NationStates Jolt Archive

Then you're a moron and you need to be slapped. There. I said it.

I'm so freaking tired of hearing all this crap about how CBS News is a wing of the Democratic party and how CNN stands for the Clinton News Network. Give me a break. TV news is a joke. It's shit on a platter, dressed up with a little garnish and some cheese melted on top, but it's still shit.

Think about it for nine minutes--because that's about how much coverage an average cable news outlet gives any one story, and that's if the story is getting major coverage. For something that's not too exciting, you get maybe half that. And while the biggest stories get regurgitated every half hour or so, there's rarely any substantive additions to the basic storyline.

Instead, we get "analysis," which consists of two or more blowhards pontificating, reducing complex subjects and issues to yes/no banalities and screaming at each other and/or their guests. And forget about accuracy--these jokers wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass, and yet they never get called on it. It doesn't matter if they're named Carville or O'Reilley, Begala or Limbaugh, Press or Buchanan, Hannity or Colmes. It's the same shit on an equally stinky platter.

And if we're talking about network news, you get even less coverage. There's nothing even remotely approaching indepth coverage of a story, except on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, and even they don't get into any real substantive coverage.

Here's how pathetic they've gotten--during the tv season, the people who are voted off the island on Survivor, or the people who get Trumped are news. Sorry, but that's not news. That's distraction from the real issues of the day. That's the blinders put on the horse so he doesn't kick over the cart and bolt for the meadows.

The internet has improved the print media somewhat, but only in the sense that newspapers get called out by bloggers more often now. That still doesn't change the crappy reporting they do. For everyone who considers the NY Times a liberal rag, I have two words for you: Judith Miller. Practically every word of her reporting on the run up to the Iraq War came from Ahmed Chalabi and the INC, and the Times editorial board supported the war wholeheartedly. She's still working for them. Throw in Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, and a host of other shitty works of "journalism" over the last ten years and it's a wonder the paper has a reputation at all, much less one as a left-wing rag.

And yet, if you want any sort of depth in news coverage, print media is where you have to go, because they have the time and space to give a story the full treatment, if they choose to do so. (Often, they don't.)

So here's the slogan: Kill your tv before it kills you.

Well, this is only the American news. And you didn't even mention Fox News.

The only TV news I trust is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and they have some shit, too: this seems to be a rule on television.

So here's the slogan: Kill your tv before it kills you.
Hey hey hey hey, now. I was with you up until then. The T.V. isn't all bad, and it can be a source of information, just not the only one you have to be demanding of it. I know it can hurt, and it can be shallow and annoying. But it also can show me people building choppers and Simpsons episodes. Besides, I don't want to 'work' work for a living and as long as T.V.s around that's a whole lot more options for me:).

One of the things we really need to address (but instead we're re-fighting the Scopes Monkey trail all over the place for some reason....) is that we need to include reading media in the cirriculum(sp). What's sad now is that we teach our children to watch media, but not how to read it-how it's made, what makes it work and how it constructs ideas. It's as important as english in classrooms. We are way to far behind the curve of medias influence to not teach children how to read media.

So don't kill the poor thing, just demand better of it. P. T. Barnum sorted out why there will always be an audience for reality tv and jackasses yelling at each other, but we can watch other things....

I agree, to an extent. Following one news source... bad idea... the way I handle it, get up, do a quick check of overnight international news online, then as i make breakfast and get ready to catch the train I watch the news on that TV, on the train I've got a whole bloody hour, so I read several newspapers. At school, if possible, read the news online from several different sources. Get home, then catch the local news...

It's a tedious process, but I figure that I can make my own damn analyses from the information that corroborates itself. I'm sure I just spelled that word wrong. I recommend getting the news from as many different sources as reasonably possible, then interpreting it to draw your own conclusions.

Hey hey hey hey, now. I was with you up until then. The T.V. isn't all bad, and it can be a source of information, just not the only one you have to be demanding of it. I know it can hurt, and it can be shallow and annoying. But it also can show me people building choppers and Simpsons episodes. Besides, I don't want to 'work' work for a living and as long as T.V.s around that's a whole lot more options for me:).

