News Magazines

[King Butter Turtle]

I don't like 60 minutes because it's for old people and Andy Rooney drives me nuts. I don't like Dateline because it's too scary, although I do like their hidden camera investigations. I like the ABC ones the best, mostly 20/20. It's really interesting.

Am I the only person under the age of 50 who watches those kinds of shows?

[Laura Ingalls]

Why is the poll and your post about TV shows, but the title is magazines?

I was going to say WORLD, but it appears you're not talking about magazines.

[Jugglah]

Either way, I won't take anything but World. Everything else is biased the wrong way.

[King Butter Turtle]

I ment TV news magazines, as in shows that don't just cover the day's news like world news tonight, but do investigations and reports on things like crimes, books, web sites, fads, etc..

[Laurie]

I don't watch any of them unless there is something featured that interests me. Anymore they seem to cover murders or some celebrity that has either messed up, or is about to mess up and none of that interests me.

[King Butter Turtle]

I don't watch any of them unless there is something featured that interests me. Anymore they seem to cover murders or some celebrity that has either messed up, or is about to mess up and none of that interests me.

Ya, that's true, that's why I like 20/20. They tend to lean away from that kind of stuff and more towards more interesting stuff. Like recently, they did a show that talked about a contraversial movie about suicide, a book about statistics on computer searches (which I found very interesting), and an odd disorder; the obsession with healthy eating. (which can actually be very unhealthy, I thought that was interesting too)

[American Eagle]

I'm not that much into them, but I've watched Nightline more than any of the others and I think it's best.

[Clodius Albinus]

I do not find television to be a particularly effective medium for serious discourse or inquiry, and thus generally stick to print media. The last time I watched a regular nightly news broadcast (as distinguished from election or major breaking story coverage featuring an anchor), I'm reasonably certain that Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw were all still on the air, and I can't remember the last time I saw 60 Minutes, 20/20 or their counterparts.

On the subject of the other variety of news mags, it's disappointing to see World pop up twice. It is a Christian news magazine, yes, but that shouldn't be permitted to make up for shoddy journalism. I will give them credit, however, for their occasional features on the developing world, evidencing a compassion for the less fortunate sometimes lacking in conservative publications. World features a mix of extremely poorly researched and written news stories and absurdly skewed features (they've praised more than a few people I find absolutely outrageous) with a sometimes interesting tension between hard-core Calvinists and what, for lack of a better term, I'd term Michael Gerson types -- social conservatives who are comfortable with big government when it serves their purposes (sadly very common these days), but who, unlike many of their peers in that regard, strongly emphasize the importance of helping those in need. I don't always agree with their conclusions, but I applaud the magazine for at least profiling a few things that many social conservatives refuse to touch.

But still, if that's your news magazine of choice, you're not getting much. Pick up the New Yorker or the Atlantic. You won't agree with all of it, but you'll learn something new. I doubt that's going to happen much with a largely predictable, and often rather hackish, publication like World.

[miko14]

I'm not to much in to magazines.

[Jugglah]

Clodius, you are absolutely entitled to your opinions, and so am I. I think World's citations seem very credible, so I don't think it's poor journalism. Even if it does happen to be so, I still find that the articles give much insight into current events and issues. I also like that, unlike many news magazines, their contributors can write the truth without fear of being fired and blacklisted.

[Clodius Albinus]

Which publications blacklist writers who write the truth? It's true, of course, that Mother Jones isn't likely to publish many glowing accounts of the Iraq War, but then, neither is The Weekly Standard likely to publish an essay by Steven Walt. (I'm not saying that either of these viewpoints would necessarily constitute truth, only that they would both be excluded from the respective publications.) This, however, is not the case of their writers being forced to hide their true opinions; it's a product, instead, of publications with a certain editorial position generally hiring/attracting individuals of similar persuasion. You probably won't see a Jim Wallis or Tony Campollo byline in World, either, you know.

The most respectable publications, moreover, publish all manner of viewpoints. There might be an editorial slant, but don't expect one opinion to dominate, say, the Atlantic. You can, however, expect it to dominate the pages of World. You can also expect to get your reporting from such names as ... well, Bob Jones IV.

[Dr. Watson]

The most respectable publications, moreover, publish all manner of viewpoints.

1)As World makes clear, it reports from a Biblical viewpoint. Which is the viewpoint that all Christians should view the news, yes?


2)World makes a point of conducting interviews with people who have major disagreements of worldviews, such as that hallmark of orthodoxy, Anne Rice.