Has Anyone Tried 1440 News? (Is It Actually Unbiased?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fox is ok, I miss Sunday mornings with Chris Wallace.

I don’t think that the source of the news matters as much as being able to think independently and look beyond the sensational headlines, sound bites, etc…
 
Paladin1950 said:
In that case, it must be a thousand times better than Fox News and Newsmax, the two worst and most one sided news outlets in the country.
Click to expand...
Joy-Ann Reid, who kicks off MSNBC's evening lineup, is an anti-Semitic homophobe who lied repeatedly in stating that her online posts were the work of a mysterious hacker. MSNBC commentator and guest Al Sharpton is a virulent anti-Semite and race baiter, responsible for inciting riots and multiple other misdeeds.

CNN has paid millions in defamation lawsuits (yes, so has Fox) and played a lead role in the Russia collusion hoax. CNN's Donna Brazile passed debate questions in advance to the Democratic candidate. CNN anchors Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon had to resign in disgrace.

I don't watch any of them, left or right. They are all grotesquely biased and staffed by wretched people.
 

VaughanJB said:
You know, it is my belief there are no unbiased news services. Even in the best of them, money is running the engine, and that will dictate things (no site can afford to have zero visitors). Wages must be paid, commissions done.

For me it's not whether bias exists, but whether I'm *aware* of said bias or not. Few so called news sites actual generate stories. They pick them up from Reuters, or other news sites. True journalism is dead. Instead it's spin or opinion based on other peoples work (or worse, a tweet, Facebook post, or other Social Media nonsense).

The key is journalism, not publication. Who is doing the actual work? I'm not talking about pundits and hosts, I'm talking about investigators and journalists. Far too few sites do it right. I've no idea if this is one of them, but doubt is raised.

We also can't remove ourselves from the equation. We tend, as humans, to like/believe things that agree with our personal beliefs. We agree with things we like, and disagree with things we don't like. Add to the mix the general hatred toward "left" and "right", and you have a difficult situation.

Still, the old saying is true -follow the money. 1440 seems to be run by a Phd scientist, and "venture capitalists". It's the latter that will doing the driving.
Click to expand...
It's just a matter of time.
 
CallMeKate said:
This post was written in the summer of '23 and somehow got resurrected again yesterday. 🤭 I don't even know if this place is still in operation.
Click to expand...
Ground News is a good one, at least for weeding out garbage.

What they do is run "both side's" reports on major stories so you can decide what rings true and what's obviously BS.
Often, just comparing the headlines is enough.
 
chic said:
It's just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

You know, I recently posted about an issue with Youtube. I watched video on the rock band Kiss, and I was drowning in video recommendations. This brought to mind the echo chamber effect. The algorithms recommend what they think you'll like - based on previous things you've watched. The goal is "engagement". Now, if the subject was something political, rather than a rock band, you can see how people can start to believe everyone else thinks as they do. It's group think. And it's encouraged.
 
Have you got a smart phone? That is enough to be on your way to becoming 1's and 0's. If you think that those algorithms are just counting your clicks your underestimating their capabilities. They teach each other now. They are figuring super complex mathematical feats that would take months to figure, a second or less. You have to become proactive with AI. You have to teach it what to do. Don' t let it move you in ways you don't want to be moved. You do this by the words you use to search, anywhere, and by messaging on big social platforms. I don't think many bots are interested in a few hundred "normal" seniors. :)
 
Paco Dennis said:
Have you got a smart phone? That is enough to be on your way to becoming 1's and 0's. If you think that those algorithms are just counting your clicks your underestimating their capabilities. They teach each other now. They are figuring super complex mathematical feats that would take months to figure, a second or less. You have to become proactive with AI. You have to teach it what to do. Don' t let it move you in ways you don't want to be moved. You do this by the words you use to search, anywhere, and by messaging on big social platforms. I don't think many bots are interested in a few hundred "normal" seniors. :)
Click to expand...

Hey, some complain about "big brother" and surveillance, but pay to have Alexa in their house. :D
 
Murrmurr said:
There's a rapidly increasing number of fact-seekers who are willing to shell out subscription money for facts.

I don't think biased reporting will last much longer.
Click to expand...

Irishdude said:
Joy-Ann Reid, who kicks off MSNBC's evening lineup, is an anti-Semitic homophobe who lied repeatedly in stating that her online posts were the work of a mysterious hacker. MSNBC commentator and guest Al Sharpton is a virulent anti-Semite and race baiter, responsible for inciting riots and multiple other misdeeds.

CNN has paid millions in defamation lawsuits (yes, so has Fox) and played a lead role in the Russia collusion hoax. CNN's Donna Brazile passed debate questions in advance to the Democratic candidate. CNN anchors Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon had to resign in disgrace.

I don't watch any of them, left or right. They are all grotesquely biased and staffed by wretched people.
Click to expand...
Sadly, the news media has done this to themselves. They have blown their credibility to heck and they did it to themselves. One example, recently, we found that a major network altered replies to interview questions of a candidate, not just a bit, but entirely changed the reply. How in the world can we trust them? I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Murrmurr said:
Ground News is a good one, at least for weeding out garbage.

What they do is run "both side's" reports on major stories so you can decide what rings true and what's obviously BS.
Often, just comparing the headlines is enough.
Click to expand...
Saw some of the vids on the hurricane damage. Pretty straight forward with video and they let the interviewee speak.

Doubt there is one source nor should there be just one go to site.
 
Brookswood said:
Sadly, the news media has done this to themselves. They have blown their credibility to heck and they did it to themselves. One example, recently, we found that a major network altered replies to interview questions of a candidate, not just a bit, but entirely changed the reply. How in the world can we trust them? I don't know.
Click to expand...

