Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by poncho, May 28, 2004.
Can we really trust the mainstream news media to give us honest reporting?
Looking at the news media and who owns it makes me wonder if we can really trust it to be honest in reporting and giving us the stories that really cover the issues we should know about.
Ever hear of Keith Rupert Murdoch?
The Man Who Rules The World
Anyone else have any information on who owns the media or comments to share?
While I do not think it's a vast media conspiracy or anything, I do think the news media is biased.
They listen to who screams the loudest, and the people who scream and protest the loudest in the last years have been the democrats, gays, anti-lifers, etc..
It doesn't bring ratings, or viewers, or listeners to report on what the majority thinks or knows. To report on radical liberal views brought these, so that's what the media did. I do think they underestimated their own power in the past and now that many of these once taboo topics have been introduced they've infested people's minds and become common.
It's beginning to turn around, and now it's drawing more attention to report on stories about us evil conservatives who are so biased and prejudiced as to stand up for things life freedom, right to life, stand up against the turning of the country to unnatural relationships, etc..
Perhaps that's to our favor and will help turn the tide eventually.
But, until then, we have to live surrounded by the pus that infected minds all around us spew out.
I have been amazed lately by our local "news" if you can call it that. First of all, all 4 stations have the exact same stories, interview the exact same people, read the exact same "copy".
Also, am getting agitated about serial cliff-hanging news reports. Say at 6pm, they tease you with something interesting and needful, they say tune in at 10 pm for the details or even the next night. I want news not entertainment.
Mainstream news can be trusted to give us facts. The law of supply and demand implies that they'll give us the facts that they presume we would be interested in hearing (If a dog bites a man, it's not news, but if a man bites a dog, it's news).
The problem is that we often don't use our brains to discern between fact and truth. News agencies give is facts. We must discern the overall truth. I've found in interesting that, of the handful of soldiers I know who have returned from Iraq, all of them agree that what you see on the news is not the whole picture. They never show the Iraqi families that bring soldiers food, gifts, flowers, cards, letters, etc. Those things aren't "newsworthy".
I gotta admit it...I was the one that voted yes to the first question...by mistake. I wish I could change it, but, I can't.
I remember when I was over there in the first gulf crisis...we got along famously with the locals. We'd go out for a jog, and the kids would run with us (on their side of the fence) - we'd flip U.S. quarters over the fence and they'd shout "U.S. #1!" We got to play basketball with some ex-military and even current military types, and all they could talk about was how much they liked Michael Jordan.
We were falling all over each other trying to be good to them, and they were doing the same for us. I remember when one of our crew lost a contact lense on the basketball court. The game stopped while they all hit their hands and knees with us to find a contact lense. It took about an hour, but we found it. Needless to say, no news crew ever showed up to film it.
I posted a site with some photos from Iraq showing happy faces on the Iraqis and Americans. But, I guess Johnv is right that kind of image doesn't sell many newspapers. That's a shame.