and to listen to the amount of grief that they have gone through to get segments of Al jazeera translated into English and broadcast here in America. It is amazing.
The big 4, CBS (or see BS), NBC, ABC and CNN are, in my opinion, in almost total control of America's thoughts. To a person, they seem to hate this country. They certainly dislike the military intensely. And hate, loathe, and despise the president (Please let's don't go there on this thread and derail it). So news is selectively reported to make America sound like a nation of ignorant bullies, the administration look bad, and glorify the enemies.
Here's a non war example:
In the 1990's when the Dow topped 10,000 for the first time, it was trumpeted to the world that this was a result of our most exceedingly wonderful president's handling of the economy! Why the economy was booming, Bill Clinton was a genius. As a coworker of mine said, "The economy is great! I own a little stock, and it's doing very well. As long as I'm prospering, as far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton can get a B*** J** from every intern in Washington, D.C.!"
The Dow recently topped 12,000. Who got the credit for the economy booming? Nobody in the White House, that's for sure. And we continually hear reports of how lousy the economy is.
This film, I notice, is from Glen Beck, who is a decent guy.
Why Belle, you are a woman after my own heart! An American after my own heart..
Thanks for sharing that. And, by the way, did you happen to catch Glen Beck's "Expose" program on CNN tonight? It was very good, very scary, but at least it was the Truth, and not a bunch of politically correct b.s.....
Probably for the same reason we dont see American news like this.
Schools function, people go to work, children play in playgrounds-- we have cell phones over here too. Someone decided long ago that is not news or at least not sensational enough to hold peoples attention long enough so that they can sell them something.
If 7 Amish girls get shot by a madman, or a woman gets taken off of life support, there is a trainwreck, an interview with OJ, or some other tragedy or disaster that is what is fed to us here about our country as well.
The media feeds us tragedy and bad news to keep their shares in the marketplace. Americans may complain from time to time about it, but have learned (or been trained) to expect it and (imo)secretly want a little safe exposure to the gorier side of life to counter the blander parts of their daily lives.
It gives them something to talk and act concerned about.
If they couldnt sell it, it wouldnt be on.
Even Beck airs this stuff as a niche market product that has a target audience and he even has his own catchy advertising slogan "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment".
Thanks Belle for that insight. I enjoy the positive approach of the success we Americans have made there from that video. I have heard it all and mostly how the invasion to Iraq from the US was not proper but they did break their unconditional declaration. After being retired of 20+ years with the AF I have a portion of knowledge of what really happened not mentioned in the media that we only know of and is biased.... there is so much we hear that is always biased as stated. There is more going on that will never been said in this war or occupation as most wants to say.
Thanks, y'all. I was really glad to see this and wish that we could get some of this along with the ugly stuff that is certainly going on. I'd never heard of Beck, but I don't watch national news much, other than GMA in the mornings.
I hear a lot of good things from friends and neighbors who have been over there or have kids over there now, so it's nice to "see" it for a change. MStar, I realize there's most likely a motive behind it, but I'd much rather support this type of bias than what the liberal media feeds us.
If you have the chance, you ought to tune into the "Glen Beck Program". Here in Juneau, it airs from 0500 till 0800 on the "talk radio" channel. He proceeds Rush Limbaugh's show, and I have found it to be very refreshing, for, even though I do agree with much of what Rush has to say, this guy is way way more humble, and can be very very funny as well.
MStar, I realize there's most likely a motive behind it, but I'd much rather support this type of bias than what the liberal media feeds us.
Now Belle, you can't keep this up here in the open forum for long using words like "liberal."
I think that MStar gave perhaps the most honest and truest answer so far. I think he answered your question. Yet, you would rather support one bias, in the guise of "the real story," over another. I would argue that we should support and seek the big picture which includes stories like this and stories that we more often see about death and instability.
My honest opinion is that it has little to do with the media being liberal. Somehow no matter how many examples "liberals" give showing the media as not liberal at all, it still is accused of being so. It is the nature of news and human nature. Jerry Springer anyone? Can you imagine anyone reading the obituary's counterpart of "who's still living."
Perhaps the "liberalmedia" label speaks to the supposed nature of liberals and conservatives as pessimists and optimists.
I would argue that we should support and seek the big picture which includes stories like this and stories that we more often see about death and instability.
