Since September 11th i have had a marked increase in reading the news. Since i don't read the paper much and am online a lot i usually use CNN. However, i started noticing that the headlines to CNN stories were being written in some instances just to over dramatize what had actually happened. Apparently, i believe, to get more people to read the story. I now suggest everyone use www.bbc.com. This may seem a bit out of nowhere but a story from CNN about the recent blackhawk helicopter crash in Iraq supports this totally. Plus i had some time on my hands, so i figured...what the heck! haha So...in online stories the first few statements of the story, which is basically the headline is in bold print. CNN's headline read: "(CNN) -- All 17 soldiers killed when two Black Hawk helicopters collided over Mosul, in northern Iraq, were from the 101st Airborne Division, U.S. Central Command said Sunday." If you read this quickly and don't know the true story one would figure that there were 17 soldiers on the helicopter and that they all were killed. Now that is a story...all were killed! However, if you read on the statement continues: "Five soldiers survived and were flown to Landstuhl, Germany, for treatment. " So the whole story reads: (CNN) -- "All 17 soldiers killed when two Black Hawk helicopters collided over Mosul, in northern Iraq, were from the 101st Airborne Division, U.S. Central Command said Sunday. Five soldiers survived and were flown to Landstuhl, Germany, for treatment." Now that is a choppy sentence!...wouldn't it have been easier to say: "17 soldiers killed and 5 wounded when 2 blackhawk helicopters collided over Iraq." This isn't the first time i have noticed this from CNN. Proof they are trying to overdramatize things. Click here for the CNN article. I highly suggest you use www.bbc.com if you check the news online. They apparently know how to report a story. This was BBC's headline for the same story. "Seventeen coalition soldiers have been killed and five wounded in a mid-air collision between two US helicopters. " Ahh now that is better!! Click here for the BBC's version of the article. Well that just about concludes my rant!
Yes, i agree with you. The Media over here in the states likes to overdramatize everything to attract more readers. In England, if i am not mistaken, isnt the BBC the only news-station on TV and such? The news-media competition in the states on the other hand, is between 4 or 5 companies hence their attempts to attract more readers. Brits also seem to do a lot better at presenting the news too, IMO. Proud to say that while i am can be the President of the US, i am a Brit. Irish/Welsh/English blood - i was just fourtunate to be born in Santa Monic, LA...CA while the rest of my family was born in England or Wales.
some good points Ron ! Would be interested in the German Deutsche Welle's version of the news in Iraq.... ~E
A very interesting point. Trying to pass for a intranet editor myself, I have been annoyed with many news-providing stations in the US and Holland. At my job I cannot get away with some of the mistakes that some Dutch on-line news-agencies are coming up with. I have always held the BBC in the highest regard. Their radio, TV and now their on-line news service is the best I know. I do use CNN quite a lot but have shyed away from it in the last year. It is very hard to bring news in a subjective and still readable way. But CNN leaves me with more Q's than answers at times. The news media that annoys me, however, is the Dutch! The quality of news reporting here is abysmall (sp?). It is opinionated, suggestive and in interviews with Dutch politicians, for example, they hardly ever ask the questions I like answered. They often hammer down on a point which is completely beside the issue. In their reporting on the war, Iraq or US politics in particular, their attitude is always biased towards the democrats. Not openly, but under the surface they let you know the Reps. are up to no good. There is hardly any objective reporting here and there hasn't been for years. It is all very suggestive and sometimes they are just plain wrong in their assumptions about US politics. One thing that annoys me about global media today is the one-sidedness of reporting; All we hear from Iraq are the casualties. It has been so ever since the war started, and this is very much a subject on everybody's mind. But I also would like to hear about what is being done to get that country back on track. What the US and UN are doing, even the Dutch Marines. I'd like to know what the iraqi's are doing for themselves, etc. Two sites I frequent; It might not everybody's taste: www.theatlantic.com (I especially like the books/articles by Robert Kaplan)and www.tnr.com, again, maybe not to everybody's liking but at least tnr publishes articles by writers from opposite sides of the rainbow. PS: Ron, now that you have more time on your hands, are we about to see you more often here??? [ 18. November 2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Stevin Oudshoorn ]
There are actually 6 news stations over here, BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky News and CNN. The first 4 do not just broadcast news, they are like an ordinary channel but with news programs at intervals throughout the day (morning, mid day, evening and night). The latter are only accessible through Sky or Cable and are really not much cop. The BBC is good, though often not as objective as one might expect. Actually my major gripe with them is that these days very few of their reporters speak English (how long have we talked about 'pacific' (meaning specific) 'terrists' (terrorists) and how long have 'what it is was' or 'I personally speaking for myself' been acceptable sentence structures to be used by a public broadcaster?)
Though this guy is not national nor international, only local. Check out his website--you will get the real news, not ABC/NBC/CBS or CNN (aka The Communist News Network) version of the news. Go to: www.ericvonwade.com He is a local radio talk show host who should be someone who is a national personality.
