Sprafa
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?lng=1&page=feedback
Yes, it's a real news agency. A news agency that accepts and encourages feedback. No matter how apparently pointless or idiotic they seem to us, they post it. And when they actually make sense and aren't some useless rant on how their country isn't featured or how they get more attention on the French team than the entire Euro 2004 championship (which is totally fake, don't even give it two thoughts).
Of course you can accuse it of being eurocentric, but just look at the name.
Imagine a channel where everything is news. There is no face for the commentators that simply explain the images you're seeing and express no further opinions. No on-screen anchors, only footage. Only facts that are backed up by what you're seeing.
Articles always show 2 sides of an argument. They both express their points and that's it. There's no attempt to "rebunk" each other's opinions, only a clear expression of each other's points.
The greatest accusation you can make is about the "No Comment" section. They just flip a few usually disturbing/interesting images. Usually about the Middle East, even when it's not in the spotlight. Some call it bias, I say - "no comment".
It's not totally unbiased, but it's the closest I've ever seen
Yes, it's a real news agency. A news agency that accepts and encourages feedback. No matter how apparently pointless or idiotic they seem to us, they post it. And when they actually make sense and aren't some useless rant on how their country isn't featured or how they get more attention on the French team than the entire Euro 2004 championship (which is totally fake, don't even give it two thoughts).
Of course you can accuse it of being eurocentric, but just look at the name.
Imagine a channel where everything is news. There is no face for the commentators that simply explain the images you're seeing and express no further opinions. No on-screen anchors, only footage. Only facts that are backed up by what you're seeing.
Articles always show 2 sides of an argument. They both express their points and that's it. There's no attempt to "rebunk" each other's opinions, only a clear expression of each other's points.
The greatest accusation you can make is about the "No Comment" section. They just flip a few usually disturbing/interesting images. Usually about the Middle East, even when it's not in the spotlight. Some call it bias, I say - "no comment".
It's not totally unbiased, but it's the closest I've ever seen
