Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But our media is a complete and total joke. It has been biased for decades but it's absolutely abhorrent now.
Is it like that with you guys, too? I was over there in 2002, and at that time everything seemed pretty peaceful, like everyone got along. I wasn't there long enough to look as deep as I would have liked.
Literally every single news network except one is clearly trying to brainwash Americans, and I've seen it actually working, which scares me half to death.
But our media is a complete and total joke. It has been biased for decades but it's absolutely abhorrent now.
Is it like that with you guys, too? I was over there in 2002, and at that time everything seemed pretty peaceful, like everyone got along. I wasn't there long enough to look as deep as I would have liked.
Literally every single news network except one is clearly trying to brainwash Americans, and I've seen it actually working, which scares me half to death.
Their media is pretty much the same as far as I know. It's like the old saying about whatever it takes to sell newspapers, meaning they have to exaggerate to get people to read/watch/buy. I don't agree with you that our media has been biased for decades. It's been pretty fair but it does overdo it when there's a news story--but that sort of thing has been done since the beginning of newspapers, radio, and tv. They like to blow things out of proportion just to get more of an audience.
In England they have a lot of choices of what to read--left is The Guardian and there are a whole lot of newspapers that range from left, middle, to right. Then there are their famous tabloids like The Daily Fail (Mail.) Here in the US we have far left tv with CNBC and far right with FOX and the rest are somewhere in the middle. I think CNN is more to the left, but not too bad. Then we have extremely fanatical right wing radio stations and I don't think there are any left wing radio stations. The right wing radio is rabid and they holler and scream and try to scare people.
In England the BBC is to the left, I think. I don't know what else they have for tv news though. That's about all I know. I used to understand their newspapers better but can't remember which is which anymore. They have The Sun, The Telegraph...I used to read them and I used to know. Someone will be along to better inform you.
Their media is pretty much the same as far as I know. It's like the old saying about whatever it takes to sell newspapers, meaning they have to exaggerate to get people to read/watch/buy. I don't agree with you that our media has been biased for decades. It's been pretty fair but it does overdo it when there's a news story--but that sort of thing has been done since the beginning of newspapers, radio, and tv. They like to blow things out of proportion just to get more of an audience.
In England they have a lot of choices of what to read--left is The Guardian and there are a whole lot of newspapers that range from left, middle, to right. Then there are their famous tabloids like The Daily Fail (Mail.) Here in the US we have far left tv with CNBC and far right with FOX and the rest are somewhere in the middle. I think CNN is more to the left, but not too bad. Then we have extremely fanatical right wing radio stations and I don't think there are any left wing radio stations. The right wing radio is rabid and they holler and scream and try to scare people.
In England the BBC is to the left, I think. I don't know what else they have for tv news though. That's about all I know. I used to understand their newspapers better but can't remember which is which anymore. They have The Sun, The Telegraph...I used to read them and I used to know. Someone will be along to better inform you.
Not to take this OT but to clarify I think it got bad when cable news took off, maybe 20 years ago or so. Back when I was a kid there were the big 3 and CNN.
Now there is virtually anything out there on some channel, etc. in the USA to make so-and-so feel more self-righteous.
The short answer is yes.
The slightly longer answer is since the advent of social media it is now entirely commonplace to know a journalist's political affiliations.
And the line between reporting and editorialising has now almost completely disappeared.
I barely watch TV news these days for that very reason.
The short answer is yes.
The slightly longer answer is since the advent of social media it is now entirely commonplace to know a journalist's political affiliations.
And the line between reporting and editorialising has now almost completely disappeared.
I barely watch TV news these days for that very reason.
Its the same, it was thought that the BBC was once pretty balanced but for me now its one of the most 'biased' corporations out there.
I follow a few U.K. blogs on my Facebook...The Daily Mail? It seems fair for the most part.
That's part of why I started this thread, as I usually read the articles on said blog and go through the comments. A lot of the time it's a lot less wacky than some CBS or CNN blog.
