|
United States22883 Posts
On December 09 2014 04:36 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2014 04:23 Velr wrote: Calling Michael Moore a good example of "factual journalism" is just stupid. He is just as sensationalist and not really commited to the truth... You just tend to agree with him more.
And yes, he brought some important topics back up or made people talk about them, which is good. But he wasn't exactly "fair" towards his "opponents". He's been perfectly fair. See, platitudes are fun. Sure, you can get less "sensationalism" from other sources. I agree. It was very "sensational" of him to suggest that Iraq War was based on lies and war-profiteering. It was very "sensational" of him to suggest that corporations are controlling our legislative-process, it was very "sensationalist" of him to suggest our healthcare system is cruel, and very "sensationalist" of him to suggest the fight against gun-control has racist-connotations. It is very "sensational" to suggest the status-quo information we all receive is wrong about critical issues. "Sensationalist" people like that are always going to be vilified. Often, deservedly so. But not always. You can watch CNN and avoid all these "sensationalist" suppositions. But I'd rather listen to the guy who was right, when nearly everyone else was wrong. That's my favorite kind of sensationalism. His documentaries have provided facts that people need[ed] to know, and that they weren't hearing anywhere else mainstream. But we still get to hear high-brow holier-than-thou platitudes about how "untrustworthy" he is. He's not a "legitimate" journalist like those fine folks at Fox News. Puh-lease. If this world properly credited people for being right when they're right, and accountable for being wrong, Fox News wouldn't exist, and Michael Moore would own a Pulitzer. There are plenty of other American sources that report these things, without the manipulation and lying of Moore. VICE has completely outdone Moore, and even their unscrupulous tactics don't amount to anything as manipulative as his.
Why not just listen/read NPR?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just watched that clip. extremely poor editing job.
the american lady with the "spiraling out of control" was quite obviously referring to the situation in africa, which indeed was spiraling out of control.
it's a comedy show
|
[QUOTE]On December 09 2014 06:00 oneofthem wrote: just watched that clip. extremely poor editing job. the american lady with the "spiraling out of control" was quite obviously referring to the situation in africa, which indeed was spiraling out of control. /QUOTE]
Every single item you watch on the news, or listen to on the raidio is going to be laced with opinion weather or not you or I happen to spot it. X person prefers Y newspaper becuase of the editorial angles that are prevalent within it, and happen to be inline with that persons views. An example;
Alliance forces engaged insurgents today in Iraq.
This is a simple enough statement of fact right? Well yes and no. The mere fact that the word insurgents was used implies with us 'bad guys'. They could of used 'rebels' or any other host of words to describe these individuals. Of course they have to describe them somehow.
But from whos point are they insurgents or rebels? They are putting their lives on the line because of what they believe in, they are in the right, the 'alliance' good guys are actually in the wrong, so might it be fair to say the alliance guys are actually the insurgents, the ones fighting them and causing the fuss?
Someone will retort about well they're fighting against the government, therefore rebels, right? Sure OK. You're correct but maybe missing the point here.
If these individuals where fighting against the Chinese government now instead of the Iraqi, and were executed. Would your view of them be the same? Or might it be 'Chinese government executing people to keep them under their thumb, quell potential unrest before it started'. Why might you have that opinion, has it changed since the Iraq example above? Well OUR main stream media has conditioned us all to have that view.
You rightly say shit editing job, yes of course it is, it's going to be edited to maximise the view or opinion trying to be put across. But doing this totally dismisses WHAT is trying to be shown or explained.
So many times on forums, I read knee jerk reactions to a post, whilst the person doing so totally misses the point.
Look at how the last 10 or so replies in this thread are about Michael Moore because I happened to mention him. I like him, it's my opinion, and I mentioned it. But the bigger picture here is how the American media is contributing to the very social problems they are reporting on - specifically HOW they report something, at least in this individuals opinion.
|
On December 09 2014 05:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2014 04:36 Leporello wrote:On December 09 2014 04:23 Velr wrote: Calling Michael Moore a good example of "factual journalism" is just stupid. He is just as sensationalist and not really commited to the truth... You just tend to agree with him more.