Well, i think i'll try to make a few comments here and there. Kind of got out of the habit of checking this place and forgot how much i enjoyed it. Kind of funny so much time passing and people still remembering me! haha
Here you go: Newsflash was: "15.11.2003 17:00 UTC US helicopter crashes in N. Iraq A US helicopter has crashed in a civilian area in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. American soldiers sealed off the area, witnesses said. A US military spokesman said initial reports indicated that a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter had come down in northern Iraq. It is unknown if there were casualties." Now, one day later the whole story: "16.11.2003 15:00 UTC U.S. helicopters collide over Mosul - 17 killed Two U.S. "Black Hawk" helicopters have collided over Iraq's northern city of Mosul, killing 17 U.S. soldiers, just hours after Washington consented to a self-rule Iraqi government by next June. Witnesses in Mosul, including a U.S. officer, said a missile hit one helicopter which then crashed into the second one. U.S. command said it would "not speculate" on the cause until it had investigated. Five other soldiers who'd been on board were injured and another was missing. The incident followed Saturday's agreement between U.S. overseer Paul Bremer and the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. Its leader Jalal Talabani said a sovereign Iraqi transitional government would take over by late-June. It would be picked by an assembly of delegates from Iraq's 18 provinces. A constitution would be written and elections would held by late 2005. U.S. President George W. Bush said troops would stay until Iraq was stabilised. Talabani said if not needed beyond next year, U.S. forces would be asked to leave." Cheers,
The other thing I rate about the BBC even over my native ABC (in Australia) is the fact that if you have a TV, it is manditory to pay Tax on that. This tax goes towards all broadcasting on the BBC (including documentaries and radio) so there exists (one hopes) a happy medium between a Government influenced station and a private mongul wanting to promote his son to be manager of a large company he owns, for instance
oh how strange...a tax on having a TV in your house? Or a tax when buying a TV? What are the details for how that works?
Thanks to Ron's "rant" (a good idea btw, maybe I start my personal "rant"-thread soon ) I spent about 1/2 hrs watching CNN today: Observation: Politically correctly choosen male-female-black-white-hispanic announcers in two-fifth of the screen, scrolling newsbar filling one-fifth at the bottom, map of U.S. West coast approc one-third of the screen, Michael Jackson approx covering the rest of the screen. My brand-new EUR 1,800 PC can't run that much frames and windows, but O.K. Info Overkill, I've seen worse. But... ...as everything was dizzling about where the f**k M.J. is right now, and if he surrenders or not, the "Michael Jackson" screen is showing: Micheal Jackson talking to reporters, Michael Jackson talking to Police or security men, Michael Jackson cheering to the crowd etc. I'm a non-native english speaker: It took me fargin three minutes to realize that CNN is just feeding thier news coverage with all the clips they have in thier archive showing Michael Jackson, without any sign telling me "Archive" or "not Live" or anything. result: A newsspeaker (the politically correct african american female, IIRC) was just tellin' me that M.J. is believed to be in L.V. and not yet in Police custody, while a split-screen was showing me M.J., surrounded by his advisors, leaving a building, talking to a police or security guy, with no disclaimer whatsoever telling me that this video is maybe five years old. My first reaction: "B**ch, don't you watch your own TV coverage?: Here he is!", until I realized: archive stuff aired, not labeled as such, just to fill one of the five split screens. Turned off the TV, decided that CNN quality isn't any worth, went up, turned on the EUR 1,800 PC and typed a) first my´comment on Manstein in the "best General"-thread and b) this. Get BBC folks, Cheers,
Another thing that really peeves me off about the US media in general is it's lack of good international coverage. What international news they do show usually are stories that have the US tied in in some respect. This is especially poor with USAToday. Although with the name USAToday i guess having an international section is saying something for them...especially since when i visited FOXNews i couldn't even find a world news section LOL. FOXNews was and is the worst in my eyes. Their fair and balanced logo is a joke to me...they say their news is fair so much i think they must know that in reality it is the most biased network out there. They say their news is fair so much i think it must be a propaganda ploy on their part...[fox talking]maybe if we say it enough people will just take our word for it and just think..."hey this is what fair and balanced is i guess" It isn't surprising that when people with contrary opinions do make it on the network they can't proove their point because simply they are never given adequete time to explain their point. The anchors simply interupt them constantly or simply cut them off and go to the next idea. It is laughable. But if you look at CNN, ABC, MSNBC their international sections pale in comparison to BBC's. Boy thinking about FOX news has really gotten me riled up lol!! GRRRRRR.
Ron, Been compulsory in Britain since 1923 to have a tv licence mate. Currently costs around £116 pa.Of course, blind people actually get a discount.....honest! Regards, gordon
Gah! That's not an insignificant amount! If they tried that here I'd gather a bunch of my friends, dress as Indians, and dump TVs into the harbor!
Sounds a fine idea to me! BTW, what's that in Dollars? Regards, Gordon [ 10. December 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]