Well put Lindy and apoint that I was trying to get at. It takes a little work and discerning to get to anything approachng 'the big picture'
I like positive stories as well but I also realize that journalism (or supoosed journalism) is a highly competitive business these days with different outlets working to scoop each other with the end result of getting ratings. Actual "News" has taken a back seat to "marketshare", so for the most part your getting entertainment with a particular slant. If you like the slant, whether its completely truthful or not, they'll have you as a consumer and they get what they want.
Beck is filling a need with the positive stories and rightly so, but he also has his own biases and agenda to sift through as was evident during his horrendous interview with the newly elected representative from Michigan the other day who he labelled as an enemy because he was black, democrat and muslim.
Its not the first time Beck has shown his colors, I am equally wary of him as i am of most news people. He too has his biases. I'll take what he has to offer but not without an open eye
WG said news is selectively reported--It is and I aware of that --or worse. It has gotten to the point where it is made up and fabricated
HERE"S a video report of one well known network that goes so far as to make up news to make parts of the government sound bad. Heads should roll --but they wont--Its not news anymore-Its mostly cheerleading for your side with a few stories -true or not-thrown in.
There were 195 murders inside the District of Columbia during 2005. (That doesn't include the suburbs in MD and VA...just the district)
There weren't 195 news stories about DC murders last year. There weren't 100 stories. There weren't 50.
It wasn't considered news.
It wasn't national news.
It wasn't state news.
It wasn't even local news.
Sometimes, the only mention was a single sentence in the crime statistics section buried in page B-24 in the local edition.
(Now there were some murder stories...but those stories were considered "news" only when the murders were exceptionally grisly, involved somebody famous, or were in a normally "safe" area)
At the same time, the news reports on new highways, on new drugs being released, on a company making more or less of a profit than expected.
We get puff pieces on certain politicians running for or in office.
The daytime news shows have extended interviews on bra sizing, how to remove that cottage cheese from the legs, and the latest development in facial hair removal.
At night, hours are devoted to bringing up the OJ Simpson case or about Scott Peterson or about whatever.
There are even segments speaking about the lines in front of Best Buy with people waiting for the release of the PS3 game console.
All of those things are news.
But yet it seems like all we hear from Iraq is when an individual soldier gets killed. Or we hear about when a car bomb kills some Iraqis.
Do we hear about a new school starting up? Do we hear about electric production? Do we hear about an emerging stock market? Do we hear about the cell phone and satellite TV explosion?
Remember the Army web site that had captured Iraqi documents that disclosed nuclear secrets? Well, that web site had been up for months...and had documents tracing involvement with Al Qaeda and involvement with chemical weapons and suspicious shipments to and from Syria and, yes, nuclear weapons research.
Couldn't be that...that would be pro-government propaganda.
No mention of the documents that provided some validation of pre-war claims in the news. No mention of any of it...until (when?)...until some Democrat realizes that there are pre-war nuclear secrets in there. Then what happens? "AAAARRRGGGHHH Bush is giving nuclear secrets away AAARRRGGGHHHH" (Of course...then there's always the question, how and why would Saddam have nuclear secrets if he didn't have some serious interest in building or acquiring weapons? (I know somebody will make some excuse...don't bother)
(btw, the pre-war documents site is gone. I have a link where translations of some of these documents was placed. If you would like that link, send me a PM)
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that American deaths should not be mentioned. I'm not saying that problems should not be brought out. But it seems like some balance is in order.
Good news stories DO make it to the local media. Human interest stories DO make it on the magazine show media. Yes, too much of it and it turns into "fuzzy bunny" land. I am not advocating that. But it seems like what's being shown to us right now is a mirror image of "fuzzy bunny" journalism. ("Cold Prickly Journalism?" -- I don't know what kind of tag to apply to it...) But you can have propaganda FOR the government and you can also have propaganda AGAINST. What's needed is a balance. That's not what exists.
I'd just like to see a reasonable balance. If all we heard on the local news was in-depth stories about the local crime (with coronor pictures of the victims and the crime scene) and the corruption in local government, nobody would want to live here. And we DO hear those stories. But we also hear other, less negative news information.
A similar balance on the war front would be a nice thing.
Lindy and MStar, I agree with you! I really do! And that's what I was trying to say when I posted:
Thanks, y'all. I was really glad to see this and wish that we could get some of this along with the ugly stuff that is certainly going on.
Mark O'Malley says it much better. I think there could and should be more balance in the reports on the war. Does the bad outweigh the good? IMO, yes! Am I feeling as supportive about the war as I did in the beginning? No. I do respect, honor and completely support the troops, especially my loved ones and the loved ones of my good friends. Things definitely need to change, but it's not all bad over there and it's nice to see some of the good that is going on being reported for a change.
Jonny, I am going to see if I can find when he airs here in the Sunshine State. Thanks!
At the risk of relegating this to the political forum -- I'll say this.
The liberal media is just that. They have an agenda, and it is eminently clear.
Were they to tell both sides of the story --
we might have a different perspective of what is truely happenning.
But they don't, so we don't.
MAINSTREAM Media is CORPORATIONIST, which has reflected the politics of the first half of the first decade of the third millenium (A.D). (hint: until last week, extreme right-wing)
Were they to tell both side ????????????? My hunch is those who don't see more than one angle to the news may not be looking very closely.
"we might have a different perspective of what is truly happening." Are you saying that your perspective is dependent on someone else giving it to you? That's not how I got mine.
And does the TALK RADIO you listen to give "both sides?" Or does someone, with bias they don't even deny, on that broadcast outlet tell you what the "other side" is?
I reckon we have to keep doing what we've been doing if we want the full monty - go to several biased sources for each viewpoint. The only thing that really bothers me about that is that, sadly, I think the majority of America is too "something" (lazy, ignorant, apathetic, p1ssed, convinced otherwise, etc.) to go to the trouble to do that and will unquestioningly buy whatever their news source is selling.
I think the majority of America is too "something" (lazy, ignorant, apathetic, p1ssed, convinced otherwise, etc.) to go to the trouble to do that and will unquestioningly buy whatever their news source is selling.[/color]
Ding-Ding-Ding!!!!!
Give that girl a kewpie doll!
And I think that the majority of the mass media are fully aware of that tendancy!
Recommended Posts
Galen
Yes.
and to listen to the amount of grief that they have gone through to get segments of Al jazeera translated into English and broadcast here in America. It is amazing.
We don't get CNN, just ABC and PBS.
:(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
The big 4, CBS (or see BS), NBC, ABC and CNN are, in my opinion, in almost total control of America's thoughts. To a person, they seem to hate this country. They certainly dislike the military intensely. And hate, loathe, and despise the president (Please let's don't go there on this thread and derail it). So news is selectively reported to make America sound like a nation of ignorant bullies, the administration look bad, and glorify the enemies.
Here's a non war example:
In the 1990's when the Dow topped 10,000 for the first time, it was trumpeted to the world that this was a result of our most exceedingly wonderful president's handling of the economy! Why the economy was booming, Bill Clinton was a genius. As a coworker of mine said, "The economy is great! I own a little stock, and it's doing very well. As long as I'm prospering, as far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton can get a B*** J** from every intern in Washington, D.C.!"
The Dow recently topped 12,000. Who got the credit for the economy booming? Nobody in the White House, that's for sure. And we continually hear reports of how lousy the economy is.
This film, I notice, is from Glen Beck, who is a decent guy.
It's just sad.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
Thanks Belle, I wouldn't have taken the time to look that up on my own...
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Why Belle, you are a woman after my own heart! An American after my own heart..
Thanks for sharing that. And, by the way, did you happen to catch Glen Beck's "Expose" program on CNN tonight? It was very good, very scary, but at least it was the Truth, and not a bunch of politically correct b.s.....
Anyway Bell, bless you....
Jonny Lingo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
At the risk of relegating this to the political forum -- I'll say this.
The liberal media is just that. They have an agenda, and it is eminently clear.
Were they to tell both sides of the story --
we might have a different perspective of what is truely happenning.
But they don't, so we don't.
That's why I like talk radio. Yopu get announcers who field phone calls from anyone.
Anyone --- from either side of the story.
Not some video clip designed to *persuade*.
And I'm not talking Rush, or Shawn, or Mike. I talking local guys.
With a local audience, and with a connection to the folks
who are either over-seas, or have been there, and now are back,
and what they have seen, and what they have experienced.
Believe you me -- their story is one you will NEVER hear on ---
CBS, ABC, NBC, or any of the other affiliated networks. :(
Belle -- we need more stories like that one.
Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Belle,
The answer is obvious:
"If it bleeds it leads"
The stuff in this clip is clearly just "government propaganda"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Probably for the same reason we dont see American news like this.
