Are Western "first world country" lives seen as more valuable by the media? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Are Western "first world country" lives seen as more valuable by the media?

2003
03-14-2011, 03:37 AM
This thread is partly in response to the massive coverage the 2011 Japan Earthquake has got, and partially in response to other issues.

Firstly, I want to reiterate that this crisis deserves all of the coverage it is getting, and then some. It is a tradgedy of epic proportions, the first time we have really seen a live Tsunami sweaping away hundreds of lives on television.

However, that doesn't change the fact that all natural disasters are epic tradgedys. Infact, the reality is community spirit is probably even stronger in 3rd world countries than it is in many of the wealthier ones, where a drive for sucess and materialistic world is what many of us live in. The fact is these disasters affect all countries in the same profound way.

Why is it some get more coverage than others?

For example, the 2004 Tsunami death toll was a gradual rise, and although not apparent the scale of it at the time, it wasnt really until the death toll reached 20 000 plus that people really started to give a damn.

We dont know how many are dead in Japan, it could be many more than 10 thousand, could not. But that doesnt change the scale of the coverage.

The 2010 Haiti earthquake killed 300 000, yet it probably only got as much coverage or slightly less than Japan is getting, despite being infinately worse.

The 2003 Earthquake in Iran killed 26 000 people, I barely remember any coverage.

The 2005 Pakistan Earthquake killed 80 000 people and did not get half the coverage the Japan earthquake has got.

The 2006 Java earthquake killed 6000 but was barely front page news.

Whilst I was humbled by the press the 2011 New Zealand earthquake got, 200 odd dead in an earthquake in China would probably not get any attention at all.

Am I clueless or missing something? There definately does seem a trend toward this, and not just for disasters. For acts of war, for famines and preventible diseases too.

Tommy_Vercetti
03-14-2011, 04:41 AM
Well, I think the threat of nuclear disaster is about 100000x important than any of those others to any other nation.

out_here_grindin
03-14-2011, 04:48 AM
It's because the media figures that people know more about Japan and Nez Zealand than Pakistan or Indonesia and therefore they give it more coverage.

I disagree about Haiti though, that got a ton of coverage.

buddyholly
03-14-2011, 05:45 AM
Clueless.

2003
03-14-2011, 07:31 AM
Of course Haiti got lots of coverage, but if the death toll were say 25 000 I doubt it would have.

allpro
03-14-2011, 08:32 AM
the indonesia and haiti earthquakes received massive media attention and rightfully so. in the case of japan, the economic and geopolitical ramifications are far greater for an advanced, industrialized nation which also happens to be the world's third largest economy. in addition, a crippled japan gives communist china hegemony over the east and even greater influence globally, and the potential nuclear disaster will increase public resistance to nuclear energy over fossil fuels. you have to look at the "big picture".

GugaF1
03-14-2011, 09:27 AM
Very true Western media will identify more with the Western world values.it is kind of normal, people will usually care more about people that have a culture values more similar to them than otherwise.

mure
03-14-2011, 12:06 PM
there was this cyclone in Myanmar a couple of years ago that killed around 100k people and barely got any kind of coverage.

buddyholly
03-14-2011, 01:57 PM
there was this cyclone in Myanmar a couple of years ago that killed around 100k people and barely got any kind of coverage.

The Myanmar government made sure of that.

JolánGagó
03-14-2011, 02:43 PM
shit thread.

2003
11-04-2012, 11:35 PM
Just a small example but a relevant bump;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_2010s_(by_death_toll)

This sandy disaster has recieved monumental coverage with about 100 deaths, though in all honesty the coverage would have been the same if it were only 10. The coverage was massive from the start.

The 2012 Iran Earthquake killing 300+ was barely headlines for more than 3 days. I wasnt aware at all of the Phillipines or Afghanistan earthquakes this year.

People say.."oh but look at the infrastructual damage caused by Sandy"..dont those people think the same infrastructual damage happens in other countries?

At least USA is first world and the damage will be repaired before long. Those other countries probably take a lifetime to rebuild.

Sandy is a massive tradgedy. All my USA friends live on the east coast, and I am not heartless in the slightest.

But WHY don't other disasters get this much attention from WORLD MEDIA? This is not a dig a the USA media, it's their country, of course they will pay it more attention. But the WORLD media has been following this storm like a baseball game.

buddyholly
11-04-2012, 11:51 PM
But WHY don't other disasters get this much attention from WORLD MEDIA? This is not a dig a the USA media, it's their country, of course they will pay it more attention. But the WORLD media has been following this storm like a baseball game.

You still want to flog this dead old horse. It is simply a matter of ease of reporting and also the relevance to the reader.

I went to Phuket a few days after the tsunami, because the friend who invited me to his house was able to email me and tell me that Phuket was virtually untouched. And it was true, yet CNN relentlessly reported on the ''tragedy'' from Phuket, day after day. Why? Because all the hotels were open to house the reporters, the electricity was on to send reports and the airport was open to land by commercial jet right in Phuket.

There was not much reporting from Banda Aceh because there was no way to get there, even though the devastation at banda Aceh was infinitely greater than at Phuket.

Also, the situation in Phuket was of interest to all who had vacationed there, were going to vacation there, or had friends there at the time. As for Banda Aceh, you tell the world that it was destroyed and that is enough info because virtually nobody outside Indonesia has a personal interest.

Same would go for an earthquake in the mountains of Pakistan. I don't need details because I have no personal connection.

You are trying to make this to be something it isn't. And maybe make yourself look like you care.

2003
11-05-2012, 01:15 AM
What I take issue with is the symptathy level for 100 human beings dying in Iran vs 100 human beings dying in USA is astronomical from most people.

Simply put, most people just don't give a shit. They'l nod and say "thats sad", and not give it a second thought.

But they will be captivated by this storm in USA whether they plan to travel there or not. Look at the economy, most people around the world are never visiting USA anytime soon. But so much they still do care.

buddyholly
11-05-2012, 04:23 AM
What I take issue with is the symptathy level for 100 human beings dying in Iran vs 100 human beings dying in USA is astronomical from most people.

Simply put, most people just don't give a shit. They'l nod and say "thats sad", and not give it a second thought.

But they will be captivated by this storm in USA whether they plan to travel there or not. Look at the economy, most people around the world are never visiting USA anytime soon. But so much they still do care.

What issue? What is your problem? It is not your business what other people choose to do if it doesn't harm you.

Whether or not you ''give a shit'' changes absolutely nothing for the dead people, no matter where they are. So why give it a second thought when thought does nothing?

abraxas21
11-17-2012, 10:45 PM
sadly, yes. especially if you're white. western media will do anything to protect the lives of white people. hence why conflicts in latin america, asia and africa are generally barely covered (in great part because the western interests are the cause of these troubles more often than not).

buddyholly
11-17-2012, 11:16 PM
sadly, yes. especially if you're white. western media will do anything to protect the lives of white people.

The media protects lives? And only white people? WOW. Good to know. If I get in trouble I won't call 911 for help, I'll call Wolf Blitzer.

Or are you just campaigning? If so give it a rest, you are already seeded high.

abraxas21
11-17-2012, 11:59 PM
The media protects lives? And only white people? WOW. Good to know. If I get in trouble I won't call 911 for help, I'll call Wolf Blitzer.

Or are you just campaigning? If so give it a rest, you are already seeded high.

of course they do. the media has the mission to portray reality but what we often see is that it creates realities by excessive coverage of isolated incidents, by delegitimation of social movements, by distortion of facts and also by exposing flat out lies.

the more coverage something receives, the more chances are that the favoured end will be protected by the government. that's how it is and that's how it will keep going on.

As for the ACC, make of it what you want. I've been saying the same things since the moment i got here, a time in which the ACC wasn't a popularity contest, mind you.

buddyholly
11-18-2012, 12:59 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about, but if the media protects lives, then I am all in favour of that.

buddyholly
11-18-2012, 01:07 AM
what we often see is that it creates realities by excessive coverage of isolated incidents, .

Yes, I think you said that the media should not be giving time to things like honour killings in the Muslim world. You think that anything that makes someone other than the West look bad should not be aired. Which really means you want the media to be biased - but on your terms.

BTW, the trial in Canada of an Afghan immigrant, his wife and his son for murdering his three daughters and his other wife has finally ended. All three were put away for life. The daughters spoke to boys at school, so had to be put down like rats. The older wife was just thrown in the lake as well, why not, she was a little long in the tooth. I remember during the trial you argued that this would be typical of the western media, to report stuff like this.

But you are right in a way, in the Middle East, this would be non-news.

abraxas21
11-18-2012, 07:40 AM
Yes, I think you said that the media should not be giving time to things like honour killings in the Muslim world. You think that anything that makes someone other than the West look bad should not be aired. Which really means you want the media to be biased - but on your terms.

uhh, no. the point is that the mass western media deliberately picks stories like that in order to make the other side look bad.

btw, here's an interesting article of the partiality of the BBC when reporting the israeli palestinian conflict:

In 2006, an independent panel of senior public figures published a report assessing the impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The panel, chaired by Sir Quentin Thomas, a senior figure in the British Home Office, found “identifiable shortcomings, particularly in respect of gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective and in the consistent maintenance of the BBC’s own editorial standards.”

The Thomas Report, as it became known, was quickly shoved under the carpet by the BBC, even though it had originally been commissioned by the corporation’s own governors, and business continued as usual (“Report of the Independent Panel for the BBC Governors on Impartiality of BBC Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” April 2006, available on the Internet Archive).

In the last few days, the shortcomings highlighted in the report have never seemed so glaring.

keep reading here: http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-assaults-gaza-bbc-reporting-assaults-truth/11894

and of course, the BBC is just one major news outlet that misrepresents reality to favour special interests. Examples are many. Owners few.

