11/07/2009 03:25:02 AM EST

Is the Young Turks the most balanced show in america no the world

posted by savanasathre

What would you rate TyT Balanced wise

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
on balance if Fox is 88% right and Rachel Maddow 37% to the left were would you put TyT I would say 61% to the left and not by if they ask both sides and critizissing but also giving and showing who they interview afton they show tons of left wing authors and etc... but if you dissagre with me hey help a brother out im only 13 and swedish Thx
< Congrats TYT on the Protest supporting the Public Option, but why wasn't it on a weekend? | Push >

Poll

How balanced is TyT
50% to the right 5%
10%Right 5%
10%left 20%
30%left 10%
48%left 15%
67%left 25%
78%left 10%
90%left 5%
99%left 5%
Perfectly Balanced 0% to both ways 0%

Votes: 20
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Is the Young Turks the most balanced show in america no the world | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
American Maybe; World No (none / 0)
The best news organization in the world right now is Al-Jazeera English.  They have commentators and experts from all over the world who actually know what they are talking about.  .

by sampson on 11/07/2009 07:12:26 AM EST

Are you kidding? (none / 1)
BBC is much better than Al-Jazeera. Much more independent and balanced and much bigger pool of reporters all over the world.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/07/2009 07:40:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, no way (none / 0)
No way in hell, oppo :)

Al Jazeera English is the best by a country mile.

And a goodly number of ex-BBC (and ex-CBC) employees now work for Al Jazeera English.

by RedPossum on 11/07/2009 10:17:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
BBC have worked on their reputation for many decades now an Al-Jazeera is the new kid on the block. So far they are doing a good job, but they will need a lot of time to earn the trust the BBC deserves.

No company will ever surpass the editorial standarts of the BBC. There is a reason why Al-Jazeera employes journalists who were trained by the BBC.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/07/2009 10:39:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0)
BBC is far better  

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/07/2009 06:42:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
people in UK (none / 0)
The british people have become more dissatisfied with BBC in the last 10 years.  It doesn't have the same credibility that it used to.  

by sampson on 11/07/2009 11:15:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0)
When I was in the UK it seemed to me that people always went to the BBC when they wanted serious information and their website is one of the most popular in the UK.

Of course their was criticism, and this criticism might be more verbal than 10 years ago. Still, look at the "scandals" of recent years. A teaser for a docu about the Queen was edited to make a wrong impression, Russel Brand admitts that he has slept with a woman and Clarkson makes a joke about prostitutes.
People were outraged about these things, because they expect the Beeb to be perfect.

PS: Just one week until a new season of Top Gear starts. Post watershed.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/08/2009 05:36:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, yes (none / 0)
That would be "more vocal than 10 years ago". (Don’t mention it : >) ) The BBC World Service just did a piece on the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the age of oil, with the drilling of the first well in 1859. You might think they would link it to the approaching decline in the availability of oil, or at least the continuing decline in US crude supply, or the plummeting decline in supply in Mexico. But no, it was linked to the investment in a railroad by Warren Buffett.

World oilfield depletion is a big issue: it will probably prevent the economic recovery they drone on about endlessly. Yet the BBC will NOT go there if it can possibly avoid it.

So no, it doesn't have quite the credibility it used to possess. (It's standard of English is becoming bloody awful, too.)

by Landbeyond on 11/09/2009 04:17:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As always you are nearly completely right (none / 0)
The problem with PO is the lack of good pictures.
Still, they should definitly report more about PO, even though nothing could be more obvious.

Really how hard is it for some people to understand that it is bad to burn fossile fuels?

You have to admitt that as many people criticize the BBC for being ecological do-gooders as there are claiming that the BBC is ignoring ecological issues. I understand that you want more about an issue that is close to you and really important.

And now for something completely different...

Have you listened to the episode of "Fry's English Delights" that was called "Speaking Propper"?

I really wish more people would have Stephen Fry's attitude towards the English language combined with his skill.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/09/2009 06:13:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nearly? (none / 0)
   "The problem with PO is the lack of good pictures."

But it has graphs - some of them pretty - multicolored!

   "Really how hard is it for some people to understand that it is bad to burn fossile fuels?"

Peak Oil is about a lot more than burning fossil fuels. Oil is a relatively "clean" fuel.

   "Still, they should definitly report more about PO, even though nothing could be more obvious."

No, it's not obvious. Ask 10 people of above-average educational standard what they think about PO. Probably most of them won't have a clue what you're talking about. Could the MSM, including the BBC, have something to do with that? Any that have heard of it will probably have swallowed the (apparently rational) idea that since there's a lot of oil left there can't be a problem. What do geologists know about stuff below ground? Just trust the economists and the politicians and Exxon: have they ever misled you?

   "I understand that you want more about an issue that is close to you and really important."

That comes across as the teensiest bit condescending, but I'll assume it wasn’t intended that way. It's "close to me" because it's close to everyone.

The IEA's World Energy Outlook 2009 came out on 10 November. What did you think of the media coverage? Exactly.

Stephen Fry's is an outstanding talent. Never heard of "Fry's English Delights"

Not sure what attitude Fry has towards the English language, but few use it to better effect.

This guy uses it to some effect too:

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=oAMDVt_gor4

It's surprising what you can get into a 5-minute clip. Like Homer said once, "It's funny because it's true."

Mind where you step, though: it's a long way down.

Oh my ears and whiskers, how late it's getting!

by Landbeyond on 11/18/2009 01:54:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Balance vs truth: Know the difference (none / 1)
I don't want TYT to be balanced, I want them to tell the truth. Same thing I want from every news organization in the world. If telling the truth means running 100% to what ever imagined standard you label "right" or "left," so be it.

by OneHitKill on 11/07/2009 07:42:59 AM EST

Remember, (none / 0)
"fair and balanced" is supposed to mean truthful 100% of the time. It doesn't in practice, thanks to the Number One News Network™.

Of course everyone is biased in some way; that's why we need TYT to be a team effort. You get a group to put their heads together and you get less biased (and I don't mean one person deciding and everyone else toeing the line).

by LudwigVan on 11/07/2009 11:41:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Truth is not the opposite of bias (none / 0)
"fair and balanced" is supposed to mean truthful 100% of the time. It doesn't in practice, thanks to the Number One News Network

It doesn't in theory, either, thanks to the meaning of the word "truthful." The truth is not fair. The truth is not balanced. The world is not a game of kickball. There are not two equal sides to every story.

If telling the truth were truly the priority, bias would not matter.

by OneHitKill on 11/08/2009 05:08:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That is exactly right!!!!!! (none / 0)

by pam on 11/07/2009 06:51:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
nobody (none / 2)
Is balanced and tell the truth all the time.
 They all use clips and sound bites to serve there pupose and what they want you to see, Just like fox And TYT, But TYT cares much more than most. 
All are left or right and maddow she is more like 80% left.
Just because you like what they say dose not make them right and balanced.

by tuna on 11/07/2009 09:41:31 AM EST

absolutely (none / 0)

 "Just because you like what they say does not make them balanced"

I think you've hit the real problem with political discourse in the age of the 24 hour information cycle. There is enough news information out there that every aspect of any point can be spun and made into "fact". I like TYT because they make no secret of the fact that they are Progressive people giving their viewpoint on what is going on, rather than just cherry-picking the news to form your opinion for you.

 Of course the people at TYT are opinionated and bias, we all have a bias...its just that, unlike the Conservative party, WE don't get our facts pulled from our assholes or from the voices in our heads. (Bachmann, I'm talking to YOU)

by uncledarren on 11/07/2009 02:57:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would say maddow (none / 0)
is 100% "left" ..  

"By cutting across the grain of US cable news, the sober-minded liberal pundit has become the best talkshow host in America"

 Guardian UK

I would have to agree with that assessment.. she is smart witty  engaging  and has a crack research staff.  She covers stories in depth that no one else is .

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/07/2009 06:46:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I love her as much as I love Cenk! (none / 0)

by pam on 11/07/2009 06:53:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You have to define... (none / 0)

...the context of these percentages.  If you asked the "balance" question about Joe Scarborough, you'd get a barrage of different answers, since the context in which he could be viewed is enigmatic.  "Well, of course he's on the Right, Right of Center, anyway.  ...But Joe often implores the Republican Party to be slightly less dismissive of moderates.  So that makes him considerably to the Left of most Conservative pundits.  ...But he looks so starkly Conservative compared to the rest of the MSNBC talent.  ...But MSNBC is a _lot_ less Liberal than common wisdom suggests--there is no shortage of echoing Conservative talking points, framing issues in FOX's terminology, and denigrating Liberals (with or without merit) to achieve false "balance."  So maybe he blends in fairly well, so he isn't really much on the Right at all."

