[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: media and impartiality



This government run hack media service has nothing to bitch about as their coverage was very slanted. The best thing for them is competition. A government news service is an oxymoron.
Did you see any of the BBC's coverage? I did, as it ran on one of our local stations after midnight, and I thought they did a pretty good job. It was an interestingly different view from US TV. It's true that state run TV has a hard time in situations like this. There were some comments that state run TV (such as Cairo) now has to keep up with real news because of competition from satellite stations.


As Fox News has proven in the US, the slanted news coverage of the Big Three networks (all down about 15 per cent during the war by the way) and CNN, which with the extremely revealing newspaper article written by one of its honchos that admitted that CNN whored itself to Saddam just to keep its Baghdad bureau open, the American people want news that covers all sides without a political sneer to it. The British people should have the same.
Certainly CNN didn't come out of this lily white. They were also in trouble for traveling with an armed guard, which compromises the non-combatant status of reporters. I don't care for CNN, myself, and preferred to watch a middle-of the road channel like MSNBC or CNBC.


Fox delivers that - CNN, NPR (I am completely against their taxpayer support by the way - let them sell commercials!), Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, do not.
Hmmm.  And you don't think Fox sneers?  I think they're particularly rude.


CNN cannot now be trusted as a serious venue for journalism. That article was also cited by a former CNN reporter writing only a couple days later as why he quit the network! Their entire reporting from Baghdad, before the war and going back to 1991, is now completely tainted by their whoring to Saddam - and basically only repeating what he spoofed them to repeat.
I just don't think they cover things well in general. Though they do have some very good reporters, their delivery is lacking.


down. Far better to not cover them that be a simple propoganda whore for them.
This is what the BBC accused Fox of.

Someone has mentioned that Clear Channel, and other media giants, are buying up tons of stations, which certainly does limit public choices. I hate government over-regulation, but this may have to be re-examined by the FCC.
Not only Clear Channel and radio, apparently. Ted Turner checked in today about the diversity comments. He attacked Fox for impartiality, too, which (as you say) may be because Fox is kicking his ass in the ratings. But, he also mentions that about five big companies now determine what you see and hear in the US media. That is certainly an opportunity for 1) requests for payoffs 2) offers of payoffs. Anyone want to get you movie/opinion/music video aired? Pay here...


I was ecstatic to see that the low-wattage radio staions were cleared for the public to get into - but have yet to hear one! Sounds like a fine chance for an "all Who - all the time" station!
Best go to satellite radio for this.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963