2003
04-16-2013, 05:35 AM
Perhaps in light of todays bombings discussion on this issue of media coverage could continue in this thread out of respect for the Boston victims.

abraxas21
04-16-2013, 03:46 PM
good bump.

3 westerners die in boston and everyone is acting as if the world is gonna end. at least there's no bush around or another middle eastern nation would be invaded

star
04-16-2013, 04:05 PM
good bump.

3 westerners die in boston and everyone is acting as if the world is gonna end. at least there's no bush around or another middle eastern nation would be invaded

:hug: I remember how I and so many in my country and people around the world hung for days and weeks in breathless concern and suspense when Chileans and Bolivians were trapped deep in a mine and cried tears of joy when they were rescued. Their lives were important to me and to my countrymen,.

I also know that there have been recent mine disasters in this country that you never knew or cared about, Does that make the lives of the Chilean miners more important? No, of course not. It is simply the circumstance that causes the publicity, Just as you or most anybody doesn't know about the two people found dead here in the park or the man thrown in the river. It doesn't make their lives less important.

I think you know this already. But this is an occasion where you can give vent to your feelings and you use it for those purposes. I'm not surprised anymore than I'm surprised to learn that there were expressions of glee and mirth posted on MTF after learning that people had been killed and permanently maimed in the U.S.

arm
04-16-2013, 06:55 PM
Fact is media is about What people want to hear/read/watch. What is so hard to understand about that? Some examples were given here, like the Myanmar disaster, well truth is a lot of people living in Europe, the US and the so called "western countries" don't even know Myanmar is a country! Is the ignorance sad to witness? Yes, but there is no way around it.

Does the media think westerners lives are more valuable? Of course not! :facepalm: Believing that takes even greater ignorance...

Slasher1985
04-16-2013, 07:04 PM
I think this is getting more coverage than Breivik. There are school shootings with many more victims that get less coverage. The Western media is biased against Western media.:rolleyes:


Seriously now, the minute the press will be safe in countries like Iraq, Angola, Syria or Afghanistan, they will account for the atrocities that are surely taking place there. The impact of events is always greater in places where people think it's safe. If tomorrow morning, Notre Dame of Paris is bombed, it would count more than Afghanistan. Yes, of course it's unfair, but that's the way our "modern" society works. Never to build, always to destroy, no matter who we talk about as "The Destroyer". When people start dying in safe places, people always wonder "Where is safe? Where can we live in peace?"

Punky
04-16-2013, 07:19 PM
"I wish that people who are conventionally supposed to love each other would say to each other, when they fight, "Please — a little less love, and a little more common decency."

Castafiore
04-16-2013, 07:20 PM
Seriously now, the minute the press will be safe in countries like Iraq, Angola, Syria or Afghanistan, they will account for the atrocities that are surely taking place there.
I don't think it's got to do with safety in those countries.
If you look for it, you can find good news reports from those "unsafe" countries. Those news reports are there, they just don't get as much attention.

I think it's more habit and what people get used to seeing. People are used to hearing about Afghanistan, Syria, etc. So, the impact of such news items is not as big as the impact of 2 explosions during a marathon which isn't exactly an expected event, unlike attacks in Syria for example.

Slasher1985
04-16-2013, 07:22 PM
I think it's more habit and what people get used to seeing. People are used to hearing about Afghanistan, Syria, etc. So, the impact of such news items are not as big as the impact of 2 explosions during a marathon in a "safe" area in the world.

I think it's more related to what I said in the second part of my post, which you didn't quote. It's the impact of "acts of terrorism in places deemed safe" that gets the maximum attention.

Castafiore
04-16-2013, 07:25 PM
I think it's more related to what I said in the second part of my post, which you didn't quote. It's the impact of "acts of terrorism in places deemed safe" that gets the maximum attention.
It's not totally the case either IMO.

I mean, take 9/11 and then think about the terrorist attacks in Madrid and in London. Two safe areas when it happened. I wonder how many people could place a date on the attacks in Madrid and London without cheating (looking it up). 9/11 got the brunt of the attention in news reports, documentaries, movies,... (and still does).

Slasher1985
04-16-2013, 07:28 PM
I mean, take 9/11 and then think about the terrorist attacks in Madrid and in London. Two safe areas. I wonder how many people could place a date on the attacks in Madrid and London without cheating (looking it up). 9/11 got the brunt of the attention in news reports, documentaries, movies,...

It's on a totally different scale. 9/11 caused so many victims compared to Madrid and London. There is no terrorist attack with the impact 9/11 had. Check the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_ toll#Terrorist_attacks

Castafiore
04-16-2013, 07:34 PM
The reason why 9/11 had a bigger impact than the attacks in London and Madrid (and they were huge, they should not be diminshed) is because the 9/11 was on US soil. Let me try to explain what I mean.

The USA had not seen war or such a vicious attack from a foreign entity on US soil. It was a first.

The UK had experienced IRA attacks in recent history. Spain had experienced ETA attacks in recent history.

The fact that 9/11 got more attention had to do, in part, with people being shocked that the USA was no longer a safe haven. Not that some people didn't realise that, the government has taken quite a few measures to increase safety but 9/11 made it real, it brought it home.

People in the UK and in Spain didn't need reminding. The scars of terrorist attacks are still fresh. People were used to a thing or two there.

Slasher1985
04-16-2013, 07:37 PM
The fact that 9/11 got more attention had to do, in part, with people being shocked that the USA was no longer a safe haven. Not that some people didn't realise that, the government has taken quite a few measures to increase safety but 9/11 made it real.


So now, how is this different from what I said earlier:

When people start dying in safe places, people always wonder "Where is safe? Where can we live in peace?"

Wing Man Frank
04-16-2013, 07:38 PM
Yes.

Because they are.

Castafiore
04-16-2013, 07:43 PM
So now, how is this different from what I said earlier:
because of the UK and Spain attacks. That's what made it different. Those areas were safe. I think that in the UK and in Spain, people had to realise earlier that safety is relative than the US.

An area being a safe place is not a sufficient explanation for media attention.
Media attention is about the surprise element, about the unexpected. Not about safety. People didn't expect such a vicious attack in the USA. People sadly expect to hear about violence in Syria.
People didn't expect to see explosions during a marathon. Iran has had its share of nasty earthquakes. They had a big one in 2012 for example. Boston gets a lot of attention. Iran doesn't.

But I don't think we're going to agree on this and I'm going to enjoy my evening away from my computer so let's agree to disagree. ;)

Slasher1985
04-16-2013, 07:52 PM
But I don't think we're going to agree on this and I'm going to enjoy my evening away from my computer so let's agree to disagree. ;)

Of course.

B-Nard
04-16-2013, 10:26 PM
Yes.

Because they are.

Continue living ignorantly.

Fed fordawin
04-16-2013, 10:26 PM
good bump.

3 westerners die in boston and everyone is acting as if the world is gonna end. at least there's no bush around or another middle eastern nation would be invaded

:facepalm:
The fact is it could be (I emphasize "could", no proof yet) a foreign attack. And this has more significance than civil war acts.
And yes bombings in western soils will always get more attention because these countries have created the economic, social and security conditions for these not to happen.
Who's going to be surprised by a a criminal shootout in Venezuela? In Europe on the other hand...
Now I'm waiting for your rant on how much safer and better third world countries are....:rolleyes:

Wing Man Frank
04-16-2013, 10:32 PM
Continue living ignorantly.

Prove I am wrong.

buddyholly
04-16-2013, 10:34 PM
good bump.

3 westerners die in boston and everyone is acting as if the world is gonna end. at least there's no bush around or another middle eastern nation would be invaded
Who is everyone? The Iran Daily has a huge story on an earthquake in Iran and a tiny story on Boston. Is this the kind of media bias you complain about?

Topspindoctor
04-16-2013, 10:35 PM
Prove I am wrong.

A human life is equally insignificant, no matter what country you come from. In a thousand years' time, which is a miniscule amount by cosmic standards, the events of today will be completely forgotten. Hell, in 50,000 years, the entire human civilization might be extinct and it still would not matter in the least in the grand scheme of things.

Wing Man Frank
04-16-2013, 10:36 PM
A human life is equally insignificant, no matter what country you come from. In a thousand years' time, which is a miniscule amount by cosmic standards, the events of today will be completely forgotten. Hell, in 50,000 years, the entire human civilization might be extinct and it still would not matter in the least in the grand scheme of things.

Did you just write a serious post?

Trollicki
04-16-2013, 10:47 PM
A human life is equally insignificant, no matter what country you come from. In a thousand years' time, which is a miniscule amount by cosmic standards, the events of today will be completely forgotten. Hell, in 50,000 years, the entire human civilization might be extinct and it still would not matter in the least in the grand scheme of things.

Why should we care about the grand scheme of things? We have one shot at this and seeing as there is no significance save for what we choose to make for ourselves, let´s do just that then, no? Nihilism of the cynic sort got old an awful long time ago.

So yes, Western media is going to be biased towards Western victims, especially if, as has been said, the incident was as unexpected as was the case here.

buddyholly
04-16-2013, 10:47 PM
What some people do not seem to understand is that we in the west can choose what media we want to read from just about anywhere in the world. If we want to read Granma, we can. But while we are reading it we should remember that the Cubans only have Granma. For myself, I would not bother to read it. And for some reason I am not compelled to whine about the bias in its reporting. Let those who want to read it, read it.

Complaining about media bias is like complaining that your local supermarket has too much vanilla ice cream on the shelves and not enough pecan. If you ask why there is not more pecan, they manager will probably tell you that vanilla outsells pecan.