And yes, he brought some important topics back up or made people talk about them, which is good. But he wasn't exactly "fair" towards his "opponents". He's been perfectly fair. See, platitudes are fun. Sure, you can get less "sensationalism" from other sources. I agree. It was very "sensational" of him to suggest that Iraq War was based on lies and war-profiteering. It was very "sensational" of him to suggest that corporations are controlling our legislative-process, it was very "sensationalist" of him to suggest our healthcare system is cruel, and very "sensationalist" of him to suggest the fight against gun-control has racist-connotations. It is very "sensational" to suggest the status-quo information we all receive is wrong about critical issues. "Sensationalist" people like that are always going to be vilified. Often, deservedly so. But not always. You can watch CNN and avoid all these "sensationalist" suppositions. But I'd rather listen to the guy who was right, when nearly everyone else was wrong. That's my favorite kind of sensationalism. His documentaries have provided facts that people need[ed] to know, and that they weren't hearing anywhere else mainstream. But we still get to hear high-brow holier-than-thou platitudes about how "untrustworthy" he is. He's not a "legitimate" journalist like those fine folks at Fox News. Puh-lease. If this world properly credited people for being right when they're right, and accountable for being wrong, Fox News wouldn't exist, and Michael Moore would own a Pulitzer. There are plenty of other American sources that report these things, without the manipulation and lying of Moore. VICE has completely outdone Moore, and even their unscrupulous tactics don't amount to anything as manipulative as his. Why not just listen/read NPR?
Neither NPR nor VICE had anything even remotely as interesting to say about Iraq as Farenheit 9/11. VICE didn't exist then, but NPR? No. Not hardly.
Also, I'm talking about mainstream. Of course there were other sources, people like David Corn, who were trying desperately to get America's attention. But no one knows who David Corn is. I bet you'll have to google him.
Regardless, you've all convinced yourself that the guy is a liar, and obviously enjoy that platitude immensely to the degree that you think it should just be a given. I, uh, disagree entirely. Yes, he naturally skews things towards his opinion like everyone else in the world. What a jerk.
|
I've asked this in this thread before with no response, but why isn't the standard protocol for cops to use non-lethal force (ie tazers) instead of guns? If he had tazed the guy rashly there would be no problem, the guy would have been paid some sort of settlement by the department and life goes on. Same with the kid in Missouri. It just seems like a no-brainer.
|
On December 09 2014 14:01 mierin wrote: I've asked this in this thread before with no response, but why isn't the standard protocol for cops to use non-lethal force (ie tazers) instead of guns? If he had tazed the guy rashly there would be no problem, the guy would have been paid some sort of settlement by the department and life goes on. Same with the kid in Missouri. It just seems like a no-brainer.
Because 'MURICA and GUNS.
Realistically, you'll probably hear a lot of excuses about "Tazers aren't effective enough!" and "everyone has guns so police have to have them as well!".
|
On December 09 2014 14:01 mierin wrote: I've asked this in this thread before with no response, but why isn't the standard protocol for cops to use non-lethal force (ie tazers) instead of guns? If he had tazed the guy rashly there would be no problem, the guy would have been paid some sort of settlement by the department and life goes on. Same with the kid in Missouri. It just seems like a no-brainer.
it depends on the threat they're facing. Standard protocol is non-lethal force, unless someone's life is in danger. Tazer's aren't so good in such situations, due to having a fair chance of not working, limited time to try options, and tazers being short ranged, and useless in a grapple. If you want commentary on a specific case, name which ones and I'll say what I can on it.
|
[QUOTE]On December 09 2014 07:34 fruity. wrote: [QUOTE]On December 09 2014 06:00 oneofthem wrote: just watched that clip. extremely poor editing job. the american lady with the "spiraling out of control" was quite obviously referring to the situation in africa, which indeed was spiraling out of control. /QUOTE]
Every single item you watch on the news, or listen to on the raidio is going to be laced with opinion weather or not you or I happen to spot it. X person prefers Y newspaper becuase of the editorial angles that are prevalent within it, and happen to be inline with that persons views. An example;
Alliance forces engaged insurgents today in Iraq.
This is a simple enough statement of fact right? Well yes and no. The mere fact that the word insurgents was used implies with us 'bad guys'. They could of used 'rebels' or any other host of words to describe these individuals. Of course they have to describe them somehow.
But from whos point are they insurgents or rebels? They are putting their lives on the line because of what they believe in, they are in the right, the 'alliance' good guys are actually in the wrong, so might it be fair to say the alliance guys are actually the insurgents, the ones fighting them and causing the fuss?
Someone will retort about well they're fighting against the government, therefore rebels, right? Sure OK. You're correct but maybe missing the point here.
If these individuals where fighting against the Chinese government now instead of the Iraqi, and were executed. Would your view of them be the same? Or might it be 'Chinese government executing people to keep them under their thumb, quell potential unrest before it started'. Why might you have that opinion, has it changed since the Iraq example above? Well OUR main stream media has conditioned us all to have that view.
You rightly say shit editing job, yes of course it is, it's going to be edited to maximise the view or opinion trying to be put across. But doing this totally dismisses WHAT is trying to be shown or explained.
So many times on forums, I read knee jerk reactions to a post, whilst the person doing so totally misses the point.
