 |
| |
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
I'm generally for it. I have yet to see any favorable reports on the dam in the western media, although I've come to expect that wherever China is concerned.
It will be a shame to see historic sites submerged, but the Communist party has frequently ploughed over these sites if it will help industry and modernization. Love them or loathe them, at least they're consistent.
I don't know enough about it to comment on the details, such as the questioned safety of the project, or the rumors of endemic corruption surrounding it - but I believe at roots, the idea behind it is a good one and I prefer that the government spends money like this on trying to provide clean electricity, rather than military and weapons of defence.
It's interesting but I think a lot of the posters here (and with US flags beneath their names, I fear) would probably not have said anything if the country building this had been, say, Japan. Once the name "China" appears in any news item, it's interesting to gauge exactly how that colors American perceptions of the whole question.
I say this because I'm caught in the middle of a two-week-old argument in my family's email ring. Half of us live in North America (USA and Canada) and the other half of us live in China and Southeast Asia. Accusations of news manipulation and brainwashing are thrown both ways at China's government controlled media and America's corporate-owned channels alike.
As the only one in my family doing a Master's degree in Journalism, I feel like I'm the most knowledgeable person about this topic and still my answer is always "well, I don't know..." |
Get some perspective and develop a view.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
In my opinion, the TGD is heck of a gamble. Very risky, but also very beneficial if the gamble pays off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alinestra Covelia
|
 |
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
orange - don't take it personally. I'm an American too. I don't single out Americans because they're any more likely to be swayed by media spin, but simply because all the data we have on research into media effects is about the US media. (Simply put, few other countries have a media as developed as the US'.)
In any case, findings on American news viewership have been pretty negative... but for the sake of balance, it's important to note that few other nations have any findings at all. Journalistic academic and trade based research just haven't really penetrated very far beyond the borders of the US. I think Britain has a small research base but nowhere near as large as here. There simply isn't any data. Sorry if this comes across as disdainful. I tried to keep my comments pretty balanced (something my email-slinging relatives are not doing right now).
So it's not as though we have conclusive proof that Americans are any more or less ignorant of the situation than others. It's just that we dont' have any proof about anybody except the Americans, period.
Moving on from this, I'd say that as a matter of subjective opinion (my own observations), I'd say that British television has been consistently more inclusive of international affairs than US television news, and has tried to bring a more objective view to them. This owes much to the BBC, which is free from economic concerns that put pressure on its US cousins.
The OPPOSITE holds true (in my opinion) about British newspapers, most of which are fairly open about their political biases and endorse them frequently in their reporting. Compare this with New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, where reporting is usually much more objective, and you'll see that the British newsprint is not nearly as balanced as its TV media.
I guess this is a long winded way of saying to GP that I'm currently trying my best to "get a perspective" and "develop a view". I'm still working on it but my plan so far has included 11 years' residence in the UK, 4 years in the PRChina, and 2 years in a Master's program in Journalism in Missouri. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.
This is probably the wrong thread for this discussion. If any of you have interests or questions in journalistic research then feel free to PM me so we don't distress or bore any others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
LOL Yeah, I'd agree with you there. It's a big problem with academicians of all stripes that sometimes they get so bogged down in the details, that they can't see the forest for the trees. We had a research proposal about whether or not C-Span's coverage was balanced or not, and there was one (rather facetious) undergrad who goes "Dude, nobody watches C-Span anyway!"
Most of my news intake comes from online sources, and I'd say radio is a second place.
I read BBC news online and the NYTimes most often, as well as some UK newspapers (when I want some editorializing). Washingtonpost.com is good as well. If I read something about Chinese news, I generally try to take the Chinese Xinhua.org viewpoint on board too. It's government controlled, but at least it's an alternative viewpoint.
For radio I like NPR quite a lot. This probably owes more to their classical music than their news coverage but I like how they have a good number of global correspondents. |
I find NPR rather pseudo-sophisticated. They don't really dig into issues in the way that I've seen others do. They do, do in-depth peices, but I'm generally not that impressed that they really tee up and attack both sides of the issue, hard. Also, I find the breathy voicing and phrasing annoying.
I think in some ways, the WSJ is the premier newspaper in the country. They give their reporters more time to look at stories and do analysis. And they pay the most. But they are obviously more slanted to finance stuff. And they are a bit right wing. Still they do their stuff pretty damn good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Does New Zealand have a bridge connecting the north and south island or do you have to take a ferry? |
Don't think so.
quote:
Also why doesn't the UK top them all and finally connect Northern Ireland to Scotland? |
The North Channel is about 30 miles wide and it's also pretty deep, that's why. Plus the economics probably don't add up... unless it doubled as a tidal harness.
Seems that the Scandanavia Bridge is already finished, although it's a bridge-tunnel combination.
Edited for North Channel width correction.
Last edited by Sandman on 16-05-2003 at 23:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
a bridge and/or a tunnel btw skorea and japan, at this time, would be infeasable.
a) there is a point that connects the two nations very closely; however, it's the tsushima islands, and they're so small that you'd need another big bridge to connect it with the rest of japan.
b) tunnel would have the same issue--much farther apart. i'm not so sure about the tectonics, but that in itself would make me a bit wary--esp. since skorea doesn't suffer from any of the tectonic problems japan does.
c) neither country is capable, imho, of squan-- spending that much money on such a project.
the three gorges dam, i don't like so much. too much of it, to me, sounds like the chinese wanting to show off to the world what a mighty nation they truly are.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-05-2003 09:20
|