Why are you voting for Kerry?

[Sayonara]

That glass house the rest of the world lives in could use a little Windex. And put those stones down before somebody really gets hurt!

The reason you as a country take a lot of flak is that your actions have massive consequences for everyone else.

 

The reason you as a people don't hear the vast majority of everyone else's accusations against (and complaining about) each other is that you tend not to care. American media is the most insular I've ever seen (well, unless you count NK).

 

On behalf of the world, I hope that clears things up.

[Pangloss]

Sure, absolutely. The US is insular and massively consequential, AND the rest of the world needs a little Windex for its hypocrisy.

[r1dermon]

pangloss, sayonara is dead on about the media...increasingly they become more partisan, each media outlet supports a candidate or party or belief system, thats not news, thats tabloid. BBC is the only good news source. and its barely broadcast over here.

[Pangloss]

I agree with that, except for the part about the BBC being the "only good news source".

[-Demosthenes-]

The reason you as a country take a lot of flak is that your actions have massive consequences for everyone else.

 

The reason you as a people don't hear the vast majority of everyone else's accusations against (and complaining about) each other is that you tend not to care. American media is the most insular I've ever seen (well' date=' unless you count NK).

 

On behalf of the world, I hope that clears things up.[/quote']Who cares, we believe that we are the world. Hey, its true. As an average US youth I can tell you I know people lived in other places, like I'd seen it on TV, but when I actually talk to someone from somewhere it was mind blowing, its like I knew there were other people and stuff... but I didn't know, and I just wrote the longest sentence ever.

Ignorance=Bliss

[r1dermon]

ok, that didnt make much sense, and as the average US youth, you have been brainwashed to believe that america is the Alpha and the Omega. and a lot of people care that america is a free country that dictates the world. thats the reason why there are major protests all the time.

as for the BBC not being the only good news source, what is another one? that i can randomly flip a channel and see? the BBC is broadcast on C-span(i believe) for like, 2 hours a week.

[Douglas]

as for the BBC not being the only good news source, what is another one? that i can randomly flip a channel and see? the BBC is broadcast on C-span(i believe) for like, 2 hours a week.

I get the BBC on Comcast cable..........or what they call Comcast digital cable, it has something like 500 channels

[Mokele]

The best news source, imho: The Daily Show. Proving every day that yes, the world is still full of idiots.

 

Now if only I could afford cable...

 

Mokele

[Mad Mardigan]

The problem with most news sources is that major corps own them. So then you get the bias of a report when companies like General Electric, or someone like Ted Turner owns them. Best thing to do is consider all sources of new, and make up your own mind.

[Pangloss]

I don't believe that corporate owners generally affect news sources. Internal editorial/management bias is a greater factor, for the most part. After all, if Ted Turner were directly affecting CNN then every single story they did would be yellow journalism about the Evils of George Bush. And if Rupert Murdoch ran Fox News every story would be about the Evils of John Kerry. Neither is so severe, plus you have cases like the ultra-conservative Disney owning generally-liberal ABC News. The bias is *slight*, and therefore corporate input must be practically non-existent.

[atinymonkey]

Personally, I think if the bias has been there for a long time it's very hard for people to spot it. CNN used to be a cornerstone of the media industry, but it's become diluted into infotainment for the 5 second attention span. At one point in the 1980's, the BBC would source storys and footage from CNN (with credits) as CNN was always the first at the scene. Not any longer though.

 

An interesting side point about how insular the US has become ; only 5% of Americans have passports and of those only 5% have used them to travel outside the country. But hey, it's mostly because of the cost to travel outside the states. It's odd though that so many Americans want to travel Europe and how so few actually do. Actually, I don't like travelling Europe that much either.

[J'Dona]

I heard that the percentage of Americans with a passport was about 21%, or at least that's the statistic that Kerry brought up in the second presidential debate. Either way, it's nothing compared to other countries. I'll bet fewer than 1% of Europeans in Central Europe didn't have a passport before they joined the EU, or didn't speak a second language for that matter. Though, as atinymonkey pointed out, that's mostly due to different travel costs, what with three other countries being within walking distance and all.

