Tweet
Talk Radio 
-
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful. -
Sikander:
"The problem with BBC is that their U.S. coverage is horrible. It's biased, and in a stupid way that shows that it is nearly impossible for a journalist raised in the UK to have the slightest understanding of the U.S."
On US domestic issues? Got any good examples for this?
"...like the journalist arguing with the person they are interviewing both about the facts and their opinions... The proper solution to a guest who you think is making fast and loose with the facts is to have another guest who contradicts him"
Urgh. There is nothing more annoying about US news than the "I'm balanced and even no matter what between **** A and idiot B, and serve my bias by just leaving out C", with the possible exception of the flagwaving.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Almost every day. For instance they will do a story on a very small group and make it seem as though this group is really important and signifies a trend in the U.S., when in fact that group really just agrees with the biases of the reporter, and has almost no following. They will do the opposite as well. Take a look at the coverage of the boycott of the Dixie Chicks. To hear them tell it, it is the death of free speech in America. The truth is that a minority of a minority support the boycott, and even if it were more popular it wouldn't destroy free speech. You get a free anti-U.S. editorial in almost every story. I'm open to hearing bad things about the U.S., but only when it is presented in a way that gives it the proper perspective in terms of both scope and the way that it fits into various value systems. BBC reportage is only concerned with covering New York, Washington and Los Angeles, even though these areas vary quite considerably from the vast areas in between where the issues are decided.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Sikander:
"The problem with BBC is that their U.S. coverage is horrible. It's biased, and in a stupid way that shows that it is nearly impossible for a journalist raised in the UK to have the slightest understanding of the U.S."
On US domestic issues? Got any good examples for this?
Check out the Newshour when you are in the states, they do a very good job at keeping the discussion interesting. For one thing, the quality of the guests is very good. Part of the reason for that is that they leave out the crazies from the discussion so that it doesn't break down into an argument on semantics or even very basic facts. Thus for a Green perspective they will have Ralph Nader as the guest rather than an insane local Green. While Nader may not represent the average Green in many ways, he is press savvy enough to do a much better job than the average Green in arguing their case.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Urgh. There is nothing more annoying about US news than the "I'm balanced and even no matter what between **** A and idiot B, and serve my bias by just leaving out C", with the possible exception of the flagwaving.He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!Comment
-
"Take a look at the coverage of the boycott of the Dixie Chicks."
Never heard of that (Dixie Chicks and their boycott). Probably a more piltical example?
"You get a free anti-U.S. editorial in almost every story."
I think this is just a matter of style, do you see them treating others better?
The main US TV news is so fluffy, nice and protective that Kindergarden reeks of brutality in comparison.
"I'm open to hearing bad things about the U.S., but only when it is presented in a way that gives it the proper perspective in terms of both scope and the way that it fits into various value systems."
Well I think that is to demand a bit much. I can't remember a single US media story, even in the NY Times, where the context of european events would be included.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
I had the pleasure of never been exposed to filth like Fox news.
But everyone who knows it, including pro-americans (what a dirty word now) say it is simple propaganda
Comment
-
But FOX are intentionally crap. CNN seems to take themselves seriously.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Murdoch has Fox right?Comment
-
I think so, that's his brainchild.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
I'm sure it is a matter of style, but who wants to see talk radio on television. Even if you agree with them it is dull and not particularly informative. The amount of information given on a BBC broadcast is about the same as a U.S. major network newscast, which is amazing because they don't run commericals like the U.S. networks do.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"You get a free anti-U.S. editorial in almost every story."
I think this is just a matter of style, do you see them treating others better?
Perhaps it is a bit much to demand, certainly it is a common enough failing. What ends up happening is that I don't watch it because it has so little value to me aside from seeing the sort of spin that the Brits are getting.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I'm open to hearing bad things about the U.S., but only when it is presented in a way that gives it the proper perspective in terms of both scope and the way that it fits into various value systems."
Well I think that is to demand a bit much. I can't remember a single US media story, even in the NY Times, where the context of european events would be included.He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!Comment
-
"I'm sure it is a matter of style, but who wants to see talk radio on television. Even if you agree with them it is dull and not particularly informative."
It's far from talk radio. Also it's not necessarily a matter of spin, but just of asking some critical question. There are also differences in the US on that - Tim Russard (? - NBC meet the press) is ways better than Wolf Blitzer (Nomen est Omen, "Blitzer" means dimwit here...
).
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Tim Russert. Yea, I always watch him on Sunday morning. He does a decent job of being a tough interviewer while maintaining a working relationship with the powers that be. It's a tough balancing act. There was a good piece on the Sunday morning news shows on (where else?) the Newshour about a week ago. These shows are only watched by a very small minority of the country (like about 15%), but it is the most educated, politically involved and wealthiest segment of the population, so much so that the advertising rates for these shows are astronomical per viewer.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I'm sure it is a matter of style, but who wants to see talk radio on television. Even if you agree with them it is dull and not particularly informative."
It's far from talk radio. Also it's not necessarily a matter of spin, but just of asking some critical question. There are also differences in the US on that - Tim Russard (? - NBC meet the press) is ways better than Wolf Blitzer (Nomen est Omen, "Blitzer" means dimwit here...).
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!Comment
-
Oh, no argument here; if it's Newshour vs. BBC, then you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, I don't have that choice here in Ankara.Originally posted by Sikander
Put the BBC anchors against the moderators from the Newshour, and I guarantee that the Newshour people will at least hold their own. They are the cream of the crop as far as serious television news goes, and not a looker in the whole bunch. (Well Margaret Warner is kind of cute, but still not your typical news bimbo.)
Given what I do have (BBC, CNN, FOX), BBC's clearly preferable.
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George CarlinComment
-
BBC does have some good news programmes. Jeremy Paxman can be funny when he goes off on one at a minister for being incompetent.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
I should note that for all of my ranting about BBC, I am only speaking about what we get here, which is only one program.Originally posted by Big Crunch
BBC does have some good news programmes. Jeremy Paxman can be funny when he goes off on one at a minister for being incompetent.
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!Comment
-
A mix of BBC24, SkyNews, and Google.News. I'm waiting for the Al-Jazeera English website to come online.Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
-Richard DawkinsComment
Comment