 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There's a flag of unknown origin that I keep seeing at Rock & Roll
events. Of course, a flag, being a bunch of colours, cannot be searched
with Google.
Actually, you know what? Unbelievably, it *can* be searched. And here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg
This still leaves the question "WTF is this flag doing on dance
fliers?", but you really can't Google that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> This still leaves the question "WTF is this flag doing on dance
> fliers?", but you really can't Google that...
The confederate "rebel" flag was adopted by some fans as the emblem of
rockabilly, which is probably why it's so tied to rock&roll, especially
in the Southern US.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 16:51, Warp wrote:
> The confederate "rebel" flag was adopted by some fans as the emblem of
> rockabilly, which is probably why it's so tied to rock&roll, especially
> in the Southern US.
Damn. I had no idea you knew so much. That's pretty impressive.
PVMoNNTP truly is the search technology of the decade...
(POV-Ray Mascot over Network News Transport Protocol)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 8:31, Invisible wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg
Being in the USA, it boggles my mind that anyone wouldn't know what this
flag is. But then, thinking on it, there's no reason anyone outside the USA
should really know what this is.
> This still leaves the question "WTF is this flag doing on dance fliers?",
> but you really can't Google that...
Some people are still proud of the fact that their ancestors fought to the
last breath to keep slaves, and many feel they never should have lost in the
first place.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 19/04/2011 16:51, Warp wrote:
> > The confederate "rebel" flag was adopted by some fans as the emblem of
> > rockabilly, which is probably why it's so tied to rock&roll, especially
> > in the Southern US.
> Damn. I had no idea you knew so much. That's pretty impressive.
I didn't. I had a vague notion, but not concrete knowledge. But there's
this thing called google, and that another thing called wikipedia. They are
pretty useful. I don't know if you have heard of them.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> On 4/19/2011 8:31, Invisible wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg
>
> Being in the USA, it boggles my mind that anyone wouldn't know what this
> flag is. But then, thinking on it, there's no reason anyone outside the
> USA should really know what this is.
I think most people know more about USA history than they even should.
But I really never saw that flag before.
>> This still leaves the question "WTF is this flag doing on dance fliers?",
>> but you really can't Google that...
>
> Some people are still proud of the fact that their ancestors fought to
> the last breath to keep slaves, and many feel they never should have
> lost in the first place.
seemingly, they were fighting for their "property", not unlike land or
equipment.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> This still leaves the question "WTF is this flag doing on dance
>> fliers?", but you really can't Google that...
>
> The confederate "rebel" flag was adopted by some fans as the emblem of
> rockabilly, which is probably why it's so tied to rock&roll, especially
> in the Southern US.
rock, youth and rebellion go hand-to-hand and are all such BS illusion...
in any case, you don't see much rock these days in a dance party, do you?
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 9:49, nemesis wrote:
> I think most people know more about USA history than they even should. But I
> really never saw that flag before.
I believe it. It just startled me at first, until I thought about it. I
mean, sure, it's a flag of a country that lasted like 3 years or something,
and was gone 150 years ago, and really (unlike many historical countries)
has no lasting effect on the rest of the world. No reason why anyone outside
the USA should recognize the flag. But it's sufficiently part of the
culture here that I was a little surprised someone didn't recognise it.
It's like someone in the UK hearing "King George who?" I imagine.
> seemingly, they were fighting for their "property", not unlike land or
> equipment.
Well, yes. And you know, it's even understandable *then*. Not admirable to
my sensibilities, but I can understand how someone would fight for it.
I'm disturbed by the people who are *still* advocating it, and who wave that
flag about with pride, claiming they never really lost, they just retreated
for a while. (Yes, we get some nutcases here.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 6:13 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I believe it. It just startled me at first, until I thought about it. I
> mean, sure, it's a flag of a country that lasted like 3 years or
> something, and was gone 150 years ago, and really (unlike many
> historical countries) has no lasting effect on the rest of the world. No
> reason why anyone outside the USA should recognize the flag. But it's
> sufficiently part of the culture here that I was a little surprised
> someone didn't recognise it.
>
I would say that most people, of a certain age, would know that flag.
I've even seen it on bumper stickers in the UK.
> It's like someone in the UK hearing "King George who?" I imagine.
Which one, may I ask?
In case you're not sure (I've posted this before)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtYmq5qFVA
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 05:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> On 19/04/2011 16:51, Warp wrote:
>>> The confederate "rebel" flag was adopted by some fans as the emblem of
>>> rockabilly, which is probably why it's so tied to rock&roll, especially
>>> in the Southern US.
>
>> Damn. I had no idea you knew so much. That's pretty impressive.