I think the problem with those that whine about media bias is that it makes them uncomfortable that the press is free, when it really should be controlled.

Topspindoctor
04-16-2013, 11:00 PM
Why should we care about the grand scheme of things? We have one shot at this and seeing as there is no significance save for what we choose to make for ourselves, let´s do just that then, no? Nihilism of the cynic sort got old an awful long time ago.


You have completely missed my point. You should not care about grand scheme of things, however you should definitely look at the big picture when it comes to the events happening today - especially those that don't impact you.

If some people died thousands of kilometers away, why would you care? Does it personality matter to you? Do you want to want to stress yourself because of it? Would you waste time offering fake tears and sympathies on an online forum like I see some people doing here?

The point of the previous post, in case it escaped you is: people die all the time. It's a natural thing whether it happens sooner or later. I am an atheist, so I believe I only have one life to live and I sure as hell not going to waste it "mourning" people whose lives are deemed important by yank media.

B-Nard
04-16-2013, 11:06 PM
Prove I am wrong.

How are lives in the Western world more important than others? From what standpoint are you analysing this? Economically? Politically? Complete trite. Eastern Asia and many countries in Africa are now the economic backbone for the global economy, and becoming more politically instrumental by the year, hence why Obama is looking for economic relations there (mostly in an imperialistic manner). China will be the inarguable superpower in the next fifty years, as will India, possibly. Israel have vast influence on America's political infrastructure, too, and most of their corporations, and it was only 25-30 years ago they were considered second-world.

Essentially, no lives are more important than others. It's a complete fabrication and a skewed argument. The Western media tend to ignore many world events, whether it be the Syrian Uprising, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, North Korean political prison camps, the Islamic Sharia movement, the tensions in Pakistan where US drones have malfunctioned and dropped on innocent civilians etc. On the other side, media in the Middle East or Eastern Asia don't cover Western events as extensively.

48 hours ago there was an explosion in Iraq killing 33 people and injuring over 300. The Western media did not cover this at all. The Bosten Marathon consisted of 3 deaths and over 100 injuries and it got extensive, national coverage. This is expected. The Western media report primarily on first-world countries because most of their viewers are, in fact, from the first-world. They create the illusion that "we are all that matters".

The media today is a prime example of corporate, encumbered capitalism. It's about viewership, drama and bias, not reporting world events objectively. It's serving as arguably one of the most dysfunctional instituions in our public framework. This is why many people are now getting their information from independent outlets - some of which being non-for-profit.

Your post is imperious. It suggets that only the first-world counts because the media spawn such a disillusionment. It's amazing how media can completely distort one's reality. It honestly feels as if it is part of an agenda, to almost subdue the citizens of a nation and let them know that "we only count".

Trollicki
04-16-2013, 11:10 PM
You have completely missed my point. You should not care about grand scheme of things, however you should definitely look at the big picture when it comes to the events happening today - especially those that don't impact you.

If some people died thousands of kilometers away, why would you care? Does it personality matter to you? Do you want to want to stress yourself because of it? Would you waste time offering fake tears and sympathies on an online forum like I see some people doing here?

The point of the previous post, in case it escaped you is: people die all the time. It's a natural thing whether it happens sooner or later. I am an atheist, so I believe I only have one life to live and I sure as hell not going to waste it "mourning" people whose lives are deemed important by yank media.

And you have completely missed mine. Not everyone is like you - some people, whether after seeing these pictures or merely after hearing this news, do get affected. And even if they do not, so what? If you do not want to waste your time by mourning these people, nobody is stopping you. If others do want to offer their sympathies, fake or real, why should they be reprimanded for it? It´s their call, their choice. And really Sherlock, people die all the time? Thanks for the heads-up.

B-Nard
04-16-2013, 11:22 PM
You have completely missed my point. You should not care about grand scheme of things, however you should definitely look at the big picture when it comes to the events happening today - especially those that don't impact you.

If some people died thousands of kilometers away, why would you care? Does it personality matter to you? Do you want to want to stress yourself because of it? Would you waste time offering fake tears and sympathies on an online forum like I see some people doing here?

The point of the previous post, in case it escaped you is: people die all the time. It's a natural thing whether it happens sooner or later. I am an atheist, so I believe I only have one life to live and I sure as hell not going to waste it "mourning" people whose lives are deemed important by yank media.

This is an interesting point. Because of its somewhat confrontational tone, most people will dismiss it is mindless trolling, but there is some truth within it, all nihilism aside. When the Western media report on an event such as the Boston Marathon explosion, they seem to persist that it's a social obligation to be sympathetic. Some people are genuinely sympathetic, others are not, but the latter still tend to give the illusion of being sympathetic because our culture embraces such a norm.

It's endearing.

buddyholly
04-16-2013, 11:24 PM
48 hours ago there was an explosion in Iraq killing 33 people and injuring over 300. The Western media did not cover this at all..

Absolute, pure, unadulterated nonsense.

It amazes me how people just write what they want to believe. The Iranian earthquake is all over the western media.

Perhaps you are a little bit confused and do not realize that Boston was full of media for the marathon, while there were propaply very few western media types in remote Iran waiting to take pictures of the next earthquake. So yes, not so much visual news, but as for covering the story, it is covered across the western media.

B-Nard
04-16-2013, 11:38 PM
Absolute, pure, unadulterated nonsense.

It amazes me how people just write what they want to believe. The Iranian earthquake is all over the western media.

Perhaps you are a little bit confused and do not realize that Boston was full of media for the marathon, while there were propaply very few western media types in remote Iran waiting to take pictures of the next earthquake. So yes, not so much visual news, but as for covering the story, it is covered across the western media.

I not am talking about the Iranian earthquake. Where the hell did you get that from?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

This had almost NO extensive coverage in the Western media besides a few articles. But it was not covered in many TV broadcasts.

star
04-16-2013, 11:47 PM
I not am talking about the Iranian earthquake. Where the hell did you get that from?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

This had almost NO extensive coverage in the Western media besides a few articles. But it was not covered in many TV broadcasts.

The story was in yesterday's newspaper and not today's. I don't know about television news because I don't watch television news, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/world/middleeast/strong-earthquake-strikes-near-iran-pakistan-border.html

Also it's on my google news page thatn20 people were killed in a bomb blast in Pakistan,

B-Nard
04-16-2013, 11:50 PM
The story was in yesterday's newspaper and not today's. I don't know about television news because I don't watch television news, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/world/middleeast/strong-earthquake-strikes-near-iran-pakistan-border.html

Also it's on my google news page thatn20 people were killed in a bomb blast in Pakistan,

Why did you link an article about the Iranian earthquake? I have nothing to say about that.

star
04-16-2013, 11:59 PM
Why did you link an article about the Iranian earthquake? I have nothing to say about that.

Sorry. That was a mistake. Here you go. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/middleeast/attackers-strike-across-iraq-as-elections-approach.html

The earthquake was in today's newspaper. Actually I think there was another story also on the Iraq bombing.

No sorry. This one is not about bombings per se. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/middleeast/killings-grow-as-iraqi-elections-near.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

superslam77
04-16-2013, 11:59 PM
hopefully but probably not the case which is stupid.

point:you value your life and your family more than others would ever do...
everything else is bullshit and hypocrisy.

B-Nard
04-17-2013, 12:01 AM
Sorry. That was a mistake. Here you go. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/middleeast/attackers-strike-across-iraq-as-elections-approach.html

The earthquake was in today's newspaper. Actually I think there was another story also on the Iraq bombing.

Yes, the bombing received moderate coverage in newspapers, which tend to cover more issues. But for an event of this significance not to get mentioned on numerous TV broadcasts is bewildering, especially considering the fact more people died and got injured than the Boston Marathon.

star
04-17-2013, 12:06 AM
Yes, the bombing received moderate coverage in newspapers, which tend to cover more issues. But for an event of this significance not to get mentioned on numerous TV broadcasts is bewildering, especially considering the fact more people died and got injured than the Boston Marathon.

Well, I can't help what your country's media chooses to cover.

I think here in the U.S. it's understandable that the Boston marathon is getting more coverage.

Actually I would advise that you stop watching television news because it is skewed by the availability of video. You'll get a more balanced view through the print media, but the choice is yours.

Also I edited to add a more in depth story that might interest you,

B-Nard
04-17-2013, 12:31 AM
Well, I can't help what your country's media chooses to cover.

I think here in the U.S. it's understandable that the Boston marathon is getting more coverage.

Actually I would advise that you stop watching television news because it is skewed by the availability of video. You'll get a more balanced view through the print media, but the choice is yours.

Also I edited to add a more in depth story that might interest you,

I live in Australia. Last night, the mainstream media dedicated their entire news broadcast to the event. Having watched three different channels, there was no mention of the bombing in Iraq, in spite of it injuring and killing more people. Am I saying the Boston explosion didn't warrant such coverage? No. But when you learn a similar (albeit vastly worst) event happened within a few hours of each other and this particular event received no coverage, you question the integrity of journalism. And why was this the case? The Western media only care about their little reality bubble. They neglect to cover the more important and gritty events for the sake of viewership and profit. Hence why I said the media is the epitome of corporate, encumbered, monopolistic capitalism.

Now I do have the option, you're right, and I tend to neglect mainstream media 95% of the time, but a majority of the Australian population receives their information on current events through these outlets. It's a distressing thought that most people aren't aware of what is happening outside of the media's distorted bubble.

star
04-17-2013, 12:35 AM
I live in Australia. Last night, the mainstream media dedicated their entire news broadcast to the event. Having watched three different channels, there was no mention of the bombing in Iraq, in spite of it injuring and killing more people. Am I saying the Boston explosion didn't warrant such coverage? No. But when you learn a similar (albeit vastly worst) event happened within a few hours of each other and this particular event received no coverage, you question the integrity of journalism. And why was this the case? The Western media only care about their little reality bubble. They neglect to cover the more important and gritty events for the sake of viewership and profit. Hence why I said the media is the eptimoe of corporate, encumbered, monopolistic capitalism.

