14 Mar 06
Originally posted by kmax87Seconded and rec'ed.
histories worst invention is the artiface of a civil society that allows one to speak ones mind as a necesary right without any regard for any other social virues such as politeness, good manners or a basic sense of compassion and decency.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by kmax87what good is freedom if nobody does anything good with it? what a pedestal we put freedom on and we don't even know what to do with it, IF any of us were to truly experience freedom. along those lines, the worst invention? fox news.
histories worst invention is the artiface of a civil society that allows one to speak ones mind as a necesary right without any regard for any other social virtues such as politeness, good manners or a basic sense of compassion and decency.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by nomindNot because you could then you should.
what good is freedom if nobody does anything good with it? what a pedestal we put freedom on and we don't even know what to do with it, IF any of us were to truly experience freedom. along those lines, the worst invention? fox news.
14 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by nomindsupposedly nescesity, is the mother of invention. the fact that many choose to support a news limited, may suggest not a fault on fox's part, to provide a compressed polarised view of world events but rather a need society has expressed that our capacity to digest anything else than the prepackaged homogenised swill that fox news has become means that anything complex or well rounded and balanced is to be avoided at all costs.
what good is freedom if nobody does anything good with it? what a pedestal we put freedom on and we don't even know what to do with it, IF any of us were to truly experience freedom. along those lines, the worst invention? fox news.
Could/should be their slogan. get your NEWS LIMITED, we know you dont want to handle the truth in any other way.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by kmax87there is certainly truth to that but the influence flows both ways. someone recently wondered why i get my news from bbc - because it's biased. this was from a solidly conservative fox news watcher. merely because it is very easy to manipulate people doesn't mean that a propaganda arm of the government should be allowed to pass for journalism.
supposedly nescesity, is the mother of invention. the fact that many choose to support a news limited, may suggest not a fault on fox's part, to provide a compressed polarised view of world events but rather a need society has expressed that our capacity to digest anything else than the prepackaged homogenised swill that fox news has become means that anythi ...[text shortened]... heir slogan. get your NEWS LIMITED, we know you dont want to handle the truth in any other way.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by kmax87I think you would be hard pressed to find any news source that isn't biased in some way. The problem most people have is that they don't recognize the bias in the source that supports their own views.
supposedly nescesity, is the mother of invention. the fact that many choose to support a news limited, may suggest not a fault on fox's part, to provide a compressed polarised view of world events but rather a need society has expressed that our capacity to digest anything else than the prepackaged homogenised swill that fox news has become means that anythi ...[text shortened]... heir slogan. get your NEWS LIMITED, we know you dont want to handle the truth in any other way.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by nomindI agree. That the agenda of the BBC is revered worldwide as somehow being more palatable and freer of bias is probably its biggest myth.
there is certainly truth to that but the influence flows both ways. someone recently wondered why i get my news from bbc - because it's biased. this was from a solidly conservative fox news watcher. merely because it is very easy to manipulate people doesn't mean that a propaganda arm of the government should be allowed to pass for journalism.
I think ultimately most news watchers learn how to recognise the inherent bias in any source that they constantly reference and learn to adjust their own personal views accordingly. If the truth is knowable then it may be gleaned through diligent filtration from any source IMOHO
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by kmax87of course any human endevor is tainted by human agenda. but to say that every news source is biased is not to say that any news source is as good as any other. there are standards of fairness and balance in journalism and fox (and anything else rupert murdoch runs ) undoubtedly does worse in this regard than does bbc if for no other reason that bbc is present in so many more places in the world and has input from many different people from many different cultures.
I agree. That the agenda of the BBC is revered worldwide as somehow being more palatable and freer of bias is probably its biggest myth.
I think ultimately most news watchers learn how to recognise the inherent bias in any source that they constantly reference and learn to adjust their own personal views accordingly. If the truth is knowable then it may be gleaned through diligent filtration from any source IMOHO
14 Mar 06
I honestly don't know enough about Rupert Murdoch to say one way or the other about him, but I agree with the majority of the post. What I find most grating about the network news in the US is the iconic way the anchors are perceived… They may have been serious journalists at one time, but now they are spoon-fed what to say, and an awful lot of people just swallow it hook line and sinker. They have risen to celebrity status and are largely unchallenged.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by elohiym chananexactly right, they are actors more than journalists and like actors, popularity is far more important than truth. this is further evidence that news has become just another form of entertainment.
I honestly don't know enough about Rupert Murdoch to say one way or the other about him, but I agree with the majority of the post. What I find most grating about the network news in the US is the iconic way the anchors are perceived… They may have been serious journalists at one time, but now they are spoon-fed what to say, and an awful lot of people ...[text shortened]... llow it hook line and sinker. They have risen to celebrity status and are largely unchallenged.
14 Mar 06
Originally posted by nomindAmerican news programs/channels are unwatchable, particularly because of the content and also the presenters. It just irritates the hell out of u and is so painful to watch. The worst ones are Fox news & CNN the way the make the presenters seem like some kind of i dont know what but damn!!!
exactly right, they are actors more than journalists and like actors, popularity is far more important than truth. this is further evidence that news has become just another form of entertainment.
how anyone could watch it and believe a word they say i dont know.
Ill take BBC, Euronews and DeutscheWelle any day. Much better format, less fancy graphics, old cronies, BS, crap sounds and pure bile.
15 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbi2what really cracks me up is that local news knows all we really want is the weather but they tease you with it and make you sit through the whole show to see it. also, i'm really tired of news stories that are thinly veiled advertisements for some new product.
American news programs/channels are unwatchable, particularly because of the content and also the presenters. It just irritates the hell out of u and is so painful to watch. The worst ones are Fox news & CNN the way the make the presenters seem like some kind of i dont know what but damn!!!
how anyone could watch it and believe a word they say i dont know. ...[text shortened]... e any day. Much better format, less fancy graphics, old cronies, BS, crap sounds and pure bile.
15 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by elohiym chanan
I honestly don't know enough about Rupert Murdoch to say one way or the other about him, but I agree with the majority of the post. What I find most grating about the network news in the US is the iconic way the anchors are perceived… They may have been serious journalists at one time, but now they are spoon-fed what to say, and an awful lot of people ...[text shortened]... llow it hook line and sinker. They have risen to celebrity status and are largely unchallenged.
15 Mar 06
Originally posted by nomindoddly enough, living in australia and being a subscriber to foxtel, news ltd's australian cable network, one becomes only too aware of the nakedness of the news emperor.
of course any human endevor is tainted by human agenda. but to say that every news source is biased is not to say that any news source is as good as any other. there are standards of fairness and balance in journalism and fox (and anything else rupert murdoch runs ) undoubtedly does worse in this regard than does bbc if for no other reason that bbc is presen ...[text shortened]... more places in the world and has input from many different people from many different cultures.
The amount of times that BBC world and CNN international can be seen running virtually the same feed when a major story breaks only serves to underline the fundamental reality that globalization is normalizing the coverage and presentation of mass news. Same pictures different talking heads paraphrasing the same basic underlying copy. Resistance is useless.
Consume, conform, conserve.
I grew up with the belief that the BBC was the best news service in the world. But honestly it can become a pedantic organ of arrogant cultural imperialism, that would dismiss any revolutionary claims and inasmuch as a wink is as good as a word can deliver a scathing rebuke of a particular unpopular regime by the faintest inflection or restrained grimace.