The question is, whom do you trust instead? Too many people (can't say for yourself), the answer is group think on social media, the true source is which is never mentioned. Why is it some people (again, not saying you) distrust media, but are happy to believe some self-appointed influencer?
 
Brookswood said:
Sadly, the news media has done this to themselves. They have blown their credibility to heck and they did it to themselves. One example, recently, we found that a major network altered replies to interview questions of a candidate, not just a bit, but entirely changed the reply. How in the world can we trust them? I don't know.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about and what is a trusted source for this statement?
 
VaughanJB said:
The question is, whom do you trust instead? Too many people (can't say for yourself), the answer is group think on social media, the true source is which is never mentioned. Why is it some people (again, not saying you) distrust media, but are happy to believe some self-appointed influencer?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand influencers. Who says any of these self-appointed influencers know any more about anything than you and I do.

One gauge I use when it comes to who can I trust is how often the person indicates that they are unsure, not completely certain, or otherwise cast doubt on their own thinking. Bonus points for saying “I goofed. I was wrong four years ago when I predicted Senator Scuttlebutt would be the next President” or they admit they left out an important fact. Those in the know, know that they can and will be wrong. The more certain they are the more I doubt them.
 
Last edited:
I had 1440 show up in my emails for a while. I was interested of course, so I looked through a couple of articles. Maybe I didn't stay long enough, but I thought the articles lacked real meat. Reporting anything today using standards of journalistic integrity, is bound to irritate, offend, or undermine those with selfish motivations. In order to be considered unbiased today, a news outlet must avoid reporting truth, because some will not like to hear it.
 
Jules said:
What are you talking about and what is a trusted source for this statement?
Click to expand...
My opinion based upon my observations.
Especially when they report on something I know about. And they get it wrong or more often leave out information that does not support the conclusions on the story.
 
Last edited:
Brookswood said:
My opinion based upon my observations.
Especially when they report on something I know about. And they get it wrong or more often leave out information that does not support the conclusions on the story.
Click to expand...
Brookswood said:
we found that a major network altered replies to interview questions of a candidate, not just a bit, but entirely changed the reply.
Click to expand...

Having your own opinion is fine.
Stating that a network changed replies is a strong statement that should be backed up with facts.
 
1440 is actually not a bad source for getting a brief summary of what's going on at the moment, and often, that's all we need. And they do have links back to the source. But they don't report; they just summarize. And I wouldn't be surprised if they were using A.I. to do the summaries.
 
Brookswood said:
Sadly, the news media has done this to themselves. They have blown their credibility to heck and they did it to themselves. One example, recently, we found that a major network altered replies to interview questions of a candidate, not just a bit, but entirely changed the reply. How in the world can we trust them? I don't know.
Click to expand...

Jules said:
What are you talking about and what is a trusted source for this statement?
Click to expand...

There are no trusted sources.

Jules said:
Having your own opinion is fine.
Stating that a network changed replies is a strong statement that should be backed up with facts.
Click to expand...

The evidence is from the network itself ....a promo clip and the aired interview. In each, the interviewee was asked a question, but the two answers are radically different; the first was rambling and nonsensical, the second concise. It's possible that the concise, aired interview answer may have been the concluding statement to a longer rambling answer than included the nonsensical promo published bit, but without being able to see unedited footage, @Brookswood 's observations from the two different videos are justified.

(God save the US from rambling, nonsensical Presidential candidates! That appears to be the new criteria for winning the top two party candidacies going by the last two elections.)
 
Last edited:
Jules said:
What are you talking about and what is a trusted source for this statement?
Click to expand...
This was 60 Minutes, last week.


Harris '60 Minutes' interview faces backlash over edits

If you want another example, there's the attempt by Tony Doukoupil of CBS to conduct an interview with Ta-Nehesi Coates, which has turned into a major controversy. Coates managed to write an entire (short) book about the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza without mentioning October 7 or Hamas, and Doukoupil pushed him on it. As a result, he has been reprimanded and subjected to "study sessions" by management.

CBS' handling of contentious 'Mornings' segment with Ta-Nehisi Coates raises new questions
 
I'm meeting more and more people who live in a media bubble. If they are on the right, they watch Fox exclusively (Newsmax if they are really out there). If they are on the left, it's MSNBC all the time. They scroll through right or left wing websites and follow right or left wing people on Facebook, Instagram or X. They only talk to people who share their opinions.

I make an effort to get out. I read books by both liberal and conservative authors, I read liberal and conservative op-eds, and watch PBS and NBC Nightly News, which I would describe as "mainstream liberal." I read the Wall Street Journal but also the New York Times, at least sometimes. The only really "balanced" reporting I see is on CNBC, which covers non-business news pretty objectively, at least in my view.

As a result, I'm totally befuddled. I actively dislike both candidates and I'm not sure at all what the best course for the country is. I think that closed borders, balanced budgets, strong national defense, low crime rates (accompanied by criminal justice reform) and a prosperous economy are all good things, but no one seems interested in those concepts.
 
Jules said:
Having your own opinion is fine.
Stating that a network changed replies is a strong statement that should be backed up with facts.
Click to expand...
It's hard to make it clearer without naming the politician involved and getting into the political mud and weeds. So just do a search yourself on something like CBS changes answers on interview and see for yourself. There are also examples of both answers on Youtube showing the network broadcasting one reply on Sunday and another later that week.

The issue here is not the politician. Presumably the politician(s) have no control over how networks edit an interview before serving it out to the public. The issue for me is how the network chose to edit the politician's responses. I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Foolish me?
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top