@2DumbKidsVideo I couldn't agree more. News is always going to be at least a little biased. It is inevitable. As far as NPR goes, I agree that federal funding might hurt it a little but also I feel that it has it's advantages too. Having secure funding seperates the need to sensationalize to get ratings. I also think that having news funded by the American public forces NPR to be as unbiased as possible. Geusts on both sides can be hit and miss, as you've said.
@Supertoptenguy On the contrary, I think it forces them to carry water for the hand that feeds, which may be from the tax payer's purse, but ultimately is decided by bureaucrats. They have already done some ridiculously heavy lifting for the Obama administration.
As well as they do with their pledge drives, I wish they would just sever themselves from federal funding completely as It would give them more freedom. They have no constitutionally legit reason to receive "federal" funding anyway.
FOX may be #1 in cable news but that doesn't mean #1 in quality. However, I find it hard to believe that you think NPR is more biased that FOX. As far as news goes, NPR is, in my opinion, the best.
@Supertoptenguy Not at all, well thought out comments like these are always welcome (and a nice surprise). As for NPR, I once felt the same way, and there are times when they surprise me (in a good way), but I feel that their federal funding often compromises their content.
Often I get the impression that they pretend to have someone from the other side on the show, but they're usually some clown that has no idea what they're talking about (from our side's perspective). Just my opinion. (Cont)
@2DumbKidsVideo Perhaps, it's just better to get your news from 2+ completely biased news sources so that you can really hear what each side has to offer... and then make up your own mind. :)
You will never remove politics from reporting. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is full of crap. Sometimes you just have to read between the lines I guess.
@2DumbKidsVideo Sorry, I don't want to spam your comments but I wasn't sure if my comment went through before. Also, sorry if I wasn't clear enough before but I think MSNBC is just as bad as FOX when it comes to biasness (is that a word?). The problem with news stations in general is that they usually try to entertain rather than inform. The process should be provide the facts first and give the opinions after. (cont.)
Why are you showing clips from FOX news? Not the best choice for creating a more aware population. Why not use stations that are more informative and less biased. Seriously, if you created this with the intention of getting people to become more informed and aware, then you fell way short of that goal. FOX news is probably the last place anyone should go for substantial news.
@Supertoptenguy Ha, you must be kidding. As if MSNBC was a model for being un-biased. Ever watch the Rachel Maddow show? Keith Olberman? HA!
I spend a great deal of time listening to all of them (Fox, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, EIB, etc...) and Fox is by far the least biased. That is, at least they find decent opposition from the left to argue their points whether they agree with them or not.
@2DumbKidsVideo@2DumbKidsVideo I personally know 4 political contributors that appear regularly on Fox / MSNBC / CNN etc. I have witnessed the staff yelling / making faces at trying to get them to look stupid during interviews so loud that you could hear it on the broadcast.
Like this one: youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=L4_wx4qkobk
Listen in the background. Interesting how when Kevin shuts down Shuster at the end, Shuster decides to cut the interview about 5 minutes short of the scheduled time.
@2DumbKidsVideo I couldn't agree more. News is always going to be at least a little biased. It is inevitable. As far as NPR goes, I agree that federal funding might hurt it a little but also I feel that it has it's advantages too. Having secure funding seperates the need to sensationalize to get ratings. I also think that having news funded by the American public forces NPR to be as unbiased as possible. Geusts on both sides can be hit and miss, as you've said.
Supertoptenguy 1 year ago
@Supertoptenguy On the contrary, I think it forces them to carry water for the hand that feeds, which may be from the tax payer's purse, but ultimately is decided by bureaucrats. They have already done some ridiculously heavy lifting for the Obama administration.
As well as they do with their pledge drives, I wish they would just sever themselves from federal funding completely as It would give them more freedom. They have no constitutionally legit reason to receive "federal" funding anyway.
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
FOX may be #1 in cable news but that doesn't mean #1 in quality. However, I find it hard to believe that you think NPR is more biased that FOX. As far as news goes, NPR is, in my opinion, the best.
Supertoptenguy 1 year ago
@Supertoptenguy Not at all, well thought out comments like these are always welcome (and a nice surprise). As for NPR, I once felt the same way, and there are times when they surprise me (in a good way), but I feel that their federal funding often compromises their content.
Often I get the impression that they pretend to have someone from the other side on the show, but they're usually some clown that has no idea what they're talking about (from our side's perspective). Just my opinion. (Cont)
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
@2DumbKidsVideo Perhaps, it's just better to get your news from 2+ completely biased news sources so that you can really hear what each side has to offer... and then make up your own mind. :)
You will never remove politics from reporting. Anyone who tells you otherwise, is full of crap. Sometimes you just have to read between the lines I guess.
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
@2DumbKidsVideo Sorry, I don't want to spam your comments but I wasn't sure if my comment went through before. Also, sorry if I wasn't clear enough before but I think MSNBC is just as bad as FOX when it comes to biasness (is that a word?). The problem with news stations in general is that they usually try to entertain rather than inform. The process should be provide the facts first and give the opinions after. (cont.)
Supertoptenguy 1 year ago
Why are you showing clips from FOX news? Not the best choice for creating a more aware population. Why not use stations that are more informative and less biased. Seriously, if you created this with the intention of getting people to become more informed and aware, then you fell way short of that goal. FOX news is probably the last place anyone should go for substantial news.
Supertoptenguy 1 year ago
@Supertoptenguy Ha, you must be kidding. As if MSNBC was a model for being un-biased. Ever watch the Rachel Maddow show? Keith Olberman? HA!
I spend a great deal of time listening to all of them (Fox, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, EIB, etc...) and Fox is by far the least biased. That is, at least they find decent opposition from the left to argue their points whether they agree with them or not.
(CONT)
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
@2DumbKidsVideo @2DumbKidsVideo I personally know 4 political contributors that appear regularly on Fox / MSNBC / CNN etc. I have witnessed the staff yelling / making faces at trying to get them to look stupid during interviews so loud that you could hear it on the broadcast.
Like this one: youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=L4_wx4qkobk
Listen in the background. Interesting how when Kevin shuts down Shuster at the end, Shuster decides to cut the interview about 5 minutes short of the scheduled time.
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago
Nice use of the cartoon "Make mine freedom." I've seen it a few times and was going to mention it here in the comments.
Question, is this a response to some anti-smoking PSA, or is someone bringing up "Smoking kills!" again?
elliott421 1 year ago
@elliott421 Thanks, didn't think anyone would notice it.
It was meant to poke fun at the anti-smoking campaign, but more so to bring light to more important issues in a way that surprises viewers.
2DumbKidsVideo 1 year ago