accuracy in the media...who is more"biased"?

[Shad0hawK]

cite with example splease.

my opinion is al jazeera is the most "biased" media outlet.

the most recent example in sensaltionalist journalism would be this article.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=5875


since i have work to do it may take me awhile so have fun!

 

[^Ben]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shad0hawK
that is one of the more ignorant statements i see on this board.

it is usually made by people who think cnn, bbc, abc, cbs etc. are actually "objective".


really? compare these 2 headlines from the same day (Thursday, April 3, 2003) :

foxnews: Report: Lynch Was Shot, Stabbed in Fierce Struggle With Iraqi Captors


now compare it an article on the CNN website from that same day:


Rescued POW has first surgery No evidence of gunshot or stab wounds found


how is fox"news" headline not propaganda? was lynch "shot" and "stabbed"? at this point there was no evidence that she was, actually german doctors who first saw her reported saying she appeared to have sustained her injuries in a vehicle accident

 

[MAx]

Now I would just like to know how this article is biased.


And another thing. If this is true (and I think we will find out), isn't it pretty "weird" to attack a country based on their possible ILLEGAL weapons, and then use illegal weapons against them?

 

[Absinthe]

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html

 

[Shad0hawK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shad0hawK
that is one of the more ignorant statements i see on this board.

it is usually made by people who think cnn, bbc, abc, cbs etc. are actually "objective".


really? compare these 2 headlines from the same day (Thursday, April 3, 2003) :

foxnews: Report: Lynch Was Shot, Stabbed in Fierce Struggle With Iraqi Captors


now compare it an article on the CNN website from that same day:


Rescued POW has first surgery No evidence of gunshot or stab wounds found


how is fox"news" headline not propaganda? was lynch "shot" and "stabbed"? at this point there was no evidence that she was, actually german doctors who first saw her reported saying she appeared to have sustained her injuries in a vehicle accident

could you fix the link?

how about CBS? yeah dan rather!

http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Sep/20040927Comm002.asp

 

[Tr0n]

So whats the point of this thread?All it does is help prove my point right...So for the 3rd ****ing time..

All news channels and websites are biased in some ways...it's just up to you decided which one is right in your own mind.

Decided to copy and past...got tired of typing it over and over.

 

[MAx]

You know, I'd say there is a difference between a corrupt anchorman and a corrupt "news" source.

 

[Gray Fox]

If someone here is planning to compare FOX to AL Jazeera, well let me tell you that that is like comparing Hitler to Stalin, it won't get you anywhere.
For the rest good luck to anybody that dares to post in here.

 

[MAx]

Just give me ONE example that Al Jazeera is Stalin\Hitler\whatever. That's all I'm asking for.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Now I would just like to know how this article is biased.


And another thing. If this is true (and I think we will find out), isn't it pretty "weird" to attack a country based on their possible ILLEGAL weapons, and then use illegal weapons against them?

it uses false information to make it appear that the US is using "poison gas" that "melts the bodies" of people

 

[Shad0hawK]

You know, I'd say there is a difference between a corrupt anchorman and a corrupt "news" source.

well, since that anchoerman IS a news source for many people, what distinction is there?

 

[MAx]

Now shad0whawk, as I wrote in the other thread:

Napalm:

-A form of gasoline, which is ALSO poisonus
-"Melts" or burns bodies


Therefore, we can conclude that it is not using "false" information. And even IF the information was false, it is still a quote, and therefore not false information coming from Al Jazeera on purpose, but a lying\misunderstood civilian.


And with news source I meant "fox" "cbs" "bbc" "al jazeera"

 

[Shad0hawK]

So whats the point of this thread?All it does is help prove my point right...So for the 3rd ****ing time..

All news channels and websites are biased in some ways...it's just up to you decided which one is right in your own mind.

Decided to copy and past...got tired of typing it over and over.

i agree with you(or as i mentioned in another thread, all opinions are "biased" otherwise they would not be opinions), but some are worse than others though.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Now shad0whawk, as I wrote in the other thread:

Napalm:

-A form of gasoline, which is ALSO poisonus
-"Melts" or burns bodies


Therefore, we can conclude that it is not using "false" information. And even IF the information WAS false, it is still a quote, and therefore not false information.


And with news source I meant "fox" "cbs" "bbc" "al jazeera"

your doing some serious stretching there.

 

[MAx]

Read my edited post and answer that one instead. That one tells more correctly what I meant.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Read my edited post and answer that one instead. That one tells more correctly what I meant.

Thanx, i will have to take a look at it after work or during lunch.

 

[el Chi]

Shad0hawK, what you have done is deliberately set up an entire thread to incite arguments - not debate - in an attempt to laude over anyone who disagrees with you, ie: the filthy filthy liberals.
OF COURSE al-Jazeera's biased. Who's going to contend that? But then OF COURSE Fox is biased - it's been proven to be conservative and pro-Republican in the past and will probably continue to be.
No media outlet is 100% objective.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Shad0hawK, what you have done is deliberately set up an entire thread to incite arguments - not debate - in an attempt to laude over anyone who disagrees with you, ie: the filthy filthy liberals.
OF COURSE al-Jazeera's biased. Who's going to contend that? But then OF COURSE Fox is biased - it's been proven to be conservative and pro-Republican in the past and will probably continue to be.
No media outlet is 100% objective.

basically your accusing me of trolling, which is not the case. actually my motivation was for debate and to keep the other thread from being hijacked OT. that is why in the OP you will notice i ask for links to back up any assertions made, your assumption is way off base. if you look at the tone of this thread, you will see it is a bit more "civilized" as it were than many others.

i also do not refer to liberals as "filthy" it seems your trying to stereotype me. in fact if you reread the posts i make i tend to be more polite than most here.

you also seemed to have missed this earlier post.

"i agree with you(or as i mentioned in another thread, all opinions are "biased" otherwise they would not be opinions), but some are worse than others though."

 

[el Chi]

basically your accusing me of trolling, which is not the case. actually my motivation was for debate and to keep the other thread from being hijacked OT. that is why in the OP you will notice i ask for links to back up any assertions made, your assumption is way off base. if you look at the tone of this thread, you will see it is a bit more "civilized" as it were than many others.

i also do not refer to liberals as "filthy" it seems your trying to stereotype me. in fact if you reread the posts i make i tend to be more polite than most here.

Hmmm... Not quite trolling. Just purposefully setting up an inflammatory thread.
The fact that you failed to even recognise, at least in your original post, is just as Tr0n said: ALL media outlets are somewhat biased in a way so get over it and use that knowledge to assess what you read. Don't start a thread finger-wagging at al-Jazeera: "Hey everyone! Look! Look at this! They're liars! Look! Hey you - Blame America squad! Look!"

And the "filthy filthy liberals" comment was in jest - I use the exact same phrase to refer to my dear self on occasion.
You are usually polite to an extent, but you sure have your moments. Well - don't we all.