bumab Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 True- most things are covered at some point. My only problem with the system we've got is it requires extreme vigalence on the part of the consumer. While I certainly think more people could do with some critical thinking in their lives, many working folk simply do not have the time to check all sources. If you get home at 7 or 8 from work, and are up at 6, you just don't have time to check foxnews, pbs, nytimes.com, the bbc, etc. It's not realistic. If you ask people to be skeptical ALL the time, most can't handle it. They will just believe something. That's why I don't want to get complacent and just say "Well, it's all covered somewhere..." There needs to be a relativally unbiased source where things are simply reported, not editorialized or arranged for a political goal or emphaisis. Perhaps I'm just being too idealistic :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 My only problem with the system we've got is it requires extreme vigalence on the part of the consumer....Now this I ABSOLUTELY agree with. It troubles me as well. But I think that is why our Creator gave us cigars and beer. It gives us something to do while we reconcile conflicting information and opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 ....I think that is why our Creator gave us cigars and beer. It gives us something to do while we reconcile conflicting information and opinions. :) Right on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted March 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 I seem to like the BBC for news as well. I was an exchange student in Sweden in 1990 durring the Gulf War. All my news came from the BBC. It was a VERY different picture than that seen by most of my friends and family back in the states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadojla Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 .... It was a VERY different picture than that seen by most of my friends and family back in the states.During the Republican National Convention in New York City, I was able to see that. The standard US media showed seas of protesters. I was channel surfing past a foreign language station which used European newsfeeds, and they showed the same demonstration with the camera pointed in a different direction, showing the streets blocked by two ranks of shoulder-to-shoulder police in riot gear and a third rank mounted and knee-to-knee. It gave a very different impression of what was going on.(The NYC police can turn out impressive force because they merged the three city police departments a few years ago, and they now have 37,000 officers under one command.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 True- most things are covered at some point. My only problem with the system we've got is it requires extreme vigalence on the part of the consumer. While I certainly think more people could do with some critical thinking in their lives, many working folk simply do not have the time to check all sources. If you get home at 7 or 8 from work, and are up at 6, you just don't have time to check foxnews, pbs, nytimes.com, the bbc, etc. It's not realistic. If you ask people to be skeptical ALL the time, most can't handle it. They will just believe something. That's why I don't want to get complacent and just say "Well, it's all covered somewhere..." There needs to be a relativally unbiased source where things are simply reported, not editorialized or arranged for a political goal or emphaisis. Perhaps I'm just being too idealistic :)Try AP, Reuters, AFP, NPR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumab Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Try AP, Reuters, AFP, NPR While I do enjoy listening to NPR, it is silly to assume those sources are completely unbiased. They are all good sources, but not perfect. My point was it takes a discerning customer to evaluate the news in an unbiased fashion, especially when the news itself is presented in an biased way. I usually watch Canadian news, since I live so near the border, and you can notice a difference from American national news. I also like the BBC... The new wave is independent news sources, and the web has been a boon to these small sources of news. I wonder if they will ever organize... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 There are some such as Independent Media Center ( indymedia.org ) which is pretty good. Defininatly a leftist tinge, but a global attempt with input and local officies all over the place. They even were in trouble with the FBI for reporting on certain items (I think it had to do with some Italian corruption or something, and the FBI siezed their servers in Brittian because of it.....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.