Now I do have the option, you're right, and I tend to neglect mainstream media 95% of the time, but a majority of the Australian population receives their information on current events through these outlets. It's a distressing thought that most people aren't aware of what is happening outside of the media's distorted bubble.

That is the fault of your media and your people. You can be mad at the U.S. for its actions, but hardly for the actions of your own countrymen.

B-Nard
04-17-2013, 12:41 AM
That is the fault of your media and your people. You can be mad at the U.S. for its actions, but hardly for the actions of your own countrymen.

Obviously. And this is what the Western media essentially does. Likewise, media in the Middle East or Eastern Asia wouldn't as extensively cover the event as Western media has. Therefore, no "lives" mean more than anyone else. It's merely a superficial fixation that depends on location and perspective. That was my initial point.

Topspindoctor
04-17-2013, 01:00 AM
Obviously. And this is what the Western media essentially does. Likewise, media in the Middle East or Eastern Asia wouldn't as extensively cover the event as Western media has. Therefore, no "lives" mean more than anyone else. It's merely a superficial fixation that depends on location and perspective. That was my initial point.

+1 You have explained what I have tried to say quite eloquently. Lives essentially do not matter. It's all about where the government controlled media chooses to focus the public telling them who to feel sorry for. It's all a subtle game of clever manipulation. Has nothing to do with offering pity and sympathy, but manipulating public opinion.

B-Nard
04-17-2013, 01:04 AM
+1 You have explained what I have tried to say quite eloquently. Lives essentially do not matter. It's all about where the government controlled media chooses to focus the public telling them who to feel sorry for. It's all a subtle game of clever manipulation. Has nothing to do with offering pity and sympathy, but manipulating public opinion.

I am not as nihilistic on the issue as you evidently are. Human lives have extensive value, although measuring the significance and worth of a life is impracticable and moot.

buddyholly
04-17-2013, 01:13 AM
I not am talking about the Iranian earthquake. Where the hell did you get that from?

..

Sorry, my mistake. I was watching a BBC report on the earthquake in Iran at the time and they had footage of what looked like an explosion in a quarry. But it was probably just dust being thrown up.
Too much multi-tasking..

But the fact is, Iraquis killing Iraquis over religion is no longer very newsworthy.
A new style of terror at a big sporting event is.

Time Violation
04-17-2013, 01:13 AM
Obviously. And this is what the Western media essentially does. Likewise, media in the Middle East or Eastern Asia wouldn't as extensively cover the event as Western media has. Therefore, no "lives" mean more than anyone else. It's merely a superficial fixation that depends on location and perspective. That was my initial point.

Fair point I guess. Media will prioritize whatever topics they find pertinent, and since Western media are usually biggest/most powerful, it will inevitable create an impression that their view is the world view as well, which isn't really true.

B-Nard
04-17-2013, 01:25 AM
Fair point I guess. Media will prioritize whatever topics they find pertinent, and since Western media are usually biggest/most powerful, it will inevitable create an impression that their view is the world view as well, which isn't really true.

It has nothing to do with power, but merely how cultural and social frameworks operate. The Western media fixate extensively on events that happen in the West because there is an underlying sense of duty for the media to report on these issues. What bothers me is how the media tend to neglect many important international sociopolitical issues that would nonetheless warrant ideal coverage had it happened in the West. The integrity of journalism is falling at a rapid rate because they tend to only cover first-world issues (with some exceptions, of course). This mentality, therefore, creates a blockade, where other information isn't delivered to the public because the mainstream media neglects to address them. As a result, a great portion of the population become oblivious.

Thank God we've got the internet and newspapers - platforms that showcases independent and investigative journalism. Without it, my knowledge of world events would be strictly Western.

Again, this is not fault of Western media only but also media from the Middle East and Eastern Asia. Mainstream media in the West have a great deal of Islamophobia in their reports. Likewise, Middle Eastern and some Asian media has a great deal of anti-West, anti-American, anti-Imperialism tones in their reports, particularly in North Korea, where the state-owned media degrade America and its allies at every opportunity possible.

Back on point, the only reason why certain people think our lives are more important in the first-world is because of the media's shocking ability to create that distortion. When, in reality, the importance of one life over another is immeasurable and impracticable, because perspectives constantly change, most likely depending on your location, your culture and your social obligations (i.e., cultural and social frameworks - what I mentioned earlier).

B-Nard
04-17-2013, 01:31 AM
But the fact is, Iraquis killing Iraquis over religion is no longer very newsworthy.
A new style of terror at a big sporting event is.

On the day of the Sandy Hook massacre, a Chinese man entered a public school, in China, and stabbed 22 people, ranging from elderly women to children. This received little coverage mostly because of the shocking events that transpired at Sandy Hook, similar to the lack of coverage in Iraq due to the Boston Marathon. By your logic, the reason as to why this event was seldom covered (and, if it were, awfully vaguely) is because the event does not constitue a...newsworthy value?

Time Violation
04-17-2013, 01:33 AM
Well, power too - far more people have heard/know what CNN or BBC is, than what's top portal in Iran or Pakistan. Not to mention that even if you're not from the West, your 2nd language is most likely to be English, so again more power to Western media. If you would want to hear all bits and pieces about whatever that happened in (for example) Serbia, you would definitely need to know Serbian language, otherwise you would have to depend on the info either from Western media or from Serbian media available in English, which is usually far less detailed than the native version.

wfrw07
04-17-2013, 02:21 AM
The reason why 9/11 had a bigger impact than the attacks in London and Madrid (and they were huge, they should not be diminshed) is because the 9/11 was on US soil. Let me try to explain what I mean.

The USA had not seen war or such a vicious attack from a foreign entity on US soil. It was a first.

The UK had experienced IRA attacks in recent history. Spain had experienced ETA attacks in recent history.

The fact that 9/11 got more attention had to do, in part, with people being shocked that the USA was no longer a safe haven. Not that some people didn't realise that, the government has taken quite a few measures to increase safety but 9/11 made it real, it brought it home.

People in the UK and in Spain didn't need reminding. The scars of terrorist attacks are still fresh. People were used to a thing or two there.

I don't think I can agree with you. The World Trade Centers were bombed in 1993 in an effort to bring them down, but the bombs weren't big enough. Yet it was big enough to kill 6 and injure 1000. It was certainly unsettling, but it didn't stop people from going back to work there. Furthermore, most people have no idea what date it occurred on.

I think 9/11 got more attention because it killed as many as it did and the visual of watching a structure that large go down, not because of the location (that is not to say it being American didn't increase the coverage a bit, but I believe that happening anywhere would have gotten a massive worldwide reaction).

If someone brought down the Eiffel Tower tomorrow it would probably be remembered better than anything in London and Madrid (even if the death toll wasn't as big) because of the visual of that structure (particularly an iconic one) being decimated.

buddyholly
04-17-2013, 12:04 PM
On the day of the Sandy Hook massacre, a Chinese man entered a public school, in China, and stabbed 22 people, ranging from elderly women to children. This received little coverage mostly because of the shocking events that transpired at Sandy Hook, similar to the lack of coverage in Iraq due to the Boston Marathon. By your logic, the reason as to why this event was seldom covered (and, if it were, awfully vaguely) is because the event does not constitue a...newsworthy value?
That is my logic, exactly.
It may be newsworthy in China, but honestly, what happens in rural China is not of much interest to me. And the New York Times probably does not sell very well in rural China. Sandy Hook was much closer to "home" and therefore of much more interest to me.
It is not the job of the Western media to give every happening in the world the same coverage. If 22 people in a Melbourne school had been stabbed the same day as the attack in China do you really think the Australian newspapers should have given equal coverage to the Chinese event? Of course not. That is not how Australians would rate the importance of the events.
The media, like any other commodity, tries to provide the public what it will buy. And these days you can buy just about anything. And like the remote control for your TV, you can block what you don't want. It is a long way better than state controlled media. Which, in theory, would be the only way to guarantee equal coverage of everything in the world. Except, in practice, it is perfectly obvious that a state controlled media is a lot more biased than a free media.

B-Nard
04-17-2013, 12:35 PM
That is my logic, exactly.
It may be newsworthy in China, but honestly, what happens in rural China is not of much interest to me. And the New York Times probably does not sell very well in rural China. Sandy Hook was much closer to "home" and therefore of much more interest to me.
It is not the job of the Western media to give every happening in the world the same coverage. If 22 people in a Melbourne school had been stabbed the same day as the attack in China do you really think the Australian newspapers should have given equal coverage to the Chinese event? Of course not. That is not how Australians would rate the importance of the events.
The media, like any other commodity, tries to provide the public what it will buy. And these days you can buy just about anything. And like the remote control for your TV, you can block what you don't want. It is a long way better than state controlled media. Which, in theory, would be the only way to guarantee equal coverage of everything in the world. Except, in practice, it is perfectly obvious that a state controlled media is a lot more biased than a free media.

I'm struggling to understand why you are associating the country "China" with the word "rural". China is becoming an increasingly urban and industrialised nation. Besides, your initial post implied that it is the merit behind actions which constitues whether a story is newsworthy or not, not the location. For example, you said (and I quote) the idea of...

Iraquis killing Iraquis over religion is no longer very newsworthy.
A new style of terror at a big sporting event is.

