Printable View
For me
national news always lacks the objectivity of the international ones - yet is always the trusted basic essentials of need to know now.
bbc\euro\tv5 are more concise and alot more diverse - culture etc
cnn is sensation, too hyped up (about usa and themselves) andabout one issue at a time and dont go global.
Sky News has always been one of my favourites. They never over-hype but tell it like it is. Website is here. In fact, I'm going to bookmark this, and put it on my IE Links page.
I like CBC Radio One. Plus it pipes in programmes from other stations around the world, which is really very nice. Radio Africa tends to make me sad though.
:ninja:
IndyMedia
It's about the Indy Media outlets. You just can't trust CNN, FOX, and other media anymore. They feed you what they want you to hear.
Reuters
The original and still the best international News service, imho.
True-Reuters supplies alot (dont know percentage but i see it everywhere) of all info to most newspapers - its seems like they are the base but they dont do they're own interpritation- in other words they supply info not promote it.
npr
(national public radio)
they are based in washington d.c., but don't let that deter you, they are really good
I think CNN has a balanced news and fearless views.
No, FOX is the news station that is "fair and balanced."
Trying to get CNN sued. For shame.
The Daily Show is the fake-news station that is "chagrined and bewildered." I enjoy it. It's refreshing.
:ninja:
erm...didn't fox want to sue the simpsons for something that was in the show once?Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@18 December 2003 - 08:02
No, FOX is the news station that is "fair and balanced."
Trying to get CNN sued. For shame.
then, of course, they realised that it was Fox who were responsible for the simpsons
and that is their everlasting shame, that they are even jealous of their own writers, even to the point of almost suing themselves because the writers refused to play along with their retarded games. that story was so funny to me, that fox came to the unpleasant realization that their jewish writers had created such a likeable show, that trying to subjugate them or end the show would have put fox in an awkward position. so they had no choice but to allow it, it was a lose-lose situation for the fox executives, and a source of fine humour for me. i say, bravo, fox, bravo. you did a good ting.
BBC news online is where i usually go for news. Watching news on tv, i'm not bothered, i like euronews & channel 4 news, but ITV or BBC news24 seem just as good. I didn't like CNN when i had it, ad breaks every 5 seconds and some of the presenters needed shooting.
I don't know if FOX tried to sue the writing team of The Simpsons. What I was referring to was a fairly ridiculous lawsuit filed against Al Franken for writing a book entitled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right claiming that the phrase "fair and balanced" was a trademark slogan.
You can see the clip of Daily Show talking about the lawsuit here. It's a little slow to load, but it's worth it. ;)
FOX lost their lawsuit. Big surprise.
:ninja:
Executive Intelligence Review - that's the ticket.
what i was referring to, magicnakor, was a story on yahoo entitled "fox almost sues itself over simpsons parody" or something very similar. i'm sorry, but i didn't save the link, it was not the al franken thing you are talking about.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@18 December 2003 - 12:35
I don't know if FOX tried to sue the writing team of The Simpsons. What I was referring to was a fairly ridiculous lawsuit filed against Al Franken for writing a book entitled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right claiming that the phrase "fair and balanced" was a trademark slogan.
You can see the clip of Daily Show talking about the lawsuit here. It's a little slow to load, but it's worth it. ;)
FOX lost their lawsuit. Big surprise.
:ninja:
i've been watching american television news a bit more than usual, this week, after the capture of saddam hussein. the coverage of the war, and of saddam's capture, gives me the impression that the common "liberal news media" claims are simply not true.
fox news is conservative from front to back, but the rest of the networks are just a mixture of neutral and conservative. take cnn for example-- is this a "liberal" network? i watch their morning show and see essentially no opinionated commentary from their anchors until conservative jack cafferty comes on to read viewer e-mails and throw a few anti-democrat comments around. shouldn't he and cnn be too embarrassed to show his face on tv after he ran that bicyclist over in nyc and drove away (through two red lights, while being pursued by a traffic cop), anyway? and lou dobbs... i just saw that guy espousing trickle down theory the other day, 'cause he didn't see what the AFL-CIO prez's problem with the current state of the economy was. sure, the manufacturing sector has been laying people off en masse all year 'round, the state & national gov'ts are deep in debt... but the upper class is getting big fat tax cuts, creating low-wage service & food-prep jobs, don't worry, man, it'll trickle down. i mean, if cnn is what passes for liberal news bias... :rolleyes:
and i'm honestly just disappointed with all of that "embedded journalist" stuff during the war, the fact that every news program just repeats gov't & military press releases verbatim, and they don't challenge any gov't interview subjects with difficult questions. every interview i see with a u.s. government or military official on the news nowadays focuses entirely on logistic & strategic issues ("how are you gonna accomplish this? when do you expect to have that done? interesting... please tell me more!")-- as if the program is geared entirely toward war buffs and soldiers' wives. news programs are acting as transparent podiums for the u.s. government to distribute its views (and official accounts of war events), and it seems to me very much like implied support of the president's policies by the news media.
