 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:18:12 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Just as an example, you would say that the BBC is a pretty reputable
> source of information? Guess again.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13091920
>
> "They believe that a low birth rate is not solved by immigration, as
> that results in problems and foreigners do not fit into Finnish culture.
> Instead, young women should study less and spend more time giving birth
> to pure Finnish children. That is like a faint echo of Nazi ideology."
One poor article doesn't make them disreputable. You should (if you
haven't) read what passes for 'news' over here in the US if you think the
BBC is unbalanced.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How about the video tape of some guys from the BNP saying how much
>> that'd love to "put a bomb" in a certain predominantly Asian housing
>> estate? It was all over the news last year...
>
> It's just that you can't trust the news about this subject.
So, what, the video that was on a dozen news channels is actually a fake?
...actually, I take that back. I had presumed the falsity of this
statement is self-evident. On further reflection, perhaps not. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/04/2011 08:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You should (if you
> haven't) read what passes for 'news' over here in the US if you think the
> BBC is unbalanced.
I thought that was just urban myth? o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:57:33 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 21/04/2011 08:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> You should (if you
>> haven't) read what passes for 'news' over here in the US if you think
>> the BBC is unbalanced.
>
> I thought that was just urban myth? o_O
Have you tried reading what passes for news in the US? After all, the
information is on public websites accessible anywhere in the world.
Try Fox News for starters - I consider them to be probably the biggest
example of poor reporting I've ever seen.
That's not to say only a right-leaning organization like Fox does a poor
job. I also tend not to trust those that lean heavily to the left. What
I really want from *news* is facts, not opinions, and that's really
difficult to get in the US (from US sources, I should say).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> How about the video tape of some guys from the BNP saying how much
> >> that'd love to "put a bomb" in a certain predominantly Asian housing
> >> estate? It was all over the news last year...
> >
> > It's just that you can't trust the news about this subject.
> So, what, the video that was on a dozen news channels is actually a fake?
No. What I wanted to say is that by far the most common perception of
"that one party" (that criticizes liberal immigration policies) is often
highly colored by how the media portrays it. There portrayals are very
often full of distortions, quote mining and outright fabrications.
Thus whenever someone tells me "this party X in our country is composed
of racist nazi bigots who would want to exterminate race Y from the face
of the Earth", I always wonder where that information is actually coming
from. The leftist media (which for some strange reason forms the vast
majority of the media in western Europe) is quite keen to denigrate and
vilify that one party with biased propaganda and extensive smearing
campaigns. (There's always only one significant such party in each country,
for some reason.)
This is actually something that has puzzled me for a long time: Why is
by far the vast majority of the western European media so extremely leftist
and "multiculturalist"? Where are the opposing "right-wing" (if you want to
call them that) mass publications? For example, I don't know of one single
newspaper (major or minor) in Finland which would actually be critical of
liberal immigration policies. The Finnish media as a whole is unanimously
extreme leftist. (In other words, "we need more immigration, immigration
is inevitable, the majority of Finns are racist and prejudiced" and so on.)
I find this strange because, after all, the press is (in most cases)
owned by private companies, and the number one goal of private companies
is to make money. Nothing more, nothing less. At the end of the day, the
bottom line and maximization of profit is what matters.
You make money by appealing to the demand. If the public demands more
critique of some social or political phenomenon (such as liberal
immigration policies), shouldn't that be what the press should write
about, to maximize profit?
But no. For some reason the vast majority of the western European media
is engaged in a global leftist propaganda campaign, completely disregarding
what people *want* to read and see. Why?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-4-2011 22:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:57:33 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> On 21/04/2011 08:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> You should (if you
>>> haven't) read what passes for 'news' over here in the US if you think
>>> the BBC is unbalanced.
>>
>> I thought that was just urban myth? o_O
>
> Have you tried reading what passes for news in the US? After all, the
> information is on public websites accessible anywhere in the world.
>
> Try Fox News for starters - I consider them to be probably the biggest
> example of poor reporting I've ever seen.
>
> That's not to say only a right-leaning organization like Fox does a poor
> job. I also tend not to trust those that lean heavily to the left. What
> I really want from *news* is facts, not opinions, and that's really
> difficult to get in the US (from US sources, I should say).
IIRC the loophole here is that you can report that someone has an
opinion as a fact. To spread an idea you only need to locate someone who
has that as an opinion and if that fails have someone from your own
staff in a 'discussion' program express that opinion. After that it is
factual news.
