Anyway I'm not intellectually strong enough to take this into a not606 bickering stream .i would just like to say that not one of us knows much about anything, so its all opinions
Off Topic Conspiracy Thread
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Yes, I was one of the gumshoes who chose Media Studies as an undergraduate degree
, so it's sort of my speciality when it comes to debunking stuff. it's a bit depressing that in recent years that degree has proven to be pretty useful (I did work in the media as an editor for a bit before I became a teacher) because it was supposed to be an excuse for getting drunk and banging people.There are a variety of reasons why people from all walks of life don't trust the BBC, it hasn't exactly had a sparkling reputation for keep its nose clean over the years, but its news reporting is probably one of the few things you can count on.
News outlets have one job, to report the news. So for me, nearly every US national network is a write off because they throw their own opinions into nearly every story. UK news is much more on the nose. We don't have reporters telling us the news and then "asking questions" and adding in their own two pence.
If I click on the first story on the BBC news page, I get "The man suspected of stabbing Salman Rushdie at an event in the United States on Friday has been charged with attempted murder." There's nothing in the form of opinion there, it's just the facts, which is what it should be. You sometimes get guest speakers and analysts, but that's to back the story up and give it some credence, rather than to lend a side to the story.
What seems to put a lot of people off is that stuff gets reported on that they don't like, and that translates to "that network is biased." Media bias absolutely exists, it's actually a real issue in this country and it should have nowhere near as much influence as it does. If a media company reports on somebody or somewhere doing something bad, it's assumed to have bias against that person or group, which is obviously not the case.
This idea that the MSM is bad does have some merit, but not for the reasons many people think it does. It's incredibly corrupt, easily bought and ultimately controlled and influenced by some very rich, very powerful people. But that's not to say individual journalists don't try to bend the "rules".
Had a few beers so i won't reply today or maybe ever. But all the best to you stephen, keep up with your football posts, i do enjoy themYes, I was one of the gumshoes who chose Media Studies as an undergraduate degree
There are a variety of reasons why people from all walks of life don't trust the BBC, it hasn't exactly had a sparkling reputation for keep its nose clean over the years, but its news reporting is probably one of the few things you can count on.
News outlets have one job, to report the news. So for me, nearly every US national network is a write off because they throw their own opinions into nearly every story. UK news is much more on the nose. We don't have reporters telling us the news and then "asking questions" and adding in their own two pence.
If I click on the first story on the BBC news page, I get "The man suspected of stabbing Salman Rushdie at an event in the United States on Friday has been charged with attempted murder." There's nothing in the form of opinion there, it's just the facts, which is what it should be. You sometimes get guest speakers and analysts, but that's to back the story up and give it some credence, rather than to lend a side to the story.
What seems to put a lot of people off is that stuff gets reported on that they don't like, and that translates to "that network is biased." Media bias absolutely exists, it's actually a real issue in this country and it should have nowhere near as much influence as it does. If a media company reports on somebody or somewhere doing something bad, it's assumed to have bias against that person or group, which is obviously not the case.
This idea that the MSM is bad does have some merit, but not for the reasons many people think it does. It's incredibly corrupt, easily bought and ultimately controlled and influenced by some very rich, very powerful people. But that's not to say individual journalists don't try to bend the "rules".
You must log in or register to see images
Can be 'seen' either way from your 'viewpoint' /opinion
Yes, I was one of the gumshoes who chose Media Studies as an undergraduate degree
There are a variety of reasons why people from all walks of life don't trust the BBC, it hasn't exactly had a sparkling reputation for keep its nose clean over the years, but its news reporting is probably one of the few things you can count on.
News outlets have one job, to report the news. So for me, nearly every US national network is a write off because they throw their own opinions into nearly every story. UK news is much more on the nose. We don't have reporters telling us the news and then "asking questions" and adding in their own two pence.
If I click on the first story on the BBC news page, I get "The man suspected of stabbing Salman Rushdie at an event in the United States on Friday has been charged with attempted murder." There's nothing in the form of opinion there, it's just the facts, which is what it should be. You sometimes get guest speakers and analysts, but that's to back the story up and give it some credence, rather than to lend a side to the story.
What seems to put a lot of people off is that stuff gets reported on that they don't like, and that translates to "that network is biased." Media bias absolutely exists, it's actually a real issue in this country and it should have nowhere near as much influence as it does. If a media company reports on somebody or somewhere doing something bad, it's assumed to have bias against that person or group, which is obviously not the case.
This idea that the MSM is bad does have some merit, but not for the reasons many people think it does. It's incredibly corrupt, easily bought and ultimately controlled and influenced by some very rich, very powerful people. But that's not to say individual journalists don't try to bend the "rules".
interesting that you denigrate the us msm while still despising the person they despise.
anyway, your underestimation of trump is appreciated. keep it up.
What do you think of the media in Russia, China, Iranand a host of other places?Or are you just obsessed with the USA?
Is that the one between Iraqand and Indiand?
Russian state media is incredibly biased, it's one of the worst. Iran is also heavily weighted towards the leader, same in places like Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Belarus and Hungary.
Just wondered as they or their leaders never seem to get mentioned, only the US.
Because they're not our closest allies or have as much influence on our society as the Americans do?
Why? This is a forum, just dont read the posts you dont like or disagree with. Trump issue is very important to the future of the US and hence the world. He is not a politicion and never will be. So any post about him has nothing to do with politcs
This is a good point, to be fair.
The politics rule is a good one, however what's happening currently is pretty major in terms of history and it does have a hell of a lot of conspiracy attached to it. Suppose as long as you talk about the man and not the party, should be fine.
i largely agree about the us media. it's interesting what they don't report on. they wear their biases on the sleeves. i agree that facts would be good, rather than opinions. some time ago a survey, which i believe was the product of a university paper, found 92% of press articles were against 45; one a few years earlier. had found 92% favoured 44. i saw a report on a recent survey over there that said 11% of the population trust the press, 16% trust the tv news. or the other way round, but still not good.
the interweb didn't do a good job explaining copium, so the reference was lost on me.
Biden is the President now. Funny how his cock ups and blunders aren’t mentioned like the previous President’s were. After a mass shooting for example someone always used to write on here Trump’s America, the same people don’t write Biden’s America. Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump is a dope but some people seem to be obsessed by him.
Last edited:
i'm sure. i haven't found suitable interpreters for here yet though. i've decided, after a lifetime of always voting, that there appear to be no parties left that i'm prepared to vote for. might have to revert to choosing the least worst. makes no odds when it's a general election though.
- Status