whatever channel i'm watching, i'm usually just waiting for the next puff segment that interviews a golden globe nominee or a local yokel who's really gone overboard this year with his christmas lights. :lol:
so... yeah... i prolly should put a bit of effort into watching foreign news, just for an outside perspective, since mainstream american news is all pretty much identical. that, and i do enjoy comedy central's daily show, which (while far from qualifying as an actual "news" program) does a good job of holding everyone's feet to the fire no matter what their politics are.
seem as though news is now a part of a military campaign i don't think there are gonna be many balanced reports. Iraq and teh U.S. both used there coverage to influence peoples view and to get them on there side. In teh U.K. also bbc news was sensored in order to get people behind the country and govenrnment.
I believe that if you read a news report with teh understanding that it is bias then you get a much more balanced view.
;)
definately NOT CNN. Anyone remember their statue toppling scam? What the hell! does the US govt. own CNN? And where do they find those brainless news reporters?
Since my only options of international news channels are BBC and CNN, I opt for BBC. They tend to spew less bullshit.
really, in what way?Quote:
Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@20 December 2003 - 17:03
In the U.K. bbc news was censored in order to get people behind the country and government.
really, in what way? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by ilw+22 December 2003 - 13:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 22 December 2003 - 13:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@20 December 2003 - 17:03
In the U.K. bbc news was censored in order to get people behind the country and government.
note news anchors changed around the war/liberation/invasion. Tim Sabastian has disappeared.
really, in what way? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by ilw+22 December 2003 - 12:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 22 December 2003 - 12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@20 December 2003 - 17:03
In the U.K. bbc news was censored in order to get people behind the country and government.
tmaybe censored isnt teh right word but they use a style of reporting that leads the viewer in a certain direction. for example news topics were first cleared by the gov. before broadcast. also wording surrounding weapons of mass destruction was always we have not found them YET!
I've always favoured the BBC's 24 News as I feel they care more about presenting the news than trying to get higher ratings like the more "commercial" news stations of ITV and Sky. But of course this gives me a British bias towards the news, I rarely bother with the American news stations.
Unless you have the time to watch ALL the newstations you are going to encounter some bias to someone, so you can't really win...
i dont know but ill keep my eye :rolleyes: to the sky and my ears :music1: to the ground :lol:
i agree with you 100%.Quote:
Originally posted by camille@18 December 2003 - 08:41
I think CNN has a balanced news and fearless views.
i have sky tv here and out of all of the news channels available cnn is the best as it is comprhensive with the news.
when the war against iraq started all the other news channels had the heading war against terror or war agaianst iraq and cnn was the only to headline it" attack against iraq" but after about 2 months they changed it...that must have been pressure from right wing ppl
Yep iam with the BBC on this one, somone mentioned about it being censored well with the hutton enqiry they cant be too carefull about whats being said. As for fox their reporters are the most idiotic people in the world one of their reported was sacked and removed from iraq for drawing a detailed map containing info about the location of the US troops as well as the intended routes for the rest of the war, showed it to live TV and left it in the middle of the road.
The Irony of this situation is that
i just received a letter from my tv provider
that
1.the costs will go up. :angry:
2.6 more channels added. :)
3. They are replacing BBC with CNN :angry: :angry: :angry:
I guess CNN offers more cash than BBC......
I don't know why exactly but BBC has always been my favorite... out of all the news channels BBC is the one which seems to be the least biased... but i haven't watched the news in about 3 months because it is too depressing
this is my first post btw :rolleyes:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@18 December 2003 - 08:45
Executive Intelligence Review - that's the ticket.
"The Lyndon Letter", huh?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:)