We have a massive earthquake in Iran , at least 5000 people killed and many thousands injured and where does it figure in Fox News ?. Eight minutes after the top of the hour. This is after leading on that fake Air-France scare and a mud slide in California that killed 2 ( repeat 2 ) people . I don’t suppose that all those people killed in Iran matters because they are not US citizans. At least the BBC has been leading on the earthquake story for the last eight hours , so their sense of priority is much better than Fox.
The BBC has a larger international market than Fox News does. I can’t stand watching that channel, but I can’t really blame them for presenting the news that their audience wants to hear.
Well, Fox is pretty conservative. And it’s not Americans, so who cares, right? sigh
I just checked CNN’s web site. That’s awful. I’ve been in a big quake, but in California. My prayers, such as they are, are with everybody affected.
I am talking about the domestic news channel of the BBC not the international.
I don’t understand why you are upset, you are getting the news you want from BBC.
Hmmmm, I thought that entertainment was the job of entertainers, and news organisations were assumed to be objective reporters?
Sorry, I misrepresented Fox News. I meant to call it ‘infotainment’. Thanks for the point, GorillaMan.
No different from CNN. I watched a whole hour of CNN Live or whateveritiscalled and after covering the story of a naked man found in a chimney and the continued rescue efforts in the california mudslide, they did mention the Iran earthquake…
“…thousands are figured to have been dead or injured…Kobe Bryant speaks out, for more on that let’s go to…”
Well, there you go again - making unfounded assumptions. The news media in the United States, never were, have never been, and will never be, objective and unbiased. Newspapers in the United States, the forehead of Zeus from which the Athena of all current news media has sprung, were founded so that the publishers had an outlet for their political views. Period. They have never in their entire history been objective. If you believe claims they make otherwise, well then, you’re more the fool than they.
Any decision to put anything on the air is a decision not to show something else. How can you be “objective” in this framework?
How do you decide what is the most important news story? Bodycount?
Yeah, but you see CNN only does this because they have to compete with the evil FOX News Network. Christianne Amanpour explained this clearly when she talked about how she and the rest of the media were too intimindated by FOX to report the Iraq War news objectively. So you see, it’s still FOX’s fault, because they are eeeeeeevil. Get with the program!!
This is a parody thread, right?
Good point, Unc. However, it was my impression that “journalism standards of ethics” called on them to put forth their best efforts to be as objective and unbiased as possible in the presentation of news stories – as opposed to feature material, editorials, and columns of news analysis, when they were not only permitted but expected to take a point of view.
I have no problem with the travesty that is World Net Daily taking an editorial stance that is poles apart from my own views – but when their supposedly factual news stories have a heavily loaded semantic content, I feel that they are unreliable. The same would go for any other publication – someone here objected to a news cite from The Advocate in reference to a gay rights issue a while ago, and I was going to comment against the objection, when I realized that the point was valid – if their story is slanted in favor of gay rights, it’s as objectionable as strict reportage as somebody on the other side. (IMHO, the story was not slanted, but given the quote in question, I can see how the objector could have found it to be slanted.)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…
The USA needs (more than ever in my honest opinion) a national publicly funded broadcaster like the BBC or Australia’s ABC which has the charter to provide news and entertainment programming which is free of both commercial and political pressures.
It will probably never happen, but it CAN be done. The trick is to enshrine the broadcaster’s charter in pseudo “constitutional” terms which can’t be cheated on, or bent in some way. Above all, the first rule is make the broadcaster free of commercial advertising.
As an example, you only have to look at the almighty stink the BBC got into 6 months ago with the Blair government over various allegations made via “whistleblowers” regarding the build up to the Iraq War in March. I know, an innocent man took his life over it, and that was very, very sad - nonetheless however, the BBC took some very brave and unpopular decisions as far as the Blair Cabinet were concerned, and THAT was exactly the sort of role that the BBC can play so well in the context of Britain’s national psyche.
And down here in Australia, our ABC does the same thing. Some times their journalists do the sort of investigative journalism which results in national Royal Inquiries etc (which are really serious bits of watershed investigations).
As it stands, the USA is in the rather tricky situation of having her national broadcasters entirely in the hands of commercial operators - and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how it unfolds at times. And yes, I’m aware of NPR and PBS (and believe it or not we actually get some of their programming quite reguarly down here and I find it to be exemplary too), but even though they do a sterling job they’re not publicly funded out of federal pursestrings the way a true national broadcaster should be and as such, they don’t play the “national presence” role the way they should.
Yes, it’s true that both the BBC and Australia’s ABC can play some epicly boring crap at times, but gee, when they get it right they perform a service that no commercial network would dare to try and take on. And it’s simply because their charter empowers them to do precisely that.
Just a thought there for my American friends.
Well considering many of them were the one’s dancing in the streets on 9/11/2001, fuck 'em. People die, it happens.
Boo Boo Foo, we already have those. PBS and NPR. I’m helping pay for the pablum, why aren’t you watching and listening?
Boo Boo, the US has NPR.
Yeah, we all should have treated 9/11 with complete apathy. it was only people dying. shit happens.
you fucking idiot.
Were they? Really? You know for a fact that those Iranians who were rejoicing at the 9/11 attacks (and I’m taking your word for the fact that they were, as I can only remember the coverage of the Palestinian groups doing so) constitute the majority of the 20,000+ people killed in the earthquake?
That’s okay then.
:rolleyes:
This sentiment sucks.
Am I wrong here?
You know what, it seems to me that people are starting to suck. Not politics, just people. And it makes me sad. 
Snap, Twisty.