Schools function, people go to work, children play in playgrounds-- we have cell phones over here too. Someone decided long ago that is not news or at least not sensational enough to hold peoples attention long enough so that they can sell them something.
If 7 Amish girls get shot by a madman, or a woman gets taken off of life support, there is a trainwreck, an interview with OJ, or some other tragedy or disaster that is what is fed to us here about our country as well.
The media feeds us tragedy and bad news to keep their shares in the marketplace. Americans may complain from time to time about it, but have learned (or been trained) to expect it and (imo)secretly want a little safe exposure to the gorier side of life to counter the blander parts of their daily lives.
It gives them something to talk and act concerned about.
If they couldnt sell it, it wouldnt be on.
Even Beck airs this stuff as a niche market product that has a target audience and he even has his own catchy advertising slogan "The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment".
Its a product
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
fellowshipper
Thanks Belle for that insight. I enjoy the positive approach of the success we Americans have made there from that video. I have heard it all and mostly how the invasion to Iraq from the US was not proper but they did break their unconditional declaration. After being retired of 20+ years with the AF I have a portion of knowledge of what really happened not mentioned in the media that we only know of and is biased.... there is so much we hear that is always biased as stated. There is more going on that will never been said in this war or occupation as most wants to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Thanks Belle! Good video.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, y'all. I was really glad to see this and wish that we could get some of this along with the ugly stuff that is certainly going on. I'd never heard of Beck, but I don't watch national news much, other than GMA in the mornings.
I hear a lot of good things from friends and neighbors who have been over there or have kids over there now, so it's nice to "see" it for a change. MStar, I realize there's most likely a motive behind it, but I'd much rather support this type of bias than what the liberal media feeds us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Belle,
If you have the chance, you ought to tune into the "Glen Beck Program". Here in Juneau, it airs from 0500 till 0800 on the "talk radio" channel. He proceeds Rush Limbaugh's show, and I have found it to be very refreshing, for, even though I do agree with much of what Rush has to say, this guy is way way more humble, and can be very very funny as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
teehee it has officially become one word. liberalmedia. Is "media" ever used around here?
why don't y'all start your own network?
yikes how silly.
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Now Belle, you can't keep this up here in the open forum for long using words like "liberal."
I think that MStar gave perhaps the most honest and truest answer so far. I think he answered your question. Yet, you would rather support one bias, in the guise of "the real story," over another. I would argue that we should support and seek the big picture which includes stories like this and stories that we more often see about death and instability.
My honest opinion is that it has little to do with the media being liberal. Somehow no matter how many examples "liberals" give showing the media as not liberal at all, it still is accused of being so. It is the nature of news and human nature. Jerry Springer anyone? Can you imagine anyone reading the obituary's counterpart of "who's still living."
Perhaps the "liberalmedia" label speaks to the supposed nature of liberals and conservatives as pessimists and optimists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Well put Lindy and apoint that I was trying to get at. It takes a little work and discerning to get to anything approachng 'the big picture'
I like positive stories as well but I also realize that journalism (or supoosed journalism) is a highly competitive business these days with different outlets working to scoop each other with the end result of getting ratings. Actual "News" has taken a back seat to "marketshare", so for the most part your getting entertainment with a particular slant. If you like the slant, whether its completely truthful or not, they'll have you as a consumer and they get what they want.
Beck is filling a need with the positive stories and rightly so, but he also has his own biases and agenda to sift through as was evident during his horrendous interview with the newly elected representative from Michigan the other day who he labelled as an enemy because he was black, democrat and muslim.
Its not the first time Beck has shown his colors, I am equally wary of him as i am of most news people. He too has his biases. I'll take what he has to offer but not without an open eye
WG said news is selectively reported--It is and I aware of that --or worse. It has gotten to the point where it is made up and fabricated
HERE"S a video report of one well known network that goes so far as to make up news to make parts of the government sound bad. Heads should roll --but they wont--Its not news anymore-Its mostly cheerleading for your side with a few stories -true or not-thrown in.
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
But is it news?
There were 195 murders inside the District of Columbia during 2005. (That doesn't include the suburbs in MD and VA...just the district)
There weren't 195 news stories about DC murders last year. There weren't 100 stories. There weren't 50.
It wasn't considered news.
It wasn't national news.
It wasn't state news.
It wasn't even local news.
