Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on August 24, 2005, 11:27:40 pm
-
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm
I am sure the news outlet is biased.
Unfortunatly, this is not exactly a isolated incident. There have been some reports of people defacing the property of loved ones of those KIA.
-
And what about the "Pro war" guy who drove a truck through the crosses that represent the soldiers that were KIA in Iraq?
And those crosses were made by the anti-war protesters in Crawford, Texas.
Unfortunatly, this is not exactly a isolated incident. There have been some reports of people defacing the property of loved ones of those KIA.
Yeah, but how accurate are those reports? I have heard many reports that Elvis is alive. Does that make them true? No.
-
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/07/23/flag_hines_eve.html
Reminds me of when people spat on Vietnam Vets
-
It could have just been stupid teenagers looking for a thrill. It isnt like this sort of thing is new.
And it isn't like the "pro war" people haven't done this sort of thing. Remember that "boycott the French" thing (even though much of the stuff boycotted wasn't even French)? That was just because they opposed the invasion. Germany opposed it too, yet no one boycotted their BMW's.
-
Kinda odd that this sort of thing would happen on the day of their sons funeral, that was killed in a controversial war, and happen to the extent that it did. Yes teenagers are stupid, but this honestly is too far even for simple teenage "anarchists."
-
Don't be too sure. There was that incident a few years ago where a bunch of teenager slashed the tires of Goodwill's truck fleet. Should we just assume it was corperate espianage?
Then some others stuck matches in half the school bus fleets tires (this was in my school district), effectively flattening them and preventing them from being refilled until the matches were removed.
-
I am a little hesitant to write this incident off immediatly because we have seen historically that controvercial wars often bring out the worse in people.
-
But the point is, we don't know for certain why this was done. We don't even know who did it. Assuming that it was one side or the other is really not a good idea.
-
That sort of thing is simply wrong.
But we shouldn't be looking to connect these types of incidents to be indicative or due to a particular pro or anti-war opinion; the only reason to do so is if you have an agenda to push (i.e. 'all anti-war protestors are grave defacing traitors!' - so keep an eye on Fox for that one...). I'm sure you'll find -regardless of responsibility in the latter case - if you take any group with a common idea, they'll inevitably be more than one complete ******** in it. Way of the world.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That sort of thing is simply wrong.
But we shouldn't be looking to connect these types of incidents to be indicative or due to a particular pro or anti-war opinion; the only reason to do so is if you have an agenda to push (i.e. 'all anti-war protestors are grave defacing traitors!' - so keep an eye on Fox for that one...).
yep
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm sure you'll find -regardless of responsibility in the latter case - if you take any group with a common idea, they'll inevitably be more than one complete ******** in it. Way of the world.
like cindy sheehan
-
:rolleyes: All news outlets are biased.
I think that second article is implying a connection that may or may not exist redmenace. This is an easy way to see where their bias stands. Wait for the story to further develop. Then maybe there will be enough information to determine the motive. Until then, this is brainwashing. News must be looked at objectively.
I find violent protesters to be in the minority. I remember when the war first broke out, one of the news channels was showing a protest that turned violent. I don't remember which one it was, but something tells me it was Fox. It's not like violence has broken out all over the country over the war.
Also, you don't see this war being covered like Vietnam. I don't watch the "news" so I can't say if they're covering a protest every day somewhere, though I seldom read about them. Anything you see on the war has been very sugar coated. I wonder if they're merely afraid to show the gruesome side of war or if they actually support it.
-
EtherShock: some try not to be [AP, BBC, NPR] some are blatantly and intentionally biased [Drudge, Fox]
-
BBC is legally required to be unbiased, as mentioned in another thread. It's part of its statutory duty as a nationalised broadcaster.
what is interesting about the war is - and this may be wrong, because I don't watch US news channels (except Fox, when I want a good laugh) - AFAIK there's never been any coverage of bodies returning since the first combat fatalities. In the UK, the return of the first soldiers KIA was given live coverage; did/does that happen in the US?
-
aldo_14: in every conflict since TV became widespread they return of the fallen is covered by the news pretty extensively.
Bush&Co have been stonewalling all attempts to get documentation of the returning fallen from this one.
-
Of course, because then it would make war seem less glamerous and more like a video game.
After all, criticism of the Bush andministration is counter-revolutionary. :p
-
no it's
"Criticism of Bush is antiamericanism! you traitorous terrorist loving frenchbois!"
