Alex, is this true?

[Almighty Colin]

Overheard at GFY:

"I have spent 4 years living in Canada. News here isn't really any more balanced. We get Canadian news with the addition of US news. There isn't more coverage of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe or South American than in the US."

and

"This whole "CNN is not news" argument is so empty and pathetic it hurts. For the record
bozo, I live in Canada. Here, as in many countries, we have multiple news sources.... CBC,
all the US networks -- ABC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, plus top BBC stories, local newpapers,
radio stations and a shitload of online sources. We are living in an age where news junkies
can stay high 24/7 worldwide and up to the minute."

[RawAlex]

Colin, it all depends WHERE they lived, and what they watched. Live in Toronto, watch CITY-TV, and your view of the world would be small.

What the CBC news, newsworld, etc, and you can watch news programs from all over the world... documentaries from all countries, news programs from all over (subtitled or translated), and such. Watch the BBC news channel and get news from all over the world - asia, africe, europe, etc...

CTV news is more like american news programs, and tends to show and "us and them" style of news, probably more than 40% of the news nightly is about Canada and Canadians, even if it isn't the most important news of the day.

It depends on how you watch - and if you actually watch it.

Alex

PS: Notice, I didn't make one comment AT ALL about american news stations... nothing for JR to yell "AMERICAN BASHER!".... sorry if I didn't take the bait properly!

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 4 2003, 11:41 AM
Colin, it all depends WHERE they lived, and what they watched. Live in Toronto, watch CITY-TV, and your view of the world would be small.

What the CBC news, newsworld, etc, and you can watch news programs from all over the world... documentaries from all countries, news programs from all over (subtitled or translated), and such. Watch the BBC news channel and get news from all over the world - asia, africe, europe, etc...

CTV news is more like american news programs, and tends to show and "us and them" style of news, probably more than 40% of the news nightly is about Canada and Canadians, even if it isn't the most important news of the day.

It depends on how you watch - and if you actually watch it.

Alex

PS: Notice, I didn't make one comment AT ALL about american news stations... nothing for JR to yell "AMERICAN BASHER!".... sorry if I didn't take the bait properly!
Didn't one of the posts above specifically mention CBC AND BBC?

I think if you watched the exact same news story on CNN and then on BBC you would say that the CNN news story was propaganda and the BBC story was news.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 4 2003, 11:41 AM
Notice, I didn't make one comment AT ALL about american news stations.
I noticed. Very good! Much better!

[RawAlex]

I think if you watched the exact same news story on CNN and then on BBC you would say that the CNN news story was propaganda and the BBC story was news.

Sorry Colin, nice bait, but no thanks... I wouldn't say that - but honestly the same EXACT story (with same pictures, same voice over, same quotes) is rarely is ever on both networks.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Your whole point in the first place was that there are two sides to every story - that another side was being told that Americans aren't hearing because their entire source of news is "the network news at dinner time".

As the person mentioned above said "News here isn't really any more balanced. We get Canadian news with the addition of US news."

[sarettah]

Back in the day, I took several excellent poly sci courses (taught by Lloyd Daniels, now a state senator in Missouri (just giving credit where credit is due)...

The very first day of the first class, he gave us his opinion on "The News". He indicated that if you wanted to know the "Truth", that you had to get your information from multiple sources and additionally, you had to be aware of the slant of each source in order to pick out the truth....

For the past 20 years, that is how I have gone about getting my information...

I watch the mainline news, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN... I also watched the McNeil-Liberal hour when it was on, I read several different mags, Time, US NEWS, Covert Action Quarterly (when I can find it), The Hammer... I watch a lot of the Sunday Morning Talking Heads, And now that we have the Internet, I hit various News Agencies from various countries...

All very informative, and somewhere in between all the slants and propoganda is the truth....

I like BBC news, but they are no different from the rest, they have their slant, both regionally and internationally.. They just present it in a way that makes it look very broadminded...

I like CNN for the quickfix.....

ABC's Peter Jennings and Ted Coppell have always impressed me (Jennings is a Canadian, for the record)..

But, they still all have their slant....

As long as PEOPLE are involved in producing the news, from first deciding "what" is news, to deciding "How" the news will be presented, you will not be able to get "the Truth" from any one source.....

Some interesting sites to get alternative views of the current US-UN-Iraq situation:

Iraqi News Agency - Official State News - All Propoganda, all the time - Read some of Hussein's Speeches, this guy is nuts (http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/eindex.htm)

Iraqi News - Mainly Opposition Viewpoint - Looks good, but still lots of Slant, mainly Anti Saddam Hussein - also links to it's version of other regional News, Afghani, etc. (http://www.iraqinews.com/terms.shtml)

Arab News, The "Official" Saudi Viewpoint ('http://www.arabnews.com/')

Arabic News, Regional News from the Arab Viewpoint (http://www.arabicnews.com/)


Edited in.....

I forgot to mention that John Stewart's News show on Comedy does a great job... Lot's of time he gets more truth in a single sentence than all the other sources in their hourlies... Recent quote (not exact probably)... On finding the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and in particular, How we know that Iraq has the WMD's... "They (meaning the U.S. Administration) has the invoices"............