 

For those who don't know how it works in the UK, Britons pay 121 quid a year to pay for their TV license, which goes into the BBC. It's pretty successful too, with 81% of viewers being said to approve of the BBC. It also has very few ads because of that funding. It's not in their particular interest to lean toward the government, they're not owned by any major company, and there's less censorship from advertising, so it's pretty objective and unbiased. I must say that some of the US media appears a little biased from this end, different news outlets leaning in different directions. US citizens would do well to look at foreign news sources as well as their own to get a better picture.

 

Here's an exercise: look at each of this small selection of news sites, and decide which site seems to be the best for reporting news as efficiently and objectively as possible.

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.sky.com/skynews/home

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

[atinymonkey]

I heard that the percentage of Americans with a passport was about 21%, or at least that's the statistic that Kerry brought up in the second presidential debate. Either way, it's nothing compared to other countries.

Yeah, my facts may be a little old. It's referenced from 1997.

 

Here's an exercise: look at each of this small selection of news sites' date=' and decide which site seems to be the best for reporting news as efficiently and objectively as possible.

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.sky.com/skynews/home

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

 

Ok, looking at the main story on each site - the Bush Vs Kerry debate.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135384,00.html

Where Fox argues against every point of Kerrys, and agrees with every point of Bush. A few links are provided to related Fox storys. (and ohsomany popups)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/factcheck/index.html

CNN is more balanced, but leans towards Kerry by referencing his facts more. Gives the impression Bush presented no opinions, and alludes that Bush lied in the Debate. More links provided than Fox, CNN reated storys. (fewer popups, but still annoying)

 

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13234994,00.html

Sky does not attempt to 'check' facts, relying more on storytelling. Despite being a subsidiary of Fox, the reporting is evenhanded. For Sky the debate is entertainment, and treats it as such. (no popups, but banner ad's present)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3739376.stm

Again, the BBC does a farly even representation of events, this time backed up to opinion polls and referencing other news sources and storys. (no adverts or popups, the space is given to links to internal and external sources).

 

 

Overall, I think the BBC coverage is the most impartial. It cites sources to cover it's statements, which is far more than the other news bodys manage. I'd like to see other peoples opinion though.

[J'Dona]

Thanks atinymonkey! I didn't actually expect anyone to look at the sites and write down comparisons here; the "exercise" wasn't directed toward you in particular, just anyone in general to consider. I'd like to hear other's opinions too, though I agree with the points you brought up. My main reason for posting it was to draw attention to the lack of any advertising on BBC News and the relatively equal levels of coverage for both parties (in regard to the debates). I hadn't concentrated much on the other news sites, but I'll be looking at them more to compare their articles.

 

Usually when I look at BBC News—which I do about as often as I do SFN—I go straight to the Americas tab and then Vote USA 2004 to check for updates on the election. BBC News seems to offer a much more diverse range of world news, so it can't really be biased toward any one government. I don't know the statistics, but I would imagine that the BBC has a large international audience. I'm sorry to say that most US media outlets concentrate almost exclusively on affairs in the US and Iraq.

 

I wasn't aware of the difference in statistics since 1997; if I'd known I wouldn't have even pointed it out. I wonder what could have caused such a change in that time though.

[Pangloss]

Personally, I think if the bias has been there for a long time it's very hard for people to spot it. CNN used to be a cornerstone of the media industry, but it's become diluted into infotainment for the 5 second attention span. At one point in the 1980's, the BBC would source storys and footage from CNN (with credits) as CNN was always the first at the scene. Not any longer though.

 

 

Well put. I would add that the mainstream TV news business has become a secretarial service for the New York Times, Reuters, AP and UPI.

 

There's something fundamentally wrong, for example, when ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News all run a story on the exact same night about a new Cancer study -- that came out a month ago. And this kind of thing happens virtually every night.

 

Just to give another example, a couple of weeks ago I emailed a reporter at some local TV station to let her know that the story she wrote on a Dell laptop recall incorrectly called one of the models and "Inspiration" (it's "Inspiron"). Not a big deal, I wrote, certainly an understandable mistake, but they may want to put a correction on their web site in case owners might notice it. It was a safety recall, after all, involving a fire hazard.

 

She wrote back that since it had been reported that way in the wire story there was nothing she could do.

 

No. Really.

[blike]

I think the BBC does have a slight bias. I don't really think this can be traced to any push by BBC leaders; it probably just comes down to individual writers. Take for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwta/2957412.stm "Cities are organised around the car, there are multi-lane highways, drive-thru facilities, drive-by shootings and wars about oil."

 

Here is the BBC misquoting the whitehouse spokesmen. Apparently what's happening in Israel doesn't qualify as terrorism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2348387.stm

 

"The administration condemns the most recent attack in Israel. Peace must be pursued and the violence must be stopped," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

 

He actually said: "MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. The administration, the President condemns the most recent attack in Israel. It's another reminder of how it's so important for peace to be pursued and for terror to be stopped. " (http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2002/021021/epf101.htm)

 

I've heard the BBC is pretty "anti-Israel" overall. Some people point to this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2541455.stm for an example of the BBC witholding information that would show Israel's side of the story. They didn't even devote one sentence to reporting Israel's defense.

 

"Iain Hook was shot by an Israeli sniper as he negotiated the evacuation of Palestinian civilians and staff from a UN compound in Jenin on 22 November."

 

What the BBC didn't ignored is that Israel was being fired upon from within the UNRWA compound. Iain left a voicemail shortly before he was shot saying, "The shabab have knocked a hole in the wall, which I'm not happy about at all. I'm trying to keep them out, and I will just keep my people pinned down in the corner until I hear from you. OK? Over." Their own photo shows the compound's sign torn up and in a stack of rubble. They reported it as if a sniper singled out Iain and shot him in the back while negotiating inside the compound.

 

I still think they are clearly superior to our news organizations.

[Pangloss]

Agreed.

[Yakuzi]

Really? That's interesting.

 

For what it's worth' date=' as a Florida undecided voter, hearing that everyone in the rest of the world would vote Kerry actually pushes me in the direction of Bush. Partly because I tend to buck the trend anyway, and partly because I know that what the world is pissed about with Bush has a lot to do with what he refused to give THEM.

 

That glass house the rest of the world lives in could use a little Windex. And put those stones down before somebody really gets hurt![/quote']

 

Hey I'm not saying I live in Utopia, and sure the States get a lot of hassle from other countries which can't do a better job themselves. But, as the only superpower in the world, everything that happens in the US, will in some degree have an impact on the world. And with great power comes great responsibility and I truly don't find George W that responsible. Diplomaticly he acts more like a like a dictator of a third world country than what one would suspect of a modern free country. And well... that really frightens me

[Pangloss]

For the most part that's fair, and I'm sorry that you're afraid. But comparing a freely elected leader with a "third world dictator" is probably not the best way to make the case that the US has responsibilities. How about your responsibility to judge us honestly and with the truth?

[atinymonkey]

I think the BBC does have a slight bias. I don't really think this can be traced to any push by BBC leaders; it probably just comes down to individual writers. Take for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwta/2957412.stm[/url'] "Cities are organised around the car, there are multi-lane highways, drive-thru facilities, drive-by shootings and wars about oil."

 

That has got to be the best quote I've seen for ages. It paint a great picture of a Mad Max style America.

 

Here is the BBC misquoting the whitehouse spokesmen. Apparently what's happening in Israel doesn't qualify as terrorism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2348387.stm

 

To be fair, the report doesn't actually say the attacks are not terrorism. They do point to the groups responsible, but I think the report was more to do with Americas involvement than the actual attacks. We have been involved in the Palestinian conflict since the second world war, so have an entirely divergent vocabulary to that used at the White House (which is trying to convince the US public that it need to be involved).

 

I'll take your word on the misquotes, they probably picked context over content. Sometimes the BBC seems to slip it's standards, but I'm never quite sure why. Probably busy focused elsewhere.

[Pangloss]

"I'm just here for the gasoline."