Sometimes, the only mention was a single sentence in the crime statistics section buried in page B-24 in the local edition.
(Now there were some murder stories...but those stories were considered "news" only when the murders were exceptionally grisly, involved somebody famous, or were in a normally "safe" area)
At the same time, the news reports on new highways, on new drugs being released, on a company making more or less of a profit than expected.
We get puff pieces on certain politicians running for or in office.
The daytime news shows have extended interviews on bra sizing, how to remove that cottage cheese from the legs, and the latest development in facial hair removal.
At night, hours are devoted to bringing up the OJ Simpson case or about Scott Peterson or about whatever.
There are even segments speaking about the lines in front of Best Buy with people waiting for the release of the PS3 game console.
All of those things are news.
But yet it seems like all we hear from Iraq is when an individual soldier gets killed. Or we hear about when a car bomb kills some Iraqis.
Do we hear about a new school starting up? Do we hear about electric production? Do we hear about an emerging stock market? Do we hear about the cell phone and satellite TV explosion?
Remember the Army web site that had captured Iraqi documents that disclosed nuclear secrets? Well, that web site had been up for months...and had documents tracing involvement with Al Qaeda and involvement with chemical weapons and suspicious shipments to and from Syria and, yes, nuclear weapons research.
Couldn't be that...that would be pro-government propaganda.
No mention of the documents that provided some validation of pre-war claims in the news. No mention of any of it...until (when?)...until some Democrat realizes that there are pre-war nuclear secrets in there. Then what happens? "AAAARRRGGGHHH Bush is giving nuclear secrets away AAARRRGGGHHHH" (Of course...then there's always the question, how and why would Saddam have nuclear secrets if he didn't have some serious interest in building or acquiring weapons? (I know somebody will make some excuse...don't bother)
(btw, the pre-war documents site is gone. I have a link where translations of some of these documents was placed. If you would like that link, send me a PM)
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that American deaths should not be mentioned. I'm not saying that problems should not be brought out. But it seems like some balance is in order.
Good news stories DO make it to the local media. Human interest stories DO make it on the magazine show media. Yes, too much of it and it turns into "fuzzy bunny" land. I am not advocating that. But it seems like what's being shown to us right now is a mirror image of "fuzzy bunny" journalism. ("Cold Prickly Journalism?" -- I don't know what kind of tag to apply to it...) But you can have propaganda FOR the government and you can also have propaganda AGAINST. What's needed is a balance. That's not what exists.
I'd just like to see a reasonable balance. If all we heard on the local news was in-depth stories about the local crime (with coronor pictures of the victims and the crime scene) and the corruption in local government, nobody would want to live here. And we DO hear those stories. But we also hear other, less negative news information.
A similar balance on the war front would be a nice thing.
But, of course, that's WAAAAY too much to ask.
And, no, I'm not holding my breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Lindy and MStar, I agree with you! I really do! And that's what I was trying to say when I posted:
Mark O'Malley says it much better. I think there could and should be more balance in the reports on the war. Does the bad outweigh the good? IMO, yes! Am I feeling as supportive about the war as I did in the beginning? No. I do respect, honor and completely support the troops, especially my loved ones and the loved ones of my good friends. Things definitely need to change, but it's not all bad over there and it's nice to see some of the good that is going on being reported for a change.
Jonny, I am going to see if I can find when he airs here in the Sunshine State. Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
MAINSTREAM Media is CORPORATIONIST, which has reflected the politics of the first half of the first decade of the third millenium (A.D). (hint: until last week, extreme right-wing)
Were they to tell both side ????????????? My hunch is those who don't see more than one angle to the news may not be looking very closely.
"we might have a different perspective of what is truly happening." Are you saying that your perspective is dependent on someone else giving it to you? That's not how I got mine.
And does the TALK RADIO you listen to give "both sides?" Or does someone, with bias they don't even deny, on that broadcast outlet tell you what the "other side" is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I reckon we have to keep doing what we've been doing if we want the full monty - go to several biased sources for each viewpoint.
The only thing that really bothers me about that is that, sadly, I think the majority of America is too "something" (lazy, ignorant, apathetic, p1ssed, convinced otherwise, etc.) to go to the trouble to do that and will unquestioningly buy whatever their news source is selling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Ding-Ding-Ding!!!!!
Give that girl a kewpie doll!
And I think that the majority of the mass media are fully aware of that tendancy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.