09-23-2017, 01:04 AM
(09-22-2017, 03:14 PM)Benton Wrote: I understand. I guess I'm looking at it from the other side of the table.
Probably a fifth or so of the stories I do, I get someone complaining that they weren't covered fairly or were painted in a bad light. I used to take it personal, go back through my notes or recordings and make sure I hadn't missed something. the problem usually wasn't what was said in an interview or public meeting, it's what wasn't said because nobody said it.
Case in point, I've got a public figure who uses his office to deny services to a public entity because a few years ago they didn't consult his office and spent money in ways he didn't like. That's the nutshell. Well, every few meetings they ask for access to things they've paid for with taxpayer money, and every meeting he denies them. So every meeting that happens, I run a story saying the entity asked for whatever, and his office denied it.
Because I'm being negative? No, because it involves taxpayer money and public officials.
On the other hand, several of the phone calls, emails and letters I've gotten are pretty upset with me, not because I've printed anything false, but because I haven't searched out stories to put him in a better light.
Just out of curiosity, do you get most of your news from the internet?
The reason I'm asking is, as you probably already know, sites use your data to influence what the internet suggests for you. It happens on social media, search engines like Google, web sites. It's been a discussion for a couple years now (and more with all the fake news from the last election) in my industry on how big of an impact that's having both on perception and actual readership.
Like, say you Google "second amendment rights" a lot, and visit Breitbart a lot. Chances are, sites (in an effort to keep you coming back) are going to give you something pro-2nd based on your history. On the other hand, same Google search, but you visit HuffPo a lot, you might get something from sites on why guns are bad. In other words, to keep you coming back, sites tell you what they think you want to hear.
Which doesn't do anything to explain ESPN or the like supporting Jenner's courageous woman thing, but TV news hasn't hidden their bias since cable news went live. I realize I'm riding a dinosaur, but that's why I still get most of my news from a paper or magazine. It's more trustworthy than the internet and less polarized that television.
Yeah I do get most of my news from the net. CBS sports and PFT have probably been my top 2 sports sites for 10 years. I guess Florio has always leaned left, they've just been posting way more political themed stories for the last couple years or so. CBS used to just report on sports, but that's also changed over the last couple years.
I've had the same email (yahoo) for 12 years, so I usually wind up seeing their stories before I get to my mail. And yeah...most of their stuff is just links to articles from Huff post.
Any recommendations on neutral news and sports sites?
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
