American media
-
A friend just got back from 2 weeks in the USA, and he stopped reading the paper on day 2. He said that everything the papers reported about weapons inspectors in Iraq was the oppposite of what the papers here are reporting, claiming that the inspectors categorically keep reporting that Saddam is hiding weapons. Is this really what the media in the US is claiming ? If so, does it worry any Americans here that they appear to be wrapped in a propoganda blanket whose closest parallel seems to be Stalin's Russia ? Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
Your the second person I've heared mention this recently, the other person was an anti-war protestor in San Fransico (ok, hardly unbiased I know...). He said that the day the U.S. had the protests, with 200,000 people in San Fransico and 500,000 people in Washington, "stray cats got more news attention". But the U.S. population seems to fairly pro war*, so I guess their media represents that - but then I get the "U.S. fairly pro war" slint from the British media, oh good grief, it never ends! :~ * fairly pro war in this case, feeling like they have no other option etc. etc. :zzz: Not suggestion that yanks get a kick out of war or anything - so don't start you lot!
Dylan
[Bush] said he's praying for guidance about Iraq. I'm thinking there is no way God would direct him to start a war with anyone. Only Satan wants wars. Conclusion: Bush must be a Satan Worshiper. Cathy, Soapbox, 07/03/03 -
Frankly, I think that the #2 category (the mix you made with communist countries is IMHO insane) proposes often a better quality. For exemple, between CNN (#1) and BBC World (#2), I don't hesitate a moment I don't make any difference between #1 and #3. By definition #1 is driven by the search of the maximum audience, not the best quality.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
KaЯl wrote: the mix you made with communist countries is IMHO insane I never considered BBC to fall into #2 (AFAIK the BBC has 100% editorial freedom) - I was thinking more of the government controlled "news" in China, Iraq, NK, Cuba... Mike Mullikin :beer:
Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003
-
KaЯl wrote: the mix you made with communist countries is IMHO insane I never considered BBC to fall into #2 (AFAIK the BBC has 100% editorial freedom) - I was thinking more of the government controlled "news" in China, Iraq, NK, Cuba... Mike Mullikin :beer:
Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003
Mike Mullikin wrote: I never considered BBC to fall into #2 (AFAIK the BBC has 100% editorial freedom) - I was thinking more of the government controlled "news" in China, Iraq, NK, Cuba... Oops, sorry :rose: I don't consider these as media but as propaganda ministerial services. So, isn't there another category for the state-owned media in our western worlds (BBC, Radio-France, RAI...) ? IMHO they are often the best ones, 'cause they don't have to mix with external financial pressures, as a private network could face.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
A friend just got back from 2 weeks in the USA, and he stopped reading the paper on day 2. He said that everything the papers reported about weapons inspectors in Iraq was the oppposite of what the papers here are reporting, claiming that the inspectors categorically keep reporting that Saddam is hiding weapons. Is this really what the media in the US is claiming ? If so, does it worry any Americans here that they appear to be wrapped in a propoganda blanket whose closest parallel seems to be Stalin's Russia ? Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
Oh gimme a break Christian. There's no such thing as objective reporting anymore, I don't care WHAT country's news media you happen to illuminate. Everyone has their own agenda, and the facts are muddied by that agenda. Anyone with half a brain should know it, too. I thought you were more on the ball than that. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I never considered BBC to fall into #2 (AFAIK the BBC has 100% editorial freedom) - I was thinking more of the government controlled "news" in China, Iraq, NK, Cuba... Oops, sorry :rose: I don't consider these as media but as propaganda ministerial services. So, isn't there another category for the state-owned media in our western worlds (BBC, Radio-France, RAI...) ? IMHO they are often the best ones, 'cause they don't have to mix with external financial pressures, as a private network could face.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
for the US, you can add PBS, NPR and the other contribution-funded 'public' radio and TV sources. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I never considered BBC to fall into #2 (AFAIK the BBC has 100% editorial freedom) - I was thinking more of the government controlled "news" in China, Iraq, NK, Cuba... Oops, sorry :rose: I don't consider these as media but as propaganda ministerial services. So, isn't there another category for the state-owned media in our western worlds (BBC, Radio-France, RAI...) ? IMHO they are often the best ones, 'cause they don't have to mix with external financial pressures, as a private network could face.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
KaЯl wrote: So, isn't there another category for the state-owned media in our western worlds (BBC, Radio-France, RAI...) ? Yes, you are right. Mike Mullikin :beer:
Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003
Yyyeeeeeeeeeeeehaaa! Champagne! ;)
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
for the US, you can add PBS, NPR and the other contribution-funded 'public' radio and TV sources. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
Chris Losinger wrote: for the US, you can add PBS, NPR and the other contribution-funded 'public' radio and TV sources. How are these channels? good, fair, miserable, manipulated? Are they popular?
