|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wish the Conservative era was over.. but I definetely don't think so. I hope the neocon hawk era will be finished after Bush.. but the conservatives have some amazing smear campaigns that stuck so well they won't be disappearing anytime soon.
The right-wing propoganda campaigns are so intense in the U.S. right now. If you drive across the country and pick up local stations.. half of them on the dial are either evangelicals or right-wing call-in talk shows. They take a quip like the Kerry one on this 2006 election he wasn't even running on.. and play it over and over for days on end until it goes national.
Someone else mentioned that the US lacks programs like the BBC or CBC. Definetely not true. PBS is significantly more leftwing than those networks - AND its run by the government, corporation-sponsored free! There are also liberal media talk shows out there and people fighting the bastion of conservative propoganda on the airwaves. But the 'liberal' media always takes on an intellectual approach. Its predomimately perceived as pretensious and elite. Common everyday people laugh it off as dull and boring. It predominately reaches the educated and highly educated of predominately urban areas. It does very little if anything to reach out to the mass rural populations who could care less about urban issues.
How the Democrats got control this election. It's a mystery.. but the Iraq debacle is such an incredible debacle and quite obviously lacking a plan and direction there. I think it was pretty obvious a change couldn't possibly make things any worse than a plan and direction that doesn't exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
Wish the Conservative era was over.. but I definetely don't think so. I hope the neocon hawk era will be finished after Bush.. but the conservatives have some amazing smear campaigns that stuck so well they won't be disappearing anytime soon.
The right-wing propoganda campaigns are so intense in the U.S. right now. If you drive across the country and pick up local stations.. half of them on the dial are either evangelicals or right-wing call-in talk shows. They take a quip like the Kerry one on this 2006 election he wasn't even running on.. and play it over and over for days on end until it goes national.
Someone else mentioned that the US lacks programs like the BBC or CBC. Definetely not true. PBS is significantly more leftwing than those networks - AND its run by the government, corporation-sponsored free! There are also liberal media talk shows out there and people fighting the bastion of conservative propoganda on the airwaves. But the 'liberal' media always takes on an intellectual approach. Its predomimately perceived as pretensious and elite. Common everyday people laugh it off as dull and boring. It predominately reaches the educated and highly educated of predominately urban areas. It does very little if anything to reach out to the mass rural populations who could care less about urban issues.
How the Democrats got control this election. It's a mystery.. but the Iraq debacle is such an incredible debacle and quite obviously lacking a plan and direction there. I think it was pretty obvious a change couldn't possibly make things any worse than a plan and direction that doesn't exist. |
According to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4650242-103550,00.html , so many Americans turned to BBC during the war because of the obvious bias among the American media. They were watching BBC via PBS. If PBS were the equivalent to BBC or to the left of it, then that would not make sense. So your argument about a network which informs the public adequately, not beholden to commercials, corporate donations etc... would have to apply to PBS, but it does not. I have watched PBS, CBC, and BBC, and I am not sure what you were watching. PBS has some good informative, learning programs, but when it comes to politics, global issues, it does not quite have the caliber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wish I'd saved the article about how when BBC was challenged about being anti-American, some head guy didn't even challenge the statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
According to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4650242-103550,00.html , so many Americans turned to BBC during the war because of the obvious bias among the American media. They were watching BBC via PBS. If PBS were the equivalent to BBC or to the left of it, then that would not make sense. So your argument about a network which informs the public adequately, not beholden to commercials, corporate donations etc... would have to apply to PBS, but it does not. I have watched PBS, CBC, and BBC, and I am not sure what you were watching. PBS has some good informative, learning programs, but when it comes to politics, global issues, it does not quite have the caliber. |
Ever watched the news hour with Jim Lehrer? Ever seen a Frontline episode? It is true that only a small segment of PBS programing is devoted to politics and global issues, but they are very good and informative.
Have you ever listened to NPR? Doesn't sound like it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
According to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4650242-103550,00.html , so many Americans turned to BBC during the war because of the obvious bias among the American media. They were watching BBC via PBS. If PBS were the equivalent to BBC or to the left of it, then that would not make sense. So your argument about a network which informs the public adequately, not beholden to commercials, corporate donations etc... would have to apply to PBS, but it does not. I have watched PBS, CBC, and BBC, and I am not sure what you were watching. PBS has some good informative, learning programs, but when it comes to politics, global issues, it does not quite have the caliber. |
Ever watched the news hour with Jim Lehrer? Ever seen a Frontline episode? It is true that only a small segment of PBS programing is devoted to politics and global issues, but they are very good and informative.
