NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been watching the news from other Countries yesterday, specifically China and America, and I noticed that though they both called themselves world news, neither broadcasts shown anything that had nothing to do with the respective nations. What does everybody think of their media? (including press and radio.) I personally think BBC is the best, because it was international, and said so.

(Sorry to the Scandinavians and anyone else I missed (a lot of you), but as you know, only 5 options)

The American media is slanted too far to the political left to see beyond it's own borders. The only thing they report, from other countries, is what they think they can put a spin on to make our current president look bad. This is a shame because the American people actually want to know the truth about what is happening around the world. Of course, truth and liberalism are so far apart the American people will never be allowed to see it on their TV's, read it in their newspapers, or hear it on their radios (unless they listen to the BBC broadcast).

Edit: comment not relevant.

no comments then?Patience, we have to practice it here in America, that is the only way we can find out the truth.

I'd have to say I prefer the BBC because of it's international nature, compared to any most other news outlets anyway.

It was the ABC news that I watched that specifically got me to post this thread (China today to a lesser extent, but it is called !China! today, so it doesn't count as much.)

It was called ABC world news, but it went on about civil war submariners, and some obscure southern state events. Nothing international but Iraq, and even then, it was only the American sector.

I highly recommend Canada's national broadcaster, the CBC, as a good source of well-researched and fairly presented global coverage. From their mainpage ( http://cbc.ca ) you can get to their internet TV and radio streams plus news headlines. There you can also find info on CBC's worldwide shortwave radio network, Radio Canada International; they have programmes in several languages.

Well this doesn't concern objectiveness and widely ranged, but the only good media IMO is my school paper (which I am a reporter on). If anything, it is prolly center or center-left

Yes. Our 6th year newspaper, the "neatly-clam-jam-fried-catalogue-of-novelties" is particularly objective. Especially the column "An imperialist rants" in which I blame the French for not being able to make a phone call when I was online "Those Dastardly French! Always trying to enforce their garlicky will upon the sceptred isle! I'll show them what for!"

Particularly fine journalism.

Depends on what you mean by a national media. If you're talking about a government run news organization like the CBC or BBC, then the US doesn't really have one. Even NPR is funded more by private donations than federal money these days.

And I'll take either the BBC or the CBC over the corporate media that dominates the US right now. NPR does a very good job with limited resources and despite the fact that their mandate is less for news gathering and more for cultural types of things.

when it comes to journalism , the American media has a right wing Subtext. its quite apparent when you read articles regarding the Bush administration. FOX News is a perfect example of this

Most American media (at least radio & TV) is right-wing owned. But I don't think very many TV networks show a hard turn in either direction (except FoxNews). Only PBS and NPR and a couple newspapers are acceptable sources of actual news. The problem in America is not biased news; our problem is the news is manipulated to entertain, not inform. Is this true elsewhere? It's really kind of annoying...

Well. We occasionally have the entertaining story on the regional news, but it's usually serious. Another complaint I had was that the broadcast was very biased. Somebody gave an opinion, and the newsreader actually said that it was true, it was something like "That's certainly true. On other news..." That, though small, is not a good thing at all.

It was the ABC news that I watched that specifically got me to post this thread (China today to a lesser extent, but it is called !China! today, so it doesn't count as much.)

It was called ABC world news, but it went on about civil war submariners, and some obscure southern state events. Nothing international but Iraq, and even then, it was only the American sector.
Still, the three big networks have only a 30 minute broadcast. But each the editors (who are also the anchors) have different interests. Peter Jennings is actually the one who likes foreign issues the best, and does report about them. Tom Brokaw is supposedly interested in anything having to do with the environment. And Dan Rather likes reporting about the US heartland. If you want more in depth news, watch one of the cable stations.
BTW, you complain about no reporting on the Polish or British sectors of Iraq. Well, what happened to the adage, "no news is good news"?

I highly recommend Canada's national broadcaster, the CBC, as a good source of well-researched and fairly presented global coverage. From their mainpage ( http://cbc.ca ) you can get to their internet TV and radio streams plus news headlines. There you can also find info on CBC's worldwide shortwave radio network, Radio Canada International; they have programmes in several languages.