As it pointed out elsewhere on this thread, the only valuable information from a news source is truth.  There are still some vestiges of truth coming from some pundits on the Right, but most of the demand for accuracy and fairness and logic is indisputably coming from the Left these days.  Rachel Maddow is given a kneejerk high percentage as though on the "far Left", but what people are actually saying is that she is telling the truth an astounding amount more than is the norm in the media, so people have to rate her as immensely far removed from a typical analyst.  So instead of framing it this way, they just call her "really Liberal."  In truth, there is no American Liberal news analyst who is even close to as far Left as Lou Dobbs and about 11 FOX hosts are on the far Right.  The actual Nader/Kucinich-style left is virtually absent from the MSM discussion while they interview the Feinsteins/Schumers/Harold Fords/James Carvilles of the world and pretend _those_ are the voices of Liberal America.
  Cenk deserves to be judged on a scale of truth vs. lies, and on this scale, he rates very high, and most of the media (Rachel and a few others excepted) rate very low.  It really doesn't have to do fundamentally with balance. 

by Milltycoon on 11/07/2009 10:58:29 PM EST

I agree, it's about context (none / 0)
but also, what is balance? Around what centre do you have to measure balance. Because from a European perspective (or at least my perspective) you might find that Cenk is quite right wing. As far as news-facts go they seem to be on the level, there is no 'slant' (lying) in their reporting of facts, offc they play up certain polls, but they do not remain silent about ones that are less favorable) and they try to give background about who does and how a poll was done.

But that is on the facts side of the show, on the opinion side they are quite rightwing from my perspective, (remember here liberals are rightwing, but there is a lot less of a divide between the two sides here). Cenk seems  to have a naive view of the virtues of capitalism (I think he means free market capitalism in a liberal democraty by that, but it's telling that he doesn't seem to grasp the peculiarity of that kind of Capitalism), leftier ppl like me are a bit more sceptic about free market and see it as the role of the state of weaker actors in such a system.  This is because capitalist systems seem to favor those with a lot of capital,  not those that actually make that capital work. So all in all, the answers in this poll are very subjective.

by Nangijala on 11/08/2009 06:41:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0)
with you for the most part that from a Eurpean perspective some of Cenk's positions are quite to the right of the political spectrum. Cenk is mostly socially liberal which does not necessarily correlate with any particular economic postition in Europe and Cenk would find a home with many of the liberal European parties (that would be Republicans if transplanted into America). But liberal in the American sense does not translate into liberalism in Europe. European liberalism is vectorially libertarianism in America, while American liberalism is to the right - but in that direction - of European social(istic), green and progressive parties.

In other words: America is so far to the right, that most of the right wing extremists in Europe (many of which priding themselves with Nazi heritage and values) would be easily accepted by most mainstream Republicans but would be decried as too liberal by the teabaggers.

by eborujion on 11/08/2009 08:17:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk is a self-confessed conservative ... (none / 0)
... in some regards. Not surprising given his academic and familial background, not to mention that he was raised in the US.

He is also an amazingly effective conduit of information and ideas. It's fortunate that his stamina is used largely for good.

(And I nominate "vectorially" as the most impressive use of vocabulary on this thread. Seriously.)

by Landbeyond on 11/09/2009 03:27:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That is a great idea. (none / 0)
Along the lines of the 2-dimensional left-right, authoritarian-libertarian spectrum of political affiliation there could be a spectrum of press neutrality (or press accuracy, etc.) that would contain one axis of left vs right and another one of factual vs convoluted. IMHO you can argue, though, that rarely the media absolutely and unequivocally lie to the public. In most of the cases they just omit factoids or stress some facts more than others to create the narrative they are told to present to their audience.

One other thing: I cannot understand why Carville is presented as a liberal at all. Maybe he was a liberal by 1969's establishment standards but nowadays he is just a slick spin doctor who just wants to keep the machine greased enough so that he can keep on going on MSNBC and smile and laugh about anything.

by eborujion on 11/08/2009 08:31:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not totally on the issue (none / 0)
Freedom House publishes a ranking of the freedom of the press. each year.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/08/2009 09:56:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
woot 3rd place (none / 0)
makes sense though, our media has nothing to do with the gouvernement (not bad for a 'communist' european state ^^).Quite ironic if you realise that the largest papers in our country started out as party-affiliated publications. Even more ironic offcourse that the publications that contain quite inf ormative articles  ;about politics and economics you can get in Belgium are actually those of the unions (which are party affiliated), because they have the money to fund such studies.

by Nangijala on 11/08/2009 04:00:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
3rd place is still a medal (none / 0)
America on the other hand is in 20th place. Quite ironic when you always hear them shout about their freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Both seems to be better in socialist countries.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/08/2009 11:39:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is the Young Turks the most balanced show in america no the world | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: