- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
-
Replies
-
I said other and would have to say BBC, because they are uninfluenced by american politics and media pressures.
Sorry Garibaldi but I must disagree with you. The BBC have gone downhill rapidly. They used to be unbiased and professional. Now, they have music going along with certain reports and word it in such a way as to evoke a specific reaction from viewers. They are becoming very “tabloid” in their nature. Even reporters are laughing and joking between one another – not what I want to see. Sport coverage has increased dramatically in spite of the BBC running a dedicated sports channel – I want the news, not to hear about the latest football craze.
Their coverage and actions concerning Dr. Kelly were completely inappropriate. This is when they really started to go down in my opinion. I have noticed that their style is becoming very unprofessional and is concentrating on providing viewers with opinions and not facts.
Recently, I have also noticed that they involve an “expert” on a subject with the purpose of concurring with their report, and not debating or adding to it. More often than not, it is some crackpot “scientist” who has his or her facts completely warped.
The BBC do not deserve my TV licence money, and I resent paying it for such a poor service from them.
Rant over. Not a dig at yourself, Garibaldi, but just one British opinion on the shower of shits that are the BBC.
Here, in France, we have France Info which is to my opinion the only objective information radio source I listen to.
It is sometimes kind of pretty boring as the news is repeated all day long but they are only quoted facts, pure information, no subjective comments or whatever.
So, a few times a day, I do listen to that radio.Besides, I use internet, with Reuters or AFP (Agence France Presse) which gather all informations sources around the world.
with these media, i consider myself as “well” informed, even if I am sure that many facts or events stay “hidden” from us.Information has to stay objective, and this is pretty hard to achieve, it is easy for a journalist to give a tone or a color to facts.
Although journalism should be as strict as a religion in order to provide us true events, most of these “guys” just want their names at the end of the interviews they do or articles they write. icon_sad.gifQuote:Sorry Garibaldi but I must disagree with you. The BBC have gone downhill rapidly. They used to be unbiased and professional. Now, they have music going along with certain reports and word it in such a way as to evoke a specific reaction from viewers. They are becoming very “tabloid” in their nature. Even reporters are laughing and joking between one another – not what I want to see. Sport coverage has increased dramatically in spite of the BBC running a dedicated sports channel – I want the news, not to hear about the latest football craze.Their coverage and actions concerning Dr. Kelly were completely inappropriate. This is when they really started to go down in my opinion. I have noticed that their style is becoming very unprofessional and is concentrating on providing viewers with opinions and not facts.
Recently, I have also noticed that they involve an “expert” on a subject with the purpose of concurring with their report, and not debating or adding to it. More often than not, it is some crackpot “scientist” who has his or her facts completely warped.
The BBC do not deserve my TV licence money, and I resent paying it for such a poor service from them.
Rant over. Not a dig at yourself, Garibaldi, but just one British opinion on the shower of shits that are the BBC.
No problem Cobra! Its not like I’m a strong advocate for BBC, quite the opposite in fact. The problem is that most of the news sources in America today tend to be slanted. Besides that fact alot of American news is not really news but “info-tainment,” providing coverage of stories that will boost ratings rather than the most important issues. I don’t know much about the BBC (living in Wisconsin) and as such I didn’t realize what you pointed out, thanks its good to know.
I was going to check None of the Above, but I couldn’t find it. icon_rolleyes.gif I don’t think you can watch any one station and get unbiased news. Every station has it’s owners, advertisers, and core viewers to keep happy. I think you have to do more than watch one news chanel to stay informed. Newspapers and the internet are good references. Get as many views as you can and make your own decisions based on those facts and opinions. There are many sides to every story. If you only listen to one side, you will miss out on the truth.
This is my newspaper of choice. Pretty unbiased, and tend to report on things that actually matter.
Quote:I was going to check None of the Above, but I couldn’t find it. icon_rolleyes.gif I don’t think you can watch any one station and get unbiased news. Every station has it’s owners, advertisers, and core viewers to keep happy. I think you have to do more than watch one news chanel to stay informed. Newspapers and the internet are good references. Get as many views as you can and make your own decisions based on those facts and opinions. There are many sides to every story. If you only listen to one side, you will miss out on the truth.I think you really nailed this one. This is really the only way to get the whole truth and every side of the news. Great job montefrazer!! thumbsup.gif
Quote:http://www.independent.co.uk/This is my newspaper of choice. Pretty unbiased, and tend to report on things that actually matter.
Thanks Cobra, I’ve bookmarked it. I like having a source that tells what’s actually important! Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.