YEs
And it gets worse when you have military tv (I went to visit my Mom who's stationed in Germany), not only is our normal NEWS twisted, the stuff (which they're behind, I wonder why, more easyer to cencer with eh) the soldiers get to watch are one OUT of DATE and two is OVERLY Twisted. They litterally brain wash them with odd commercials making them Gunho for what ever they will need those soldiers for. It's so sad.
So, yes, we (and worse our soldiers) are not getting the straight up truth.
;-)
Of course that's not to say that other country's govs don't do the same as our gov or media or corperations
;-)
Plus there's ben proof that the gov has been censoring Journalism, they've even threaten to kill a Journalist if they choose to attempt to "report" something. Our Journalists ARE BEING threaten... how is this "The Land Of The Free" anymore?
Aren't we as bad as some of the Communist country's back in the 80's? I say we've became what we feard to become, and now people in power can't admit they are control freaks.
LOL
;-)
::: Peace :::
2006-08-22 07:05:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Am 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Every form of the media is edited, to one degree or another.
TV and radio have time limits for their stories - a US TV station has only about 20 minutes for 'news' in a typical "30-minute" news broadcast. The rest is for advertising, because networks are shareholder-owned companies.
Newspapers and magazines are also edited to fit the number of column-inches of advertising that has been contracted vs. the number of pages they want to publish that day, week or month. They provide a more comprehensive viewpoint, but they cannot tell the entire story either.
The problem with TV is that it is like looking at the world thru a telescope - you get a very narrow viewpoint. 95% of TV is visual - moving pictures are used to grab and hold your attention. The words are just to set up the images.
I really question how 'informed' a person can be if they only get their news from television. You can never hear all sides of a story - some networks will water down their stories to appease their advertisers, while others networks can use gut-wrenching images to portray another agenda.
TV news is so limiting, and relies way too much on emotional imaging to get its message across. I can get far more information reading than I can ever get on TV news - no matter what the source. Unfortunately, it takes time.
2006-08-22 08:26:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tom-SJ 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
What a very good question and thought-provoking video clips. I was taken aback right away with how blunt and open the questions are. Reporters and interviewers here in the U.S. seem to be obsessed with never offending anyone.
It's not just reporters, come to think about it. We all sugar coat everything, to be polite, to avoid being labeled racist or anti-Semitic, to avoid ruffling someone's feathers, to keep the peace among us -- and by trying to do that, we end up causing more harm than we prevent.
Why do Americans get so up in arms at seeing Janet Jackson's exposed breast, when the really offensive images are never shown on television? Fear of lawsuits, fear of offending someone, especially a sponsor, fear of a boycott, fear. Fear.
I would definitely prefer this style of interviewing, not only in news reporting, but also in political campaigns and debates. I would love for the moderators and the politicians themselves to stop trying to speak PR-ese and just say what they think, and, more importantly, why they think that way -- who taught you, where are you getting your information, do you have proof, etc.
I also like the idea put forth by Dave Barry in 2001 that a law should be passed requiring presidential candidates to wear donor logo patches whenever they campaign, like race car drivers do, so we can all see who's paying them to say what they're saying.
What a difference that would make on the news -- if you could filter everything you hear through your awareness that the news program is sponsored by Exxon Mobil or Halliburton.
Thanks for the mind-opening question and comments.
2006-08-22 07:19:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by LisaT 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
i think of this is the two certainty and delusion. American's that do study up on cutting-edge activities exterior of the U. S. might have some expertise approximately on the same time as on the same time it form of appears like each little thing is filtered. I do think of American's have a terrible experience of geography and the place issues are whilst it includes a map- incredibly in California that's the place i'm at!!! i've got considered many cases, teenagers and adults, no longer be able to show out capitals on a map or discover such and such state in the midwest, yet they might sing some McDonalds music. only reason i think that i do no longer in advantageous condition into that class is cuz i'm analyzing to be a instructor and am continuously taking instructions from each achieveable concern. usual, American's are cluesless a good number of cases.
2016-10-02 10:04:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by carolan 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not so much a style difference... It's a political statement here... The so-called "fair and balanced" thing taken to the extreme for an agenda... It really would be nice to see this type of reporting (outside of American political influence) alongside what we have reported to us here... Then allow us to decide the truth for ourselves... after all that's what real reporting is all about... There's nothing worst than being force fed one side of a story...
2006-08-22 08:54:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by deakjone 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok, so here is the thing. Its not about lying or hiding truths. Journalism is a business in America just as much as McDonalds. They need customers. They need veiwers so they can sell advertising. If they keep turning off viewer by showing some of the realities their business will fail. So the producers of these agencies decide what information can they give to attract more viewers. It is not as evil as people make it as far as trying to bias poeple. Its about making money. It is capitalism at one of it truest forms.
2006-08-22 07:13:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
u r so very true. i also lived abroad and received the news they way it should be. equal and portraying both sides of the story regardless of who the government pits as a villian. its the harsh truth like you said and i think thats the only reason the Bush organization calls Al Jazeera terrorists. they show the bloody and gory that goes down in iraq everyday and it anger people. Bush also knows that if americans were to see the same pictures we wouldnt stay quite about it. we would do something. thats why our media is being coated by the government. they want us to remain and dumb as to what happens around the world. great question
2006-08-22 07:09:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by deadly_donkey 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I didn't watch the clips. Of course you are right about American media. I consider most of it entertainment and of little substance. That's why I get my news from the internet from multiple news sites, both foreign and domestic. The politics of most American media is actually the profit line as they are owned by mega-corporations who owe no allegiance to this country or any other. Good post from you. Best wishes.
2006-08-22 07:13:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Put it like this. I want the truth and nothing but the truth. I can handle it.
I don't trust reporter because you'll never get the full story unless you were there.
None of their reporting styles suit my fancy because something is always Left out
2006-08-22 07:09:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no longer a place to get "news" in U.S., everything has become big business, driven by either advertising dollars or back door dollars (political). The only informed persons in the states are those who search out news and truth. The rest are all content being sheepole.
2006-08-22 07:08:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by budntequilla 2
·
3⤊
1⤋