You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 02:21:29 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The News  (Read 1259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Question MarkTopic starter

The News
« on: September 16, 2012, 11:14:59 PM »
We all know Fox News is as slimy as they come: they cater to the GOP, slant facts, and report on pointless shit like celebrity news and pop culture, while ignoring pretty much anything that happens outside of the USA.  Although not as dirty, MSNBC obviously caters to the left and covers a lot of vaporous pop news.  CNN is somewhat reputable, but they seem to screw up pretty often, and are pretty obviously in the pockets of the corporations.

In short, American news is shit: biased, no integrity, filled with pointless pop news and ignoring the rest o fthe world.  That's why I I get my news from BBC: they have actual journalistic standards and maintain a global perspective, not to mention they have an awesome focus on the sciences (Science?!  In my news?!  Not in the USA!!!)

So, what's your opinion on the mainstream news in America (or Australia, or the UK, or wherever you live)?  And where do you get your news, local and/or world?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 11:17:42 PM by Question Mark »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The News
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2012, 12:01:45 AM »
I agree the BBC do an amazing job; they are not faultless of course but they do hold up the banner of reporting news in a way that's both serious, engaging. human and fun - and without becoming heavily biased. BBC World News is a regular watch for me and they have amazing reporters, newsreaders, interviewees and debates - and also very stylish and effortlessly sexy news anchors! *sighs at Mishal Husain and Kasia Madera* Over the last five years I've pretty much stopped watching Swedish tv night news in any regular way except when there's some prominent domestic news story; they are not strongly biased most of the time but getting completely outclassed by the Beeb both in scope, in the liveliness of the reporting and the ability to make the viewer think and pose new questions (yes, the size of the respective budgets is part of the reason here, but nowhere near the most important reason).

Also watching CNN and sometimes French tv news - both of them good. Reading newspapers and blogs online, I tend to look for blogs when it's a particular issue or story I'm after, have few favourite blogs I keep getting back to every week for news. if there was renewed conflict in the Middle East or when it comes to the U.S. election, I would definitely look around at blogs and personal pages besides reading and watching professional news.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 12:07:33 AM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The News
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2012, 12:16:28 AM »
I usually watch BBC America's news when I can.. read teh BBC news sites, and a few new agency sites like Rueters and AP.. with some spots on PBS and such. I find while they aren't any less prone towards bias..they are more likely to report and concertrate on NEWS rather than what Paris Hilton is doing this week..and typically they provide sourcs.. CNN and MSNBC occasionally forget that..and Fox is never good on that.

Also look at the content. When you have a typical Fox article.. online it's.. 1 to 2 paragraphs. And simply written. Then the other big news outlets give something like 6 paragraphs or more for the same article.

Offline Beorning

Re: The News
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2012, 01:01:39 AM »
Hm. I used to like BBC. But then, shortly before Euro 2012, they aired this "report" on how supposedly dangerous is to go and watch a football game in Poland. They actually had this British footballer there that said something to the effect "Don't go to Poland for Euro, or you may come back dead".  ::)

I... kind of lost some respect for BBC after this...

Offline Luna

  • Muse's Blessing ~ Shadowsmaiden's little Koneko-chan
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2012
  • Location: The deep end of the gene pool
  • Gender: Female
  • My soul is painted like the wings of butterflies
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The News
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2012, 07:48:48 AM »
I watch a whole lot of MSNBC, but I admit it is just as much because I like the taste of their kool-aid and drink from it regularly, myself. I loooove Rachel Maddow!

For objectivity, of the three major cable news networks in America, CNN even with all their issues is still the least biased.

I don't get any BBC TV channels, but I do listen to them on the radio from time to time(I happen to work when it's day time over there, heh)

I watch Fox, only when I want to yell at the TV and tell them how wrong they are, or when it's 3am and Red Eye is on, because Greg Gutfeld is hilarious, even if I don't agree with any of his politics.

Offline AndyZ

Re: The News
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2012, 07:31:34 AM »
Oh yes, I've been saying this for years.  Every news source is either on the left or on the right, so if you want to know what's really going on, you have to watch both sides.  It's like two children with a broken vase, you ask Child A and he blames Child B, and you ask Child B and she blames Child A.

If you want to see how biased a channel is, watch for stories where one side makes a gaff and see how often it gets covered, or what kind of twist they put on it.

