PeterG wrote:I'd be interested in hearing from other thread participants whether or not they think it is possible for a news source to be credible if it represents values that oppose their own. If so, what are examples of such news sources?
I believe it is possible. The news source I mentioned on page 1, The Economist, is an example.
what you're describing used to be widely considered "professional" behavior, i.e., fulfilling one's job, putting personal opinions and beliefs to the side.
JFK was an example, in my life, of a politician who was Catholic, but did not attempt to push Catholicism as a state religion. not precisely apples-to-apples, but, i hope, an acceptable example, anyway.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
temporal1 wrote:boot, you seem to -love- all the world's wisdom.
when your theories and beliefs fall apart, you head for God's Kingdom, to stave off (what you can't win or deny) suggesting others are less-than.
there is faith. there is faith of convenience.
None of this was any kind of I statement. When we project and decide for others, it really is not putting the other person first.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
ken_sylvania wrote:In this case, I consider the NY Times' reporting to be more credible than the article in TheBlaze.
Let's see if this article will blow up MN like it did my facebook page. No, they were not thought of because of the $15 an hour issue. These have been in the works, but now they are a priority. MD has decided to move forward and implement them.
Technology will replace many jobs. This is the meaning of this article to me. The more people demand higher wages, the more it pushes employers to use technology and efficiency to eliminate jobs. Brick making is still done by hand in many countries. Why? Because they can pay people to do it and still make money. They are not made by hand in the US because it is not economical to do so. Many brick makers have been replaced by one machine operator. Those jobs will not come back. Maybe that is a good thing, but the reality is that companies will replace high paid (overpaid) workers if they can. So the article is true. It is a response, although it has been a response to the raising cost of labor for a while. I suspect the CEO was reactionary in his response, but the trend is true. All businesses do it.
i'm not sure i'm understanding all you're saying here (?)
in addition to your points, i suspect higher wages for entry level and laborer jobs so-pushed by the upper echelons - is to incentivize employers to choose technology over laborers.
those invested in profits from technology MUST have a market for what they have to sell!
cheap labor IS their competition! domestic or overseas.
in the process, these greedy ones get to claim their love for laborers, by loudly pushing for "higher wages." i'm not buyin' it.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
temporal1 wrote:boot, you seem to -love- all the world's wisdom.
when your theories and beliefs fall apart, you head for God's Kingdom, to stave off (what you can't win or deny) suggesting others are less-than.
there is faith. there is faith of convenience.
None of this was any kind of I statement. When we project and decide for others, it really is not putting the other person first.
agree.
can you help me find better words?
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
temporal1 wrote:boot, you seem to -love- all the world's wisdom.
when your theories and beliefs fall apart, you head for God's Kingdom, to stave off (what you can't win or deny) suggesting others are less-than.
there is faith. there is faith of convenience.
None of this was any kind of I statement. When we project and decide for others, it really is not putting the other person first.
Robert wrote:
Technology will replace many jobs. This is the meaning of this article to me. The more people demand higher wages, the more it pushes employers to use technology and efficiency to eliminate jobs. Brick making is still done by hand in many countries. Why? Because they can pay people to do it and still make money. They are not made by hand in the US because it is not economical to do so. Many brick makers have been replaced by one machine operator. Those jobs will not come back. Maybe that is a good thing, but the reality is that companies will replace high paid (overpaid) workers if they can. So the article is true. It is a response, although it has been a response to the raising cost of labor for a while. I suspect the CEO was reactionary in his response, but the trend is true. All businesses do it.
I agree. It would be interesting to discuss whether the standard of living that many of us enjoy is possible without replacing manual labor with machines, and if it is, how to decide when to replace manual labor with machines, and when not to. That would be a topic for another thread.
I think the major news sources are usually credible: New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, etc. As they are big businesses (except for NPR), they usually have a main-stream big business slant, as well as somewhat restricted interests. I find it helpful to round out my news with sources from the left and right, as well as foreign sources such as BBC and Al Jazeera, as well as Christian sources such as Mennonite World Review.
I expect we all, maybe with more research on the sources we personally prefer, could find examples of not credible reporting in most sources. But I think that's rare if we keep the difference between opinion pieces and news straight.
Although we may see an interesting account on Facebook first, this is NOT a credible source! People pass on old and false "news" all the time.
I think there is an important source we must defer to first: the Good News of Biblical teaching.
Some questions we would do well to ask ourselves:
-First act of the morning, do I pick up my Bible and spend time in it; or do I get online or pick up a newspaper first?
-When faced with a situation or choice, do I research the Bible first or research secular sources first?
The Bible has objective Truth that challenges and anchors my day in that Truth. Secular News sources are replete with moral relativism and political agendas.
By choosing to go first to my Bible, I'm placing my faith first in the priority list for life's situations and how to address those situations ... rather than using secular sources for those same situations and being tossed on every ideological wave of politics or cultural political correctness.
My faith isn't a convenience or cultural identity it's my daily life breathed in the presence of Jesus and His objective Truth. Do I always get it right? Of course not: the important consideration here is whether I TRY to get it right by going first to my Bible as a living source for my discipleship.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35 Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
What is "Biblical teaching"? It's certainly not a news source, and many news sources which claim to be "biblical" are not at all credible news sources.
I hope I am not repeating someone else's talking points as I will admit I have not read all 13 pages of this thread but here are my thoughts on the subject, especially in light of the recent elections.
I must say that it is almost laughable for just about any of the mainline news sources to claim to be credible right now. They have exposed their bias in a shameless way and right now I for one am actually enjoying watching them running scared.
I would of had no problem with any of them declaring a preference in the election. But they went far beyond that. They were openly rooting for a winner. In several of the debates they broke rules and very definitely showed favoritism for the left. It was so obvious it was almost pathetic.
I never thought I would say it but Fox News almost looked balanced compared to most of the others and Fox News is not balanced.
So let me make a prediction of what you are in for over the next four years. The left leaning media will be acting like an injured bull. They will be throwing any resemblance of non bias media out the window and will be lashing out at the new establishment in Washington in ways like you have never seen before. And it will probably be effective. The constant anger that they will stir up will eventually be effective in rising up a backlash that will be impossible for the present government to effectively placate. How do I know this? I have seen it happen every time the right gains any type of a foothold in politics here in Canada. But I suspect anything I have ever seen will be minor compared to what is about to happen.
Based on what I have read in this thread I know some of you will disagree but all I can say is that may only show that the media has already got to you with their bias. I would suggest that you really look at what has just happened with an open mind. The crying, and anguish and just outright anger and bewilderment by most of the media should tell you just how strong the bias has been. And you really need to ask yourself whether they are sources that you can even begin to trust in the future. I might add that a very small minority of them have admitted that what they did was totally wrong and that they are at least partly responsible in an indirect way for Trump's election. The dumb, uneducated public saw through them.
The question is, Are we going to let us continually be duped by the likes of these or can we learn a lesson from this and start to be a bit more critical in our thinking? Or are we going to go to the opposite extreme and allow all those right and left wing conspiracy type Youtube sites become our primary source for news. I hope not because they are even less reliable.
I have concluded that the best one can do at this point is get as broad a view point as possible. Always try hard to find where a writer's bias is because there always is one and then read it or watch it in that light.
And finally. Recognize that while we live in this world and so to a certain extent we must know what is happening around us in order to function: in the end they (the world) can not touch us in the areas that really matter. Providing of course that we keep our primary focus on the King of Kings.