Are you telling me that a Chinese man, entering a public school, stabbing 22 children and elderly women is no longer considered very newsworthy? This can be seen as "a new style of terror" at a public, supposedly safe educational institution, in a Communist country where the possession of firearms and other lethal weapons are extremely inaccessible. So what exactly are you proposing? Is it the merit behind the event that constitues the issue being newsworthy or the geographical location?

As for the rest of your post, you've basically said the media is essentially an example of corporate capitalism, something in which I agree with, so no arguments there.

buddyholly
04-17-2013, 01:10 PM
I'm struggling to understand why you are associating the country "China" with the word "rural". China is becoming an increasingly urban and industrialised nation. Besides, your initial post implied that it is the merit behind actions which constitues whether a story is newsworthy or not, not the location. For example, you said (and I quote) the idea of...



Are you telling me that a Chinese man, entering a public school, stabbing 22 children and elderly women is no longer considered very newsworthy? This can be seen as "a new style of terror" at a public, supposedly safe educational institution, in a Communist country where the possession of firearms and other lethal weapons are extremely inaccessible. So what exactly are you proposing? Is it the merit behind the event that constitues the issue being newsworthy or the geographical location?

As for the rest of your post, you've basically said the media is essentially an example of corporate capitalism, something in which I agree with, so no arguments there.

I do not understand why you are struggling with the concept that the location of a village in Central China could be described as rural China.I did not associate the country China with the word rural. I associated a rural part of China with the word rural.I specifically associated the village where the stabbings took place with "rural". If the stabbings had been in a Hong Kong or Beijing hotel I would definitely not have referred to the location as rural and I might have read more, because I might be there sometime. But a village in the countryside - I think not.
And these kinds of stabbings have become fairly common in China - there is not much new in them. They are typically carried out by mentally disturbed people. I would not class them as a new class of terrorist attack at all.
So I am exactly proposing that a rampage by a mentally disturbed man in rural China is of little interest to me, neither in merit or geographical location. It will not affect my life. A terrorist attack in Boston will.

And again, if you don't like capitalist media, Granma is available online. You can even subscribe. But don't count on extensive news coverage of a rampage by a mentally disturbed man in a Communist country. I am sure the corporate capitalist western media gave that story a lot more coverage than Granma did.

Everko
04-17-2013, 04:16 PM
I don't read American papers or watch American tv because I don't care about American daily events. But since so many movies take place in these famous USA places I am interested when something happens there.

If you are not interested why seek out western media stories?

star
04-17-2013, 04:42 PM
On the day of the Sandy Hook massacre, a Chinese man entered a public school, in China, and stabbed 22 people, ranging from elderly women to children. This received little coverage mostly because of the shocking events that transpired at Sandy Hook, similar to the lack of coverage in Iraq due to the Boston Marathon. By your logic, the reason as to why this event was seldom covered (and, if it were, awfully vaguely) is because the event does not constitue a...newsworthy value?

Seriously? I remember reading about the incident in china that very day. The article described that incident and others that had taken place in china. I remarked on it to myself because I thought how much havoc guns wreaked. It was horrific that so many children were cruelly injured but at least none of them died. If the man had used a gun, there would have been many dead children.

As I said, I don't watch TV news, so maybe I have more time to see and read these stories,

Also, we, thankfully, don't know what the coverage might have been if these children had been killed. And also, also, you and I knew about this incident at the time, so I assume others did as well,

P.S. I wonder if the story a week or so ago about the man who went to a community college in Texas and stabbed students got any coverage in your country. It got little in this country.

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:05 PM
Seriously? I remember reading about the incident in china that very day. The article described that incident and others that had taken place in china. I remarked on it to myself because I thought how much havoc guns wreaked. It was horrific that so many children were cruelly injured but at least none of them died. If the man had used a gun, there would have been many dead children.

As I said, I don't watch TV news, so maybe I have more time to see and read these stories,

Also, we, thankfully, don't know what the coverage might have been if these children had been killed. And also, also, you and I knew about this incident at the time, so I assume others did as well,

P.S. I wonder if the story a week or so ago about the man who went to a community college in Texas and stabbed students got any coverage in your country. It got little in this country.


Ironically,the Chinese media focused more on the incident in USA rather than the one happened in our own country.

TigerTim
04-17-2013, 06:23 PM
western press report more about western issues shocker

of course this is true.

B-Nard
04-17-2013, 10:37 PM
I do not understand why you are struggling with the concept that the location of a village in Central China could be described as rural China.I did not associate the country China with the word rural. I associated a rural part of China with the word rural.I specifically associated the village where the stabbings took place with "rural". If the stabbings had been in a Hong Kong or Beijing hotel I would definitely not have referred to the location as rural and I might have read more, because I might be there sometime. But a village in the countryside - I think not.
And these kinds of stabbings have become fairly common in China - there is not much new in them. They are typically carried out by mentally disturbed people. I would not class them as a new class of terrorist attack at all.
So I am exactly proposing that a rampage by a mentally disturbed man in rural China is of little interest to me, neither in merit or geographical location. It will not affect my life. A terrorist attack in Boston will.

And again, if you don't like capitalist media, Granma is available online. You can even subscribe. But don't count on extensive news coverage of a rampage by a mentally disturbed man in a Communist country. I am sure the corporate capitalist western media gave that story a lot more coverage than Granma did.

You clearly use the word rural much more lightly than me. I'd never define that village with such a term. There is a common guarantee that if Americans were involved in the incident, the media would most likely saturate themselves in sentimentality and hyperbole. But because Americans are involved, it does interest people like you, in spite of the geographical location and merit behind such actions being exactly the same.

And your "Granma" example is laughable in the extreme, and frankly ignorant. I get my news from RT, a non-for-profit-organisation, funded by the Russian government, albeit with no journalistic influence. They cover world events far more objectively, minus all the preachy trite most of the population has grown accustom to, and certainly are not afraid to legitimately critique issues, people and countries that would otherwise be blanket in the mainstream media.

buddyholly
04-17-2013, 11:20 PM
You clearly use the word rural much more lightly than me. I'd never define that village with such a term. There is a common guarantee that if Americans were involved in the incident, the media would most likely saturate themselves in sentimentality and hyperbole. But because Americans are involved, it does interest people like you, in spite of the geographical location and merit behind such actions being exactly the same.

And your "Granma" example is laughable in the extreme, and frankly ignorant. I get my news from RT, a non-for-profit-organisation, funded by the Russian government, albeit with no journalistic influence. They cover world events far more objectively, minus all the preachy trite most of the population has grown accustom to, and certainly are not afraid to legitimately critique issues, people and countries that would otherwise be blanket in the mainstream media.
Village and rural are practically synonymous. I don't get this irritation you have with calling a village in Central China rural.

Haha, I just flipped over to RT. There is some woman going on and on about the western media not providing the proper news. But she has no news of her own to offer. Instead she shows excerpts from CNN, FOX and MSNBC and then tells us what garbage they offer. She is funnier than John Stewart. RT could be my go to comedy station if it is always this funny.

If you really think that the Russian government funds RT and does not influence content, then you are not in the same universe as me. It is Pravda under a new name, that is all. The propaganda machine of Putin.

Right now she is doing a piece on the 9/11 conspiracy. HaHaHaHa. Very up to date.i

Oh, now a nice little bit about that wonderful man, Assad, in Syria.

Now we are hearing that Palestinians are subject to more apartheid than the South Africans were. It took all of 10 minutes for the anti-semitism to come out.

Ah, maybe I won't watch this garbage anymore. It has no news at all, just propaganda.

So she ends her little programme by telling us to tune out western news and listen to her Russian truths. Now I know where you guys get all this anti western media stuff. You just repeat what RT tells you. She has told me about 5 times in 20 minutes to stop watching western news and get the truth at RT. I am starting to worry that I am being brainwashed over the airwaves.

atennisfan
04-17-2013, 11:45 PM
Now we are hearing that Palestinians are subject to more apartheid than the South Africans were. It took all of 10 minutes for the anti-semitism to come out.


Did you realize that arabs are semites?

Or have you been that brainwashed by the media?

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 12:28 AM
Did you realize that arabs are semites?

Or have you been that brainwashed by the media?

No, I just have a very good understanding of the English language. You are talking about Semites. I was talking about "anti-semitism'' a word which means 'hatred of Jews." In this case all the linguistic and ethnic variations involving Semites are irrelevant. Unless, of course, you consider dictionaries to be just more propaganda of the western capitalist media and refuse to read them.

Mr. Oracle
04-18-2013, 12:33 AM
western press report more about western issues shocker

of course this is true.

This self-centerdness is typical towards the end of the decadence life-cycle. The day the audience (market) takes an interest in "darkest" africa, is the day the media will give them exactly that. Celebrity news and reality TV is today's news. This perpetuates the cycle of ignorance. Our masses are truly ignorant. It is scary. No wonder we are easy pickings for the elite.

Despite my dad's insistence (with tantrums and throwing of furniture), I don't think CNN is entirely a fascistic tool of western/corporate imperialism. Maybe not entirely. And there is a plethora of different media one can consume, especially in the internet age. Problem is that people do not care about what happens outside of their immediate communities anymore. They will care once everything is taken from them though, as is happening in the USA right now.

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 12:43 AM
Despite my dad's insistence (with tantrums and throwing of furniture), I don't think CNN is entirely a fascistic tool of western/corporate imperialism. Maybe not entirely. And there is a plethora of different media one can consume. Especially in the internet age. Problem is that people do not care about what happens outside of their immediate communities anymore.

Poor CNN. The left won't watch it because it is too right wing and the right won't watch it because it is too left wing. So they watch FOX and MSNBC, and CNN falls between two stools. In the early days it used to be two anchors at a desk reading the news. It was something new and exciting - a 24 hour news channel! But nobody has the time anymore, they are too busy updating their hugely fascinating facebook pages so that the world can learn what they had for breakfast.