The CBC is the left wing. Harshly left leaning news. There is a reason why westerners in Canada joke its the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.

Fairly un-biased news would be the BBC and IMO The Economist. So I guess the British media is the least biased out of the bunch...though in reality ALL media is biased to one side or another.

I highly recommend Canada's national broadcaster, the CBC, as a good source of well-researched and fairly presented global coverage. From their mainpage ( http://cbc.ca ) you can get to their internet TV and radio streams plus news headlines. There you can also find info on CBC's worldwide shortwave radio network, Radio Canada International; they have programmes in several languages.

The CBC is the left wing. Harshly left leaning news. There is a reason why westerners in Canada joke its the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.

Fairly un-biased news would be the BBC and IMO The Economist. So I guess the British media is the least biased out of the bunch...though in reality ALL media is biased to one side or another.

It was the ABC news that I watched that specifically got me to post this thread (China today to a lesser extent, but it is called !China! today, so it doesn't count as much.)

It was called ABC world news, but it went on about civil war submariners, and some obscure southern state events. Nothing international but Iraq, and even then, it was only the American sector.
Still, the three big networks have only a 30 minute broadcast. But each the editors (who are also the anchors) have different interests. Peter Jennings is actually the one who likes foreign issues the best, and does report about them. Tom Brokaw is supposedly interested in anything having to do with the environment. And Dan Rather likes reporting about the US heartland. If you want more in depth news, watch one of the cable stations.
BTW, you complain about no reporting on the Polish or British sectors of Iraq. Well, what happened to the adage, "no news is good news"?That's a little disingenuous, Purly. The big three still have morning shows that last for two or more hours, they have newsbreaks throughout the day, they have newsmagazines that they broadcast throughout the week (dateline, 60 Minutes) and ABC has a late night show with Nightline and does an overnight news show as well.

I like no news is good news. Just out of interest, do you have a big media interest in British elections? I won't be publicly offended if it is no big thing in America, it's just, as you would expect, American elections are given a lot of attention over here. Another thing. Us in Britain only get 5 channels, without cable, and I don't have cable, so I can't always watch other nations news to get a full view. I wanted other people to clarify it, which is happening, so that's all good. (Is nobody here Russian, or are their news networks bad?)

I highly recommend Canada's national broadcaster, the CBC, as a good source of well-researched and fairly presented global coverage.

The CBC is the left wing. Harshly left leaning news. There is a reason why westerners in Canada joke its the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.

And the reason so many Western Canadians are considered a joke by the majority of the country is the goofy parochial conservatism which infects the West. If you listen to the CBC with an objective, educated mind you won't find it at all "left-wing" - it is very firmly in the political centre. If you go looking for examples of "CBC Leftism" you simply won't find them - unless your sources are extreme right-wing rags like Alberta Report and the only-slightly-better National Post. Most Canadians are very proud of the CBC and consider it one of our greatest accomplishments.

BTW I am western Canadian born/raised but the Conservative mentality of many in this region has always been a deep embarassment - I urge others in the world not to judge all Canadians by what they might hear coming out of Alberta.

It was the ABC news that I watched that specifically got me to post this thread (China today to a lesser extent, but it is called !China! today, so it doesn't count as much.)

It was called ABC world news, but it went on about civil war submariners, and some obscure southern state events. Nothing international but Iraq, and even then, it was only the American sector.
Still, the three big networks have only a 30 minute broadcast. But each the editors (who are also the anchors) have different interests. Peter Jennings is actually the one who likes foreign issues the best, and does report about them. Tom Brokaw is supposedly interested in anything having to do with the environment. And Dan Rather likes reporting about the US heartland. If you want more in depth news, watch one of the cable stations.
BTW, you complain about no reporting on the Polish or British sectors of Iraq. Well, what happened to the adage, "no news is good news"?That's a little disingenuous, Purly. The big three still have morning shows that last for two or more hours, they have newsbreaks throughout the day, they have newsmagazines that they broadcast throughout the week (dateline, 60 Minutes) and ABC has a late night show with Nightline and does an overnight news show as well.
You mean that World News Now with Derek McNigtty? It came on at 5:00am in the morning, and their was a time I watched it. I was in a hospital for weeks, and I could get away with the irregular sleeping patterns I had. Anyhow, it was as boring as hell. They had a brief segment about headlines, then they always launched into an agricultural report.
Anyhow, I don't know what the morning shows have, because I've never watched them. They may have newsbreaks in California, but not here in New York (unless it's something extremely important). Only 60 minutes has stories oriented around current events, it seems. The rest do investigative reports or interview celebrities. And as for Nightline, I've never watched it. In fact, asside Saturday Night Live, I've never watched late nite TV. But I love watching ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I've been told by people that they faithfully watch one of the 6:30 news broadcasts, and find the anchors to be like grandfather figures. So really, they are the only ones that matter.

It was the ABC news that I watched that specifically got me to post this thread (China today to a lesser extent, but it is called !China! today, so it doesn't count as much.)

It was called ABC world news, but it went on about civil war submariners, and some obscure southern state events. Nothing international but Iraq, and even then, it was only the American sector.
Still, the three big networks have only a 30 minute broadcast. But each the editors (who are also the anchors) have different interests. Peter Jennings is actually the one who likes foreign issues the best, and does report about them. Tom Brokaw is supposedly interested in anything having to do with the environment. And Dan Rather likes reporting about the US heartland. If you want more in depth news, watch one of the cable stations.
BTW, you complain about no reporting on the Polish or British sectors of Iraq. Well, what happened to the adage, "no news is good news"?That's a little disingenuous, Purly. The big three still have morning shows that last for two or more hours, they have newsbreaks throughout the day, they have newsmagazines that they broadcast throughout the week (dateline, 60 Minutes) and ABC has a late night show with Nightline and does an overnight news show as well.
You mean that World News Now with Derek McNigtty? It came on at 5:00am in the morning, and their was a time I watched it. I was in a hospital for weeks, and I could get away with the irregular sleeping patterns I had. Anyhow, it was as boring as hell. They had a brief segment about headlines, then they always launched into an agricultural report.
Anyhow, I don't know what the morning shows have, because I've never watched them. They may have newsbreaks in California, but not here in New York (unless it's something extremely important). Only 60 minutes has stories oriented around current events, it seems. The rest do investigative reports or interview celebrities. And as for Nightline, I've never watched it. In fact, asside Saturday Night Live, I've never watched late nite TV. But I love watching ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I've been told by people that they faithfully watch one of the 6:30 news broadcasts, and find the anchors to be like grandfather figures. So really, they are the only ones that matter.

The Peter Jennings broadcast is the only one shown over the BBC as far as far as I'm aware, they had a female anchor (it is called an anchor isn't it? It's just a newsreader in Britain.), and there were no international stories. Maybe it's not always like that, but I've heard otherwise.

I never realized how poor and isolationist America's news is until I made my first and only (so far) trip overseas, to Thailand. I ended up watching BBC a lot when in Thailand, becaus it was one of two channels that were in English.
That was my first exposure to BBC, and I was immediately impressed with the level of international news on BBC, and the balance I saw there.

America's news, on the other hand...well, if it didn't happen in America...or in some way affect America, it is hardly reported. And what is reported is often very partisan and divisive. I personally watch CNN here, because at least THEY aren't radical full-tilt-boogie right-wing, nose-up-Bush's-ass like the rest of our national media! Well, except also NPR.

The rest of America's news media sucks. It's not news, it's propaganda.

The American media is slanted too far to the political left to see beyond it's own borders. The only thing they report, from other countries, is what they think they can put a spin on to make our current president look bad. This is a shame because the American people actually want to know the truth about what is happening around the world. Of course, truth and liberalism are so far apart the American people will never be allowed to see it on their TV's, read it in their newspapers, or hear it on their radios (unless they listen to the BBC broadcast).

Funny you should say that, since I am of the opinion that our American news media is slanted way too far to the political RIGHT. They all got their nose shoved up Bush's ass!

I wish they WOULD actually question him, like they FINALLY did the other night...instead of lobbing softballs at him all the time!

Conservatism sucks!

It's strange. You would expect bias from the BBC, given it is state-owned, but they were in a lot of trouble recently (to anybody not from the U.K reading this, about the Hutton enquiry.) This caused several people to resign, including the director-general Greg Dyke. This is a good thing to me, as when a state owned broadcast can get into trouble for questioning and otherwise offending the gov't, things aren't all bad.
Just to clarify the concensus. What is the deal with other broadcasts? I hear Canadians calling the same channel left, and right wing, Americans talking about conservative and liberal channels. If somebody could neatly round it, that would be nice.

You mean that World News Now with Derek McNigtty? It came on at 5:00am in the morning, and their was a time I watched it. I was in a hospital for weeks, and I could get away with the irregular sleeping patterns I had. Anyhow, it was as boring as hell. They had a brief segment about headlines, then they always launched into an agricultural report.
Anyhow, I don't know what the morning shows have, because I've never watched them. They may have newsbreaks in California, but not here in New York (unless it's something extremely important). Only 60 minutes has stories oriented around current events, it seems. The rest do investigative reports or interview celebrities. And as for Nightline, I've never watched it. In fact, asside Saturday Night Live, I've never watched late nite TV. But I love watching ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I've been told by people that they faithfully watch one of the 6:30 news broadcasts, and find the anchors to be like grandfather figures. So really, they are the only ones that matter.World News Now is the overnight show I was talking about, and I wasn't discussing the quality of the show--just noting that it exists. The morning shows are the ones like The Today Show or Good Morning America, and while they have a rep as being light on content, they do report a lot of news.

And I almost forgot the flagships of the networks, aside from the nightly broadcasts--the Sunday news shows. Meet the Press, This Week, and Sunday Morning. The networks still do a lot of news work, although not as much as they did in the past.

Part of that is due to the fact that actual reporting is expensive, and these news companies are now part of large conglomerates that are mostly concerned with the bottom line. It's cheaper to pay talking heads as "analysts" who parrot whatever the administration provides them than it is to actually get out there and do some investigation, and that's been the biggest problem with the news media in recent years.

You mean that World News Now with Derek McNigtty? It came on at 5:00am in the morning, and their was a time I watched it. I was in a hospital for weeks, and I could get away with the irregular sleeping patterns I had. Anyhow, it was as boring as hell. They had a brief segment about headlines, then they always launched into an agricultural report.
Anyhow, I don't know what the morning shows have, because I've never watched them. They may have newsbreaks in California, but not here in New York (unless it's something extremely important). Only 60 minutes has stories oriented around current events, it seems. The rest do investigative reports or interview celebrities. And as for Nightline, I've never watched it. In fact, asside Saturday Night Live, I've never watched late nite TV. But I love watching ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I've been told by people that they faithfully watch one of the 6:30 news broadcasts, and find the anchors to be like grandfather figures. So really, they are the only ones that matter.World News Now is the overnight show I was talking about, and I wasn't discussing the quality of the show--just noting that it exists. The morning shows are the ones like The Today Show or Good Morning America, and while they have a rep as being light on content, they do report a lot of news.

And I almost forgot the flagships of the networks, aside from the nightly broadcasts--the Sunday news shows. Meet the Press, This Week, and Sunday Morning. The networks still do a lot of news work, although not as much as they did in the past.

Part of that is due to the fact that actual reporting is expensive, and these news companies are now part of large conglomerates that are mostly concerned with the bottom line. It's cheaper to pay talking heads as "analysts" who parrot whatever the administration provides them than it is to actually get out there and do some investigation, and that's been the biggest problem with the news media in recent years.
I think the best news media is neither what you described nor what you want. Instead, I feel the best media for anyone would be one that just reports what happens--to hell with interviews. They should be reserved to the radio, internet, or maybe those shows like Dateline. And btw, Dateline, 60 minutes, and 20/20 are known for their investigative reports.
As for the Sunday Morning shows, I've always knew they existed, but I've never watched them (I'm either at church or I sleep in on Sundays). But I feel that anything other than the 6:30 news is a waste of my time. Besides, I learn more from the Internet, or my weekly subscription of TIME magazine (which does a damn good job at reporting and, omg, is owned by a huge conglomerate).