/sigh
the republicans are jingoistic bigoted theofascist fools
the libertarians are naive
the democrats try to put forward ideas but are drown out by the conservative noise machine
the greens don't have enough influence
find me a party with intelligence and influence - please
-
Originally posted by Kazan
EtherShock: some try not to be [AP, BBC, NPR] some are blatantly and intentionally biased [Drudge, Fox]
I am aware of this Kaz, but even they probably have a bias. I can't say about the BBC for sure since I don't live in the UK. Although, they try to be impartial, which is better than not. It's human nature to be biased, something we need to unlearn.
Originally posted by aldo_14
what is interesting about the war is - and this may be wrong, because I don't watch US news channels (except Fox, when I want a good laugh) - AFAIK there's never been any coverage of bodies returning since the first combat fatalities. In the UK, the return of the first soldiers KIA was given live coverage; did/does that happen in the US?
No, I haven't seen a single picture of a casket, not from US sources at least, but I don't watch the news. All my sources come from the net. There was a lesson learned from Vietnam, but it wasn't the intended one.
-
EtherShock: you can learn how to make sure your personal biases don't play through to your reporting of the news - it's easy. If anything borders on opinion or interpretation DON'T POST IT
or if you want to do interpretation or opinion make it very clear that you're doing so and not reporting fact
-
Oh I know, not something we practice in this country though and if we do, it's rare.
-
NPR is pretty damn good following that
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
I can't say about the BBC for sure since I don't live in the UK. Although, they try to be impartial, which is better than not. It's human nature to be biased, something we need to unlearn.
Watch the BBC news on PBS then and form your own opinion (I saw it a couple of times when I was last in Philly so I don't know if your local station will carry it but if it does give it a try).
As for a lack of bias you only need to have seen their coverage of the Hutton report (A government whitewash which basically blamed the BBC for a scandal while leaving the government smelling of roses) to see exactly how unbiased they can be. I was shocked and quite pleasantly surprised by how unbiased they were when reporting on it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
BBC is legally required to be unbiased, as mentioned in another thread. It's part of its statutory duty as a nationalised broadcaster.
I seldom watch BBC so I can't judge.
but being required to do something and actualyl doing it are two completely different things.
-
Personally, except for NPR/PBS I just don't trust American media anymore. They are owned by corperations with their own agendas. Fox is a good example of that.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
I think that second article is implying a connection that may or may not exist redmenace. This is an easy way to see where their bias stands. Wait for the story to further develop. Then maybe there will be enough information to determine the motive. Until then, this is brainwashing. News must be looked at objectively
I just saw a whole bunch of coincidences together in that situation. It very well could be that all of this is infact just a unrelated and just some stupid Neo-Anarchists Teenage Bastards whose mommy and daddy are too stupid too teach them lessons of right and wrong.
-
redmenace coincidences happen - remember in real life(tm) probabilities are always tested in infinite parellelism so very unlikely events become likely due to the Law of Extremely Large Numbers
ie an event with prob 1:1mil happens ~256 times a day in the united states due to the Law of Extremely Large Numbers
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I seldom watch BBC so I can't judge.
but being required to do something and actualyl doing it are two completely different things.
Ofcom is the regulator responsible for enforcing fair treatment. Part of any legal requirement is the enforcement.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
but being required to do something and actualyl doing it are two completely different things.
Let me put it this way. How many news stations can you name who would objectively report that a government report had found them guilty of making mistakes which led to the death of one of their sources despite the fact that every newspaper in the UK described the same report as a whitewash?
Yes there is no such thing as a 100% objective and unbiased news source but if there is anything closer to being one than the beeb I've yet to hear of it.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Watch the BBC news on PBS then and form your own opinion (I saw it a couple of times when I was last in Philly so I don't know if your local station will carry it but if it does give it a try).
I've had a bitter taste in my mouth over journalism since September 11th. I lost respect for journalism that day, so I guess I've got a grudge against most news sources.
We got the BBC on a cable feed a while ago at my school. We still might get it. In fact, I wrote about how they covered the war when it first broke out, along with a few other news networks, and come to think of it, I did find the BBC to be the most accurate and professional, relying less on gimmicks than the other networks. I only got an OK grade on the paper though. I have no idea what the professor would've graded an A. PBS news is elusive. I can never find it when it's on. It's funny how the conservatives accuse PBS of being liberal. I will look into these sources further, as well as NPR, when I go back to school, that's for sure. And of course making your own judgments based on the facts is the most important thing. :yes:
-
It's funny how the conservatives accuse PBS of being liberal.
They do that in order to discredit the truth.
-
Where did you get that law? Its sounds alot like something for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
-
Increasingly, everything sounds alot like something for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy