05-12-2021, 04:42 AM
** 11-May-2021 World View: Media Lapdogs
Oh, I agree.
But after writing thousands of articles over almost 20 years, I've
developed a pretty good intuition about who in the media is telling
the truth and who is bullshitting.
I should probably put together a whole big article on the subject, but
here are some sample conclusions:
CNN, MSNBC, AP, Tehran Times, Russia Today, China Daily are all
similar in that they're "state media," and just parrot the government
line uncritically.
Fox News generally lives up to its "fair and balanced" claim, since
they present both sides of issues pretty fairly.
For international news, the BBC is pretty good, but when it reports on
American news, which it does all the time, it's the same as CNN and
MSNBC. BBC receives a great deal of funding from NPR, and so has to
follow the Democrat party talking points.
Al-Jazeera is also pretty good with international news. But you'll
never see a negative story about Qatar. Also, they hate Israel, and
they hate the Palestinian Authority even more, but they love Hamas.
But for Asian news they're pretty good. Oh, and they hate America,
and they REALLY hate Trump.
AFP is pretty good for Mideast, Asian and African news. VOA and RFERL
are pretty reliable.
Reuters is an interesting case, because I've found them to be almost
always completely fair and balanced. I believe that the reason is
that Thomson Reuters is an Canadian company, so they have a wholly
different view of the world.
When I'm writing an international story, I have to use each news
source in a credible way. For example, I'll consider China Daily or
Global Times to be an accurate statement of China's position, and I
would consider them more credible on this subject than, say, Reuters
or AP or the BBC.
In an international story, like the Israel-Palestine story of today, I
don't want to take sides, so I try to find accounts from each side,
ideally to quote them in parallel. This is not always easy to do.
And of course I'm always guided by previous Generational Dynamics
conclusions. For example, I've known for decades that there will
never be a "two-state solution" in the Mideast, so I know
automatically that any policitian who talks about it is full of crap.
So maybe at some point I'll expand this into a more comprehensive
article.
DaKardii Wrote:> I know. But when the government and its media lapdogs have become
> as dishonest as they are now, who's to be believed?
> Meanwhile, I'll admit that I may be going overboard with my
> skepticism. But again. Who knows?
> *sigh*
Oh, I agree.
But after writing thousands of articles over almost 20 years, I've
developed a pretty good intuition about who in the media is telling
the truth and who is bullshitting.
I should probably put together a whole big article on the subject, but
here are some sample conclusions:
CNN, MSNBC, AP, Tehran Times, Russia Today, China Daily are all
similar in that they're "state media," and just parrot the government
line uncritically.
Fox News generally lives up to its "fair and balanced" claim, since
they present both sides of issues pretty fairly.
For international news, the BBC is pretty good, but when it reports on
American news, which it does all the time, it's the same as CNN and
MSNBC. BBC receives a great deal of funding from NPR, and so has to
follow the Democrat party talking points.
Al-Jazeera is also pretty good with international news. But you'll
never see a negative story about Qatar. Also, they hate Israel, and
they hate the Palestinian Authority even more, but they love Hamas.
But for Asian news they're pretty good. Oh, and they hate America,
and they REALLY hate Trump.
AFP is pretty good for Mideast, Asian and African news. VOA and RFERL
are pretty reliable.
Reuters is an interesting case, because I've found them to be almost
always completely fair and balanced. I believe that the reason is
that Thomson Reuters is an Canadian company, so they have a wholly
different view of the world.
When I'm writing an international story, I have to use each news
source in a credible way. For example, I'll consider China Daily or
Global Times to be an accurate statement of China's position, and I
would consider them more credible on this subject than, say, Reuters
or AP or the BBC.
In an international story, like the Israel-Palestine story of today, I
don't want to take sides, so I try to find accounts from each side,
ideally to quote them in parallel. This is not always easy to do.
And of course I'm always guided by previous Generational Dynamics
conclusions. For example, I've known for decades that there will
never be a "two-state solution" in the Mideast, so I know
automatically that any policitian who talks about it is full of crap.
So maybe at some point I'll expand this into a more comprehensive
article.