Fox News definitely slants to the right, but MSNBC not only slants left but edits videos to deceive the audience.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303246/msnbc-edited-romney-wawa-video-katrina-trinko

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/03/30/msnbc-fixes-false-report-which-made-zimmerman-look-racist-doesnt-acknowl

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/shocker-msnbc-dishonestly-edits-video-to-make-rick-perry-look-racist-video/

If you don't think CNN is also biased, check this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/cnn-stupid-girls-sarah-palin_n_1718575.html

or this: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/09/16/cnn-political-report-sends-obama-donation-link-twitter-followers

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The News
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2012, 01:31:02 PM »
New England's ABC (broadcasts about from the lakes to NYC) usually good for not being Biased, but they aren't as massive as the others, they however retain their journialistic interigity.
They do focus a lot on local news and the facts, so they can be dry at times, but it's worth it.

Offline Vekseid

Re: The News
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2012, 01:54:41 PM »
Fox News definitely slants to the right, but MSNBC not only slants left but edits videos to deceive the audience.

'but'?

One would get the impression from your statement that Fox is not dishonest, or 'less dishonest'.

Fox is the network that sued for and won the right to lie to its audience.

Fox is the network that has donated millions to the Republican party.

Fox is the network that funds a party movement.

Fox is the network that hires political candidates.

Fox is the network with leaked e-mails which spell out goals for changing the nation's political dialogue.

MSNBC is the network that fires its operators for making political donations.

Or stuff like deceptively editing source material.

Find me where Fox has fired anyone for any of its deceptive edits. Like oh, the "Let's claim republicans caught in a scandal are democrats" running gag.

[qupte]
If you don't think CNN is also biased, check this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/cnn-stupid-girls-sarah-palin_n_1718575.html
[/quote]

I don't think associating your side of the political spectrum with bigotry is wise as a long-term strategy. It's up to you if you hold to it, but, others aren't - conservative positions on social issues invariably are the ones most clearly and permanently lost. Don't drag them down with you.

Offline AndyZ

Re: The News
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2012, 02:04:17 PM »
Vekseid, your only link talks about NBC firing their editor but specifically says that it's waiting for MSNBC to do the same.  Could I get links for everything else, including the MSNBC person getting fired, please?

As far as the CNN thing, I was talking about how they start off a segment by playing "Stupid Girls."  You may remember a similar thing with Jimmy Fallon and Michelle Bachmann.

Offline Vekseid

Re: The News
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2012, 02:14:11 PM »
Probably should have read it more. >_> There's no evidence that the writer wasn't making a transcript of the edited conversation, and the site provides none.

Offline AndyZ

Re: The News
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2012, 02:16:48 PM »
So why does the title say: "NBC fires editor for altering Zimmerman 911 call; when will MSNBC fire the writer who did the same?"  It seems to be implying that they want to know when MSNBC will fire their writer.

Before NBC’s alteration on TV, MSNBC did the exact same thing in print. When will MSNBC fire someone?

Or did you send the wrong link?

Offline Vekseid

Re: The News
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2012, 03:38:24 PM »
I just pulled out a random link since I knew the editor was fired - a fact you conveniently ignored.

That it's a right wing blog making accusations with no facts to back it up on top of that is, at best, an amusing blunder of mine. It's clearly a transcript - the audio edit was done first. The writer no more deserves to be fired for that than anyone else who's copied from a misleading source.

Actually, this is a perfect example of how the right wing lies in this country.

The source is the audio, not the text, and you ought to be well aware of this. It's a recording of a conversation Zimmerman had with the police. You know this. Anyone keeping up with the case knows this. That is the source material. So they're claiming that, because both show the result of the edited transcript that
1) There was collusion, and
2) This collusion was not the result of the writer receiving and transcribing the edited audio

That passes what smell test, now?



Even above and beyond that, how is it a right-wing versus left-wing edit? Because the victim was black? Is that all?

And given the prior thread on this a few years back, I'll just bring up ACTA again. Claiming they're on two separate sides is incredibly shortsighted. It's a false, pretend dichotomy.


Offline Stattick

Re: The News
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2012, 05:20:30 PM »
The two most unbiased and best news sources that I've found for American politics is the BBC World News and Al Jazeera. A close third isn't technically a news source, but rather a satire show about stuff that's in the news, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Offline AndyZ

Re: The News
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2012, 07:20:33 PM »
Wait, are NBC and MSNBC the same company?