One of the things we really need to address (but instead we're re-fighting the Scopes Monkey trail all over the place for some reason....) is that we need to include reading media in the cirriculum(sp). What's sad now is that we teach our children to watch media, but not how to read it-how it's made, what makes it work and how it constructs ideas. It's as important as english in classrooms. We are way to far behind the curve of medias influence to not teach children how to read media.

So don't kill the poor thing, just demand better of it. P. T. Barnum sorted out why there will always be an audience for reality tv and jackasses yelling at each other, but we can watch other things....
Perhaps I should have said "kill your tv news" instead. There is a little on tv that I like to watch--very little--and it can be a good thing. Unfortunately, most of it is pure crap, and it dominates too large a section of the average person's life in my biased, lopsided opinion.

I've got one and only one proof that throws your entire argument away...


http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/images/photos/tds_photos_and_thumbs/tds_photos_stewart2_big.jpg

:)

Perhaps I should have said "kill your tv news" instead. There is a little on tv that I like to watch--very little--and it can be a good thing. Unfortunately, most of it is pure crap, and it dominates too large a section of the average person's life in my biased, lopsided opinion.
TV news I don't want to work so much, so okay....

As someone who was really raised by the tv I'm a little more attatched to it and the more people that watch the more channels, the more I don't have to work for a living(potentially), so.....But it is a shared experience in this world and does bring us together as much as it seperates us. Besides, someone I know has recently benefited from the chattering box....not all bad.....

I'll agree it's a troubled relationship.

This is why I listen to and watch the British Broadcasting Channel; they, unlike anyone else, are completely unbiased and soley for pure news.

This is why I listen to and watch the British Broadcasting Channel; they, unlike anyone else, are completely unbiased and soley for pure news.
Not according to any right-leaning American I know... :rolleyes:

Not according to any right-leaning American I know... :rolleyes:
The BBC had been reporting the Ukrainian election disaster days before anyone in the US picked up on it.

only thing i watch is the news...but i take it with a grain of salt....and do my own research..NO MATTER WHO IT IS FROM....and...for the most part...talk radio and specialty show hosts DO know what they are talking about....liberal, conservative, or otherwise.....but generic news is a bunch of horsecrap...

only thing i watch is the news...but i take it with a grain of salt....and do my own research..NO MATTER WHO IT IS FROM....and...for the most part...talk radio and specialty show hosts DO know what they are talking about....liberal, conservative, or otherwise.....but generic news is a bunch of horsecrap...
Go to any fact checking website and you can see just how truth-challenged the average "analyst" is--you'll be surprised, if you're willing to look with an open mind.

BBC unbiased....crap...foxnews unbiased, crap....any news unbiased...crap....

Everyone brings their won beliefs to the table...look for the transcript for the 2230 broadcast on january 5, 2003.....a comment from Orla Guerin.....wait...BBC doesn't offer transcriot....hmm..convenient maybe....

Then you're a moron and you need to be slapped. There. I said it.

I'm so freaking tired of hearing all this crap about how CBS News is a wing of the Democratic party and how CNN stands for the Clinton News Network. Give me a break. TV news is a joke. It's shit on a platter, dressed up with a little garnish and some cheese melted on top, but it's still shit.

Think about it for nine minutes--because that's about how much coverage an average cable news outlet gives any one story, and that's if the story is getting major coverage. For something that's not too exciting, you get maybe half that. And while the biggest stories get regurgitated every half hour or so, there's rarely any substantive additions to the basic storyline.

Instead, we get "analysis," which consists of two or more blowhards pontificating, reducing complex subjects and issues to yes/no banalities and screaming at each other and/or their guests. And forget about accuracy--these jokers wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass, and yet they never get called on it. It doesn't matter if they're named Carville or O'Reilley, Begala or Limbaugh, Press or Buchanan, Hannity or Colmes. It's the same shit on an equally stinky platter.

