The loss of real news sources has to be one of the greatest current threats to our democracy.
Topic: The news lies (Read 1916 times)
Forget right wing and left wing, the bias is about sensationalism. They will tell you what ever story leads to more advertising revenue. And who will stop them? The news casters? Not a chance. They are chosen based on boob size and tooth straightness. Outside of "The news hour" and to a lesser extent BBC news, there is no legitimate TV news.
The loss of real news sources has to be one of the greatest current threats to our democracy.
The loss of real news sources has to be one of the greatest current threats to our democracy.
There's a reason why this paper is nicknamed The Torygraph.
That's why I mentioned it. The Guardian has a similarly left wing bias.
One of the odd things is that there are no US equivalent of the Times, Mail, Express or the Telegraph. Its like only left wing Americans own newspapers.
Wall street journal is supposedly right wing.
WSJ and the FT both have a very simple philosophy: "Socialism for the rich and the free market for the rest." A true right winger would have let the banks go down - both those rags were clamouring for a bailout.
Newspaper owners are whatever wing that allows them to grow their empire:
https://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/murd-m10.shtml
Do newspapers even make money anymore? The fact that they still are around and not profitable shows that they still have power in swaying public opinion.
"The news lies"
In other news: water is wet and fire is hot.
In other news: water is wet and fire is hot.
U.S. banks have been given special treatment since 1812, a sudden reactive change to this policy would probably lead to total collapse. The system is built around the idea that banks will get bailed out.
There's a reason why this paper is nicknamed The Torygraph.
That's why I mentioned it. The Guardian has a similarly left wing bias.
One of the odd things is that there are no US equivalent of the Times, Mail, Express or the Telegraph. Its like only left wing Americans own newspapers.
Wall street journal is supposedly right wing.
WSJ and the FT both have a very simple philosophy: "Socialism for the rich and the free market for the rest." A true right winger would have let the banks go down - both those rags were clamouring for a bailout.
There's a reason why this paper is nicknamed The Torygraph.
That's why I mentioned it. The Guardian has a similarly left wing bias.
One of the odd things is that there are no US equivalent of the Times, Mail, Express or the Telegraph. Its like only left wing Americans own newspapers.
Wall street journal is supposedly right wing.
It seems that they have finally noticed that the public was mislead: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/
There's a reason why this paper is nicknamed The Torygraph.
That's why I mentioned it. The Guardian has a similarly left wing bias.
One of the odd things is that there are no US equivalent of the Times, Mail, Express or the Telegraph. Its like only left wing Americans own newspapers.
There's a reason why this paper is nicknamed The Torygraph.
I don't think they were that incorrect. He was not put in charge, he made the group himself. In addition, he was bigger than the kid. The only thing misleading was the photos, which in some cases were recent. I don't see a direct lie here.
Fine, they have weaseled their way out of the definition of lie. The point is that the way stories are treated often leave the audience worse than uninformed. This is widespread, and insidious. I purposefully make a point to be skeptical and still got indoctrinated. Also, AM radio (I don't really watch tv) is probably the worst culprit.
Is this getting more prevalent since the internet became popular, or were people 20 years ago just massively misinformed about everything?
I think that its always been that way. The type of person who invests a fortune in a newspaper is likely to have an agenda.
In the UK, we have http://www.guardian.co.uk/ and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ and for as long as they have both existed, the same stories have been covered in each paper with huge bias in the selection of facts.
+1
People jump to the story they want to hear instead of shutting the f#
People jump to the story they want to hear instead of shutting the f#
I don't think they were that incorrect. He was not put in charge, he made the group himself. In addition, he was bigger than the kid. The only thing misleading was the photos, which in some cases were recent. I don't see a direct lie here.
Fine, they have weaseled their way out of the definition of lie. The point is that the way stories are treated often leave the audience worse than uninformed. This is widespread, and insidious. I purposefully make a point to be skeptical and still got indoctrinated. Also, AM radio (I don't really watch tv) is probably the worst culprit.
