[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