You mean that World News Now with Derek McNigtty? It came on at 5:00am in the morning, and their was a time I watched it. I was in a hospital for weeks, and I could get away with the irregular sleeping patterns I had. Anyhow, it was as boring as hell. They had a brief segment about headlines, then they always launched into an agricultural report.
Anyhow, I don't know what the morning shows have, because I've never watched them. They may have newsbreaks in California, but not here in New York (unless it's something extremely important). Only 60 minutes has stories oriented around current events, it seems. The rest do investigative reports or interview celebrities. And as for Nightline, I've never watched it. In fact, asside Saturday Night Live, I've never watched late nite TV. But I love watching ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I've been told by people that they faithfully watch one of the 6:30 news broadcasts, and find the anchors to be like grandfather figures. So really, they are the only ones that matter.World News Now is the overnight show I was talking about, and I wasn't discussing the quality of the show--just noting that it exists. The morning shows are the ones like The Today Show or Good Morning America, and while they have a rep as being light on content, they do report a lot of news.

And I almost forgot the flagships of the networks, aside from the nightly broadcasts--the Sunday news shows. Meet the Press, This Week, and Sunday Morning. The networks still do a lot of news work, although not as much as they did in the past.

Part of that is due to the fact that actual reporting is expensive, and these news companies are now part of large conglomerates that are mostly concerned with the bottom line. It's cheaper to pay talking heads as "analysts" who parrot whatever the administration provides them than it is to actually get out there and do some investigation, and that's been the biggest problem with the news media in recent years.
I think the best news media is neither what you described nor what you want. Instead, I feel the best media for anyone would be one that just reports what happens--to hell with interviews. They should be reserved to the radio, internet, or maybe those shows like Dateline. And btw, Dateline, 60 minutes, and 20/20 are known for their investigative reports.
As for the Sunday Morning shows, I've always knew they existed, but I've never watched them (I'm either at church or I sleep in on Sundays). But I feel that anything other than the 6:30 news is a waste of my time. Besides, I learn more from the Internet, or my weekly subscription of TIME magazine (which does a damn good job at reporting and, omg, is owned by a huge conglomerate).

You mean that World News Now with Derek McNigtty? It came on at 5:00am in the morning, and their was a time I watched it. I was in a hospital for weeks, and I could get away with the irregular sleeping patterns I had. Anyhow, it was as boring as hell. They had a brief segment about headlines, then they always launched into an agricultural report.
Anyhow, I don't know what the morning shows have, because I've never watched them. They may have newsbreaks in California, but not here in New York (unless it's something extremely important). Only 60 minutes has stories oriented around current events, it seems. The rest do investigative reports or interview celebrities. And as for Nightline, I've never watched it. In fact, asside Saturday Night Live, I've never watched late nite TV. But I love watching ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. I've been told by people that they faithfully watch one of the 6:30 news broadcasts, and find the anchors to be like grandfather figures. So really, they are the only ones that matter.World News Now is the overnight show I was talking about, and I wasn't discussing the quality of the show--just noting that it exists. The morning shows are the ones like The Today Show or Good Morning America, and while they have a rep as being light on content, they do report a lot of news.

And I almost forgot the flagships of the networks, aside from the nightly broadcasts--the Sunday news shows. Meet the Press, This Week, and Sunday Morning. The networks still do a lot of news work, although not as much as they did in the past.

Part of that is due to the fact that actual reporting is expensive, and these news companies are now part of large conglomerates that are mostly concerned with the bottom line. It's cheaper to pay talking heads as "analysts" who parrot whatever the administration provides them than it is to actually get out there and do some investigation, and that's been the biggest problem with the news media in recent years.
I think the best news media is neither what you described nor what you want. Instead, I feel the best media for anyone would be one that just reports what happens--to hell with interviews. They should be reserved to the radio, internet, or maybe those shows like Dateline. And btw, Dateline, 60 minutes, and 20/20 are known for their investigative reports.
As for the Sunday Morning shows, I've always knew they existed, but I've never watched them (I'm either at church or I sleep in on Sundays). But I feel that anything other than the 6:30 news is a waste of my time. Besides, I learn more from the Internet, or my weekly subscription of TIME magazine (which does a damn good job at reporting and, omg, is owned by a huge conglomerate).