Offline AndyZ

Re: The News
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2012, 08:58:04 PM »
Fair enough.  Let's go down the line and see if Fox News is really worse than the rest.

Fox is the network that sued for and won the right to lie to its audience.

From what I'm reading here, other than agreeing that she was a whistleblower, the jury of the trial dismissed all the claims.  In other words, Fox News was found innocent, right?

Quote
The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission.

I may be misunderstanding this.

Fox is the network that has donated millions to the Republican party.

Quote
It is hardly unusual for media companies to support candidates and political parties. General Electric, which owns NBC, has given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year.

Disney, which owns ABC, donated $20,000 to committees associated with Republicans and $11,000 to Democratic committees. CBS gave $13,000 to Democratic PACs and $1,000 to Republican ones.

We'll agree that they're a media company that does so, but hardly the only ones.

Quote
Fox is the network that funds a party movement.

I'm not seeing anything here that news sources on the other side haven't done to Occupy Wall Street, with the exception of candidates, which OWS hasn't had so far and therefore cannot be compared.  Am I missing something?

Quote
Fox is the network that hires political candidates.

Quote
The problem is hardly unique to Fox, but the sheer number of candidates involved is unprecedented. Despite the discomfort of some employees, and the irritation it causes to competitors, the benefits would seem to outweigh the costs for FNC.

Yet another political example of, "If other people do something, I may as well do it too, and I'll do as much as I want because it's not a problem."  Still, once again a instead of the.

Quote
Fox is the network with leaked e-mails which spell out goals for changing the nation's political dialogue.

Ironic that you would link to media matters here.

Quote
MSNBC is the network that fires its operators for making political donations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/ns/politics/t/list-journalists-who-wrote-political-checks/

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/jon-stewart.asp?cycle=08

Besides, as listed earlier, the company itself gives political contributions.

Quote
Here you go AndyZ. A few links for you. Not that these were hard to find at all. Or, you know, you can always research stuff yourself. Here's a little tutorial here that can help you get started.

Yeah, none of what I was finding seemed that much worse than what we have on other networks, just from a different angle.

I think Vekseid has some stuff which is far worse about Fox than the others.  That's why I was asking him to post it.  I've been looking into ACTA but not seeing much on it in connection with Fox News.

I'm not saying Fox News is innocent, but I don't think there are any honest media sources left.  Here's some of the stuff I've found on Al-Jazeera:

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2007/01/no_surprise_alj.html

http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/06/media-crime.html

If we can't even agree on what's happening in the news, it makes it harder for ordinary people throughout the spectrum to agree that both parties are destroying the country.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The News
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2012, 09:15:49 PM »
The point, AndyZ, that is that Fox won the court case by claiming there was NO LAW against misrepresenting the truth or issues at hand. IE. That they were not OBLIGATED to provide the honest full disclosure of the report that the woman and her partner were doing and that it was perfectly legal for them to misrepresent all the facts and to further tilt things so that their sponsor, Monsanto, looked better than they were.


Offline AndyZ

Re: The News
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2012, 10:26:05 PM »
Quote
In 1997, Wilson and Akre began work on a story regarding the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive that had been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration but also blamed for a number of health issues. Wilson and Akre planned a four part investigative report on Monsanto's use of rBGH, which prompted Monsanto to write to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel, in an attempt to have the report reviewed for bias and because of the "enormous damage that can be done" as a result of the report.[4]

WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism."

Here's where I'm getting really confused.  If they never even ran the report, how did they lie?

Now, I'm seeing the thing at the bottom here:

Quote
An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6]

So it seems like they were trying to make the claim that the whistleblower thing didn't apply because the FCC news distortion policy isn't a law, rule, or regulation.  If that's true, though, as is what you're saying, and they did decide that she was part of the whistleblower policy after all, wouldn't that mean that they lost?  This doesn't make any sense...

Okay, found this old story: http://www.sptimes.com/News/081900/TampaBay/Reporter_wins_suit_ov.shtml

Quote
And the jury did not believe the couple's claim that the station bowed to pressure from Monsanto to alter the news report.

Seems like that the jury looked at the evidence and Akre and Wilson were full of crap,

They later sued, claiming they were wrongfully fired for refusing to include misleading information in their report, and because they had threatened to report the station to the Federal Communications Commission.

Quote
Fox 13 claimed they had been fired for insubordination and that the report the station eventually aired was fair and balanced.

Huge difference between that and claiming that there's no law against misrepresenting the truth.

Moreover, since we still have the FCC and these rules, what do they even do if the news media is allowed to lie?

Here's the court proceedings.  I'm not really understanding it via reading, but it seems like it's saying more that she wanted to use the FCC thing as a rule in order to back up her whistleblower thing, and they fought on the grounds that it wasn't a rule.  Definitely shady, but different from a right to lie.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding all of this, but there's a lot that doesn't make any sense to me.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The News
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2012, 10:32:39 PM »
More like you're ignoring the point.

They did a report.. Monsanto leaned on Fox.. Fox leaned on the Affliate.. the lawyers wanted them to change their claims to things that there investigation DID NOT find.

Fox News Kills Monsanto Milk Story
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 10:48:24 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Vekseid

Re: The News
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2012, 10:49:52 PM »
Actually, I'm beginning to doubt that you are.

Quote
While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute.  The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation.  § 448.102(1)(3).  The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to-4-any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.”  § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.

...

Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.

No other finding of fact is declared relevant from that case. Only this singular decision: That being a matter of policy, the intentional falsification of news - the "news distortion policy" is not a law, rule, or regulation. It was their argument that brought that point of fact to light, and that's what the Appeals court decided would overrule all other matters, rendering everything else irrelevant.

Anything else is a tangent - which we for the most part went over in the prior thread on this. A pedant could call it something besides the right to lie, aside from, you know, the news distortion policy being equated to "the intentional falsification of news". By whatever means.

This case set common law precedent, and has had a profound influence on Fox's behavior over the past decade.

Offline AndyZ

Re: The News
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2012, 10:58:15 PM »
So what does the FCC even do if they can't keep news organizations from lying?  Is it completely useless?

Offline elone

Re: The News
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2012, 11:02:32 PM »

I'm not saying Fox News is innocent, but I don't think there are any honest media sources left.  Here's some of the stuff I've found on Al-Jazeera:

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2007/01/no_surprise_alj.html

http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/06/media-crime.html

If we can't even agree on what's happening in the news, it makes it harder for ordinary people throughout the spectrum to agree that both parties are destroying the country.

A listing of journalism awards won by Al Jazeera in 2012

Webby People's Choice Award for News and Politics in the online film and video category, The Stream
Royal Television Society: News Channel for the Year
Royal Television Society: Most Innovative Programme, The Stream
George Polk Award for Television Documentary, "Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark"
The Franklin D Roosevelt Four Freedoms Awards, Freedom of Speech and Expression Medal
Alfred I DuPont Award, Best Documentary, "Haiti: Six Months On"

While all news is slanted to some degree, Al Jazeera is far better than the links you indicated. Their news is not limited to the Middle East, but is worldwide, much like the BBC.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The News
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2012, 11:08:15 PM »
So what does the FCC even do if they can't keep news organizations from lying?  Is it completely useless?

Well when you have a house and senate that refuse to let them persue the goals of protecting the media wavelengths like they were chartered to it's hard to get any teeth to enforce things.

Think about this.. every time Rupert Murdoch buys a new station in the NYC region.. it takes an act of CONGRESS to allow it. He holds control of something like 40% of the NYC market. Overall Fox and Murdoch's other business control a mind spinning amount of the US media and News market.

You want to see how bad it is.. look at how bad the fight over Net Neutrality has been. The FCC has been repeatedly slapped in the metaphorical junk over their attempt to ensure fair play online and in the airwaves.

Me? I have this outlook..foolish though it is.. that we allow the TV broadcasters free use of our airwaves..we should get something like a news without a consideration towards ad revenue.. That dream died back in the 80s with the death of the Fairness Doctrine with nothing better to replace it.

Dont' get me wrong..the Fairness Doctrine was riddled with issues.. but doing away with it..then adding 24 hour news channels has led to a polarization like we see between Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

Hence my preference for BBC News over US news.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The News
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2012, 04:50:08 PM »
I think it will be hilarious when he finally dies, as murdoch's personality is one pof the major driving forces, and his underlings are not known for their decision making skills.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: The News
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2012, 04:51:53 PM »
I think it will be hilarious when he finally dies, as murdoch's personality is one pof the major driving forces, and his underlings are not known for their decision making skills.

I think that his company will implode without him at the helm. The vibe I get is his son has zero confidence from the board, and my gut tells me that there will be a feeding frenzy. I'm curious to see who 'eats' the bits in the US when and if it falls apart.