I was reading an article...

[ríomhaire]

I think it was in the Sunday (bad sign ) Times. It was about an Israeli commando unit going into some Lebanese village and in the second or third paragraph I stopped and realised, to my horror, that this could have been taken from a Tom Clancy novel. It made me sick to think that this person was getting paid to write a news article and was treating the deaths of real people (including civilians) like entertainment. What do you think? Am I overreacting or is it really a bad thing for a newspaper article to be written like that?

 

[15357]

Well, a newspaper can write anything they want, as long as it's within the boundaries of the law. It's called freedom of the press, I believe. (So shitty, too)

So, I don't see a problem of it, because it's probablt just a way of writing. Not some destruction of facts.

 

[bbson john]

Well, a newspaper can write anything they want, as long as it's within the boundaries of the law. It's called freedom of the press, I believe. (So shitty, too)

So, I don't see a problem of it, because it's probablt just a way of writing. Not some destruction of facts.

Indeed. Newspaper exaggerate things to attract readers.

 

[15357]

But some kinds of exaggeration are illegal.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

it is very disturbing riomhare, but this is what newspapers become when there main goal is to make profits instead of distributing information about the truth.

 

[hari66]

they do it every part of the world. not only, the papers but tv too. its sickening.

Am I overreacting or is it really a bad thing

you are not. it just shows that you have some inner morality left.

the more we become insensitive to this sort of stuff, the easier it is to foist more of it on us.

 

[Suriana]

they do it every part of the world. not only, the papers but tv too. its sickening.

I don't even bother watching the news reports on TV anymore because I was so sick of everything being talked up and dramatised.

If I want action and excitement I'll go watch a bloody action movie. When I watch the news all I want is the facts and nothing else. But I guess that doesn't really make any money for anyone

 

[CptStern]

I think it was in the Sunday (bad sign ) Times. It was about an Israeli commando unit going into some Lebanese village and in the second or third paragraph I stopped and realised, to my horror, that this could have been taken from a Tom Clancy novel. It made me sick to think that this person was getting paid to write a news article and was treating the deaths of real people (including civilians) like entertainment. What do you think? Am I overreacting or is it really a bad thing for a newspaper article to be written like that?

you're not imagining things ..it's true, mainstream media deceives/downplays/exaggerates certain news stories because of whatever political leanings the outlet may have ..it's inescapable.

How many of you have heard of Lynndie England? how about Lynndie England of Abu gharib fame? here take a look ...can anyone name a victem of the abu gharib abuse? how about a victem of the Haditha Massacre? or the 34 children killed in Qana, or the 30,000 + iraqis killed in the war in iraq? ...by omitting their names from news reports they become a meaningless statistic ... "collatoral damage" rather than civilian deaths ..the whole language changes to detach the reader from the reality of what they're reading



oh btw I'm sure everyone has this list memorised

 

[Ome_Vince]

or...How about: The news is about "trying to" report "whats going on". They're not supposed to go: "OMFG CIVILIANS DIED, OMG DIE DIE DIE, Achmed Mohammed is dead, OMG OMG".
They're suppost to read statistics. And funny enough, just like Mr Stalin said: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic".
It (in general) has little to do with political "teh pwn evil right-wingers" or whatever political background, but everything with humanity. Stalin figured it out 60 years ago, lets not stick our heads into the sand now.

And yes, i do know generally speaking the media is biased.

 

[15357]

you're not imagining things ..it's true, mainstream media deceives/downplays/exaggerates certain news stories because of whatever political leanings the outlet may have ..it's inescapable.

How many of you have heard of Lynndie England? how about Lynndie England of Abu gharib fame? here take a look ...can anyone name a victem of the abu gharib abuse? how about a victem of the Haditha Massacre? or the 34 children killed in Qana, or the 30,000 + iraqis killed in the war in iraq? ...by omitting their names from news reports they become a meaningless statistic ... "collatoral damage" rather than civilian deaths ..the whole language changes to detach the reader from the reality of what they're reading



oh btw I'm sure everyone has this list memorised

I read the opinions section for that. Articles have facts in them, not emotions.

 

[CptStern]

you miss the point, so do you Ome_Vince ...not that I'm surprised

 

[Ome_Vince]

rofl, ah well care to "enlighted me" o mighty stern.

 

[CptStern]

you should try to be less condescending you're not very good at it

 

[Ome_Vince]

So, i guess thats a no

 

[15357]

I'd rather read the mass media than the tabloids.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yes, newspapers are biased. And yes, sometimes they're very weird.

Near-subliminal taking of sides under the guise of objectivity is also inescapable - all the more insidious and dangerous because one doesn't expect bias.

 

[bliink]

I'd rather read the mass media than the tabloids.

barely any difference in most cases. most major newspapers are tabloid-shit these days.

 

[The Monkey]

barely any difference in most cases. most major newspapers are tabloid-shit these days.

Poor aussies...

 

[Rupertvdb]

poor everyone... The Sunday Times houses some of the worst writing that you'll find in this day and age. I find it's best to read newspapers with your agenda-awareness hat on. E.g. When i'm reading The Independent then I know i'm usually getting the liberal anti-Bush Green Peace opinion on any given topic. If I turn to the The Guardian then I get a view of the world from the eyes of a die-hard but educated Labour supporter. Then we hit the Spectator for some true blue Conservative values. It's just a case of applying that beautiful faculty we humans have called reason. Or just read The Economist and get a slightly right of centre but very educated perspective on things. Couple this with Time for the cutting edge reporting, even if it's ever so slightly (cough) American focused perspective.

Murdoch should really be avoided. I think he wants to keep people stupid.

 

[Rupertvdb]

you're not imagining things ..it's true, mainstream media deceives/downplays/exaggerates certain news stories because of whatever political leanings the outlet may have ..it's inescapable.

How many of you have heard of Lynndie England? how about Lynndie England of Abu gharib fame? here take a look ...can anyone name a victem of the abu gharib abuse? how about a victem of the Haditha Massacre? or the 34 children killed in Qana, or the 30,000 + iraqis killed in the war in iraq? ...by omitting their names from news reports they become a meaningless statistic ... "collatoral damage" rather than civilian deaths ..the whole language changes to detach the reader from the reality of what they're reading



oh btw I'm sure everyone has this list memorised

Sorry for the double post but I forgot about mentioning this ^^

Just want to ask Stern: were you taking the piss? I can't tell whether i'm being stupid for taking what you said seriously, or if you actually compared a list of the dead from September 11th with the anonimity of casualty-list reporting. Please let me know, it's confusing.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

or...How about: The news is about "trying to" report "whats going on". They're not supposed to go: "OMFG CIVILIANS DIED, OMG DIE DIE DIE, Achmed Mohammed is dead, OMG OMG".
They're suppost to read statistics. And funny enough, just like Mr Stalin said: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic".
It (in general) has little to do with political "teh pwn evil right-wingers" or whatever political background, but everything with humanity. Stalin figured it out 60 years ago, lets not stick our heads into the sand now.

And yes, i do know generally speaking the media is biased.

Your wrong Vince, The function of the media shouldnt be to report statistics pointlessly. The function of the media should be to report issues concerning people, and empower/educate people so they can do something about it.

oh and biink, have you seen those goddamn MX newspapers they hand out for free in sydney? ARghhhh Im gonna burn those newspapers and the people who hand them out one day.

 

[ríomhaire]

I'd rather read the mass media than the tabloids.

I've learned my lesson, stay away from Sunday papers.