Is this getting more prevalent since the internet became popular, or were people 20 years ago just massively misinformed about everything?
On the topic of the issue at hand. It is very annoying to have been given a very opinionated story about what happened and how I did not learn from various news stories that the shooter was Hispanic kind of threw me off for a bit.
Onto the OP's original intent. That is what you get with the current state of the media. It is one part bias and another part sensationalism. If the news media reported the truth or more of the truth would people want to watch it? In my opinion no. If the bias was there then there would be no need for multiple news sources also. It is a competition for views and they are very strained between the various media outlets and because of this bias seeps in to keep their customers happy and watching/listening.
Want to write more but battery is dead :/
ELT
Onto the OP's original intent. That is what you get with the current state of the media. It is one part bias and another part sensationalism. If the news media reported the truth or more of the truth would people want to watch it? In my opinion no. If the bias was there then there would be no need for multiple news sources also. It is a competition for views and they are very strained between the various media outlets and because of this bias seeps in to keep their customers happy and watching/listening.
Want to write more but battery is dead :/
ELT
http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/docsoup/files/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-fake-photo-via-pinterest.png
It's weird how the story of two blacks kids soaking a white kid in gasoline, then lighting him on fire, hardly got any media attention a few weeks ago.
It's weird how the story of two blacks kids soaking a white kid in gasoline, then lighting him on fire, hardly got any media attention a few weeks ago.
Reporting died out long ago it seems , nowadays news channels only extend on the dull reality shows allready airing.
There is no doubt that MSNBC stirred up hatred when they edited that 911 tape to make him sound racist. They made it sound like he chose the boy based on race and they said that "Fucking cold" was "Fucking coon."
Regardless of what happened, and no-one really knows, that was disgracefully bad reporting.
Regardless of what happened, and no-one really knows, that was disgracefully bad reporting.
So I kept hearing about this george zimmerman shooting a black kid story and finally got around to looking it up. I assumed it was just being sensationalized, but holy crap.
Here is what I thought from AM radio: Some racist white ex cop was going around a neighborhood playing vigilante and shot a black kid for coming at him.
Here is what happened. A hispanic insurance agent who got put in charge of the neighborhood watch called 911 reporting someone acting strange. Then when he went to confront him shit went down one way or the other and the black kid got shot. Note the black "kid", while not huge, is 17 and larger than me (6'3" 160). Of course the pictures shown of him are from when he was like 12.
I do my best to be wary of anything the news reports, but they even got me with this one.
Note: This thread is not supposed to be about this specific event, it is about how the media cannot be trusted to correctly report even the most basic facts of a story.
Here is what I thought from AM radio: Some racist white ex cop was going around a neighborhood playing vigilante and shot a black kid for coming at him.
Here is what happened. A hispanic insurance agent who got put in charge of the neighborhood watch called 911 reporting someone acting strange. Then when he went to confront him shit went down one way or the other and the black kid got shot. Note the black "kid", while not huge, is 17 and larger than me (6'3" 160). Of course the pictures shown of him are from when he was like 12.
I do my best to be wary of anything the news reports, but they even got me with this one.
Note: This thread is not supposed to be about this specific event, it is about how the media cannot be trusted to correctly report even the most basic facts of a story.
While I don't think Mr. Zimmerman should be accused for homicide I do believe he should be charged with negligent manslaughter. If not that he should and most likely will be held liable for killing the kid.
Mr. Zimmerman is a concealed handgun licensee. He went through the training and they do teach conflict resolution in that class. All the facts have not be presented in the case and maybe never will, but what I heard from a news source is that he called the police because a suspicious person was wandering around the neighborhood in the rain like he was high on drugs. The emergency dispatcher told him not to confront the suspicious person. He could have ended the confrontation there. Call 911 and get back in your car. Of course, he should have been minding his own business in the first place. I think it is overstepping to call police because a kid looks high.
