Jump to content

Fake Newscaster Does Better Job Of Reporting News Than Real Reporters.


DarthOkkata
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a sad statement of the truth of media. Jon Stewart, who will deny anyone who asks if what he does is 'news', has done a better job of reporting than actual reporters in this country.

 

http://mickelehsoap.blogspot.com/2007/04/j...warts-best.html

 

In the past, news departments, news papers, any kind of real news, lost money. It was just that simple. Now, corporate control demands that news offices of all stripes make profit, or risk being shut down.

 

The simple fact is, this has destroyed our news. We are now dredged in pop culture, unimportant human interest, and real issues are covered up with the assistance of the press corps. The news these days is more concerned with what I think is cute, than what I need to know.

 

There are no real exceptions, no network that doesn't pull it's punches. Sure, a reporter might ask a tough question or two, but then they stop, and return to slow pitch soft ball.

 

The US govornment needs an overhaul, but it's corporatized news offices just need replacement. The days of finding truth are over, when the concern is finding ratings and money.

 

When a comedy parody puts out more real news than a national network, this country is in trouble. The US relies on it's press to keep us informed, its an important safeguard to our rights and liberties.

 

It's been destroyed, and the corruption of our political system has infected it. Fox in particular, they are the red state information network. Sad considering the network's liberal roots.

 

In the end, there's little we can do about the people who now control a vast majority of the media in this country. Television has lost it's honesty, but there is hope.

 

My advice is simple, stop getting your news from television, and learn to read again. I'm not saying you should stop watching television, but it needs to be a suppliment, and not an exclusive source. The internet is the real future of news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

 

Plus, getting one's news from NPR and the BBC means one is better informed, and thus better able to fully appreciate all the humor the Daily Show has to offer. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The traditional role of the court Jester was to speak the truth, even when everyone else had their lips pressed to the King's sphincter...

 

Very true, who is it around here that has the quote in their sig line about it being a fools perogative to say what others will not? I am sure I just mangled that. The DH, my eldest and I watch channel 9 news for one reason and one reason only... it's on right before South Park. We just lampoon it, there is no way you can take the crap seriously.

 

Female anchor - banter giggle

Male anchor - haha banter banter banter

Both - banter banter banter

Weather weenie - oh you two hahaha banter banter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The traditional role of the court Jester was to speak the truth, even when everyone else had their lips pressed to the King's sphincter...

 

Very true, who is it around here that has the quote in their sig line about it being a fools perogative to say what others will not? I am sure I just mangled that. The DH, my eldest and I watch channel 9 news for one reason and one reason only... it's on right before South Park. We just lampoon it, there is no way you can take the crap seriously.

 

Female anchor - banter giggle

Male anchor - haha banter banter banter

Both - banter banter banter

Weather weenie - oh you two hahaha banter banter

and then the advert for anti-depressants...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I usually get my news from NPR and the BBC instead of the American politicized, right and left winger news media.

 

But even these two networks have become a joke. Both of them bought hook, line and sinker every argument that Bush made about WMD's, et al that led us into war. There was not even a hint of investigative journalism there, objectivity, or even a tendency to even play devil's advocate. They just reported, like everyone else, straight from the White House press releases.

 

If you want real news, you need to dig around and read papers from all over the world. Then we the consumers are forced to ask ourselves what hidden agendi might the foreign press have. It's very difficult to uncover the "truth" in today's media environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want real news, you need to dig around and read papers from all over the world. Then we the consumers are forced to ask ourselves what hidden agendi might the foreign press have. It's very difficult to uncover the "truth" in today's media environment.

Because...it's no longer a matter of what is real news, it's a matter of what sells, and what toes the corporate line. I reel at the accusations made by the right wing in the US about the "left" media. They're not "left", they're "corporate". It sets up the board in the position where every medium plays to its own audience, and keeps the profits rolling. Objectivity to these types is irrelevant. The object is to spin, rewrite, reinterpret, do what ever it takes to keep the enterprise in the black. End result, nobody knows nuttin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Purple. That's me with the .sig. :wave:

 

I think that modern comedians have inherited the role of fool, in the medieval sense. Traditionally a king's fool was the only person who could get away with actually saying what was true, or speaking what was on everybody else's mind. The fool made everyone laugh, but in some ways he was potentially a dangerous person, because he could bring very uncomfortable truths out into the open.

 

We think of a "fool" as being someone who is stupid or ridiculous, but I don't really think that's the case at all. Fools were actually very powerful people, with respect to what they were allowed to say and do. Nobody else quite had the same kind of license as they did to speak freely. (Which makes me wonder: does possession of freedom of speech make us all fools now? Hmm....) The only catch was, they had to speak in jest.

 

I don't know exactly what it is, which makes speaking in jest such a great cover for revealing uncomfortable realities. And it's probably more complicated than I've explained here anyway, there's probably lots of things going on. But I'm very tired and I've had a bad day today, so I'm not going to ramble about it more right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I usually get my news from NPR and the BBC instead of the American politicized, right and left winger news media.

 

But even these two networks have become a joke. Both of them bought hook, line and sinker every argument that Bush made about WMD's, et al that led us into war. There was not even a hint of investigative journalism there, objectivity, or even a tendency to even play devil's advocate. They just reported, like everyone else, straight from the White House press releases.

 

If you want real news, you need to dig around and read papers from all over the world. Then we the consumers are forced to ask ourselves what hidden agendi might the foreign press have. It's very difficult to uncover the "truth" in today's media environment.

In minor defence of the BBC, there was some quite tough questioning of the stance on Iraq in their flag ship stuff. For the most part the BBC don't spin stuff. They report what was said by whom and in what context. They've also been around forever, in the form they now, and despite government threats to their funding, they've remained (at times) the only voice that demurs against the voice of government that one could take seriously (I'm thinking here of the Thatcher years specifically) The UK press (with perhaps the exception of The Independent, The Observer, and The New Statesman) is party political toilet paper. For news print comment I go to Private Eye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious about your take on The Guardian. I don't read it per se, but have read some great, objectively written articles online from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious about your take on The Guardian. I don't read it per se, but have read some great, objectively written articles online from them.

 

although it gets sued on a regular basis, I can recommend Private Eye... unfortunately very UK centric, but it's often (usually) right. It tends to get sued since it goes with stories it can't prove... yet.

 

Another few interesting sites

 

http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl (quite politicised, but a good counter balance to mainstream news media)

 

http://www.projectcensored.org/ All the news no one else will print.

 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/ UK current affairs magazine

 

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Always nice to know the plans of The Empire...

 

I do have links to stuff that delves into deep paranoia, but being post-paranoid (I know they're lying to me, I no longer care) I tend to find the grim humour of it all raises a smile first thing... It's amazing what people will believe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the new avatar, Grandpa! House is my hero.

 

On topic, I take in news from a lot of different sources and compare notes. BBC, msnbc, Fox, Village Voice, NPR... that's all I can think of for now. Oh, and of course, The Daily Show. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

House reminds me of me... just with more charm, and more love for his fellow man... :coffee:

 

Fox for news? Novel concept... I try to avoid the organs of the Dirty Digger as much as possible... I'll take Al Jazeera first. There again Riz Khan is an old friend of the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox for news? Novel concept... I try to avoid the organs of the Dirty Digger as much as possible... I'll take Al Jazeera first. There again Riz Khan is an old friend of the family.

 

Al Jazeera is definitely more objective in their news coverage than Faux News...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

www.bushwatch.com is a great compiler of news stories from around the world. The stories are sided on the anti Bush side, but that doesn't mean that the articles they link to are highly politicized. They are mixed in that regard. They have a large team of researchers who scan the world press daily and provide news that might be of interest to their readers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get 99% of my news from the internet and even then, I'm skeptical of what I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's best to 'triangulate' the data. If you can get it from three (minimum) independent sources, it's probably something like the truth of the matter... It involves grammar checks to make sure that one source isn't just quoting another.

 

The price of freedom is permanent paranoia...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's best to 'triangulate' the data. If you can get it from three (minimum) independent sources, it's probably something like the truth of the matter... It involves grammar checks to make sure that one source isn't just quoting another.

 

The price of freedom is permanent paranoia...

 

Well said as usual...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.