And if we're talking about network news, you get even less coverage. There's nothing even remotely approaching indepth coverage of a story, except on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, and even they don't get into any real substantive coverage.

Here's how pathetic they've gotten--during the tv season, the people who are voted off the island on Survivor, or the people who get Trumped are news. Sorry, but that's not news. That's distraction from the real issues of the day. That's the blinders put on the horse so he doesn't kick over the cart and bolt for the meadows.

The internet has improved the print media somewhat, but only in the sense that newspapers get called out by bloggers more often now. That still doesn't change the crappy reporting they do. For everyone who considers the NY Times a liberal rag, I have two words for you: Judith Miller. Practically every word of her reporting on the run up to the Iraq War came from Ahmed Chalabi and the INC, and the Times editorial board supported the war wholeheartedly. She's still working for them. Throw in Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, and a host of other shitty works of "journalism" over the last ten years and it's a wonder the paper has a reputation at all, much less one as a left-wing rag.

And yet, if you want any sort of depth in news coverage, print media is where you have to go, because they have the time and space to give a story the full treatment, if they choose to do so. (Often, they don't.)

So here's the slogan: Kill your tv before it kills you.

For once I agree with Incertonia...no, wait, it's happened more than once. However, the proof is aplenty...CBS News is another arm of the Democrats, and so is CNN, PBS, NPR, NBC, and ABC. The blogosphere and Fox News trend towards conservative...there, I said it...however, Fox News tends to give both sides of any argument, and the bloggers generally admit the side they have chosen. If CBS News and the rest of the Dims would have the same courtesies towards you and me, the viewers, then maybe, just maybe, they would become credible again.

For once I agree with Incertonia...no, wait, it's happened more than once. However, the proof is aplenty...CBS News is another arm of the Democrats, and so is CNN, PBS, NPR, NBC, and ABC. The blogosphere and Fox News trend towards conservative...there, I said it...however, Fox News tends to give both sides of any argument, and the bloggers generally admit the side they have chosen. If CBS News and the rest of the Dims would have the same courtesies towards you and me, the viewers, then maybe, just maybe, they would become credible again.

Wow, you went from "I agree" to "Democrats SUXXORS lollerskates!"

I never liked television...

He's right about the NYT. It is a parcel of shit. In fact the enquirer is probably more accurate.

I love TV news. I could put the channel on Fox News and sit and watch with contenct ALL day.

This is why I listen to and watch the British Broadcasting Channel; they, unlike anyone else, are completely unbiased and soley for pure news.
Ah yes. Focusing your entire media power to destroy Tony Blair is sooooo unbiased.

I love TV news. I could put the channel on Fox News and sit and watch with contenct ALL day.
Are you shitting me?

As the old cliche goes... ignorance is bliss.

Ah yes. Focusing your entire media power to destroy Tony Blair is sooooo unbiased.
Have you ever actually watched or listned to them? I'm guessing the answer is no.

Have you ever actually watched or listned to them? I'm guessing the answer is no.

I've never watched the British Broadcasting Channel, because it does not exist. I assume the same goes for you.

The British Broadcasting Channel is the BBC, so yes, it does exist. And if I did not exist, how could I respond to your question?

The British Broadcasting Channel is the BBC, so yes, it does exist. And if I did not exist, how could I respond to your question?

No the BBC is not the British Broadcasting Channel, and you would know that if you watched any of their wretched channels with any type of frequency.

I think you also ought to know that the Royal Navy banned the BBC from being recieved on H.M. Ships because they found the bais and innaccuracy so great it was affecting morale.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not take all of my news from the internet.

Any jackass with $10 a month to spare can buy a .com domain name, get one of those free spiffy web templates, and for all the WWWC cares, he can tell you that the sky is falling and that frogs shit orange diamonds. Hell, I own a domain name and have plenty of webspace. I can set up a news site whenever I damn well please.

And stop bitching about TV news. How many people do you know who own TV stations? Now, take this number and compare it to the number of people that you know who have a website. See the difference?

