Where do you go for news?
- Thread starter habilis
- Start date
edX
mac shaman
i get most of my news from the newspaper - The Chronicle in San Francisco. i find it has a pretty good mix of the different sides of most major events. i also tend to get some stuff from yahoo and a lot of my sports from cbs sportsline. while i get quite a bit from the local newscasts on TV, i don't watch enough of any one station to have picked one. i typically go with whatever the station i'm watching is. this is abc or cbs more often than not. sometimes fox and very occasionally nbc.
i'm a bit confused if you are asking about 'news' or 'war converage' because of the picture. i've been watching cnn quite a bit, but i only ever watch cnn when there is something major going on - like 9/11, oklahoma city, the war, etc. i don't consider it a very good 'news' source particularly. i've also been quite impressed with some of abc's special reports on the war as well.
in genral i don't find any particular media source i use to show too much bias one way or the other, but certain reporters certainly do. generally they are balanced by other points of view though. which is a good approach sometimes.
i'm a bit confused if you are asking about 'news' or 'war converage' because of the picture. i've been watching cnn quite a bit, but i only ever watch cnn when there is something major going on - like 9/11, oklahoma city, the war, etc. i don't consider it a very good 'news' source particularly. i've also been quite impressed with some of abc's special reports on the war as well.
in genral i don't find any particular media source i use to show too much bias one way or the other, but certain reporters certainly do. generally they are balanced by other points of view though. which is a good approach sometimes.
Ugg
Registered
All my news sources are web-based since I don't watch TV and infrequently listen to the radio.
The Guardian UK
Wired.com
cnet.com
BBC
Der Spiegel Germany
Die Zeit Germany
Google News
The Guardian I believe gives a balanced view of the world, not watered down at all. Some columns are very rightist, some centrist and some leftist. It is this that I like most about the Guardian, that it is able to take a balanced look at things. Although in general I would say that it is a slightly left leaning news source.
I like Google News because it picks from a multitude of news sources and I like being able to see what is being said on both sides of the issue.
The German online newspapers tend to be a little more euro-centric in their coverage and bias. Both, however, are fairly balanced.
I think coverage now is being somewhat more objective. The war obviously isn't going to be over in a few weeks as was hoped and all news sources seem to have gotten past the feeding frenzy that led up to the war.
Prior to 9-11 I got much more of my world news from US sources. I think that 9-11 coupled with the insidious corporate takeovers of American media has meant that there is less of an independent voice in the US. One need only look at Clear Channel or Rupert Murdoch's organization to see that news is being directed from corporate headquarters.
The demise of independent and local news is a serious problem. Whether they be right or left in their tendencies is not the issue but that Americans are losing the voice of those who disagree with corporate America.
The Guardian UK
Wired.com
cnet.com
BBC
Der Spiegel Germany
Die Zeit Germany
Google News
The Guardian I believe gives a balanced view of the world, not watered down at all. Some columns are very rightist, some centrist and some leftist. It is this that I like most about the Guardian, that it is able to take a balanced look at things. Although in general I would say that it is a slightly left leaning news source.
I like Google News because it picks from a multitude of news sources and I like being able to see what is being said on both sides of the issue.
The German online newspapers tend to be a little more euro-centric in their coverage and bias. Both, however, are fairly balanced.
I think coverage now is being somewhat more objective. The war obviously isn't going to be over in a few weeks as was hoped and all news sources seem to have gotten past the feeding frenzy that led up to the war.
Prior to 9-11 I got much more of my world news from US sources. I think that 9-11 coupled with the insidious corporate takeovers of American media has meant that there is less of an independent voice in the US. One need only look at Clear Channel or Rupert Murdoch's organization to see that news is being directed from corporate headquarters.
The demise of independent and local news is a serious problem. Whether they be right or left in their tendencies is not the issue but that Americans are losing the voice of those who disagree with corporate America.
adambyte
Registered
BBC World News.... to a guy like me from the states, it seems pretty objective.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/
toast
Gone !
US legal code, Title 18-2331 on the definition of terrorism: ?Acts dangerous to human life...that appear intended to coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.?
---
Press: Le Monde, Les Échos, IHT, The Guardian
Radio: France Info, NPR (when possible)
TV: France (online)
---
Have you heard the radio ? There are only 4 NGOs left in Bagdad. One of them is Belgian, it's called "Aide Médicale Tiers-Monde" or something like that. On France Info, this morning, one of their pediatrists was interviewed.
She stated that, even if children laugh and play all day, the trauma is there, beneath the appearances. She has declared the recent situation (last five days) were "unbearable" and that she could not cope with children any more. Many children in Bagdad do not sleep any more because of the bombings, and any spend all night screaming and/or having nightmares.
This pediatrist also explained that, to help their children calming down, parents were giving Valium to their kids. Not candies
---
I feel that for one candy given, three bombs fall. That's bias, I guess
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
Well, what I've observed on the cable networks is that Fox News is the only right leaning one; they display American flags in their on screen graphics, the Anchors all wear American Flag Lapel pins and have basically the same conservative views, that they quite vocally express. I think that's why they're #1 in the ratings now. They aren't trying to be politically correct about every_single_word, and they treat our troops as hero's, and do bi-hourly tributes to the fallen and their family. They call the soldiers death a "Sacrifice". They use the term Homicide Bomber, calling the killers, killers.
On the other hand, CNN and the CNN wannabes are incredibly left leaning; no American flags in their graphics because they're afraid to offend, no American Flag lapel pins because they're afraid to offend. Very rarely is their a tribute to a soldier, only to the Family of the soldier. They call the soldiers death a "Tragedy". They use the term "Suicide Bomber" to glorify the attacker's plight, and take away from the victims murder.
toast: I feel that for one candy given, three children are saved from torture, but only time will tell.
On the other hand, CNN and the CNN wannabes are incredibly left leaning; no American flags in their graphics because they're afraid to offend, no American Flag lapel pins because they're afraid to offend. Very rarely is their a tribute to a soldier, only to the Family of the soldier. They call the soldiers death a "Tragedy". They use the term "Suicide Bomber" to glorify the attacker's plight, and take away from the victims murder.
toast: I feel that for one candy given, three children are saved from torture, but only time will tell.
edX
mac shaman
so this whole thread is about your desire to see news sources glorify the war? you see bias when just facts are given, and not support? the use of the words that have been used in reporting this kind of thing for decades rather than inventing a new nationalistic vocabulary are suddenly part of a plot to discredit american soldiers?
so you're upset because the 'biases' don't reflect your own viewpoint. there's a real point to be made there somewhere.
so you're upset because the 'biases' don't reflect your own viewpoint. there's a real point to be made there somewhere.
toast
Gone !
Let me laugh. Those children you're supposed to save are dying of hunger and disease. By the time your troops reach Bagdad, you'll only have corpses to count, and nobody to save. How much time will be necessary for you warhawks that boots and bombs do not chase torture and treachery ? Sigh.
"Time will tell ?" Hmm, you have already been wrong about timing as far as war is concerned, so I don't know what credit I should give this bit of yours.
Note: I don't think sending 100.000 extra "candy-donators" to Iraq will accelerate its invasion. It'll just increase the quantities of Valium consumed by 9-years old, that's all.
One last thing: I have been reading pro-war arguments. I have been looking some pro-war TV shows. Why don't you do the same and start there ? Caution, some pictures are hard. Well, that is called war, I guess.
The MokXnster
Drunk me!!
I don't watch or read news, I just read about it on the Mac forums I go to, that's it... I hate news, always the same stupid violence related stuff...
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
toast, I already looked through that hostile site from beginning to end. It's interesting the way it's all patched together but too one sided and unbalanced. Towards the end it starts to sound like Iraqi State TV Propaganda - kinda like you =)
The crux of the whole war/anti-war arguement is this:
We believe that Saddam brought all this on himself. His violent, defiant history proves this over and again to me.
You, well, I guess you'll have to explain your point since what I gather is that you believe the US is evil, in particular capitalism and those in our government that uphold it the most fervently. That's what your arguments all seem to boil down to.
I have one question for you, do you honestly believe, when you sit alone in the darkness at night before bed, that we, the US military, the Bush administration, CENTCOM, or whoever, target and bomb civilians?
The crux of the whole war/anti-war arguement is this:
We believe that Saddam brought all this on himself. His violent, defiant history proves this over and again to me.
You, well, I guess you'll have to explain your point since what I gather is that you believe the US is evil, in particular capitalism and those in our government that uphold it the most fervently. That's what your arguments all seem to boil down to.
I have one question for you, do you honestly believe, when you sit alone in the darkness at night before bed, that we, the US military, the Bush administration, CENTCOM, or whoever, target and bomb civilians?
edX
mac shaman
does it matter if we intend to or not? look at the cruise missles that have landed in Syria and Turkey - these are our allies, or at least neutral. if we can be that far off target, what makes you think we have anything but a rough idea where most of our bombs go? Thank God that we've stopped using the cruise missles from the meditarian for now!!
our govt has said that it is impossible to wage this war without killing innocent civilians. and we aren't just doing it with bombs. our soldiers are so afraid of not knowing who the enemy is that they are shooting first and asking questions later. not that i might not do the same in their shoes, but they shouldn't be in a position to have to make this kind of decision. those who make it home are going to live with this war for much longer than however long it takes to win it.
as for our govt.'s intent - perhaps some of you missed THIS. i would specifically ask you to pay attention to THEIR STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES and THIS LETTER TO PRES. CLINTON. note the names at the bottom of each of these pages. feel free to poke around the site if you feel these are not enough evidence that this war has been planned by these people long before they came to power. this is planned military aggression in the name of making america an unchallengable foe and taking control of all resources that it sees as beneficial. These people don't care about anybody's children but their own. not the iraqis, not yours, not mine.
toast
Gone !
It is obviously one sided, I had warned you about that. The site has its share of anti-americanism, which I do not share, just like I hate those anti-US links on www.adbusters.org. However, most of the information you'll find on Fire This Time is accurate. And when I say 'most', that's because I haven't read it all through.
I'll take this as a joke
Wrong. I do not believe the US is evil, nor that capitalism is, you missed it. Please bring any form of evidence to back up this (fallacious) argument, or rectify your sayings.
I have claimed many times here that being against the war is different from being against America, or different from being pro-Iraq. This technique of assimilation, which you are practising with the same... hm... hability as your President ("You are either with us or against us") is so caricatural that it instantly kills your demonstration. Hence, I recommend you rectify those views.
I think Ed has already answered to this question. History could hep to back up his point, if necessary.
Perseus
Registered
I check out CNN for regular every day news, technology news, space news, etc. Same with newspapers. I also, from time to time, enjoy reading what they got at The Onion (www.theonion.com) Great stuff.
-Perseus
Great stuff.-Perseus
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
toast: yeah that was a joke.
Ed and toast - on killing civilains:
Where is the balance in your arguments? I hear all about how we kill children and women, I hear all about the suffering we cause. Where is your voice when it comes to the suffering, unparalelled aside from Nazi Germany, of the Iraqi women and children under the Iraqi Saddam regime? This man, as hard as it is to believe, has murdered over 600,000 people - not even including the 500,000 dead in the Iran-Iraq War. You guys are all about human rights, but if you want credibility in this area, you have to address this problem and I'm open to your solution.
On the mistakes of the US:
In the near past the US has made some grave mistakes, we trusted people we shouldn't have, we let public opinion(the peace movement) stop us from invading Iraq in '91 to back the Shiite rebellion and it cost 200,000 innocent lives crushed by Saddams killing squads. In that, we are guilty.
On the good of the many:
One of my favorite lessons I learned from watching Star Trek is Mr. Spocks expression: "The good of the many, outweigh the good of the few". This can be applied in the real world:
In WWI and WWII France and Germany suffered incredible losses and it's understandable that they hate war more then anybody, but evidently they haven't learned the lessons taught by them. Appeasement and isolationism get you and others killed, kinda like 3,600 dead on 9|11. The same 72% of Americans that now support the war, were the same 72% that rescued Europe from Hitlers slaughter - hundreds of thousands of civillians died in the Allied bombing raids on Germany et al, but the good of the many(all of europe - and maybe the world) outweighed the good of the few (German civillians). This same logic is now being applied(the good of the millions of Iraqi women and children OUTWEIGHS the good of the few that die in the liberation process).
After WWII the U.N. was created to stop tyranny and evil from ever occuring again on that scale and now it does nothing but stand in the way of freedom and hope for the Iraqi's, much like France, Germany, and the Peace movement now are. At least that's how we 72% see it.
I'm not going to address the other wild allegations and conspiracy theories perpetrated by fringe leftists. Recent US history shows us to be non-imperialist, we liberated Kuwait, and left the oil there, and we left it in Iraq too, we liberated Afganistan, and left it better then we found it. There's a total lack of evidence to support these claims. Why would GW institute programs at creating non-poluting hydrogen and alternative-fuel powered cars into the mainstream with 20 years at the State of the Union speech if he was oil thirsty?
Live long and prosper
Ed and toast - on killing civilains:
Where is the balance in your arguments? I hear all about how we kill children and women, I hear all about the suffering we cause. Where is your voice when it comes to the suffering, unparalelled aside from Nazi Germany, of the Iraqi women and children under the Iraqi Saddam regime? This man, as hard as it is to believe, has murdered over 600,000 people - not even including the 500,000 dead in the Iran-Iraq War. You guys are all about human rights, but if you want credibility in this area, you have to address this problem and I'm open to your solution.
On the mistakes of the US:
In the near past the US has made some grave mistakes, we trusted people we shouldn't have, we let public opinion(the peace movement) stop us from invading Iraq in '91 to back the Shiite rebellion and it cost 200,000 innocent lives crushed by Saddams killing squads. In that, we are guilty.
On the good of the many:
One of my favorite lessons I learned from watching Star Trek is Mr. Spocks expression: "The good of the many, outweigh the good of the few". This can be applied in the real world:
In WWI and WWII France and Germany suffered incredible losses and it's understandable that they hate war more then anybody, but evidently they haven't learned the lessons taught by them. Appeasement and isolationism get you and others killed, kinda like 3,600 dead on 9|11. The same 72% of Americans that now support the war, were the same 72% that rescued Europe from Hitlers slaughter - hundreds of thousands of civillians died in the Allied bombing raids on Germany et al, but the good of the many(all of europe - and maybe the world) outweighed the good of the few (German civillians). This same logic is now being applied(the good of the millions of Iraqi women and children OUTWEIGHS the good of the few that die in the liberation process).
After WWII the U.N. was created to stop tyranny and evil from ever occuring again on that scale and now it does nothing but stand in the way of freedom and hope for the Iraqi's, much like France, Germany, and the Peace movement now are. At least that's how we 72% see it.
I'm not going to address the other wild allegations and conspiracy theories perpetrated by fringe leftists. Recent US history shows us to be non-imperialist, we liberated Kuwait, and left the oil there, and we left it in Iraq too, we liberated Afganistan, and left it better then we found it. There's a total lack of evidence to support these claims. Why would GW institute programs at creating non-poluting hydrogen and alternative-fuel powered cars into the mainstream with 20 years at the State of the Union speech if he was oil thirsty?
Live long and prosper
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
Originally posted by Perseus
I enjoy reading what they got at The Onion (www.theonion.com)
-Perseus
Yes, the Onion is HILARIOUS!
Cat
Registered
On killing civilians and pacifism:
I am against the war, this does not mean that I am for tyrannous regimes murdering and raping people. I am willing to do something about it, but IMHO war is not the most appropriate solution. If you are really open to other solutions than war, then consider what the UN were trying to achieve peacefully before the US attacked and invaded Iraq. The UN were addressing the many problems of Iraq, in their own way, according to their own schedule, which wass democartically decided upon before the US unilaterally took the decision to take right in to their own hands. Those who would uphold justice and democracy shouldn't be the first to cast them aside, lest they lose their credibility...
I am against the war, this does not mean that I am for tyrannous regimes murdering and raping people. I am willing to do something about it, but IMHO war is not the most appropriate solution. If you are really open to other solutions than war, then consider what the UN were trying to achieve peacefully before the US attacked and invaded Iraq. The UN were addressing the many problems of Iraq, in their own way, according to their own schedule, which wass democartically decided upon before the US unilaterally took the decision to take right in to their own hands. Those who would uphold justice and democracy shouldn't be the first to cast them aside, lest they lose their credibility...
edX
mac shaman
interestingly enough i just answered that in another forum where i am discussing the whole war thing. so let me essentially cut and paste it here:
i see one important difference between this war and saddam's madness that some believe it is so humanitarian to kill for - under saddam, people who were killed and tortured were not innocent. they knew what the consequences of being a dissidant in their country was and took the risk. far more people there seem to be fine with the quality of life as is, which is still better than it was under the shah. children were still growing up, people still went to work and fed their families and settled back in front of the tv at the end of the day. no, it wasn't the same quality of life found in developed western countries with more civil liberties, but it was a life just the same. there was a choice whether to put oneself in danger or not.
in the war, there are no choices. one's home and family are destroyed right out of the night air without so much as time for tears. if one is standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, they are one less mouth to feed. or suddenly without the legs that they were just running for their life on.
i'm sure some will read this as some sort of sanctification of saddam and the atrocities he has committed. go ahead. it's not, but some will push their interpretation of morality on my words no matter what i mean from my heart, so go right on with it. i'm getting used to it by now. The point is that stopping one attrocity by creating one far worse is not something that should be glorified and justified. it makes as much sense as a gang war, where one side kills one of the other and so the other side kills 2 in return and so the original side kills somebody and their whole family. before you know it, one thing that should never have been done turns into a whole list of things that should never have been done with no way to go back and undo them.
you know habilis - i don't think you ever replied to my presentation of the links to the 'new american century' site where our current leaders are quite open about their desires for war long before they had the power to wage it. i find it pretty convincing that our country is in the hands of 'war mongers' who haven't got the patience for other resolutions that would benefit more people, other than themselves, in the long run. i personally don't believe that this is what 72% of americans understand and believe they are supporting. i think you will find the number of americans who think like that to be a true minority who just happen to have control of the country right now.