I think in the liberal or black community the perception is that if Mr. Zimmerman was black and the kid was white then Mr. Zimmerman would right now be locked up in prison facing lethal injection.
They are playing it off like every other event between two people who happen to be different races. The white looking guy did it because he is a closet racist. Its the oldest excuse in the book, the liberals need to get off their high horse and reliese the world we live in. Bad shit happens because some people are bad. It has nothing to do with race. And yes I do totally agree the picture they show you on the news makes you think its this little black kid, 5'5 maybe 5'7 weighing no more than a buck twenty 25. Then they show you the big mean picture of the hispanic guy for his mug shot. Who do you think the media wants to win?
So I kept hearing about this george zimmerman shooting a black kid story and finally got around to looking it up. I assumed it was just being sensationalized, but holy crap.
Here is what I thought from AM radio: Some racist white ex cop was going around a neighborhood playing vigilante and shot a black kid for coming at him.
Here is what happened. A hispanic insurance agent who got put in charge of the neighborhood watch called 911 reporting someone acting strange. Then when he went to confront him shit went down one way or the other and the black kid got shot. Note the black "kid", while not huge, is 17 and larger than me (6'3" 160). Of course the pictures shown of him are from when he was like 12.
I do my best to be wary of anything the news reports, but they even got me with this one.
Note: This thread is not supposed to be about this specific event, it is about how the media cannot be trusted to correctly report even the most basic facts of a story.
Here is what I thought from AM radio: Some racist white ex cop was going around a neighborhood playing vigilante and shot a black kid for coming at him.
Here is what happened. A hispanic insurance agent who got put in charge of the neighborhood watch called 911 reporting someone acting strange. Then when he went to confront him shit went down one way or the other and the black kid got shot. Note the black "kid", while not huge, is 17 and larger than me (6'3" 160). Of course the pictures shown of him are from when he was like 12.
I do my best to be wary of anything the news reports, but they even got me with this one.
Note: This thread is not supposed to be about this specific event, it is about how the media cannot be trusted to correctly report even the most basic facts of a story.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-nbcnews-trayvonmartin-idUSBRE83214H20120404
Quote
The "Today" show's segment, which included an ellipsis on screen to indicate omitted text, ran as:
"Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good ..."
"Zimmerman: He looks black."
The full conversation ran as:
"Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black."
"Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good ..."
"Zimmerman: He looks black."
The full conversation ran as:
"Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black."
So I kept hearing about this george zimmerman shooting a black kid story and finally got around to looking it up. I assumed it was just being sensationalized, but holy crap.
Here is what I thought from AM radio: Some racist white ex cop was going around a neighborhood playing vigilante and shot a black kid for coming at him.
Here is what happened. A hispanic insurance agent who got put in charge of the neighborhood watch called 911 reporting someone acting strange. Then when he went to confront him shit went down one way or the other and the black kid got shot. Note the black "kid", while not huge, is 17 and larger than me (6'3" 160). Of course the pictures shown of him are from when he was like 12.
I do my best to be wary of anything the news reports, but they even got me with this one.
Note: This thread is not supposed to be about this specific event, it is about how the media cannot be trusted to correctly report even the most basic facts of a story.
Here is what I thought from AM radio: Some racist white ex cop was going around a neighborhood playing vigilante and shot a black kid for coming at him.
Here is what happened. A hispanic insurance agent who got put in charge of the neighborhood watch called 911 reporting someone acting strange. Then when he went to confront him shit went down one way or the other and the black kid got shot. Note the black "kid", while not huge, is 17 and larger than me (6'3" 160). Of course the pictures shown of him are from when he was like 12.
I do my best to be wary of anything the news reports, but they even got me with this one.
Note: This thread is not supposed to be about this specific event, it is about how the media cannot be trusted to correctly report even the most basic facts of a story.
I don't think they were that incorrect. He was not put in charge, he made the group himself. In addition, he was bigger than the kid. The only thing misleading was the photos, which in some cases were recent. I don't see a direct lie here.
Jump to: