Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

"FAIR" Reporting 10 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I've liked Spinsanity [spinsanity.org], which while not exactly doing media watchdog stuff, does cover that territory fairly regularly.

    On the topic of bias in the media, I always find those debates rather silly. Conservatives argue that the media has a "liberal" bias, which depending on your definition of liberal may well be true. Yes, it does seem that many people working in the news industry (reporters, editors) are supportive of the Democratic party. Does that make them left of center? Maybe, but only just barely, a
    • From a European point of view, both factions of the Republocrat party are rightist, with the Republican faction being far right, the Democrat faction being approximately equivalent to - say - the British Conservative party as it was in its waning years under John Major.

      But what I really object to in all these stupid arguments is the misuse of the word "liberal". If you mean "socialist", then bloody well say "socialist". But don't say "liberal". Winston Churchill, right wing old bastard that he was, was

  • Obviously the US is less right-wing (in the conservative sense) than China and Korea, but a great deal more right-wing than europe, south america, etc.

    From europe the US media looks more right ring than our Conservative party

    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
  • I like Media Matters (mediamatters.org).

    -- Douglas Hunter
    • Ovid asked for unbiased source. MediaMatters is about as partisan as you can get: it was created specifically to go after the right wing.

      It was started by David Brock, the guy who wrote the attack book on Anita Hill, but later switched sides, as told in his anti-conservative attack article, "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man," followed by a book of the same M.O., Blinded By The Right.

      As Slate [msn.com] (an online mag that definitely leans left) wrote, And here [Brock] is, back in the news again, on the same them
      • Right on about factcheck.org -- although it would be wonderful if they delivered the checks via RSS...

      • Let me second (third?) the vote for FactCheck. They're equally critical of both sides when they exaggerate or mis-state. They don't do RSS, but they do have e-mail alerts you can subscribe to.

        --

        --rjray

      • I believe that Ovid asked for an independant source of media criticism. FactCheck.org is dedicated to holding politicians accountable, not the media. I agree that they do a nice job.

        I suppose I could have pointed out that Media Matters' mission statement is to "correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", but I suspect most folks will read that themselves.

        -- Douglas Hunter
  • Global Issues [globalissues.com].

    Their focus is pretty left, but actually reading what they say, it's pretty balanced.

    I do think there's definitely an agenda at work there, but maybe you aren't going to find anyone who are really balanced. The only people who would really go to the trouble of doing research and presenting a view are those who are motivated and people who are motivated often have agendas.

    I'm going to try really hard to keep an open mind and read widely from things from that are slanted away from my own cur

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.