The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How often do you take the stories in the newspapers as literal? If you’re clued in at all to the motives behind the newspaper’s stories, then probably not very often. How about the news on TV or on the internet?
Many news reports have sources who have their own agenda, it’s probably true to say that you can’t report on something without having an agenda on some level and no one is totally impartial. But do we consider this when we read or watch or listen to the news each day? So much effort can go in to making a news programme or a newspaper and the results can have a far reaching effect, so imagine the power that can be wielded when in charge of such an operation.
And yet, thousands of people each day take the news they read seriously, yes, even in The Sun and the Daily Mail. In fact, the latter is the culprit for many very biased news reports which have been important in instigating various hate campaigns while bending the truth to a dangerous level. But people still listen, read and act as if its gospel.
Reuters news is supposed to be 100% impartial, and I have no physical reason or evidence to the contrary to doubt this claim, but you still wonder whether individual reporters don’t sometimes think about the implications of changing one little part of their report to let readers or viewers view facts in a slightly different light. Certainly, for any televised news programme emotion is very important and to produce award-worthy news requires some sort of overplaying on this front, especially in light of great tragedies such as death in Iraq or an important person dying (you only need to look at the death of Diana for this). But how far can you go without distorting the facts in somebody’s favour?
I believe newspapers are the worst culprit, especially when It comes to their political views. They need to sell papers, and to do this they take a stand on a certain political line to get loyalty amongst their readers. This leads to reports of certain Mps being ‘caught out’, sometimes in a situation set up by the newspapers themselves. TV news is supposed to be impartial, at least in this country, but the BBC and ITV do have agendas, not least in gaining viewers and awards for presenting. On the other side of the Atlantic, some news channels such as CNN are laughably pro American to the point of complete bias.
So the question is, should they be regulated? And if they aren’t, do you realise that what you’re reading and seeing today may well be driven by an agenda that you are unaware of? How does that make you feel?
Many news reports have sources who have their own agenda, it’s probably true to say that you can’t report on something without having an agenda on some level and no one is totally impartial. But do we consider this when we read or watch or listen to the news each day? So much effort can go in to making a news programme or a newspaper and the results can have a far reaching effect, so imagine the power that can be wielded when in charge of such an operation.
And yet, thousands of people each day take the news they read seriously, yes, even in The Sun and the Daily Mail. In fact, the latter is the culprit for many very biased news reports which have been important in instigating various hate campaigns while bending the truth to a dangerous level. But people still listen, read and act as if its gospel.
Reuters news is supposed to be 100% impartial, and I have no physical reason or evidence to the contrary to doubt this claim, but you still wonder whether individual reporters don’t sometimes think about the implications of changing one little part of their report to let readers or viewers view facts in a slightly different light. Certainly, for any televised news programme emotion is very important and to produce award-worthy news requires some sort of overplaying on this front, especially in light of great tragedies such as death in Iraq or an important person dying (you only need to look at the death of Diana for this). But how far can you go without distorting the facts in somebody’s favour?
I believe newspapers are the worst culprit, especially when It comes to their political views. They need to sell papers, and to do this they take a stand on a certain political line to get loyalty amongst their readers. This leads to reports of certain Mps being ‘caught out’, sometimes in a situation set up by the newspapers themselves. TV news is supposed to be impartial, at least in this country, but the BBC and ITV do have agendas, not least in gaining viewers and awards for presenting. On the other side of the Atlantic, some news channels such as CNN are laughably pro American to the point of complete bias.
So the question is, should they be regulated? And if they aren’t, do you realise that what you’re reading and seeing today may well be driven by an agenda that you are unaware of? How does that make you feel?
Page:
The TV license is just completely lame.
I thought the BBC were okay until I went to uni last year and over the course of the year I received.. I think it was 8 letters of various forms reminding me in a threatening manner that I hadn't payed my license fees for owning a television that didn't exist.
I thought the BBC were okay until I went to uni last year and over the course of the year I received.. I think it was 8 letters of various forms reminding me in a threatening manner that I hadn't payed my license fees for owning a television that didn't exist.
Indeed, me to. Why is it so hard for them to just say "Ok, anyone who doesn't pay the tv licence won't get any BBC services"
Ok maybe because hardly anyone would pay it and the BBC would go out of business but then that's not really a bad thing :-)
Ok maybe because hardly anyone would pay it and the BBC would go out of business but then that's not really a bad thing :-)
The BBC are increasing lobbying the government to allow them to increase the TV licence to allow them to introduce more on-demand services.
This means that anyone who wants to own a TV set must pay for the BBC's new services, regardless of whether or not they intend to use them. Needless to say, this is wrong. I would gladly see the introduction of commercial advertising on the BBC if it meant I no longer had to pay for it.
This means that anyone who wants to own a TV set must pay for the BBC's new services, regardless of whether or not they intend to use them. Needless to say, this is wrong. I would gladly see the introduction of commercial advertising on the BBC if it meant I no longer had to pay for it.
Sibelius wrote:
> And the
> Champions League on ITV, there's practically no time for
> half-time analysis.
Given the panel they usually have, that's a bad thing? :-D
> And the
> Champions League on ITV, there's practically no time for
> half-time analysis.
Given the panel they usually have, that's a bad thing? :-D
The BBC is much more than the news though. I'm not championing the BBC, but adverts on all the other channels are reaching the point of being ridiculously intrusive. Take Lost, for instance: it comes on and within a few minutes - bang - ad break. And the Champions League on ITV, there's practically no time for half-time analysis.
Which i can stomach, however not when i'm having to pay to keep that biased organisation afloat.
I fancy Jane Hill. It has crossed my mind to commit an atrocity just so I can hear her say my name. Ha. Trickles of bias, prejudice, subjectivity, misreading of reality is something that is unavoidably natural. Add to that the way politicians use the media to stoke certain nuances of opinion ... life is all about subtle manipulation. It happens everywhere all the time.
Couldn't agree more the BBC come across as an arrogant organisation who employ snooty newsreaders who, even though they don't say so in words, give across a clear message as to whether they agree or disagree with a news story - Natasha Kaplinski is one of the worst I just want to slap her right out the TV.
The BBC also like to put on sad / depressing / bad news at every opportunity, OK not all news is happy and full of joy but the BBC fill their bulletins with death, destruction and murder where as other news organisations have light hearted stories at least - ITV's "And Finally" is a good example.
What makes it worse is the BBC is the reason we have to pay £100+ each year for a TV license - give us the option not to pay our license fee at the expense of receiving BBC programming, I know I'd take up that option!
The BBC also like to put on sad / depressing / bad news at every opportunity, OK not all news is happy and full of joy but the BBC fill their bulletins with death, destruction and murder where as other news organisations have light hearted stories at least - ITV's "And Finally" is a good example.
What makes it worse is the BBC is the reason we have to pay £100+ each year for a TV license - give us the option not to pay our license fee at the expense of receiving BBC programming, I know I'd take up that option!
Indeed, one of the biggest biased news sources out there
Anyone who believes the BBC are impartial should take a closer look at their coverage of Middle Eastern affairs. Particularly with regards to Israel.
PALESTINIANS SLAUGHTERED BY ISRAEL!!!!
Israel provoked by unguided missile assaults from Gaza
PALESTINIANS SLAUGHTERED BY ISRAEL!!!!
Israel provoked by unguided missile assaults from Gaza
Page: