Newspapers Verses Blogs.

D

dreama

New Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
0
It's been stated here that Blogs are less trust worthy then newspapers. http://www.alldeaf.com/current-events/59951-body-remains-might-belong-caylee-anthonys-8.html

As I feel the issue of Blogs verses Newspaper is going off topic and has nothing to do with murdered toddlers I've decided to create my own thread for this here. Maybe the moderaters can transfere the whole of the newspaper v blogs posts here as well?
 
Hear Again said:
dreama,

bloggers have their own agena. newspapers don't.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Newspapers also have an agenda. Primarily to sell newspapers, but they also tend to support the status que wheras blogs don't.

I've had newspaper articles written about me. (I was doing volentary work as a Masseur at the time a few days a week and also I did a couple of charity treks for guide dog association)

They turned me into some kind of Helen Keller act alike. Their was a lot of things that were not actually true. I'm not sure where they got it from because I did tell them what I believed to be the truth but what came out is sort of like a 'superdeafo-blink wondergirl kind of stuff. The person they were writing about didn't exist.

Luckily in my case it wasn't done in a malicious way which isn't the case for some people. They just seemed to assume that People would be more interested in a Helen Keller actalike rather then an ordinary deafblind person with editional problems who was struggling to manage to the best of her ability.
 
dreama said:
I'm sorry but I don't agree. Newspapers also have an agenda. Primarily to sell newspapers, but they also tend to support the status que wheras blogs don't.

I've had newspaper articles written about me. (I was doing volentary work as a Masseur at the time a few days a week and also I did a couple of charity treks for guide dog association)

They turned me into some kind of Helen Keller act alike. Their was a lot of things that were not actually true. I'm not sure where they got it from because I did tell them what I believed to be the truth but what came out is sort of like a 'superdeafo-blink wondergirl kind of stuff. The person they were writing about didn't exist.

Luckily in my case it wasn't done in a malicious way which isn't the case for some people. They just seemed to assume that People would be more interested in a Helen Keller actalike rather then an ordinary deafblind person with editional problems who was struggling to manage to the best of her ability.
Click to expand...

the situation you're describing of being viewed as the next helen keller has more to do with the individual reporter who interviewed you rather than the fact that newspapers have an agenda. you can't control what a reporter writes and certainly can't make generalizations about newspapers and their intent. i've also had many newspaper articles written about me. some of them have been excellent while others have not. i simply chalk it up to the fact that there are some reporters (many, actually) who do not understand deafblindness which explains why they make me appear superhuman when i'm not.
 
I prefer the newspapers because it talks with those people who was involved with the events, while the blogs don't.
 
Hear Again said:
the situation you're describing of being viewed as the next helen keller has more to do with the individual reporter who interviewed you rather than the fact that newspapers have an agenda. you can't control what a reporter writes and certainly can't make generalizations about newspapers and their intent. i've also had many newspaper articles written about me. some of them have been excellent while others have not. i simply chalk it up to the fact that there are some reporters (many, actually) who do not understand deafblindness which explains why they make me appear superhuman when i'm not.
Click to expand...

The fact is what they wrote wasn't true.

I'm not saying all newspaper articles are bad. I'm just saying that you can't trust what you read in newspapers, any more then you can trust what you read in blogs because the newspapers wantt o sell and if things will go down better sensationalised or twisted in some way they will do just that.

I trust what I read in some blogs more then I trust what I read in some newspapers.
 
dreama said:
The fact is what they wrote wasn't true.

I'm not saying all newspaper articles are bad. I'm just saying that you can't trust what you read in newspapers, any more then you can trust what you read in blogs because the newspapers wantt o sell and if things will go down better sensationalised or twisted in some way they will do just that.

I trust what I read in some blogs more then I trust what I read in some newspapers.
Click to expand...

I trust newspaper much more than blogs anytime, anywhere. But if the blogs were written by reputable writers, then it's fine with me. Most aren't.
 
I truly don't trust either.
They do tell a story and the news. Sometimes they are not accurate or they are exaggerated,
But it is not entirely false.

Media is out to get paid.
 
I do not draw a conclusion from either. I read what they say between the lines, I note their sources, I look at their background overall.

Then I make my OWN opinions based off what I drew off the issue concept, think about what's going on, and after researching it in length, come to a conclusion of my own that is neither influenced from a blog, newspaper, or media standpoint.

One thing I want to add is: Statistical math is always a good thing to have. Sure, media spins it out of proportion, but if you understand it properly - it never lies.
 
Hmm, Newspapers and Blogs conveys the information to the public in various ways.

There's one thing about the newspaper that the blogs does not have - Newspaper tends to have the creditability while the blogs doesn't.

Sure, There are times that Media might not cover the whole story but blogs also does not cover the whole story too.

I've read various blogs over the years. Some of them were very interesting to read and some of them weren't just so cumbersome. If there are bloggers that can support their creditability, that's fine but when it comes to having a reliable source, newspapers usually are the one you go to.

Newspapers are meant to spread out the information with references whereas the blogs are only meant to state your opinion, nothing more.
 
as Dr. House always says - "Everybody lies"
 
Babyblue said:
I truly don't trust either.
They do tell a story and the news. Sometimes they are not accurate or they are exaggerated,
But it is not entirely false.

Media is out to get paid.
Click to expand...

<good posting>

I have been in the newspaper several times. At least with blogs people realize it's a subjective opinion. People often read newspapers and take them to be some sort of objective truth.

I was in a newspaper article that painted my home life much nicer than it actually is. (Not that it's awful, but that it was an airbrushed perfected version of Nika's life.) And surely enough, everyone in my school -- students and teachers -- came to me saying, "Oh I wish my parents did that! I wish I was allowed to do that!" And most of what was in the article wasn't true. I don't think that either blogs or newspapers (or newstations on the radio or TV for that matter) are completely reliable, but at least with blogs people realize it's someone's opinion. People forget that journalists are opinionated biased people too.
 
naisho,

statistical math? how does that enable someone to form a non-biased opinion? just curious.
 
Nika said:
<good posting>

I have been in the newspaper several times. At least with blogs people realize it's a subjective opinion. People often read newspapers and take them to be some sort of objective truth.
Click to expand...

That's where the heart of the problem lies I think.

I was in a newspaper article that painted my home life much nicer than it actually is. (Not that it's awful, but that it was an airbrushed perfected version of Nika's life.) And surely enough, everyone in my school -- students and teachers -- came to me saying, "Oh I wish my parents did that! I wish I was allowed to do that!" And most of what was in the article wasn't true.
Click to expand...

That must have been embarrassing.

I don't think that either blogs or newspapers (or newstations on the radio or TV for that matter) are completely reliable, but at least with blogs people realize it's someone's opinion. People forget that journalists are opinionated biased people too.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
Hear Again said:
...and how do you know that what a blogger writes is fact? answer: it's not. it's opinion. nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Of course it's the bloggers opion. Same as it's the Journalists opion. That doesn't mean it isn't true. Sometimes bloggers will write from personal experience in which case what they say generally carries more weight.
 
if given the choice, i'd rather take the word of a newspaper over an opinion expressed in a blog.
 
Hear Again said:
naisho,

statistical math? how does that enable someone to form a non-biased opinion? just curious.
Click to expand...


Statistics to sociological methodology, is like money is to working. Let me make a few similar synonyms contrats - a lot of GRE/GMAT prep I've had the past few months is still lingering in my thoughts, and I thought this would be able to explain the way I see it better:

Statistics:Sociology is to...

Religion:Martyr
Retardedness:Bigotry (I made this one up)
Equality:Manifesto
Scam:Quack

Did you get that? Basically to me, if statistics are done properly, especially thorough depending on the circumstances of the debate/subject, you have very good information regarding the outcome of people's opinions on something, or in a rhetorical sense, you could understand what is right or wrong in the sense of numbers.

For example, if we were to poll the entire US on how they viewed GWB's behavior during his stay at 8 years of the White House - this is nearly impossible, it would have to be precise with little room for mistakes. Now if you conduct the statistical data properly, centralizing it as in:

Poll Asian minorities living in California of their standpoint on GWB's term:
2,000,000 minorities polled - (exact ethincity, US citizen status, city, social status, age of respondent are extra variables that help pinpoint the answer to the cause - the more, the better). The problem is actually conducting a mass survey in statistical data - you need hope that you get your numbers as straight as possible, relying on forms of polling like phone, mail/paper, 'net polls, all have a negative effect of not producing correct answers.

