Absolutely all of UK now convinced Fox News is barking mad

[kentonio]

ANY new source is influenced by it's editors and to think otherwise is naive. But the arrogance of those that say US news services suck in general and theirs are GREAT are just as bad as our Russian posters here that proclaim how great their news services are.

Ok, you're not usually stupid so please don't start now. No-ones saying theirs is GREAT we're just saying the better ones are better than yours. News channels in the UK are bound by quite strict rules, and the BBC especially so. The BBC simply is not allowed by charter to be partisan in any of its programming, and occasionally you get incidents like one where a kids TV presenter on a BBC afternoon show had an official complaint lodged against her because she said something that was seen as derogatory towards one of the main parties.

You can certainly find lots of ****ty newspapers and suchlike over here though, so feel free to point at those instead if it makes you feel better about things. In terms of the better newspapers however, it's long been acknowledged that UK papers are far less willing to show deference to the major parties than their US counterparts, creating a far more hostile atmosphere for politicians that fits with the combative style of parliament.

[rah]

Then don't be stupid yourself.
YOU SAID

US news is absolutely incomparable to the likes of the BBC.

That's the arrogance I was referring to. Sounds like you were saying yours is GREAT to me (or ours really sucks). Neither is true.

[kentonio]

Yours does really suck. Our high quality stuff is a lot better but still prone to sucking because of the kinds of editorial bias that as you rightly point out are basically unavoidable when you involve humans in any process.

[FlameFlash]

US citizen here, rah, and I have never been fond of US news.

Care for a domestic example? How about how protesters are labeled in general? You get "revellers" and "hoodlims/thugs" just because one riot is related to a sports event and the other is related to "Justice for ".

Then you look at the same coverage of those events outside the US and you see (as per their bias) that "things are falling apart" etc. Neither organization is right at all, but at least, for the general ignorant populace, if you show them a headline of the foreign paper they'll go "uh, that's not quite right" yet trust a domestic paper (or broadcast) implicitly.

I suppose my issue, then, isn't with the news organizations but the consuming public of those news organizations.

A coworker mentioned today that he watched the State of the Union on Fox News and I had to hold my pretty hard.

[rah]

Did fox show a different State of the Union Speech?
Maybe he didn't stick around for the commentary.

You point to a few examples and paint the entire canvas black.
Do you know just how many news services there are in the US?
I don't know how you can claim that they're all biased when you've never seen them all.
Especially while ignoring any bias that your's may have.


There are shades of gray out there.

I've never said US new was great, but labeling it all as just trash that can't "absolutely incomparable to the likes"
just makes you look ignorant and just as silly as our Russian posters.

And FF I'm still waiting for that list since you failed so miserable on your first attempt.

[FlameFlash]

rah, I didn't do a list. Somebody else came in to pick it up for me. I don't have the time to review every news outlet, you're right.

The coworker had stuck around for the commentary afterward, that was the problem...

Me? I'm waiting to track down a transcript later of the speech... after work.

I can't argue with "rah's shades of grey"... certainly better than there being 50 of them... probably why I've amended that it's more the consuming public I have issue with now that I've given it more thought. Just sad they have to cater to the lowest common denominators. I'd love a decent RSS that has plenty of stories from different sources and outlooks.

[rah]

Yes, I can't disagree that the problem is the consuming public, but that's part of my point. Part of the consuming public are not idiots and seek better. They're the ones that still read newspapers and go on-line for more depth. I look at some stories on BBC and then in the morning paper and since they came from the same original source, (guess what) they're exactly the same. No commentary was added because they both expect the reader to draw their own conclusions. Then someone arrogant ass comes along and says you can't compare the two. BS
Yes the wider the audience the more likely US news is dumbed down, but they are not the total sum of US news services and to compare them is an injustice or in this case, ignorance.


And apologies for missing that OneFootInTheGrave did the list. I usually do better.

[FlameFlash]

I think this comic actually sums it up quite well:

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20140114/

The "story line" (term used loosely) starts there.

[kentonio]

Then someone arrogant ass comes along and says you can't compare the two. BS
Yes the wider the audience the more likely US news is dumbed down, but they are not the total sum of US news services and to compare them is an injustice or in this case, ignorance

Yes, if NSTDFNXBX in Bum**** Idaho actually reports news really well, then that clearly means US news is as good as anywhere else..

[rah]

Yep as soon as they think they're entertainers, reality goes out the window.

But not all services consider themselves entertainers. But probably more than should.

I actually have no problems with FOX. It's the people that take them seriously that causes the problem.
I watch if every now and then for the entertainment value, which quite a few people here must do in order to poke the fun at it that they do.

Most of the old time newspapers still consider themselves providers of the news. Granted they a touch towards a conservative bias but they will present both sides.

[rah]

Yes, if NSTDFNXBX in Bum**** Idaho actually reports news really well, then that clearly means US news is as good as anywhere else..

Well at least that wouldn't be "absolutely incomparable" . Get off your high horse.

[kentonio]

Well at least that wouldn't be "absolutely incomparable" . Get off your high horse.

Maybe you're the one that should put down your 'America **** Yeah!' flag and accept that maybe, just maybe, there might be one or two things in the world that other countries do better.

[rah]

Where have I said that other countries don't do better? I have just said that the gap isn't as great as your ***** YEAH flag.

I am not the one that stated "absolutely incomparable". You are.

Jesus.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And not that I have a few minutes to check the other that you posted.
Your link on the violent protests was a ALL africa site by the UN, not the BBC.
And the link said 17 hours ago. On a search you see the same article from the WSJ 19 hours before.

You are so full of crap.
Maybe you should be looking at US sites to get your news earlier than where you're finding it.

Here is Google news feed on that DRC story. From US coverage there is WSJ and Bloomberg, plus a host of other international news sources. Covered well in the US vs International stakes? Where is the 80%+ media coverage of ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN, CBS?

Chilcot enquiry, one from Bloomberg and Huff Po, again missing from the US "mainstream" news outlets.

The book about Gitmo, same again, ie missing from the US mainstream, at least in the news feed, while it appears in NYT, LAT under "book review" section, not news.

You asked for 10 important events that were missing from US media, but were present in the international press. I listed three for you in a single day with little effort. All of the above were covered by BBC for example (BBC version of Kinshasa story) . BBC not being great after being castrated post Iraq war, but even as it is - still better than the main news outlets you have in the US, based on single day worth of news.

Or would you think that those stories are not "important"? In the international media they were making headlines, in the US, Bloomberg and Huff Po covered two out of three, few of the others media outlets covered one, none were covered prominently (or at all?) by FOX or CNN, two of the big five that I actually bothered to check, probably not by the other big three that cover 80%+ of US news media consumption, Google news feed would probably catch them in case they were reported.

Sum total, based on a random single day instance BBC offers better coverage indeed. We can try it again in a few days.

If you are an American, you also likely have access to the internet and can check international news in English, but will you, or will 80% + of you over the pond bother, after all you news is "fair and balanced" and Birmingham is a "no go" zone!

[dannubis]

Where have I said that other countries don't do better? I have just said that the gap isn't as great as your ***** YEAH flag.

I am not the one that stated "absolutely incomparable". You are.

Jesus.

Leave Jesus out of it you baby booming crypto fascist religionista... (did I get them all ?)