games. People used to ask me where the editorial board stood on the political spectrum. I often said, we wanted to get it right.
The public has been taught that they shouldn't believe their own eyes, ears or experiences. Instead they should believe what they are told by their favorite TV station with an opinion. If what they see and hear doesn't match, somehow that has been manipulated by the news organization to fit their own agenda, not in reporting the truth. Certainly the expectation is that a journalist will get as much information as possible from all sides involved and present it ALL for others to make their own judgements. That takes a lot of work. I'm not sure if others are finding the same but it also takes courage and open mindedness to reflect on ALL of the information which many are not willing to do. I have parents that will read nothing but the New York Post and watch Fox 24/7. They would never consider listening to the Jan. 6th hearings because it is all made up or manipulated. They believe that the only people that are telling the truth are the Rush L., Hannity and Carlsons of the world. Everyone else is not only bias but liars if their narrative doesn't fit. I'm not sure how we ever get back to a world before "opinion" TV and newspapers. A place where information isn't left out or only one side is presented as convenient. Can we? The problem isn't the newspapers being biased. It is the refusal of so many to even read and consider the facts if they don't fit with what Carlson or Ingraham tell them they should believe.
I heard so often from readers “I just want the facts.” But printing the facts without context or explanation does not lead to an understanding of complicated problems. It starts with trusting journalists to do their jobs as best they can.
This post gets at the heart of the "Great Divide" with a major link to the closed mind and confirmation bias running amok. This is where Elise lives wheeling and dealing in an expert manor. If a media outlet tells the truth, the automatic response from one side of the Divide is to throw a label on it and go in the opposite direction.
That seems to be about it. Our readers used to trust it, but now they trust the politicians who often lie. That is exactly where we are.
Thanks Ken for these kinds of posts especially the ones on Elise.
You are welcome.
In the words of Stephen Colbert, "The facts have a liberal bias"...I know he was making a joke, but what makes it funny is the truth in it. I also had a conversation recently regarding the Jan 6 hearings and a fellow said he thought it was all Trump's enemies pilling on, I reminded him that all of the witness were Republicans, and most former members of Trumps staff. To which he replied that they were all being paid off and threatened by the committee to say what they saw. I am aware that we all suffer from confirmation bias, we shine a light on that we are inclined to agree with. Turning to another funny guy, John Cleese who opined that some are too stupid to know that are stupid. I wish I saw a way out, but it seems to be getting worse.
When you’ve got people who believe Democrats are Satan worshipping, baby blood drinking pedophiles I’m pretty sure believing formerly loyal Trump supporting staffers are being “paid off” by the J6 committee is a low bar to clear.
Are your sure about the “baby blood drinking pedophiles” part. I had not heard that one yet.
You hadn’t heard that liberal politicians and Hollywood elites are harvesting the blood of babies to get adrenochrome to stay young?
Personally, I just rely on diet and exercise.
I’ve got to broaden my media consumption.
Or not. I don’t even know where I first came across it and my media consumption is pretty milktoast.
It’s funny, but I probably spend more time reading NeverTrump conservatives than anything else. Highly recommend Bulwark every morning. ❤️ Tim Miller, Charley Sykes and all the writers there. Grown fond of Michael Gerson at the Washington Post as well who sadly may not be with us much longer. I believe he received a pretty serious cancer diagnosis.
Also, Tim Miller’s book is outstanding. I took it out of the library so it’s available there. Our dishonorable congresswoman even gets a few mentions.
A journalist's job is to present the facts and findings. Unfortunately, many times, it reveals transgressions, lies, falsehoods and misleading statements by the politicians/businesses/people. The most recent example is Trump. It has been proven that he is a prolific liar. But, those who like Trump, don't like hearing that and therefore, label newspapers who report the truth as "being on the other side," or as liberal. I'd rather think that over the years, journalists do so much digging and so much fact-finding that the truth-twisting points to those who violate it the most. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/
Thank you, Ken...I do believe you and the Post Star (and local newspapers, of which we have fewer and fewer) do play it straight, trying to give balanced coverage and do reality checks and have different points of view. I know that the "conservatives" talk about bias, two sides, right down the center..., but i think of thoughtful and factual, raising issues and questions, giving a broad perspective. I know that BBC and Democracy Now are both rated "fair and unbiased." And,clearly, Fox is not, the only station that cannot even mention the relation between our catastrophic disasters and carbon emissions in their weather reports. I also know that the "accusation" of bias often makes a paper or t.v. person talk "republican points"--like they do now, going on about inflation and crime, promoting (as they did) the Iraq war (even though the majority of people around the world questioned our "facts" about weapons of mass destruction) and giving Trump much more coverage than Hilary when they were running. I read Ralph Bunch, Heather Cox Richardson and about 7 others...because i want to hear different points of view, want an historical perspective.....And a question: is the telling of history "biased" if it is accurate in its portrayal, for example, of CIA action in Chile, Central America, Africa? And do two sides mean that an anti-semite and a Jew or a Klan member and a person of color each should have equal time. The now REpublicans are not "conservative"--they are conspiracy theorists and Trump loyalists...There is a reality, there are facts, there are intentional lies and propaganda. It's a hard line, but i think the Post Star does well. As an aside: i really love to learn what i don't know and so, I believe, am open to other points of view. But again, the "right wing" becomes so vocal--without evidence--of bias that often commentators adopt their script...
I feel newspapers have to more aggressively check the facts because today we have so many deniers of the truth. They continue to spout the big lie that our last election was not a valid one.
That takes time and resources that newspapers no longer have. And the politicians know that.