Mr. Oracle
04-18-2013, 01:08 AM
Poor CNN. The left won't watch it because it is too right wing and the right won't watch it because it is too left wing. So they watch FOX and MSNBC, and CNN falls between two stools. In the early days it used to be two anchors at a desk reading the news. It was something new and exciting - a 24 hour news channel! But nobody has the time anymore, they are too busy updating their hugely fascinating facebook pages so that the world can learn what they had for breakfast.

One always runs the risk of sounding like some bitter old geezer stating the current reality, but you summed it up perfectly. I've resisted FB not only for privacy reasons, but also because I want to actively participate in the world through all of my senses with flesh and blood people. I like to leave my cell phone at home as well from time to time, and I never walk around texting (bumping into things). Ever see two teenagers walking down the street while they are both texting someone else? Better to text than have a face to face conversation with the person next to you :facepalm:

Mr. Oracle
04-18-2013, 01:10 AM
Poor CNN. The left won't watch it because it is too right wing and the right won't watch it because it is too left wing. So they watch FOX and MSNBC, and CNN falls between two stools. In the early days it used to be two anchors at a desk reading the news. It was something new and exciting - a 24 hour news channel! But nobody has the time anymore, they are too busy updating their hugely fascinating facebook pages so that the world can learn what they had for breakfast.

Haha

Faux news,

or as Jim Carey calls them "fux" news

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 01:19 AM
Village and rural are practically synonymous. I don't get this irritation you have with calling a village in Central China rural.

Haha, I just flipped over to RT. There is some woman going on and on about the western media not providing the proper news. But she has no news of her own to offer. Instead she shows excerpts from CNN, FOX and MSNBC and then tells us what garbage they offer. She is funnier than John Stewart. RT could be my go to comedy station if it is always this funny.

If you really think that the Russian government funds RT and does not influence content, then you are not in the same universe as me. It is Pravda under a new name, that is all. The propaganda machine of Putin.

Right now she is doing a piece on the 9/11 conspiracy. HaHaHaHa. Very up to date.i

Oh, now a nice little bit about that wonderful man, Assad, in Syria.

Now we are hearing that Palestinians are subject to more apartheid than the South Africans were. It took all of 10 minutes for the anti-semitism to come out.

Ah, maybe I won't watch this garbage anymore. It has no news at all, just propaganda.

So she ends her little programme by telling us to tune out western news and listen to her Russian truths. Now I know where you guys get all this anti western media stuff. You just repeat what RT tells you. She has told me about 5 times in 20 minutes to stop watching western news and get the truth at RT. I am starting to worry that I am being brainwashed over the airwaves.

I don't watch the live broadcasts of RT. I had subscribed to their YouTube channel. They extensively cover world events the mainstream media dare not go towards.They are far from perfect, but they keep a sense of journalistic integrity. And you severely don't understand the term "propaganda" if you label RT's coverage as such. It's also implausibly ignorant to make such a comment after having watched a minimal portion of their coverage. It's like me crossing over to Fox News for the first time, seeing a decent report on my football club and then go out adulating the company for its "objectivity".

And you've further demonstrated more illiteracy in your post. I only discovered RT 3-4 months ago. My standpoint on Western media has been the same for well over three years. What's the point attempting to have a legitimate argument with somebody who mindlessly throws out blanket, empty statements such as "now I know where you get your anti-Western media stuff" or "it has no news at all, just propaganda"? If you actually took time in watching their broadcast, you realise they cover more than one side and they certainly are not "anti-Semitic" and part of Putin's "machine" since most of the world events have no correlation with Russia.

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 01:22 AM
No, I just have a very good understanding of the English language. You are talking about Semites. I was talking about "anti-semitism'' a word which means 'hatred of Jews." In this case all the linguistic and ethnic variations involving Semites are irrelevant. Unless, of course, you consider dictionaries to be just more propaganda of the western capitalist media and refuse to read them.

You've neglected to expand upon the most vital part the anti-Semitism: hatred of Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. If I start discriminating Jewish people for the way their names sound or the way their faces look, it is not anti-Semitic. Commonly misunderstood.

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 01:30 AM
One always runs the risk of sounding like some bitter old geezer stating the current reality, but you summed it up perfectly. I've resisted FB not only for privacy reasons, but also because I want to actively participate in the world through all of my senses with flesh and blood people. I like to leave my cell phone at home as well from time to time, and I never walk around texting (bumping into things). Ever see two teenagers walking down the street while they are both texting someone else? Better to text than have a face to face conversation with the person next to you :facepalm:
I can go one better. I never leave home with my cell phone. I would not even have one except that my rented condo had no land line. So I leave it on the coffee table just like a real phone. Except that real phones don't have batteries that die.
I use email, I do it on my time.
I have to admit that when someone is walking on the sidewalk with their phone in front of their face, I try to bump it out of their hands. And if they are dumb enough to be texting while crossing the street I yell, "caaaar coming."

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 01:44 AM
You've neglected to expand upon the most vital part the anti-Semitism: hatred of Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. If I start discriminating Jewish people for the way their names sound or the way their faces look, it is not anti-Semitic. Commonly misunderstood.
What???
Why would I even want to expand on something like that? What does a Jewish name sound like - Sammy Davis Jr? What does a Jewish face look like - a Nordic blonde? I guess I am just misunderstanding.
I was talking about antisemitism and had no reason to expand on a word that is in every dictionary.

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 01:47 AM
What???
Why would I even want to expand on something like that? What does a Jewish name sound like - Sammy Davis Jr? What does a Jewish face look like - a Nordic blonde? I guess I am just misunderstanding.

You defined anti-Semitism as the hatred of Jews. It's not. It's the hatred of Jews directly related to their Jewish heritage. There's a difference. People toss around the term anti-Semitic all too frequently, even though half the time it's used in an inaccurate context.

Mr. Oracle
04-18-2013, 01:54 AM
You defined anti-Semitism as the hatred of Jews. It's not. It's the hatred of Jews directly related to their Jewish heritage. There's a difference. People toss around the term anti-Semitic all too frequently, even though half the time it's used in an inaccurate context.

Maybe you can elaborate on the "difference?" Sure you're not splitting hairs with semantics here?

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 02:04 AM
Maybe you can elaborate on the "difference?" Sure you're not splitting hairs with semantics here?

If I openly say "I hate Jews" because some of them own huge financial instituions and that they're greedy, it isn't anti-Semitic. It's discriminatory, offensive, vile, and in bad taste, but it isn't anti-Semitic. If I come out and say I hate Jews because they executed Jesus Christ and still claim to be "the Chosen Ones", then that is anti-Semitic, since it directly correlates with their Jewish heritage. Same as saying the Jews don't deserve to be in Israel because it's not their land; countless evidence suggests the Jews did inhabit the State of Israel many thousands of years ago. People have been accused of being anti-Semitic because they made a sour joke about the Holocaust. This isn't true. I am merely sick of the term being tossed around inaccurately on numerous occasions.

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 02:25 AM
You defined anti-Semitism as the hatred of Jews. It's not. It's the hatred of Jews directly related to their Jewish heritage. There's a difference. People toss around the term anti-Semitic all too frequently, even though half the time it's used in an inaccurate context.
I did not define anti-semitism at all. That is what dictionaries do. Maybe you should consult one. It says anti semitism: hatred or prejudice against Jews.
That is twice today you have tried to say that words mean what you want them to mean, not what a dictionary says they mean..

Earlier you said that it was not proper to describe a village in central China as "rural."

You must be Humpty Dumpty.

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 02:40 AM
I did not define anti-semitism at all. That is what dictionaries do. Maybe you should consult one. It says anti semitism: hatred or prejudice against Jews.
That is twice today you have tried to say that words mean what you want them to mean, not what a dictionary says they mean..

You must be Humpty Dumpty.

Having endured through countless research when I once did a paper on anti-Semitism, I can safely say it does mean the hatred of Jews, but reasons only connected to their Jewish heritage. If all that research and my highly scored essay was incorrect, then I concede.

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 02:44 AM
If I openly say "I hate Jews" because some of them own huge financial instituions and that they're greedy, it isn't anti-Semitic. It's discriminatory, offensive, vile, and in bad taste, but it isn't anti-Semitic.
There is even a term for that: economic antisemitism.

atennisfan
04-18-2013, 03:53 AM
No, I just have a very good understanding of the English language. You are talking about Semites. I was talking about "anti-semitism'' a word which means 'hatred of Jews." In this case all the linguistic and ethnic variations involving Semites are irrelevant. Unless, of course, you consider dictionaries to be just more propaganda of the western capitalist media and refuse to read them.

Is "jews" defined as a race or religion?

Mr. Oracle
04-18-2013, 04:13 AM
Is "jews" defined as a race or religion?

Judaism is a religion not confined to the people of the middle east.

As a Semitic tribe, the Jews (or Israelites) are/were known as Hebrews (or as I affectionately call them: He-bros.) "Hebrew" is an ethnic designation.

To confuse things further, today, many interchange Israeli and Jew which I think is sloppy.

Punky
04-18-2013, 06:57 AM
To confuse things further, today, many interchange Israeli and Jew which I think is sloppy.

true, its not the same but its not that bad ;)



its amazing how every topic always find a way to have a jewish talk, i have no idea why, trust me WE ARE NOT that Interesting, we are just 0.227% of the world.

two jewish woman from different race

http://img.mako.co.il/2013/02/28/ODED09_g.jpg
http://www.historyguy.com/moviesandtvhistory/scarlett_johansson_face.jpg

Punky
04-18-2013, 07:34 AM
about the topic, well in here i hear alot of news about the USA and Europe, only in dramatic cases i see news report about asia, AO, south/center america or africa.
of course everyday about the middle east.

theres different shows who tell news about diffrent places same goes for the news in the sites.
from europe i hear mostly about the UK.

AnnaK_4ever
04-18-2013, 09:51 AM
I get my news from RT, a non-for-profit-organisation, funded by the Russian government, albeit with no journalistic influence. They cover world events far more objectively, minus all the preachy trite most of the population has grown accustom to, and certainly are not afraid to legitimately critique issues, people and countries that would otherwise be blanket in the mainstream media.

Jesus Christ on a bicycle... Are you for real???

RT is a cheap, unprofessional, Soviet-style propaganda channel headed by a "journalist" who literally slept her way to her current job, can't put two coherent phrases together, was caught falsifying news on multiple occassions, falls for pranks, and is too dumb to detect irony or sarcasm in tweets she often quotes as her "news source".
Just in January RT falsely accused one of Russia's top opposition bloggers (Rustem Adagamov) of pedophylia. They interviewed Adagamov's ex-wife, a nutso, who claimed that some 15 years ago in Norway Adagamov ***** a girl. Who that girl was, how old she was at the time, exactly when and where it happened, why she (ex-wife) or the girl's parents kept silence for 15 years -- all this she failed to explain. RT went on to "inform" the public an official investigation was launched against Adagamov in Norway which turned out to be a total lie.

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 11:02 AM
Jesus Christ on a bicycle... Are you for real???

RT is a cheap, unprofessional, Soviet-style propaganda channel headed by a "journalist" who literally slept her way to her current job, can't put two coherent phrases together, was caught falsifying news on multiple occassions, falls for pranks, and is too dumb to detect irony or sarcasm in tweets she often quotes as her "news source".
Just in January RT falsely accused one of Russia's top opposition bloggers (Rustem Adagamov) of pedophylia. They interviewed Adagamov's ex-wife, a nutso, who claimed that some 15 years ago in Norway Adagamov ***** a girl. Who that girl was, how old she was at the time, exactly when and where it happened, why she (ex-wife) or the girl's parents kept silence for 15 years -- all this she failed to explain. RT went on to "inform" the public an official investigation was launched against Adagamov in Norway which turned out to be a total lie.

I've heard about this, and yes, it was a sufficient blow and made me slightly question RT's journalistic integrity. There has been a few instances where their reporting has been blinkered (to say the least), but I use RT for world events, not necessarily reports covering Russia's political infrastructure. Since the mainstream media fail to address the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Syrian Civil War and and many other world issues, I use RT as my source. As I evidently made clear earlier on, it's far from perfect, but in terms of accessible news sources, this is far less biased, sensationalised and degradable than most other networks. I am not sure how they cover Russian social news (I've read a few of their political reports), but to say RT is propaganda is ignorant. Again, their political and social reporting in Russia could demonstrate this, but out of all the news sources available to me, RT wins. Each media outlet will have its bias, its "agenda" and its motive - it just so happens RT is more honest and informative than most other junk out there.

If somebody has a more objective and less, according to you all, propagandistic news source, then by all means, enlighten me.

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 11:06 AM
true, its not the same but its not that bad ;)



its amazing how every topic always find a way to have a jewish talk, i have no idea why, trust me WE ARE NOT that Interesting, we are just 0.227% of the world.

two jewish woman from different race

http://img.mako.co.il/2013/02/28/ODED09_g.jpg
http://www.historyguy.com/moviesandtvhistory/scarlett_johansson_face.jpg

You claim you Jews are not that interesting yet you post a picture of the most beautiful, eloquent, downright hottest actress in Hollywood (i.e., Johansson).

Punky
04-18-2013, 12:06 PM
You claim you Jews are not that interesting yet you post a picture of the most beautiful, eloquent, downright hottest actress in Hollywood (i.e., Johansson).

Lol fir real?

Most ppl will say it's Natalie portnan not Johansson ;)

As u like blonde and my point was in the difference of the looks not who is more pretty

Sadly u missed my point

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 12:13 PM
Lol fir real?

Most ppl will say it's Natalie portnan not Johansson ;)

As u like blonde and my point was in the difference of the looks not who is more pretty

Sadly u missed my point

No, I understood your point completely. I just find it funny that your post stated "we Jews are not that interesting" and then you indirectly post a picture of Johansson, who I believe is the most beautiful actress in Hollywood. And Natalie Portman better than Scarlett? Blasphemy.

Punky
04-18-2013, 12:51 PM
No, I understood your point completely. I just find it funny that your post stated "we Jews are not that interesting" and then you indirectly post a picture of Johansson, who I believe is the most beautiful actress in Hollywood. And Natalie Portman better than Scarlett? Blasphemy.

I see u have a thing for miss Johansson but I still thing u missed my point, I took the first thing I saw in google, If the pic of the blonde israeli models wasn't from plucked I will put her, nothing important behind it

About who is more pretty from the two my guess is threre are ppl who won't agree with u but each to his own esp on beauty

The point is, they Don't look from the same race.


About Jewish as not interesting they are 0.2% of the world and I think the interst is our of proportion to their size


I hope u and Johansson will Live happily ever after ;)

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 01:48 PM
Jesus Christ on a bicycle... Are you for real???

RT is a cheap, unprofessional, Soviet-style propaganda channel headed by a "journalist" who literally slept her way to her current job, can't put two coherent phrases together, was caught falsifying news on multiple occassions, falls for pranks, and is too dumb to detect irony or sarcasm in tweets she often quotes as her "news source".
.
I guess if you are looking for evidence of western capitalist corporate corruption under every stone, RT would feed that desire.
And we will hear the same tired story that almost nobody watches it because the western capitalist corporate media already has us brainwashed into not recognizing the truth as RT tells it.

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 01:51 PM
Is "jews" defined as a race or religion?

Still afraid to consult a dictionary?

vucina
04-18-2013, 02:21 PM
Is "jews" defined as a race or religion?

Neither. They are a people, a nation.

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 02:29 PM
If somebody has a more objective and less, according to you all, propagandistic news source, then by all means, enlighten me.
From the time I watched yesterday I was repeatedly told by RT that western corporate news is lies and I should watch RT for the truth. Pure propaganda technique.

You keep talking about who reports the news most truthfully. Don't you realize that a news channel that spends most of its airtime telling you that it's reporting is correct and all western news reporting is lies, is not really there primarily to give you the news?

The RT website has a poll today on who did the Boston bombings. Currently the opinion of 49% of the people who visit that site is that the US government did it. Clearly RT knows its audience.

AnnaK_4ever
04-18-2013, 03:03 PM
I've heard about this, and yes, it was a sufficient blow and made me slightly question RT's journalistic integrity. There has been a few instances where their reporting has been blinkered (to say the least), but I use RT for world events, not necessarily reports covering Russia's political infrastructure. Since the mainstream media fail to address the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Syrian Civil War and and many other world issues, I use RT as my source. As I evidently made clear earlier on, it's far from perfect, but in terms of accessible news sources, this is far less biased, sensationalised and degradable than most other networks. I am not sure how they cover Russian social news (I've read a few of their political reports), but to say RT is propaganda is ignorant. Again, their political and social reporting in Russia could demonstrate this, but out of all the news sources available to me, RT wins. Each media outlet will have its bias, its "agenda" and its motive - it just so happens RT is more honest and informative than most other junk out there.

Mainstream media "fail to address" Middle East conflicts?
Fox News, CNN, BBC, Euronews and other major outlets are not accessible for you?
Well, if that's the case I have to agree -- RT is all you need.

On second thought, you may also like Iranian and North Korean state channels, they are really so not "mainstream".

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 03:51 PM
Mainstream media "fail to address" Midlle East conflicts?
Fox News, CNN, BBC, Euronews and other major outlets are not accessible for you?
Well, if that's the case I have to agree -- RT is all you need.

On second thought, you may also like Iranian and North Korean state channels, they are really so not "mainstream".
I think, knowingly or unknowingly, he means that mainstream media fail to slant news of the Middle East conflict to his liking.
He surely can't mean that it is not reported on.

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 10:39 PM
Mainstream media "fail to address" Middle East conflicts?
Fox News, CNN, BBC, Euronews and other major outlets are not accessible for you?
Well, if that's the case I have to agree -- RT is all you need.

On second thought, you may also like Iranian and North Korean state channels, they are really so not "mainstream".

Come to Australia, watch either the 7, 9 or 10 news (not so much ABC or SBS), and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Very seldom do they cover issues in the Middle East. And when they do, it's because of some Australian involvement, whether it be a troop or a tourist. And did you even read my post? Out of all the accessible news sources available (which includes the ones you stated), I find RT the best in terms of providing world information without being as biased nor as preachy as the other networks. Is there anything wrong with that?

buddyholly
04-18-2013, 10:47 PM
Oh, you are talking about Australian media, not mainstream.

Well I know you said you get your news from YouTube, but I have to say that watching their cable channel they are the definition of preachy and biased.

But anyway, we have established that RT is the broadcast channel of the Russian Government, so people can decide for themselves if it is independent from Putin's control. And given his record, I know what my decision is.

B-Nard
04-18-2013, 10:47 PM
I think, knowingly or unknowingly, he means that mainstream media fail to slant news of the Middle East conflict to his liking.
He surely can't mean that it is not reported on.

To my liking? Elaborate on such an outlandish claim. Your ignorance is beginning to irritate me. If you don't want to have a civil exchange of dialogue, then just stop replying to me. Your accusations are getting bothersome. Having used to watch the mainstream news here in Australia, they very rarely covered Middle Eastern conflicts. This is a fact. RT provides the most objective source out there. If you're not okay with that, then I don't know what to say.

abraxas21
04-19-2013, 04:02 PM
:hug: I remember how I and so many in my country and people around the world hung for days and weeks in breathless concern and suspense when Chileans and Bolivians were trapped deep in a mine and cried tears of joy when they were rescued. Their lives were important to me and to my countrymen,.