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
A friend just got back from 2 weeks in the USA, and he stopped reading the paper on day 2. He said that everything the papers reported about weapons inspectors in Iraq was the oppposite of what the papers here are reporting, claiming that the inspectors categorically keep reporting that Saddam is hiding weapons. Is this really what the media in the US is claiming ? If so, does it worry any Americans here that they appear to be wrapped in a propoganda blanket whose closest parallel seems to be Stalin's Russia ? Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
Selling The Iraq War To The U.S.[^] Ty
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Albert Einstein
-
A friend just got back from 2 weeks in the USA, and he stopped reading the paper on day 2. He said that everything the papers reported about weapons inspectors in Iraq was the oppposite of what the papers here are reporting, claiming that the inspectors categorically keep reporting that Saddam is hiding weapons. Is this really what the media in the US is claiming ? If so, does it worry any Americans here that they appear to be wrapped in a propoganda blanket whose closest parallel seems to be Stalin's Russia ? Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
Based on travels in europe over the past ten years or so, I had actually thought that the european media (relative to the American media) was rather unprofessional. European media seemed to get into drag-out political fights that compromised their newsworthyness. For example: http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1122832.jpg[^] (I see someone got creative with photoshop to smear a politician they didn't like.) Christian Graus wrote: If so, does it worry any Americans here that they appear to be wrapped in a propoganda blanket whose closest parallel seems to be Stalin's Russia ? Well, I'd better get back to the gulag. :-D On a side note about national propaganda, have you ever looked at North Korea's news agency? http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm[^] From the North Korean news: As long as the SOFA (South Korea-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement) still remains and the [US] GIs are present in South Korea, the [South Korean] people can not rid themselves of their miserable destinies and misfortune any time nor live in peace. The U.S. imperialists are watching for a chance to make a forestalling nuclear attack... What remains is when and how to ignite a nuclear war. Under this situation we can not sit idle. The issue surfaced because the U.S. posed a threat to the DPRK with nuclear weapons in a bid to invade it and a touch-and-go situation is prevailing on the peninsula because Washington has escalated the nuclear threat to the DPRK in recent years, talking about "preemptive nuclear attack." ... This hypocritical and belligerent stand of the U.S. only makes the solution of the issue more complicated and renders the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Northeast Asia tenser. The South Korean military issued a "statement on the north" in a bid to kick up a row instead of expressing support and sympathy with the DPRK which exercised its self-defensive right by letting fighters of its people's army force a reconnaissance plane of the U.S. imperialist aggression forces to fly away.... They should know that days of those who dare provoke the north are numbered. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Is
-
KaЯl wrote: BBC World (#2) The BBC isn't state controlled in any way - it has 100% editoral independance and it is the main reason why millions of people listen to BBC World and BBC World Service. It is also the reason why successive British Governments (regardless of flavour) have thought it against them and tried to privatise it. This is in stark contrast to the major news organisations in other parts of the world. You can't start to get quality news until the people gathering the news are free from both financial and political pressure. In fact, the BBC could be a case in point for #4 = Independant, Non-profit Organisation. "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