I'd rather get my news from four idiots (Fox News is the only station I watch, though) than four hundred million jackasses with a cheap domain name and (most likely) free webspace.

And I assure you that every article is biased. Let's say little Johnny ran across the street. You are reporting this in a newspaper/on the TV/on the internet.

AP Washington - Little Johnny ran across the street, through the slow-moving traffic.

There is an unbiased article. This would only drive down ratings, because it is not appealing to the typical human. You must question whether it is worth the time to read such an article.

Now, read this.
AP Wash. - In a daring feat to escape the tyranny of his older brother, as he put it, little Johnny
Falanburger attempted a bold dash for the other side of the street, and freedom from cleaning his room.
Fortunately, Johnny managed to evade the massive bulks of steel, hurdling towards him in excess
of 40 kilometers per hour.

When interviewed by PUB News, Johnny's parents commented, saying, "Oh, well. He'll be back for dinner."

While this may seem all fine to you, you must face the facts. Young children in Africa starve each day,
and America, as a country full of the richest people in the world, refuses to help them. What kind of world
must we be forced to live in?

We must take a stand against the selfish, greedy, opportunistic fucks such as Johnny. Then, and only
then, can we surely achieve the ultimate goal.

Little Johnny was not injured in the daring dash across the road, and returned for dinner
ten minutes later. God-damn Opportunistic fuck.


As you can see, the bolded sections are emotionally charged statements. These are necessary to keep readers intersted. Most is usually just enhanced word choice and flashy grammar and spelling. Numbers such as 25 miles per hour (Around 40 KPH) do not cut it. The maximum number that can be used, must be used (Hence the usage of Kilometers/hour and not miles/hour, simply because 40 > 25, and many people react differently to larger numbers, oblivious to whatever unit is being used.)

The italicized sections are author-inserted opinions and bullshit, sometimes hidden as facts. These serve the same purpose as emotionally charged statements, and then some. The opinions and bullshit may aim to change your opinion (Or whatever opinion you have on children crossing the street) on just about anything, or put you to shame for whatever the hell the author is talking about.

See my point?

For once I agree with Incertonia...no, wait, it's happened more than once. However, the proof is aplenty...CBS News is another arm of the Democrats, and so is CNN, PBS, NPR, NBC, and ABC. The blogosphere and Fox News trend towards conservative...there, I said it...however, Fox News tends to give both sides of any argument, and the bloggers generally admit the side they have chosen. If CBS News and the rest of the Dims would have the same courtesies towards you and me, the viewers, then maybe, just maybe, they would become credible again.
We don't agree, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. None of the groups you quoted as being an arm of the Democratic party actually do the Democrats any favors, and if you actually think Fox gives both sides of any argument, then you're dumber than you let on. I don't think you're dumb, by the way--I think you're just making a dishonest argument, and you know it.

Then you're a moron and you need to be slapped. There. I said it.

I'm so freaking tired of hearing all this crap about how CBS News is a wing of the Democratic party and how CNN stands for the Clinton News Network. Give me a break. TV news is a joke. It's shit on a platter, dressed up with a little garnish and some cheese melted on top, but it's still shit.

Think about it for nine minutes--because that's about how much coverage an average cable news outlet gives any one story, and that's if the story is getting major coverage. For something that's not too exciting, you get maybe half that. And while the biggest stories get regurgitated every half hour or so, there's rarely any substantive additions to the basic storyline.

Instead, we get "analysis," which consists of two or more blowhards pontificating, reducing complex subjects and issues to yes/no banalities and screaming at each other and/or their guests. And forget about accuracy--these jokers wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass, and yet they never get called on it. It doesn't matter if they're named Carville or O'Reilley, Begala or Limbaugh, Press or Buchanan, Hannity or Colmes. It's the same shit on an equally stinky platter.

And if we're talking about network news, you get even less coverage. There's nothing even remotely approaching indepth coverage of a story, except on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, and even they don't get into any real substantive coverage.