Last edited by sarettah at Mar 4 2003, 01:19 PM

[JR]

my favorite news program is Hard Talk with Tim Sebastian on BBC. i have yet to see anyone on TV anywhere, verbally beat the shit out of world leaders and politicians like that guy does. i have also never seen anyone do an interview that is as well prepared on the subject as he is.

[Almighty Colin]

Sarettah,

I do the same thing. JR and I were just discussing uruklink.net earlier this morning.

For me though, it is very easy to watch any one news source [CNN for example] and get a pretty damned good idea of what is going on in the world. To me, there is news and there is news commentary. For the most part, there is very strong agreement on WHAT happened. WHY something happened though is a completely different question. It is pretty easy to strip out the commentary and you are easily left with what happened.

I think some people that hear a WHY that they agree with think that is news and that a WHY that they disagree with is propaganda.

There really isn't that much news in a day on any one topic. "So and so said this". "The leader from country x said this". "The leader from country Y said that".

Assume we really care about the commentary though. Most US news sources provide a fair range of interviews with people who both agree and disagree with the current administration. Last night, I was reading with the news on in the background and there were any number of interviews with Democrats against the war, human shields, interview clips from Saddam Hussein and so on.

One easily gets a fair enough view of the world, a balanced view, in order to make an assessment of what is happening.

I have a strong preference for the written word as a news source to television. I find that there is an extra level of depth on average. One can work more easily with historical references, etc. However it seems to me that video sources (news TV) are pretty much all the same as far as actual content.

[RawAlex]

Colin, one of the problems that I have seen with most of the network and cable news (both in the US and Canada) is that too much is put on "a panel of experts" or "the former aid to the guy who met the other guys once for dinner"... alot of speculation, alot of opinion, and VERY little news. CNN's Connie Chung tonight runs about 15 minutes of fact, 45 minutes of opinion - it varies, but that is about where the numbers sit.

The current love affair with opinion, talk shows, news magazines, etc is where the door is left open for manipulation. Because the line between information and speculation is blurred, it is easy for people to be mislead, to take comment as fact, and to misunderstand the news.

Because even reporters on scene are being asked to express opinion, everyone in the chain is becoming a potential target for misinformation - and for manipulation by all sides of the story. How often now do you hear comments attributed to a "senior official" or "a well placed source" - that isn't news, that is speculation and rumor...

But that's the way the game is played now. If you can filter the news from the opinion, you are doing good.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Alex,

I still have a long way to go but the best protection I have found from what you refer to are history books. It is so much easier to put things in their proper perspective with a knowledge of what has been. Agreed?

A good example. The other day I heard a news commentator bash Clinton saying that he was wrong to comment on Bush's decisions and that no president had never done that before. The first we could debate, the second was just wrong. I remembered that Roosevelt made a lot of negative statements about Taft when he was in office. It was one such example that I happened to know off the top of my head. Now, maybe later I will spend some time and look for more examples and see if that is usual or unusual.

I really wish there was a tv news channel where the only experts were history professors. I think I'd watch non-stop.

[TheEnforcer]

Oh boy... history books are the most slanted and sanitized crap out there.

[Nickatilynx]

He who wins , writes the history ;)

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Mar 4 2003, 03:04 PM
He who wins , writes the history ;)
He who takes over, re-writes the history.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Mar 4 2003, 03:02 PM
Oh boy... history books are the most slanted and sanitized crap out there.

Presumed and assumed. However, my point re: history books is in regard only to perpective, not accuracy.

Anyway, short of actually having being there, the Enforcer, how would you learn about the history of, say, the Civil War? What would you offer as an alternative to books and documents? John Edward?

Something may not be perfect but without an alternative, ... ?



Last edited by Colin at Mar 4 2003, 03:41 PM

[PornoDoggy]

I don't find "history books are the most slanted and sanitized crap out there" to be true. If you get your history from historical novels and the like, yes, there is a bias. If you depend exclusively on first-hand accounts (memoirs and autobiographies, etc.) you can't get a clear picture. History TEXTBOOKS, IMHO, are often written with a strong bias and aimed at the least common denominator; but particularly in a society like America, if you look hard enough you can find a wide variety of interpretations of the same events.

Reading history is like watching the news - depending on one source alone is folly. If you read only American or British histories of the 2nd world war (particularly those written before about 1990) you come away with a totally erroneous picture of the war. If you want to learn something about a war, you cannot simply read a chronology of battles - because wars are seldom started by the military. During the Cold War, at times of high tension I used to listen to Radio Moscow (Torone, are you taking this down?) when I could get it on shortwave, just to see what the other side was saying. I believed what I heard even less than I did American network interpretations of events - but it was interesting to hear their perspective.

One of the things I find most amusing is that often people who are the most cynical and suspicious of where you get your news won't even reveal where they get theirs.

[Almighty Colin]

I agree with you, PD.

[Carrie]

Boy I couldn't agree with you more on the textbooks.
Reminds me of a story where they were taking the picture of George Washington crossing the Deleware and EDITING it - because some passively perverted parents looked in their childrens' textbooks and decided that his dangling pocket watch looked like a penis.

Slanting the facts, the "perception" of what happened... and even editing famous paintings to fit someone's idea of what "should" be in there... arrrghh. :headwall:

Any day now they'll say the Mona Lisa looks too unsure of herself and might cause prepubescent teens to question their self-esteem, so she needs to be edited...