"State ran" news
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2013, 03:38 AM
RE: "State ran" news
(06-09-2013 06:18 PM)Heathen Wrote:  I refuse to participate in this thread any longer unless you begin using ran and run correctly. Tongue

Good, your only previous message got in the way.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: "State ran" news
(07-09-2013 12:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(06-09-2013 02:35 AM)I and I Wrote:  What mainstream corporate media has journalistic standards?

Corporate ran news in the US repeats government released stats about the economy which are skewed to give a false picture of an economy getting better when in reality it is not (for the common worker). Again I am trying to find a DIFFERENCE in how the corporate media reports and how state ran media reports things. So far I see no difference when examining specific examples.


One difference is the particular bias each type would have. Of course, all media have biases. It's somewhat foolish to expect the straight news on all topics from all media outlets. The problem many of us have with your often cited sources is that you do not acknowledge any bias from your own sources, and hold them up as unadulterated sources truth.

There is one other big difference. Some governments effectively stamp out independant news sources--i.e. Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Russia. The more alternate sources of news are shut down, the less a government and its remaining state media can be kept in check. If Fox news or MSNBC betray their journalistic charge by allowing bias into their reportage, we all know that this will be uncovered, exposed, and discussed.

Since when did Venezuela stamp out independent news sources? (oh please step in to my trap, I know what you are going to say about venezuela and the example you are going to use, come on boy, take that step.)

Do you think it is any different or better if a corporate ran media stamps out independent reporting vs a government doing it? The advantage with one is that you can have the semblance of a free press, the other one makes no pretense, the result is the same....A pro-government message.

Bias in US mainstream media often goes unnoticed and when it is uncovered it's usually too late (first its a conspiracy theory of course). Remember Jessica Lynch? A girl was reported taken hostage in Iraq, then the US special forces went in and rescued her? The video was made of her rescue. The US and media used that to get peoples cocks hard over the war. Well guess what, it was all completely made up, she wasn't a hostage, she was being treated by Iraqis in an Iraqi hospital. She spoke before congress about the incident and said that the US made the story up and used her.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 09:45 PM
RE: "State ran" news
(09-09-2013 08:25 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(07-09-2013 12:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  One difference is the particular bias each type would have. Of course, all media have biases. It's somewhat foolish to expect the straight news on all topics from all media outlets. The problem many of us have with your often cited sources is that you do not acknowledge any bias from your own sources, and hold them up as unadulterated sources truth.

There is one other big difference. Some governments effectively stamp out independant news sources--i.e. Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Russia. The more alternate sources of news are shut down, the less a government and its remaining state media can be kept in check. If Fox news or MSNBC betray their journalistic charge by allowing bias into their reportage, we all know that this will be uncovered, exposed, and discussed.

Since when did Venezuela stamp out independent news sources? (oh please step in to my trap, I know what you are going to say about venezuela and the example you are going to use, come on boy, take that step.)

Do you think it is any different or better if a corporate ran media stamps out independent reporting vs a government doing it? The advantage with one is that you can have the semblance of a free press, the other one makes no pretense, the result is the same....A pro-government message.

Bias in US mainstream media often goes unnoticed and when it is uncovered it's usually too late (first its a conspiracy theory of course). Remember Jessica Lynch? A girl was reported taken hostage in Iraq, then the US special forces went in and rescued her? The video was made of her rescue. The US and media used that to get peoples cocks hard over the war. Well guess what, it was all completely made up, she wasn't a hostage, she was being treated by Iraqis in an Iraqi hospital. She spoke before congress about the incident and said that the US made the story up and used her.


This article does a good job summarizing the issues:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19368807

In addition to laws which allow the government to fine media for "hatred and intolerance for political reasons", the most recent acts in the past few years including yanking the license of dozens of radio stations critical of the government. The Venezuelan law that governs licensing of radio and TV stations places authority of revoking licenses within the control of the president, with no review or appeals process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 01:59 AM
RE: "State ran" news
(09-09-2013 09:45 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 08:25 AM)I and I Wrote:  Since when did Venezuela stamp out independent news sources? (oh please step in to my trap, I know what you are going to say about venezuela and the example you are going to use, come on boy, take that step.)

Do you think it is any different or better if a corporate ran media stamps out independent reporting vs a government doing it? The advantage with one is that you can have the semblance of a free press, the other one makes no pretense, the result is the same....A pro-government message.

Bias in US mainstream media often goes unnoticed and when it is uncovered it's usually too late (first its a conspiracy theory of course). Remember Jessica Lynch? A girl was reported taken hostage in Iraq, then the US special forces went in and rescued her? The video was made of her rescue. The US and media used that to get peoples cocks hard over the war. Well guess what, it was all completely made up, she wasn't a hostage, she was being treated by Iraqis in an Iraqi hospital. She spoke before congress about the incident and said that the US made the story up and used her.


This article does a good job summarizing the issues:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19368807

In addition to laws which allow the government to fine media for "hatred and intolerance for political reasons", the most recent acts in the past few years including yanking the license of dozens of radio stations critical of the government. The Venezuelan law that governs licensing of radio and TV stations places authority of revoking licenses within the control of the president, with no review or appeals process.

The government didn't "yank" any tv or radio station off the air. The government is in control of licensing and decides who get the license (just like it is here with the FCC. Radio and tv airwaves are public so licenses are handed out or not renewed by the government.

Hey did you know that the radio and tv stations that didn't get their license renewed were publicly calling for the overthrow of Chavez during the failed (now revealed) US backed coup attempt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 05:22 AM
RE: "State ran" news
(09-09-2013 09:45 PM)BryanS Wrote:  This article does a good job summarizing the issues:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19368807

A state-run new source does a good job summarising the issues? Wink

So what's the point of this thread any way, I&I? To say that some state run news sources are reasonably reliable on most issues? Well, any Brit or Australian could tell you that. Both countries have a tradition of running a journalistic empire that is set up more as an additional balancing arm of the government than as subservient to a particular branch of government. However, the existence of reasonably reliable state run sources doesn't imply that all state run sources are reliable... any more than the existence of a reasonably reliable report from a particular source implies that all reports from the same source are reliable.

I&I if I am to observe, your posting style tends to be constructed to avoid making clear and specific points. You make general statements and cast general aspersions without clearly outlining any specific position for yourself and seemingly without interest in the positions others actually hold. If I were to generalise, your posts seem to come out in the form of:
* "Somebody thinks xxx"
* "I think them thinking xxx is stupid"
* "You guys probably think xxx and you are stupid" or "Prove me wrong, because I already assume you disagree with me completely"

It hardly seems with responding to threads with this form of OP. If you want to discuss issues seriously, both contributing your ideas and listening to the ideas of others... presenting and defending your arguments while rebutting or accepting the arguments of others... a change in post structure would go a long way to both persuading others of your points and persuading others that it is worth contributing to your threads.

May I suggest:
* "Somebody thinks xxx. It is person yyy[citation]"
* "I disagree with xxx. For reasons a, b, and c."
* "What are the views of the board?"

You are a prevalent poster on this board, and you are passionate about a range of issues. That's good, and boards such as this one need the input of that kind of passion. I'm interested to see what you could contribute if you were able to adapt your style to be more conversational and engaging.

As for Syria, I'm biased against military action in parts of the world where the west acting as an aggressor doesn't fully comprehend local politics of the long term implications of its actions. I am particularly biased against unilateral military action or military action from some "coalition of the willing". I'm much more neutral towards action that has UN security council backing.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: