NationStates Jolt Archive

##Uh oh!##


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/12/venezuela.argentina/index.html


Chavez involved in questionable campaign contributions. You don't say! :eek: Ok, allegedly.....

You think this will go anywhere is or Chavez just going to say it was a US plan to make him look bad?

Maybe if you stop quoting reactionary media sources you might have a point, but now you don't.

No.

Maybe if you stop quoting reactionary media sources you might have a point, but now you don't.

No.

lol, CNN the big reactionary media source. :rolleyes:

I don't trust any mainstream media outlets, they are all as biased and corporate dominated as each other. The one I really think is independent is Democracy Now and some others.

I don't trust any mainstream media outlets, they are all as biased and corporate dominated as each other. The one I really think is independent is Democracy Now and some others.

I don't trust any media 100% but some are a bit better then others. Also every small to large media source is biased no matter what. It is just the degree one is willing to put up with.

I don't trust any mainstream media outlets, they are all as biased and corporate dominated as each other. The one I really think is independent is Democracy Now and some others.

Democracy Now has its own agenda, just like everybody else. You're sorely mistaken if you think they have any interest in producing unbiased content.

Democracy Now has its own agenda, just like everybody else. You're sorely mistaken if you think they have any interest in producing unbiased content.

Well of course, but in terms of raw data and just plain interviews to get the views of both sides out into the open - they are the best I have seen. All other media start with an established paradigm or false dichotomy of how a story is to be shown. They start out with a conclusion and the story is twisted around this conclusion, I would advocate abolishing all media and just having an independent public source of factual data freely accessible so people can draw their own conclusions based on analysis of reality.

Okay, does anyone here actually think that CNN made this story appear out of thing air?

Sure, they might put their spin on things, but they don't invent stories out of nothing. Chances are that the relevant US government sources actually did tell them they captured someone.

Here's one from dpa (a German news service): http://news.monstersandcritics.com/americas/news/article_1380615.php/US_charges_five_as_illegal_Venezuelan_agents

I wonder what Uncle Hugo will say about this.

Okay, does anyone here actually think that CNN made this story appear out of thing air?

Sure, they might put their spin on things, but they don't invent stories out of nothing. Chances are that the relevant US government sources actually did tell them they captured someone.

Here's one from dpa (a German news service): http://news.monstersandcritics.com/americas/news/article_1380615.php/US_charges_five_as_illegal_Venezuelan_agents

Of course they don't invent stories, but the whole construct of getting a 'story' means the conclusion has already been made by the authors, and the 'information' may as well just fall in line with this conclusion, and as such omissions and the lack of all informations make it biased.

Notice I don't talk about media credibility in terms of 'showing both sides', that kind of news creates the false dichotomy of 1v1 instead of having all information available and not presented to give a foregone conclusion.