But our media is a complete and total joke. It has been biased for decades but it's absolutely abhorrent now......
Abhorrent, well some of it, yes. But hardly all of it. If a person has a moderately good high school education, and a brain that is not saturated with hate they can easily find media that report the news accurately even though they have a political leaning in one direction or another.
Many newspapers are more openly identified with particular political attitudes than in the past. I used to work for the NY Times in 1960. At that time they would not even print word "gay" as a descriptive identifier of a person or organization, even though the word was in common usage in the city by both homosexuals and heterosexuals (not "Christians" of course.) Their coverage of black civil rights news was very formal and reserved. Now they are much different. The changed as the country and the society changed. The same with other newspapers. Television has gone the way of newspapers, but worse.
Internet "news" has been heavily weighted with private, trashy website with extreme agendas from Day One. I worked in a major computer center when Usenet was still the "internet" and a bit more control was exercised over nutbaggers then. Now there is none.
I have my personal political and social views and many media sources do not please me, but - no - by no means is the situation abhorrent.
As for England. The daily national newspapers for the most part are the reading equivalent of used toilet paper, and they pay out huge sums of money every year for libel. I have a friend who collected a large amount -uncontested! - because of the horrible untrue things that the Telegraph printed about him, which put he and his family in physical danger. This is not uncommon. There a tiny number of national newspapers which are ethical and reputable, but they have particular political leanings. As far a print media goes, for my money the U.S.A. is way ahead of England.
Many other Western European countries have excellent newspapers, do not judge Europe by the English gutter press.
Abhorrent, well some of it, yes. But hardly all of it. If a person has a moderately good high school education, and a brain that is not saturated with hate they can easily find media that report the news accurately even though they have a political leaning in one direction or another.
Many newspapers are more openly identified with particular political attitudes than in the past. I used to work for the NY Times in 1960. At that time they would not even print word "gay" as a descriptive identifier of a person or organization, even though the word was in common usage in the city by both homosexuals and heterosexuals (not "Christians" of course.) Their coverage of black civil rights news was very formal and reserved. Now they are much different. The changed as the country and the society changed. The same with other newspapers. Television has gone the way of newspapers, but worse.
Internet "news" has been heavily weighted with private, trashy website with extreme agendas from Day One. I worked in a major computer center when Usenet was still the "internet" and a bit more control was exercised over nutbaggers then. Now there is none.
I have my personal political and social views and many media sources do not please me, but - no - by no means is the situation abhorrent.
As for England. The daily national newspapers for the most part are the reading equivalent of used toilet paper, and they pay out huge sums of money every year for libel. I have a friend who collected a large amount -uncontested! - because of the horrible untrue things that the Telegraph printed about him, which put he and his family in physical danger. This is not uncommon. There a tiny number of national newspapers which are ethical and reputable, but they have particular political leanings. As far a print media goes, for my money the U.S.A. is way ahead of England.
Many other Western European countries have excellent newspapers, do not judge Europe by the English gutter press.
The trouble is the US print media is very worthy but also really rather dull.
It is also hopeless partisan towards the Democrats which is why so much of the American media failed to forecast the Trump win.
The trouble is the US print media is very worthy but also really rather dull.
It is also hopeless partisan towards the Democrats which is why so much of the American media failed to forecast the Trump win.
When it comes to dull, you are right, at least in comparison to English newspapers. English papers often make an obvious effort to entertain as much as inform. American papers often don't make much of an effort in the former area.
You have a few conservative newspapers, the Murdoch owned ones and a some of the Hearst corp. ones still make a big effort in that direction. But in many metro areas the larger of the two paper (if there are even two) is the liberal leaning one. Those owned by Jewish families have been chary of conservatism because of its past associations with anti-semitism, in other cases the metro core is liberal whereas the suburban part of the market is conservative, and the papers (IMO) try to stay on the side of the bulk of the market.
I would guess, but do not profess to know, that in smaller U.S. cities - especially in the Midwest and West, that conservative leaning newspapers predominate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