Here's how pathetic they've gotten--during the tv season, the people who are voted off the island on Survivor, or the people who get Trumped are news. Sorry, but that's not news. That's distraction from the real issues of the day. That's the blinders put on the horse so he doesn't kick over the cart and bolt for the meadows.

The internet has improved the print media somewhat, but only in the sense that newspapers get called out by bloggers more often now. That still doesn't change the crappy reporting they do. For everyone who considers the NY Times a liberal rag, I have two words for you: Judith Miller. Practically every word of her reporting on the run up to the Iraq War came from Ahmed Chalabi and the INC, and the Times editorial board supported the war wholeheartedly. She's still working for them. Throw in Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, and a host of other shitty works of "journalism" over the last ten years and it's a wonder the paper has a reputation at all, much less one as a left-wing rag.

And yet, if you want any sort of depth in news coverage, print media is where you have to go, because they have the time and space to give a story the full treatment, if they choose to do so. (Often, they don't.)

So here's the slogan: Kill your tv before it kills you.
this is your best post ever Incertonia

Well, this is only the American news. And you didn't even mention Fox News.

The only TV news I trust is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and they have some shit, too: this seems to be a rule on television.
all the soldiers in Iraq sacrificing their limbs for Cheneys greed are all brainwashed by Foxnews

all the soldiers in Iraq sacrificing their limbs for Cheneys greed are all brainwashed by Foxnews

Really? All of them?

I love TV news. I could put the channel on Fox News and sit and watch with contenct ALL day.
you must live in a red state

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not take all of my news from the internet.

Any jackass with $10 a month to spare can buy a .com domain name, get one of those free spiffy web templates, and for all the WWWC cares, he can tell you that the sky is falling and that frogs shit orange diamonds. Hell, I own a domain name and have plenty of webspace. I can set up a news site whenever I damn well please.

And stop bitching about TV news. How many people do you know who own TV stations? Now, take this number and compare it to the number of people that you know who have a website. See the difference?

I'd rather get my news from four idiots (Fox News is the only station I watch, though) than four hundred million jackasses with a cheap domain name and (most likely) free webspace.

And I assure you that every article is biased. Let's say little Johnny ran across the street. You are reporting this in a newspaper/on the TV/on the internet.

AP Washington - Little Johnny ran across the street, through the slow-moving traffic.

There is an unbiased article. This would only drive down ratings, because it is not appealing to the typical human. You must question whether it is worth the time to read such an article.

Now, read this.
AP Wash. - In a daring feat to escape the tyranny of his older brother, as he put it, little Johnny
Falanburger attempted a bold dash for the other side of the street, and freedom from cleaning his room.
Fortunately, Johnny managed to evade the massive bulks of steel, hurdling towards him in excess
of 40 kilometers per hour.

When interviewed by PUB News, Johnny's parents commented, saying, "Oh, well. He'll be back for dinner."

While this may seem all fine to you, you must face the facts. Young children in Africa starve each day,
and America, as a country full of the richest people in the world, refuses to help them. What kind of world
must we be forced to live in?

We must take a stand against the selfish, greedy, opportunistic fucks such as Johnny. Then, and only
then, can we surely achieve the ultimate goal.

Little Johnny was not injured in the daring dash across the road, and returned for dinner
ten minutes later. God-damn Opportunistic fuck.


As you can see, the bolded sections are emotionally charged statements. These are necessary to keep readers intersted. Most is usually just enhanced word choice and flashy grammar and spelling. Numbers such as 25 miles per hour (Around 40 KPH) do not cut it. The maximum number that can be used, must be used (Hence the usage of Kilometers/hour and not miles/hour, simply because 40 > 25, and many people react differently to larger numbers, oblivious to whatever unit is being used.)

The italicized sections are author-inserted opinions and bullshit, sometimes hidden as facts. These serve the same purpose as emotionally charged statements, and then some. The opinions and bullshit may aim to change your opinion (Or whatever opinion you have on children crossing the street) on just about anything, or put you to shame for whatever the hell the author is talking about.

See my point?
good point but its totally wrong--the internet is doing the job the TV news stations stopped doing

Really? All of them?
alot of them yes