Look at how the last 10 or so replies in this thread are about Michael Moore because I happened to mention him. I like him, it's my opinion, and I mentioned it. But the bigger picture here is how the American media is contributing to the very social problems they are reporting on - specifically HOW they report something, at least in this individuals opinion.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with the current media is that people like you, are using simple rules.
For example: Ámerica media is bad and English media is good, because English media doesn't exaggerate things.
This statement is not true. English media can also be bad, they also show things in a way that is not good. For example: they say in the video that there is only a small ebola outbreak, don't panic, a small number will reach the UK. This statement is not right, you don't know if there will only be a small number or a big number. It is more likely to be small, but you can't tell.
The real problem is that people try to apply simple rules to a complex world. Every situation is different, everything depends on the context, don't judge anything on what you know.
An example of a simple rule apply to a complex world: question everything.
Even this simple rule can be undermined, you can't question everything, example: Your parents treat you very well and tell you, you are their son.
In most situations it would be not good to question this and do a dna test, because it makes them unhappy. In some situations it is good to question this(for example if you are black and your parents are white)
My point is: don't use too oversimplified rules, because most of the times things are a bit different than you expect when you use them.
|
I've never ever said English media was good. In fact I believe I've highlighted one example why they are bad.
What I've said is American media was bad for the sensationalist way they report. Which contributes to the problems they are actually reporting on.
Sure maybe the English media does sensationalise stuff! But to the extent of the American, No way. No. Nope.
You said "For example: they say in the video that there is only a small ebola outbreak, don't panic, a small number will reach the UK. This statement is not right,"
This is fact. Africa has a population of over one billion. With less than 10,000 cases of ebola. Do the maths.
Yes there are a lot of variables that must contribute to the social situation in America, UK or The Netherlands. And yes it is an over simplification to point the finger at the media 'your to blame!!'. Lots of other factors must be taken into consideration.
Isn't the American media doing exactly what you're debating against though? Over simplification.
EBOLA VIRUS DEADLY!!! Arghhh..... Doom glooom blah blah..
Whereas if they weren't being sensationalist, over simplifying, wouldnt they be being more moderate, explaining both sides better, how likely it really is for cases to land on their shores? What's being done, how it's being combated, any angle on the story to try and explain it to their public in a positive light?
Food for thought.
|
You said "For example: they say in the video that there is only a small ebola outbreak, don't panic, a small number will reach the UK. This statement is not right,"
This is fact. Africa has a population of over one billion. With less than 10,000 cases of ebola. Do the maths.
This is not a fact, because it is about the future, and you can't predict such a hard statement with the things we currently know.
Another thing: Who would be better off if there was an ebola outbreak? The country who has made the most preperations or the one who doesn't?
About the media: It depends how you look at things, some people believe that media is the truth, which is a lie. But if the media would state allot of sense, like in england, things get worse, because you have the false sense of security that it is the truth, but it really isn't. Although, if we were to doubt everything, this world would be bad. If we believed everything, this world would be bad too. That is why transparancy is important in opinion makers like the media.
Also: People in America are different than people in England, so you can't really compare them based on the media. People in England are more sceptic in their culture than America overall, which is not always a good thing to be(because you can hurt people by being a sceptic).
|
On December 10 2014 01:59 fruity. wrote: Isn't the American media doing exactly what you're debating against though? Over simplification.
EBOLA VIRUS DEADLY!!! Arghhh..... Doom glooom blah blah..
Whereas if they weren't being sensationalist, over simplifying, wouldnt they be being more moderate, explaining both sides better, how likely it really is for cases to land on their shores? What's being done, how it's being combated, any angle on the story to try and explain it to their public in a positive light?
Food for thought.
I'll add an edit: Yeah maybe not fact. But not sure how else you would explain eight thousand cases in a population of one billion. Would you of been happy if the word potentially had been added in the vod or my reply?
|
Claiming that the US media overall 'oversimplifies' is nothing but an oversimplification on your side. Sure, 24/7 cable news is very visible and guilty of oversimplification, but there are plenty of serious news sources, including some of the best newspapers, journals and magazines in the world. Even some of the actual news reporting on TV is decent.
It's very easy to shout 'BBC' and claim victory, but just look at for-profit media in Europe and you'll see we aren't exactly better off. Sensationalist newspapers dominate the market, outselling more serious media and some of our for profit TV 'news' is just as fucked up as it is in the US. It's just that when you're facing a much larger market you can actually make money out of people yelling at each other every day.