Have you ever listened to NPR? Doesn't sound like it. |
The NPR is a superb radio show. I am glad you brought it up. It is a brilliant program, but we were discussing the BBC and CBC and relating their television programming. Far more people watch television than they listen to the radio (I am not referring to Mix 102.9 or 97.9 the beat), and but a fair amount do turn to NPR. You could a lot of the news I am talking about if you listen to NPR. Yet, unlike the BBC and CBC which also have television shows, detailed news rather than small tid bits of news, there is far more detail on the networks. And NPR must constantly solicit the public for funds. The government gives them little in terms of funding.
I have watched Jim Lehrer and the different programs on PBS. By your own admission, the news and politics are not in depth, and we are discussing giving the public the opportunity to look at many different points of view about policies and how the other networks are corporate owned, and I was saying if the public PBS won't have in depth news and politics, then how can there be even close to a balance and how can PBS be more to the Left of the BBC or CBC if it is not doing much of a job in informing the public. This means I want more for PBS. I am not saying PBS is bad. It has many good programs in other areas. But it needs more in terms of informing the public about issues.
Last edited by Adventurer on Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer, you were talking about "the media," and not merely "television," although you cited "television" as an example on page one.
In any case, I no longer follow your point. The only thing I can discern is that you feel that U.S. newsreporting and analysis falls short of British and Canadian standards, as well as The Guardian's and your own ideological standards, too.
Well good for you and good for The Guardian. This, incidentally, is hardly a novel conclusion on Dave's ESL Cafe -- and on whatever comparison between the United States and anyone else is on the table, for that matter.
Indeed, people of whatever nationality voice such conclusions in most other fora, too. At a conference last summer, for example, a Brazilian chastised me because U.S. newsreporting told only lies, as opposed, of course, to Brazilian newsreporting, which reported the pure, unmitigated truth. Brazilian television, for example, constantly showed Brazilians how the United States was dominating and terrifying the world, etc., while American newsreporting failed to tell Americans this in any detail... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Adventurer, you were talking about "the media," and not merely "television," although you cited "television" as an example on page one.
In any case, I no longer follow your point. The only thing I can discern is that you feel that U.S. newsreporting and analysis falls short of British and Canadian standards, as well as your own ideological standards, too.
Well good for you. This, incidentally, is hardly a novel conclusion on Dave's ESL Cafe -- and on whatever comparison between the United States and anyone else is on the table, for that matter.
Indeed, people of whatever nationality voice such conclusions in most other fora, too. At a conference last summer, for example, a Brazilian chastised me because U.S. newsreporting told only lies, as opposed, of course, to Brazilian newsreporting, which reported the pure, unmitigated truth. Brazilian television, for example, constantly showed Brazilians how the United States was dominating and terrifying the world, etc., while American newsreporting failed to tell Americans this in any detail... |
It is true I said the media. But, as you know, we are in the year 2006.
We are not in 1940. This is the age of television and the internet. I was thinking of television mostly. I did not mention radio for obvious reasons. But I think NPR is great, and I wish there were something close to that on PBS for a length of time. Then my argument would be null and void. I am glad the NPR is there. I enjoyed listening to the Diane Reem show. If we take the media at length, newspapers, if we include them, have been for many years been cutting their news content. This is a reality. Many studies have been done about it. The New York Times is still very good, and one of the few very good examples of a good newspaper and maybe the LA times.
I have watched the BBC news, in length, the CBC, French news, and even English news in Kuwait and Dubai. So I am not looking at just Brazil.
However, Kuwait and Dubai may have covered news, but they would not be critical of the monarchs, I am sure, so I wouldn't bring them up. They did, however, have in-depth news. In that area, it would help inform the public about the globe. The difference is clear, the PBS does not have the in-depth coverage for the same general length of time as those two networks. Many Americans agreed and they turned to BBC and other sources during the war. Read the link for yourself.