80% of respondents felt that GWB did not do a good job
15% of respondents felt that GWB did OK
5% of respondents declined to choose an answer or were indifferent

of the 80% negative respondents, 50% were aged 40-60
of the 80% negative respondents, 20% were aged 18-39

of the respondents aged 40-60, 90% had an education from a 4-year college or higher

it goes into detail and then you can draw a logical conclusion like:
50%(show exact number) Asian citizens in California aged 40-60 with a 4 year education or higher dissapproved of GWB's term held in office.


In a non-domestic or politics issue type of statistical response, you can produce information easily based on what is presented to you and make sure that there are no loopholes that prove it incorrect. Such as:
Idaho produces 100,000 tons of Potatoes a year.
This year stores have reported receiving up to 40,000 tons of potatoes/ farmers have stated a natural crop disaster/drought is destroying their potatoes. (Let's make this a simple-simple statement instead of going into extra factors like other cases not accounted for)
Therefore - In the previous year, Idaho's potato production dropped 40% due to a natural disaster, with 1% accountability for other means.

The problem is, media/people tends to misuse statistics sometimes, illegally I call it in a way. Then the effect is that people don't understand it properly.

In the two examples I gave above, you'd end up seeing stuff like:
- 50% of californians polled disapproved of GWB's behavior (false, misuse of statistics due to minorities do not represent the complete CA)
- The USA lost 40% of its potato production recently due to a natural disaster in Idaho (false, IDAHO lost 40% of potatoes)

The way I see it, the correct numbers never lie, it's the words that make it do should the person report them erroneously.
 
I like to quote the musical "Jekyll and Hyde" on situations like these.

"There are preachers who kill,
There are killers who preach,
There are teachers who lie,
There are liars who teach."

As far as I'm concerned, newspapers are more reliable. Granted, there are some journalists and some newspapers that have agendas, but there are very few bloggers that don't. The fact that some newspapers might be biased does not change the fact that most bloggers are.

Also, there are no requirements or restrictions on bloggers. Are there some journalists and newspapers that still abuse their position? Sure, watch Fox sometime. But the fact is, why bother blogging if you don't have an agenda, and who would care what you have to say? There are so many dependable news sources out there, I don't see why anyone would bother blogging/vlogging if they didn't have an agenda.
 
naisho said:
The problem is, media/people tends to misuse statistics sometimes, illegally I call it in a way. Then the effect is that people don't understand it properly.

In the two examples I gave above, you'd end up seeing stuff like:
- 50% of californians polled disapproved of GWB's behavior (false, misuse of statistics due to minorities do not represent the complete CA)
- The USA lost 40% of its potato production recently due to a natural disaster in Idaho (false, IDAHO lost 40% of potatoes)

The way I see it, the correct numbers never lie, it's the words that make it do should the person report them erroneously.
Click to expand...

It's interesting, because this is exactly why I don't like statistics. The numbers might not lie, but numbers by themselves have no meaning. If you just put: 50. It doesn't mean anything. Even: 50%. Of what? Take the first statement, 50% of californians polled disapproved..... It's technically true. It doesn't say "50% of californians disapproved..." It says that 50% of the ones polled. It just doesn't tell you who those are.

The numbers might not be able to lie, but they are also completely unable to present their "truths" without words, and the words are too easy to manipulate.
 
lsfoster said:
It's interesting, because this is exactly why I don't like statistics. The numbers might not lie, but numbers by themselves have no meaning. If you just put: 50. It doesn't mean anything. Even: 50%. Of what? Take the first statement, 50% of californians polled disapproved..... It's technically true. It doesn't say "50% of californians disapproved..." It says that 50% of the ones polled. It just doesn't tell you who those are.

The numbers might not be able to lie, but they are also completely unable to present their "truths" without words, and the words are too easy to manipulate.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail with the hammer. If I wasn't clear enough previously in my last post, I meant that I prefer to do my own statistical reasoning based on facts that I find.

This is why I create my own statistics myself, I don't rely on what numbers the media provided. I'll go look into the actual amount of people living in the USA, the number of cases involved, and do my own arithmetic from there.
 
Back
Top