1
   

They Shoot News Anchors, Don’t They?

 
 
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 12:47 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 463 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 05:57 am
Which is why for the most part I don't watch the news on TV anymore. I am just hoping that the newspapers and internet news is not similarly corrupted.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 06:00 am
Read this elsewhere. Author goes off all too rantily some of the time, but definitely well echoes my perception, overall...

And they complain about liberal media bias.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 06:15 am
I remember a few years back when a particular news anchor (on NBC from one of the Dakotas...I will not give his name; but he retired from the slot recently and had the initials T.B.), would make funny faces any time he had to read something positive about then President Bill Clinton. To me, whether or not the anchor approves of the President it is his responsibility to remain unbiased in his reporting. If he wants to take a side, then there are a number of venues for him to air his views in.

The overall nature of television news and print news as well is biased. It is unfortunate. My solution, such as it is, is to look at several different alleged news programs and to read newspapers on line from several different countries and several different regions within the United States. One from Arkansas, one from Pennsylvania, one from New York, one from Idaho (I do quick scans and read in depth on only a few articles each day..I have time constraints).
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 08:04 am
Sturgis
Sturgis wrote:
The overall nature of television news and print news as well is biased. It is unfortunate. My solution, such as it is, is to look at several different alleged news programs and to read newspapers on line from several different countries and several different regions within the United States. One from Arkansas, one from Pennsylvania, one from New York, one from Idaho (I do quick scans and read in depth on only a few articles each day..I have time constraints).


We agree. I often learn more about my country from the foreign press than the US Media.

BBB
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 04:42 pm
Quote:
The major media are large corporations, owned by and interlinked with even larger corporations, they sell a product to a market The product they sell is the popular viewer, their customers are the corporations that buy advertising, the picture of the world represented reflects the narrow and biased interests and values of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. Profits and the issues drive the media and items reported are for the financial benefit of the companies that own these enterprises. The fact that the posing of the information delivered is not for the benefit of the people, as we would define the presses role is obvious. No issues will be debated or given much play that make the audience, advertisers or press themselves uncomfortable, regardless of its value to the nation and its people.


Noam Chomsky

"The corporate media giants, advertisers, and other powerful forces that benefit by the status quo have no interest in encouraging the discussion. It is quite all right to bash the media for its alleged "liberal" bias; indeed, our airwaves are dominated by millionaire right-wingers who constantly assert such claims with no sense of irony. But it is strictly forbidden for there to be a candid analysis of the implications of corporate media control on our journalism, culture and democracy. It is not purely a coincidence, for example, that there was virtually no coverage of the crucial 1996 Telecommunications Act in the news media. This monumental law, which gave the green light to corporate media mergers and said to hell with notions of public service, was only covered in the business press, where it was presented as an issue of importance to investors, not the general public. Likewise, don't expect any time soon to see broadcast news covering the FCC's 1997 giveaway of the airwaves to the media giants for digital broadcasting."
ROBERT W. McCHESNEY
http://www.globalvision.org/moreuwatch/book-forward-mcchesney.html
"The two largest media firms in the world, Time Warner and Disney, generated around 15 percent of their income outside of the United States in 1990. By 1997, that figure was in the 3035 percent range. Both firms expect to do a majority of their business abroad at some point in the next decade. The global media system is now dominated by a first tier of nine giant firms. The five largest are Time Warner (1997 sales: $24 billion), Disney ($22 billion), Bertelsmann ($15 billion), Viacom ($13 billion), and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation ($11 billion). Besides needing global scope to compete, the rules of thumb for global media giants are twofold: First, get bigger so you dominate markets and your competition can't buy you out. Firms like Disney and Time Warner have almost tripled in size this decade.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/GlobalMediaGlobalControl.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/TWTwebsite_INDEX.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » They Shoot News Anchors, Don’t They?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 05:19:45