I am sure you have watch CNN. During the OJ trial, they showed OJ over and over. They often look for a story they can repeat over and over to milk as much money they can from the commercials. That detracts from the credibility of the network. I am talking about in depth news and showing at length the various view points say from Iraqis, America labor unions, intellectuals, scientists. I've watched American television on end, and I got nuggets from C-Span, PBS occasionally, and some satellite shows. I think you would have to turn to Satellite TV to get more news. Let us say we leave out the BBC, CBC, or TV5 of France and just let things stand on their own. Are the American people receiving adequate programming regarding domestic and global issues? I have seen no evidence of that, so I am saying they are being cheated by having information with-held. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Are the American people receiving adequate programming regarding domestic and global issues? I have seen no evidence of that, so I am saying they are being cheated by having information with-held. |
First, I think you are talking about indoctrinating the American people or infusing them with non-American perspectives on U.S. and world affairs, in order to -- I hazard to guess -- better shape U.S. politics in your image. I do not think that you are actually voicing your criticism in these terms, but I think that, ultimately, this is where your criticism is leading: you want the American people to think in ways that you might better approve. Well, we do not; and we are probably not going to, either, for that matter.
You are using the passive voice above, too, so I am not sure who you think is doing the withholding of information that "cheats" the American people. I look at quite a few sources of information, not to mention classes and seminars that, in my opinion, teach young American college students to hate the United States. (This is far more common that you might think; I am writing from a university campus where I teach -- I read their papers and exams.) And I believe that most Americans get their political information from neither CNN nor FoxNews. I think the majority of Americans get their "news" information by word of mouth, from popular radio news-update-blurbs between songs, from the Daily Show, Colbert, and others like Saturday Night Live's "Weekend News Update."
And this, especially the latter three, generally teaches them not to talk about or debate the news, but merely to mock it.
Moreoever, they are not generally reading the New York Times or the Washington Post but rather People magazine and other celebrity gossip/tabloid trash they pick up at supermarkets.
Secondly, I think you raise a good question: Are the American people receiving adequate news information and analysis (I think your "programming" was a bad choice of words, incidentally)?
Apart from what I say above, I do not know, although there is excellent information and analysis available to anyone who wants to, to cite a friend of mine's choice of words, "be in the mood" to turn off Monday Night Football or The Family Guy in order to look for it.
People at my professional and/or academic level, incidentally, are as well-informed -- if not better-informed -- as anybody, anwhere.
People at the Homer Simpson level, on the other hand, I suspect, are probably as poorly informed as most other people on their level anywhere else in the world -- actually, perhaps not quite so bad. I am dating an Iranian woman on an exchange program. She has an M.A. from a Tehran university. She was with me while I graded exams a week or so ago, and, looking at the questions I had given the students, she asked me "What does 'the Cold War' mean?" She had never heard of it; she did not know that the United States and the Soviet Union clashed for about fifty years all over the globe. But she did know that the U.S. had intervened in Iranian affairs in 1953. Now, I am fully aware that all contexts are arbitrary and socially-constructed. But I could not help but wonder how many millions of Iranians do not realize that the United States deposed Mossadeq in the Cold War context?
In any case, if you are premising your criticism on an assumption that Britishers and Canadians at the equivalent of America's Homer Simpson level are better informed on world affairs than their American counterparts on the basis of your impressions of popular news coverage, I must say that I find that very, very hard to believe.
Are you indeed suggesting that all Britishers and Canadians, or even most of them, at the equivalent of what I have been calling the Homer Simpson level, taking in serious, professional news information and mulling it over in their everyday lives, responding to the issues and participating in national elections in rational and conscientious ways? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
According to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4650242-103550,00.html , so many Americans turned to BBC during the war because of the obvious bias among the American media. They were watching BBC via PBS. If PBS were the equivalent to BBC or to the left of it, then that would not make sense. So your argument about a network which informs the public adequately, not beholden to commercials, corporate donations etc... would have to apply to PBS, but it does not. I have watched PBS, CBC, and BBC, and I am not sure what you were watching. PBS has some good informative, learning programs, but when it comes to politics, global issues, it does not quite have the caliber. |
Ever watched the news hour with Jim Lehrer? Ever seen a Frontline episode? It is true that only a small segment of PBS programing is devoted to politics and global issues, but they are very good and informative.
Have you ever listened to NPR? Doesn't sound like it. |
The NPR is a superb radio show. I am glad you brought it up. It is a brilliant program, but we were discussing the BBC and CBC and relating their television programming. Far more people watch television than they listen to the radio (I am not referring to Mix 102.9 or 97.9 the beat), and but a fair amount do turn to NPR. You could a lot of the news I am talking about if you listen to NPR. Yet, unlike the BBC and CBC which also have television shows, detailed news rather than small tid bits of news, there is far more detail on the networks. And NPR must constantly solicit the public for funds. The government gives them little in terms of funding.
I have watched Jim Lehrer and the different programs on PBS. By your own admission, the news and politics are not in depth, and we are discussing giving the public the opportunity to look at many different points of view about policies and how the other networks are corporate owned, and I was saying if the public PBS won't have in depth news and politics, then how can there be even close to a balance and how can PBS be more to the Left of the BBC or CBC if it is not doing much of a job in informing the public. This means I want more for PBS. I am not saying PBS is bad. It has many good programs in other areas. But it needs more in terms of informing the public about issues. |
You have this theme of not in depth news on PBS, and you seem to mention BB's 'own admission', etc. I disagree. Its extremely detailed in depth.
If you read BB's response again.. he mentions 'only a small segment' is devoted to news and global issue. There is no mention of it being not in-depth or not capable of informing the public. It's just that outside of global issues and news, its often doing some of its own thing like performing arts or science or whatever else at times rather than all news all the time. In other words, its basically NOT a 24-hours news channel.
PBS actually goes into issues incredibly in-depth in a research investigative exploratory way, which I personally find more informative and interesting. BBC has these programs as well, but I wouldn't say they are any more in-depth or more liberal or more informative, they are just generally issues from the European continent or post-colonial British spheres of influence (refreshing to watch at times just as much).. where as PBS is more specific to American politics/issues.. and generally in a much more informative examining sort of way of american policies, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
PBS actually goes into issues incredibly in-depth in a research investigative exploratory way, which I personally find more informative and interesting. BBC has these programs as well, but I wouldn't say they are any more in-depth or more liberal or more informative, they are just generally issues from the European continent or post-colonial British spheres of influence (refreshing to watch at times just as much).. where as PBS is more specific to American politics/issues.. and generally in a much more informative examining sort of way of american policies, etc.
|
I think this is basically correct. With the exception of The McLaughlin Group, I'd say that PBS's general slant is roughly about as liberal as the BBC. But Americans in search of an alternative view on Iraq are more likely to tune into BBC, simply because that network has more coverage of foreign affairs generally. As far as I know, PBS doesn't even have foreign correspondents, do they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Are the American people receiving adequate programming regarding domestic and global issues? I have seen no evidence of that, so I am saying they are being cheated by having information with-held. |
First, I think you are talking about indoctrinating the American people or infusing them with non-American perspectives on U.S. and world affairs, in order to -- I hazard to guess -- better shape U.S. politics in your image. I do not think that you are actually voicing your criticism in these terms, but I think that, ultimately, this is where your criticism is leading: you want the American people to think in ways that you might better approve. Well, we do not; and we are probably not going to, either, for that matter.
[The American people are already indoctrinated, you could argue. The term idoctrinated has one mentally associated with the works of Goebbels, Assad, or Stalin. You could argue that every society has some form of indoctrination, but that is not what I am talking about.
Let me make it simple for you. People deserve a voice in the media, not to be shut out. Your jingoism is a shield to justify shutting them out. Yes, I do want the American public to view the views of Iraqis in depth, dissenting voices before wars are launched, I do want them to have a similar global news coverage as their Western counterparts.
You apparently, by using a jingoism tied to elitism, want to shield them from something that would give more power to the democracy wield by the masses rather than a minority. I am sure you are aware of the words "All men are created equal". I believe in "Government for the peole and by the people." So why want the voices that are not heard. We already hear the voices of the moguls, the politicians, the accepted think tanks, the two-party system. What is wrong with infusing people with non-American perspectives? How do you interact with the world properly as a larger public without it. You feel being clueless is better?
Yes, I want the people to have more democracy, more power.
You are using the passive voice above, too, so I am not sure who you think is doing the withholding of information that "cheats" the American people. I look at quite a few sources of information, not to mention classes and seminars that, in my opinion, teach young American college students to hate the United States. (This is far more common that you might think; I am writing from a university campus where I teach -- I read their papers and exams.) And I believe that most Americans get their political information from neither CNN nor FoxNews. I think the majority of Americans get their "news" information by word of mouth, from popular radio news-update-blurbs between songs, from the Daily Show, Colbert, and others like Saturday Night Live's "Weekend News Update."
