 |
|  |
 |
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000 time: 23:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You really believe that? All news media are biased in some fashion. There's none that is perfectly objective, and I don't think it is possible.
You can put a spin by the arrangement of information, what goes into the headline, etc. |
Yes, I do believe it because I practice what I preach at work. It's when I'm not at work that I can afford to put into words my feelings on things — this forum is an example of that. It's almost like forbidden fruit: "Finally, I can just be a person and *write* what I think, even if it turns out to be mistaken later!" I can also post articles and comment on them — such as my interest in scientific, archaeological, astronomy and history — while at work I just post and/or edit them w/o commentary. I can't insert op/ed stuff at work, and never would. My co-workers are the same way. News pages are for news, and op/ed pages are for opinions, letters and whatnot.
Of course I can only speak for myself and my co-workers. And perhaps the fact that our newspaper is a tight-knit, almost "family-like" atmosphere to it (despite being part of an international newspaper/Internet firm) plays a role in the whole thing. Perhaps it was the way I was raised, as well, that plays a role in how I approach my work.
But, yes, no human is perfect. The existence of the tabloids is proof enough that not even some self-described journalists are what they claim to be.
Gatekeeper
|
|
|  |
 |
|
markusf
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Markusf:
**shrug** I just perused through the Science/Medical section and quickly scanned the Commentary part ... the online edition of the Independent looks like a nicely-designed site. At least in the Sci/Med section, it looks like they picked up wire copy and added their own personalized touch to the stories in question (i.e. "localization," or expanding on points not looked at in-depth in the wire articles).
Gatekeeper |
I find it one of the best sites around. They never tell just one side of the story and they always have a lot of information in the articles you never see anywhere else. The articles with opinions in them are really good to.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GP
Gatekeeper, et al.
I would think journalists would expect very little from TV news. A lot of times they just use the wire services and the papers to decide what to cover anyway. It's all about what the face looks like on the set.
|
It's a little bit of both. If CNN is covering a story, that in itself will influence an editor's decision about the top story of the day.
The wires will also send out lists of what other newspapers are putting on their front pages.
There's also the influence of pack journalists. I've covered events where a big name columnist will announce what he thinks is happening, and sure enough, a lot of reporters will take shape their stories to reflect that viewpoint.
quote: Originally posted by GP
If you want some good journalism read The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. 2 are liberal, 1 is conservative, but all are both more honest and more diligent than puffy stuff like NPR or CNN or Fox. |
The news articles in the WSj are great, the editorials suck big time. Same thing with the Economist.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tolls
|
 |
Hereford, UK
Jan 1970 time: 05:20
|
|
GP:
"Was waiting for someone to not(e?) this..."
Ted lost any say over CNN with the merger with Time Warner. He has been taken back on in some fashion at AOL-Time Warner again recently, but I don't think it involves anything important.
It mentions all this in the Guardian interview...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/A...4435731,00.html
(I know this was put up earlier...)
And the full quote from the article is:
-- "But right now, aren't the Israelis and the Palestinians both terrorising each other?" he says, as Pritchard starts scribbling furiously on his notepad. "It looks to me like they're both doing it. When the Brits retaliated for the Germans, for the, awwww, Krauts... for the Nazis bombing London by bombing Berlin, weren't you both terrorising each other? The rich and the powerful, they don't need to resort to terrorism... The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers; that's all they have. The Israelis... they've got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing. So who are the terrorists? I would make a case that both sides are involved in terrorism." --
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Arrian, not just Europe--Canada, Mexico, much of Central and South America, and a good deal of Asia are left of the U.S. The only places more right seem to be Islamic countries and Third-world African despots.
Shouldn't that tell you something, Fez? And since I didn't call you a Nazi (you like to make up arguments, don't you?), I hope to not see any accusations of being a Stalinist.
I'd also have that narcolepsy checked out if I were you. Replacing intelligent discourse with the smiley wears thin quickly. |
To be fair to the foreign kid, the discourse really wasn't all that intelligent.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002 time: 15:20
|
|
Israel isn't a master of propoganda. If so, Europeans these days would be pro Israel as opposed to Pro Palestinian. One factor in this is the language used-ie.they call terrorists militants both on the news and etc, and this really hurts Israeli PR i think. And Israel doesn't commit acts of terrorism AFAIK.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|