 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:25
|
|
I very recently got cable (again), so I was able to see (again) 24 hour news at their best: MY GOD, THE HUMANITY!
24 Hours news cable netwroks are Utter Crap! The anchors have the knowledge of a vegetable on any topic, and not only are they generally igonorant, but they aren't even good enough to coe up with good questions. Places like Msnbc, Fox news and even CNN now are more a har, than good. Good news is not simply information thrown at you, but information backed with impartial, informative annalysis. None of the "news" networks provide such a thing.
As for this news:
'Shrug': the admin will make a big deal of it, as they are counting down to the Jan 27 "deadline". Obviously the hawks are itching to get the war started, now that the military is almost ready to go. Opponents of war will dismiss the news. Same ol', same ol'
Perhaps more interesting is what documents were found inside the private homes of a couple of scientists the inspectors searched today.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith
Gepap:
It takes a while to analyze information, so I don't necessarily fault news networks for that.
|
But I do. These places call themselves 24 hour news networks, but half of what is going on in the world never makes it in. Why? I could think of various way in which "24 Hour News Networks" could be far better at spreading out info. Number one problem: people don't have to know immidiately about something. Lets say you get the news: well, spend 1 hour annalysing it in the back room, having trained researchers and editors look at it, and write informative peices, while on air, you spell out what is going on around the world: there is plenty of news: natural disasters, international politics, the situation in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the chaning of leaderships in Brazil, Ecuador, Kenya, so forth and so on: how are the peace negotiations in the DRC going?
Would a channel more like a Newspaper be profitable? would it get as high ratings as the muckrakers and yellow journalists? Perhaps not, but it woul be real news.
As for the documents: using their new powers under SCR 1441, inspectors went into the private homes of a couple of Iraqi scientist, took various documents, and my guess is, interviewed the scientists. The Iraqis were not very happy and there were some angry words and reactions from the Iraqis about that. The documents, of course, are still to be look at, their information made public.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000 time: 01:25
|
|
^^ Something I've been pondering as well. Chemical weapons are so reliant upon proper dispersion in order to be effective -- wind, temperature, pressure, etc etc -- that to lump them in as a "weapon of mass destruction" with nukes (which are in a class of their own, no question) and biological agents (which share many of the same dispersion problems as chemicals, however can somewhat make up for it if they are infectious agents) has always puzzled me.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|