Recently been watching mostly Al Jazeera (the English version) as a news
source. They probably have their own bias, but everytime I think I know
what it is, they broadcast something to prove me wrong. I wonder what
it's mere existence has done for the change in attitude that led to the
current developments in the middle east.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:19:28 +0200, andrel wrote:
> IIRC the loophole here is that you can report that someone has an
> opinion as a fact. To spread an idea you only need to locate someone who
> has that as an opinion and if that fails have someone from your own
> staff in a 'discussion' program express that opinion. After that it is
> factual news.
That's different than the 'reporter' giving their opinion during the news
and stating it as a factual statement.
It's one thing to say "John thinks this is bad" and a reporter saying
"this is bad".
The first is reporting. The second is stating the reporter's opinion.
> Recently been watching mostly Al Jazeera (the English version) as a news
> source. They probably have their own bias, but everytime I think I know
> what it is, they broadcast something to prove me wrong. I wonder what
> it's mere existence has done for the change in attitude that led to the
> current developments in the middle east.
Yeah, I've heard they're one of the best sources for factual/actual
news. Of course reporters' opinions can creep in from time to time,
regardless of the venue, but the fact that Fox News was banned from
broadcasting in Canada recently because they're *not* actually providing
news was quite telling, I thought.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/22/2011 2:19 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 21-4-2011 22:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:57:33 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/04/2011 08:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> You should (if you
>>>> haven't) read what passes for 'news' over here in the US if you think
>>>> the BBC is unbalanced.
>>>
>>> I thought that was just urban myth? o_O
>>
>> Have you tried reading what passes for news in the US? After all, the
>> information is on public websites accessible anywhere in the world.
>>
>> Try Fox News for starters - I consider them to be probably the biggest
>> example of poor reporting I've ever seen.
>>
They are payed, by their owner, who admitted it in a moment of
carelessness, to only report things that *he* believes are true. As one
of their people, who left, stated, "I decided to leave because I prefer
working some place where I am allowed to think."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/04/2011 10:28 PM, Warp wrote:
> Thus whenever someone tells me "this party X in our country is composed
> of racist nazi bigots who would want to exterminate race Y from the face
> of the Earth", I always wonder where that information is actually coming
> from.
The leaflet I got through the mailbox *from* the BNP was enough to
convince me of what their intension are. When a political party writes
to you saying "you should vote for us, because we promise to get rid of
all the foreign people", it's fairly clear who they're appealing to.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-4-2011 20:53, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:19:28 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> IIRC the loophole here is that you can report that someone has an
>> opinion as a fact. To spread an idea you only need to locate someone who
>> has that as an opinion and if that fails have someone from your own
>> staff in a 'discussion' program express that opinion. After that it is
>> factual news.
>
> That's different than the 'reporter' giving their opinion during the news
> and stating it as a factual statement.
>
> It's one thing to say "John thinks this is bad" and a reporter saying
> "this is bad".
>
> The first is reporting. The second is stating the reporter's opinion.
Sure, but is: 'many people think this is bad' reporting or opinion.
- if the reporter is stupid
- if he didn't research it himself, just reads it from a paper
- if he knows the 'many people' is just a few and he knows they are wrong
- if he himself was the actual source
>> Recently been watching mostly Al Jazeera (the English version) as a news
>> source. They probably have their own bias, but everytime I think I know
>> what it is, they broadcast something to prove me wrong. I wonder what
>> it's mere existence has done for the change in attitude that led to the
>> current developments in the middle east.
>
> Yeah, I've heard they're one of the best sources for factual/actual
> news. Of course reporters' opinions can creep in from time to time,
Oh they are definitely biased, but they are not consistently biased.
They do broadcast programs and interviews that are biased different than
some of the others. They will even give some time to people who are
against specific Al Jazeera broadcasts.
> regardless of the venue, but the fact that Fox News was banned from
> broadcasting in Canada recently because they're *not* actually providing
> news was quite telling, I thought.
I hadn't heard that. I have trouble finding a reliable source. That
doesn't mean that I don't believe it, just that many regular media did
not think it was news worthy. Possibly because it is already so for a
long time and Fox was not the reason this news surfaced. Just one of
news channels that can not get a license under current Canadian law.
But still a field day for the blogger who did the maths.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