[I will paraphrase Jesus to make a point I want to make. "The Kingdom is within it is not in stone or wood". What matters more than the United States is the people of the United States the polity as the Romans of the Republic spoke about. I do not embrace this idea of hating the United States. I think you should address what I was talking about, and it is not nationalism but rather providing global perspectives to the American people including views that do not conform with what their politicians think. The American people are not children. Shielding them from well-rounded news, I think, says they cannot handle the responsiblity of running their democracy and only the elites can. I am not a follower of Franklin Republicanism rather Jeffersonian Democracy. I am referring to the elites who are responsible the current state of politics, power distribution, filtering of information.
And this, especially the latter three, generally teaches them not to talk about or debate the news, but merely to mock it.
Moreoever, they are not generally reading the New York Times or the Washington Post but rather People magazine and other celebrity gossip/tabloid trash they pick up at supermarkets.
Secondly, I think you raise a good question: Are the American people receiving adequate news information and analysis (I think your "programming" was a bad choice of words, incidentally)?
Apart from what I say above, I do not know, although there is excellent information and analysis available to anyone who wants to, to cite a friend of mine's choice of words, "be in the mood" to turn off Monday Night Football or The Family Guy in order to look for it.
In any case, if you are premising your criticism on an assumption that Britishers and Canadians at the equivalent of America's Homer Simpson level are better informed on world affairs than their American counterparts on the basis of your impressions of popular news coverage, I must say that I find that very, very hard to believe.
[As far as Iran, Iran is a country under a dictatorship. You cannot compare a country with limited access to information to the U.S. The U.S. does have a limit as well, but it is different. If you really want to learn, in the U.S., and you seek out the information there are scholars, books you can access. This cannot be said about Middle Eastern countries like Iran.
It is great that you are a person who is quite aware, but how is it enough if only a sliver of the population, which you represent, are aware.
How does that promote a democracy where people are informed to make good decisions? I am sure you are aware of the idea of the social contract. I believe John Hobbes wrote about that subject. If the people are not aware of the contract, they lose out. That is my point. And part of the contract is having the information related to the power in the ways it relates to democracy.
Are you indeed suggesting that all Britishers and Canadians, or even most of them, at the equivalent of what I have been calling the Homer Simpson level, taking in serious, professional news information and mulling it over in their everyday lives, responding to the issues and participating in national elections in rational and conscientious ways? |
[I would say Americans and the British are almost on par when it comes to knowledge of world geography. There might be a slight difference and the British may have an advantage with their geographical position.
I am going based on looking at the surveys. Canadians fared better when it came to geographical awareness. The British and Americans scored poorly, as far as I recall. I did have more in depth conversations regarding politics in Canada than in the U.S.
I am very well-intentioned, and I am an educator, and I taught the subjects I am talking about, and I taught them in the U.S. You must admit rather than disagreeing with me that there is a crisis in terms of American knowledge regarding geography and politics. For example, this link here shows the majority could not figure out the states. I am not, in anyway, saying the Brazilian who complained to you, that I agree with his slant, or that his country fared better or Iran or Korea for that matter. I am interested in democratic participation. I am sure you are as well.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/
This link shows a problem, and I think the media can do something to try to correct the problem. Do you disagree? That is what the argument boils down to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
I think this is basically correct. With the exception of The McLaughlin Group, I'd say that PBS's general slant is roughly about as liberal as the BBC. But Americans in search of an alternative view on Iraq are more likely to tune into BBC, simply because that network has more coverage of foreign affairs generally. As far as I know, PBS doesn't even have foreign correspondents, do they? |
Not really, no. That being said, the news hour format is different from most news programs. At the top and end of the hour, they provide the day's headlines, but the remaining show is devoted to interviews, panel discussions, and in-depth looks at 2-3 stories.
The news hour also uses the UK's ITV for international news stories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer: who, exactly is "cheating" the American people, "shielding" them from the truth, and keeping them dumb?
You use these verbs but do not specify the subject, except to refer, vaguely, to "the elites." So, again, please tell us who exactly you are talking about and how you know this. And, also, why these "elites" are only present and a negative factor in American politics.
Next, as I said above, I disagree with your assessment. Any American who wants to inform himself on any issue at all has all of the tools available to see all conceivable sides of any issue imaginable.
Also, you say that Americans are "already indoctrinated." I guess in a sense that it certainly true, as Americans have a certain worldview and they pass it down to each generation. And the news channels and programs we have already talked about certainly reflect this worldview.
But so does everybody else in the world. Are you telling us that this is not so? That this is only something that occurs in the United States?
Finally, it is frustrating that you would come onto this site, and have contact with Americans such as myself, Bucheon Bum, and Kuros, and say the things you say about "Americans" and how well-informed or not they are.
I think that, ultimately, your issue is that you think Americans should think more like Britishers or Canadians, who you would have us believe are closer to the objective truth of things. You would have Americans indoctrinated by British- or Canadian-slanted news information to remedy this. I disagree. For better or for worse, and just like anyone else in the world, it is our right to have our own worldview.
And looking at the last several threads you created, the ones heavily slanted against the American right, heavily slanted against Israel, and heavily slanted towards the American left, etc., this only seems to confirm my suspicions about your "criticism" of Americans.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Read the link for yourself. |
I reread the link.
Here is what I see:
The Guardian presents data that show a 28% increase in BBC (via PBS, which carries it) ratings.
At the same time, The Guardian claims, CBS and ABC's ratings decreased 15% and 6%, respectively.
The Guardian complains that NBC fired Arnett for taking a pro-Saddam propaganda line -- which, no matter how you spin it, is exactly what he did.
The Guardian then asserts, vaguely, that "many US viewers said they had switched to the BBC because of the apparent pro-American bias of some local networks." But, also, and more specifically, BBC's Rageh Omaar is America's new sex-symbol.
To support this, The Guardian cites "one viewer from New York" and "another viewer from Norwalk," both of whom commented positively on BBC and thus support The Guardian's argument.
I cannot speak for the other Americans on this website. But, as for myself, I am not convinced at all that the case you (and The Guardian) are trying to make -- that is, that Americans have no faith in American news coverage because everyone knows it is a lie; and, on the other hand, British news coverage is much more objective and comprehensive -- is anything less than a propagandistic one. More to the point: the article you cite does not present sufficient evidence to support this conclusion.
So all I see is that the British are patting themselves on the back, and arguing to themselves that they are better than Americans, and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. But with respect British-American and especially Canadian-American relations, at least at some level, this is hardly a novel position to take... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Gopher"]
I cannot speak for the other Americans on this website. But, as for myself, I am not convinced at all that the case you (and The Guardian) are trying to make -- that is, that Americans have no faith in American news coverage because everyone knows it is a lie; and, on the other hand, British news coverage is much more objective and comprehensive -- is anything less than a propagandistic one. More to the point: the article you cite does not present sufficient evidence to support this conclusion.
[We are not necessarily talking about faith the American public has in the media, but we are talking about how the views of Americans are shaped, what are they presented with in terms of what they need to make decisions on certain issues whether, in the end, that means on a certain issue X, they will be on the right, and on certain issue Z they may choose to be on the Left. Or, if they had a wider, global news coverage they would make different decisions and, also, more of the politicians would weigh different arguments before going to war say in Iraq.
Most posters, regarding this thread, stated that U.S. coverage on global news coverage is not on par with their Canadian and British counterparts, when it comes to global news coverage, like the BBC and CBC. I am not talking about educational areas in other areas because PBS does a very good job there, to be fair. You could also include TV5 of France, if you speak French, or if you choose a Swedish network, but I cannot speak Swedish, and I cannot comment. I am not going to judge Peter Arnett. People are quick to judge or jettison people. They did that to Donahue and Bill Maher was temporarily thrown out. And there was a Canadian female reporter who all of a sudden disappeared from television. This doesn't tend to happen so much in Britain and Canada. I am questioning whether the public is fairly being treated with the news coverage.
Foreign policy, of course, is not the only issue Americans deal with. There are domestic issues. People were debating about coverage regarding people from the Left and on the Right. Is there a balance? No, there is not. If there was a balance or close to it, you would have more coverage of those who disagree with your typical politician on Capitol Hill. For example, do you have, in length, on networks like PBS why Americans should support universal health care, and what the benefits would be for the public. The voices against far exceed those that would argue the other point of view. I have watched tons of television, and I have not seen evidence of this.
You are right to attack the first link I showed to unempirical, but the second link I showed regarding the lack of knowledge of geography obviously shows that information regarding geography is not getting to the polity.
Here is a link from Mother Jones that makes a study regarding news coverage regarding Global Warming. Let me know what you think regarding such an important matter and the coverage of it.
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/snowed.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