Also, this ebola outbreak is big. Not only in numbers when you consider that this outbreak is probably between 50 and a 100 times larger than any other outbreak before, but also in terms of social/economical costs for the affected countries.
|
I think it's important to always have in mind that media first and foremost wants to sell. People need money so the paper/channel/whatever needs to generate money. So it's no wonder that most media is sensationalist, often strain the truth as much as possible without getting charged and try to manipulate the reader to get a certain opinion. As a matter of fact more people like it like that, they get emotionally involved that way. Also black and white is easier for most people to accept than gray. Or so to say: In order to sell, a media needs to manipulate.
@topic: Actually with all that focus from the press the US-Cops might actually loose some of their privileges. Probably because I was mostly in wealthy areas, but the only thing that ever scared me during my visits in the US were cops. Americans telling me that I might get shot if I leave my car when a cop stops me just didn't leave a good impression.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 09 2014 09:50 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2014 05:41 Jibba wrote:On December 09 2014 04:36 Leporello wrote:On December 09 2014 04:23 Velr wrote: Calling Michael Moore a good example of "factual journalism" is just stupid. He is just as sensationalist and not really commited to the truth... You just tend to agree with him more.
And yes, he brought some important topics back up or made people talk about them, which is good. But he wasn't exactly "fair" towards his "opponents". He's been perfectly fair. See, platitudes are fun. Sure, you can get less "sensationalism" from other sources. I agree. It was very "sensational" of him to suggest that Iraq War was based on lies and war-profiteering. It was very "sensational" of him to suggest that corporations are controlling our legislative-process, it was very "sensationalist" of him to suggest our healthcare system is cruel, and very "sensationalist" of him to suggest the fight against gun-control has racist-connotations. It is very "sensational" to suggest the status-quo information we all receive is wrong about critical issues. "Sensationalist" people like that are always going to be vilified. Often, deservedly so. But not always. You can watch CNN and avoid all these "sensationalist" suppositions. But I'd rather listen to the guy who was right, when nearly everyone else was wrong. That's my favorite kind of sensationalism. His documentaries have provided facts that people need[ed] to know, and that they weren't hearing anywhere else mainstream. But we still get to hear high-brow holier-than-thou platitudes about how "untrustworthy" he is. He's not a "legitimate" journalist like those fine folks at Fox News. Puh-lease. If this world properly credited people for being right when they're right, and accountable for being wrong, Fox News wouldn't exist, and Michael Moore would own a Pulitzer. There are plenty of other American sources that report these things, without the manipulation and lying of Moore. VICE has completely outdone Moore, and even their unscrupulous tactics don't amount to anything as manipulative as his. Why not just listen/read NPR? Neither NPR nor VICE had anything even remotely as interesting to say about Iraq as Farenheit 9/11. VICE didn't exist then, but NPR? No. Not hardly. Also, I'm talking about mainstream. Of course there were other sources, people like David Corn, who were trying desperately to get America's attention. But no one knows who David Corn is. I bet you'll have to google him. Regardless, you've all convinced yourself that the guy is a liar, and obviously enjoy that platitude immensely to the degree that you think it should just be a given. I, uh, disagree entirely. Yes, he naturally skews things towards his opinion like everyone else in the world. What a jerk. I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine, then Roger & Me, then Fahrenheit 9/11, and finally Sicko. Then I read about how he manipulated his findings in Bowling for Columbine, and then Roger & Me and then Fahrenheit 9/11. He has good stories to tell, but he's dishonest in his tactics.
Bob Woodward had 2 extremely fascinating/good books out about Bush's motivations before Fahrenheit 9/11 came out. I'm guessing you just weren't paying attention, but the people who regularly read WaPo and NYT had already gathered what Moore had to say.
|
|
On the bright side at least lots of people have good reflexes?
Good read.
|
On December 10 2014 02:58 Derez wrote: Claiming that the US media overall 'oversimplifies' is nothing but an oversimplification on your side. Sure, 24/7 cable news is very visible and guilty of oversimplification
You agree but disagee. I don't get this. I'm sure I said exactly the point you bring up earier. About there must be good news outlets.
Do people even read threads before they post?
Did you?
|
On December 10 2014 19:39 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2014 02:58 Derez wrote: Claiming that the US media overall 'oversimplifies' is nothing but an oversimplification on your side. Sure, 24/7 cable news is very visible and guilty of oversimplification You agree but disagee. I don't get this. I'm sure I said exactly the point you bring up earier. About there must be good news outlets. Do people even read threads before they post?Did you?
You say that US media oversimplifies things, he makes a point that it is not always the case, only sometimes. So the conclusion: certain parts of US media does oversimplification allot of times(not always), another part of US media doesn't do oversimplification(sometimes they do).
|
Wow even Charles Krauthammer said that the grand jury 'obviously got this wrong'. Not sure why the remaining 25 states haven't junked grand juries?
|
|
|
|
|