>
> I didn't. I had a vague notion, but not concrete knowledge. But there's
> this thing called google, and that another thing called wikipedia. They are
> pretty useful. I don't know if you have heard of them.
Except that you can't google vague notions, only concrete bits of text.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 05:01 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 8:31, Invisible wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg
>
> Being in the USA, it boggles my mind that anyone wouldn't know what this
> flag is. But then, thinking on it, there's no reason anyone outside the
> USA should really know what this is.
More to the point, what the heck is an American flag doing on the wall
of a pub somewhere in a village just outside Northampton?
>> This still leaves the question "WTF is this flag doing on dance fliers?",
>> but you really can't Google that...
>
> Some people are still proud of the fact that their ancestors fought to
> the last breath to keep slaves, and many feel they never should have
> lost in the first place.
I suspect if people thought that's what it really stands for, they
wouldn't have put it on that wall...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 05:51 PM, nemesis wrote:
> in any case, you don't see much rock these days in a dance party, do you?
You do if you go to a rock & roll party. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:43:51 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 19/04/2011 05:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> On 19/04/2011 16:51, Warp wrote:
>>>> The confederate "rebel" flag was adopted by some fans as the
>>>> emblem of
>>>> rockabilly, which is probably why it's so tied to rock&roll,
>>>> especially in the Southern US.
>>
>>> Damn. I had no idea you knew so much. That's pretty impressive.
>>
>> I didn't. I had a vague notion, but not concrete knowledge. But
>> there's
>> this thing called google, and that another thing called wikipedia. They
>> are pretty useful. I don't know if you have heard of them.
>
> Except that you can't google vague notions, only concrete bits of text.
I imagine that's where Wikipedia comes in - the article on the
confederate flag.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:44:59 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 19/04/2011 05:01 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/19/2011 8:31, Invisible wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg
>>
>> Being in the USA, it boggles my mind that anyone wouldn't know what
>> this flag is. But then, thinking on it, there's no reason anyone
>> outside the USA should really know what this is.
>
> More to the point, what the heck is an American flag doing on the wall
> of a pub somewhere in a village just outside Northampton?
The same thing that, for example, you might find a Guinness sign in a bar
in the middle of New York state: Nostalgia, decoration, or something
like that.
>>> This still leaves the question "WTF is this flag doing on dance
>>> fliers?", but you really can't Google that...
>>
>> Some people are still proud of the fact that their ancestors fought to
>> the last breath to keep slaves, and many feel they never should have
>> lost in the first place.
>
> I suspect if people thought that's what it really stands for, they
> wouldn't have put it on that wall...
Well, you *do* have the BNP over there - which perhaps demonstrates there
are likely people who believe that crap there just as much as here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 13:44, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I suspect if people thought that's what it really stands for, they wouldn't
> have put it on that wall...
Well, that's what it stands for when people put it on the wall *here*.
Especially in areas where it used to be flown as the national flag.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> More to the point, what the heck is an American flag doing on the wall
>> of a pub somewhere in a village just outside Northampton?
>
> The same thing that, for example, you might find a Guinness sign in a bar
> in the middle of New York state: Nostalgia, decoration, or something
> like that.
That explains the flag next to it, which is an image of a bald-headed
eagle and a guy in some sort of motorbike. (WTF?)
>>> Some people are still proud of the fact that their ancestors fought to
>>> the last breath to keep slaves, and many feel they never should have
>>> lost in the first place.
>>
>> I suspect if people thought that's what it really stands for, they
>> wouldn't have put it on that wall...
>
> Well, you *do* have the BNP over there - which perhaps demonstrates there
> are likely people who believe that crap there just as much as here.
The BNP are just nuts. Unfortunately, democrasy apparently means that
even people who are stark raving mad get to stand for election...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/19/2011 14:25, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> image of a bald-headed eagle
The USA national bird.
> and a guy in some sort of motorbike. (WTF?)
The USA national redneck.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:25:24 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> More to the point, what the heck is an American flag doing on the wall
>>> of a pub somewhere in a village just outside Northampton?
>>
>> The same thing that, for example, you might find a Guinness sign in a
>> bar in the middle of New York state: Nostalgia, decoration, or
>> something like that.
>
> That explains the flag next to it, which is an image of a bald-headed
> eagle and a guy in some sort of motorbike. (WTF?)
Seems to me that it explains both of them.
If I wanted to Godwin the discussion, I'd point out that some people are
nostalgic for white supremacy.
As for the bald eagle & motorbike flag, no idea, never seen that one.
Probably something about Harley-Davison motorcycles (American made
motorcycles).
>>>> Some people are still proud of the fact that their ancestors fought
>>>> to the last breath to keep slaves, and many feel they never should
>>>> have lost in the first place.
>>>
>>> I suspect if people thought that's what it really stands for, they
>>> wouldn't have put it on that wall...
>>
>> Well, you *do* have the BNP over there - which perhaps demonstrates
>> there are likely people who believe that crap there just as much as
>> here.
>
> The BNP are just nuts. Unfortunately, democrasy apparently means that
> even people who are stark raving mad get to stand for election...
Yep. You get Cameron, we get Bush. But my point is that there's crazy
everywhere.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:09:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 14:25, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> image of a bald-headed eagle
>
> The USA national bird.
>
>> and a guy in some sort of motorbike. (WTF?)
>
> The USA national redneck.
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/04/2011 11:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> and a guy in some sort of motorbike. (WTF?)
>> >
>> > The USA national redneck.
> LOL
LOL * 2
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-4-2011 23:25, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, you *do* have the BNP over there - which perhaps demonstrates there
>> are likely people who believe that crap there just as much as here.
>
> The BNP are just nuts. Unfortunately, democracy apparently means that
> even people who are stark raving mad get to stand for election...
As far as I know the British are famous for that sort of thing
http://www.omrlp.com/ probably much more fun than the BNP I guess
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/04/2011 10:17 PM, andrel wrote:
>
> As far as I know the British are famous for that sort of thing
> http://www.omrlp.com/ probably much more fun than the BNP I guess
It's not as if the Dutch are much saner, only more responsible.
Where ever you go in the world you find a mad Dutchman. IMHO ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-4-2011 23:41, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/04/2011 10:17 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>> As far as I know the British are famous for that sort of thing
>> http://www.omrlp.com/ probably much more fun than the BNP I guess
>
> It's not as if the Dutch are much saner, only more responsible.
Responsible would not be my first choice to describe e.g. Geert Wilders.
And in some elections we have had strange candidates, but not as
consistently as in Britain.
> Where ever you go in the world you find a mad Dutchman. IMHO ;-)
I wouldn't know that, but wherever I go there will be at least one mad
Dutchman.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The BNP are just nuts. Unfortunately, democrasy apparently means that
> even people who are stark raving mad get to stand for election...
Fear the day when such political parties are banned. Say bye bye to
democracy and freedom, and welcome totalitarianism.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/04/2011 15:32, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> The BNP are just nuts. Unfortunately, democrasy apparently means that
>> even people who are stark raving mad get to stand for election...
>
> Fear the day when such political parties are banned. Say bye bye to
> democracy and freedom, and welcome totalitarianism.
Actually, the thing that scares me is that apparently large numbers of
people actually *voted* for the BNP. o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Actually, the thing that scares me is that apparently large numbers of
> people actually *voted* for the BNP. o_O
You have probably been living in a cave because even I probably know
a lot more about the immigration situation in the UK than you, if you
are that surprised.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/04/2011 15:52, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Actually, the thing that scares me is that apparently large numbers of
>> people actually *voted* for the BNP. o_O
>
> You have probably been living in a cave because even I probably know
> a lot more about the immigration situation in the UK than you, if you
> are that surprised.
Possible, but irrelevant.
The BNP aren't interested in solving immigrating. They just want to blow
up all the pakis and niggers...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The BNP aren't interested in solving immigrating. They just want to blow
> up all the pakis and niggers...
Do you have any actual references to that? And by references I don't mean
leftist propaganda.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/04/2011 16:30, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> The BNP aren't interested in solving immigrating. They just want to blow
>> up all the pakis and niggers...
>
> Do you have any actual references to that? And by references I don't mean
> leftist propaganda.
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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 21/04/2011 16:30, Warp wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> The BNP aren't interested in solving immigrating. They just want to blow
> >> up all the pakis and niggers...
> >
> > Do you have any actual references to that? And by references I don't mean
> > leftist propaganda.
> 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.
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."
Yeah. Exemplary journalistic integrity, unbiased reporting and fact
checking. (Too bad that the above sentence is pure fiction.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:46:48 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 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.
That's arguably a provable or disprovable statement. Thus it's
reporting. It can be false or inaccurate reporting, but that gets into
fact checking rather than opining.
If he knowingly reports false information, though, then the reporter is
pushing an opinion as fact (at least that's how I see it at this very
moment, but that's very simplistic and I think it's probably more
complicated than that).
> 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.
I think it comes down to the willingness to give time to people who
represent an opposite view.
>> 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.
Actually, IIRC, it was the Canadian government that rejected their
application to broadcast in Canada, citing the fact that they make stuff
up (or something along those lines).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