I also know that there have been recent mine disasters in this country that you never knew or cared about, Does that make the lives of the Chilean miners more important? No, of course not. It is simply the circumstance that causes the publicity, Just as you or most anybody doesn't know about the two people found dead here in the park or the man thrown in the river. It doesn't make their lives less important.

I think you know this already. But this is an occasion where you can give vent to your feelings and you use it for those purposes. I'm not surprised anymore than I'm surprised to learn that there were expressions of glee and mirth posted on MTF after learning that people had been killed and permanently maimed in the U.S.

all fair points.

Punky
04-19-2013, 05:57 PM
Seriously? I remember reading about the incident in china that very day. The article described that incident and others that had taken place in china. I remarked on it to myself because I thought how much havoc guns wreaked. It was horrific that so many children were cruelly injured but at least none of them died. If the man had used a gun, there would have been many dead children.

As I said, I don't watch TV news, so maybe I have more time to see and read these stories,

Also, we, thankfully, don't know what the coverage might have been if these children had been killed. And also, also, you and I knew about this incident at the time, so I assume others did as well,

P.S. I wonder if the story a week or so ago about the man who went to a community college in Texas and stabbed students got any coverage in your country. It got little in this country.

thst was sooo beautiful i never know them but the news in here show the Rescue live and my country gave all the miners and their wives a free visit full payed by my country to visit all the spacial places.

it was a beautiful moment for everyone to see

AnnaK_4ever
04-23-2013, 09:38 PM
I've heard about this, and yes, it was a sufficient blow and made me slightly question RT's journalistic integrity. There has been a few instances where their reporting has been blinkered (to say the least), but I use RT for world events, not necessarily reports covering Russia's political infrastructure. Since the mainstream media fail to address the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Syrian Civil War and and many other world issues, I use RT as my source. As I evidently made clear earlier on, it's far from perfect, but in terms of accessible news sources, this is far less biased, sensationalised and degradable than most other networks.

The latest example of RT's "professionalism": airing breaking news on the White House "explosions" and citing "exclusive source" (i.e. hacked AP Twitter account) at that.

star
04-23-2013, 09:42 PM
Sorry to be ignorant and too lazy to read back, but what is RT?

AnnaK_4ever
04-23-2013, 10:07 PM
Sorry to be ignorant and too lazy to read back, but what is RT?

Russia Today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

ssin
04-23-2013, 10:08 PM
Sorry to be ignorant and too lazy to read back, but what is RT?

http://rt.com/

it's a pro-Putin Russian TV station in English.

zeleni
04-24-2013, 01:26 PM
http://rt.com/

it's a pro-Putin Russian TV station in English.

you mean like bbc news is pro-cameron?;)

rt is state-funded tv network like bbc news, radio free europe, voice of america, deutsche welle,... of course it is made to support views of its founder country... calling it "pro-putin" is a clear attempt of defamation (as putin is among the most demonised persons alive in western mainstream media).

i think that for english-speaking tv-consumer rt is very valuable as view from different angle because all other news networks are (more or less) leaning on the same side.

ssin
04-24-2013, 01:41 PM
you mean like bbc news is pro-cameron?;)

rt is state-funded tv network like bbc news, radio free europe, voice of america, deutsche welle,... of course it is made to support views of its founder country... calling it "pro-putin" is a clear attempt of defamation (as putin is among the most demonised persons alive in western mainstream media).

i think that for english-speaking tv-consumer rt is very valuable as view from different angle because all other news networks are (more or less) leaning on the same side.

I don't have a slightest thing against RT and its existence is welcome as far as I'm concerned, and I agree that it can be useful as a source of information. Also, all the tv networks that you mention certainly reflect the views of their governments. I don't watch TV at all though.

As for Putin I guess he is ok for Russia at this moment, it takes decades to establish sound democratic institutions as we well know in Serbia. But I don't welcome the fact that such amount of power should be vested in one person only, regardless of how much that person is popular. Russians are lucky that Putin seems to be more or less balanced character, otherwise it would spell disaster for Russia and Russians. The way it is now it's not a disaster, it's just BAD.

Maybe I should have said "RT reflects views of the Russian government", but unfortunately Mr. Putin seems to be bigger than the Russian government these days, and it's not my fault :shrug:

buddyholly
04-24-2013, 01:49 PM
To my liking? Elaborate on such an outlandish claim. Your ignorance is beginning to irritate me. If you don't want to have a civil exchange of dialogue, then just stop replying to me. Your accusations are getting bothersome. Having used to watch the mainstream news here in Australia, they very rarely covered Middle Eastern conflicts. This is a fact. RT provides the most objective source out there. If you're not okay with that, then I don't know what to say.

RT gives a lot of time to the Middle East because it gives them opportunity to rant against the US and Israel. But I would not call it objective by any means. When they lie about stuff you know, then they are probably lying about the Middle East.

For instance, they were trumpeting "Dozens Killed in Texas Blast'', long after everyone else knew that the death toll was 14

Didn't see their reaction to the fake tweet on the White House bombing, but am sure it was fleetingly exciting for their viewers.

ssin
04-24-2013, 02:11 PM
When they lie about stuff you know, then they are probably lying about the Middle East.


CNN and BBC are not that much better unfortunately. Speaking from my own experience, about places and things I can see with my own eyes.

For example, the mainstream Western media ignored for months huge protests against Milosevic in Belgrade in 1996. The protest went each day. Why - because Milosevic was considered at that particular time "the stability factor in the Balkans" by the West.

It was sad, really, and then I lost all respect for CNN, BBC etc. So, during the Kosovo campaign, when I was a soldier btw (but not deployed in Kosovo), it was not a surprise they acted as propaganda machines in purest sense of the word. It is as it is, we can choose to think about it what we want. I chose not to watch TV any more, luckily there's the internet and multiple independent sources that I can refer to.

zeleni
04-24-2013, 02:20 PM
I don't have a slightest thing against RT and its existence is welcome as far as I'm concerned, and I agree that it can be useful as a source of information. Also, all the tv networks that you mention certainly reflect the views of their governments. I don't watch TV at all though.

good for you. tv should be watched restrictively and only with a good cause.
(do you watch tennis only on internet?)

As for Putin I guess he is ok for Russia at this moment, it takes decades to establish sound democratic institutions as we well know in Serbia. But I don't welcome the fact that such amount of power should be vested in one person only, regardless of how much that person is popular. Russians are lucky that Putin seems to be more or less balanced character, otherwise it would spell disaster for Russia and Russians. The way it is now it's not a disaster, it's just BAD.

do you think it is better to rotate random faces with the same political program? i think that is just a way to keep people in delusion about "democracy".

Maybe I should have said "RT reflects views of the Russian government", but unfortunately Mr. Putin seems to be bigger than the Russian government these days, and it's not my fault :shrug:
in contemporary anti-russian narrative, putin is just a personification for russian sovereignity.;)

buddyholly
04-24-2013, 02:31 PM
rt is state-funded tv network like bbc news, radio free europe, voice of america, deutsche welle,... of course it is made to support views of its founder country... calling it "pro-putin" is a clear attempt of defamation (as putin is among the most demonised persons alive in western mainstream media)..
Well, you agree that RT is forced to broadcast what the Russian governments wants it to broadcast.
But the difference is that the government funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is decidedly left wing, while the government itself is Conservative.

ssin
04-24-2013, 02:33 PM
good for you. tv should be watched restrictively and only with a good cause.
(do you watch tennis only on internet?)

yes, just the Internet :)


do you think it is better to rotate random faces with the same political program? i think that is just a way to keep people in delusion about "democracy".

It's not about faces it's about solid institutions, rule of law and separation of powers. It's easy to say but it really takes time to build that and I believe we in Serbia will build all that eventually and "democracy" will become democracy.


in contemporary anti-russian narrative, putin is just a personification for russian sovereignity.;)

Sovereignity is doubtful concept in today's world, but Russia does remain a powerful country and I can't see anything bad about that. I like Russia and Russian culture.

But maybe we should ask Russians here on MTF for their opinions about Putin and other things? Start with AnnaK_4ever he/she seems to be from Russia.

I am very suspicious about powerful populist leaders. One Milosevic is enough for me in my lifetime. Thanks, but no thanks.

zeleni
04-24-2013, 02:43 PM
Well, you agree that RT is forced to broadcast what the Russian governments wants it to broadcast.
But the difference is that the government funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is decidedly left wing, while the government itself is Conservative.
i can believe you it is so when they are reporting about canada's internal affairs. however i am sceptical about your claim when canada's foreign affairs are the issue of reporting.

can you describe (or give examples) what is exactly the difference between "left wing" cbc (acronym?) and "conservative" government?

zeleni
04-24-2013, 03:15 PM
It's not about faces it's about solid institutions, rule of law and separation of powers. It's easy to say but it really takes time to build that and I believe we in Serbia will build all that eventually and "democracy" will become democracy.

"solid institutions", "rule of law", "separation of powers"... give me a break! i not impressed with sweet words. do you seriously think that voters REALLY decide about anything substantial?
democracy (with or without quotation marks) is a deception.

Sovereignity is doubtful concept in today's world, but Russia does remain a powerful country and I can't see anything bad about that. I like Russia and Russian culture.
do you consider integrity a doubtful, outdated concept in your everyday real life?

But maybe we should ask Russians here on MTF for their opinions about Putin and other things? Start with AnnaK_4ever he/she seems to be from Russia.
why would one (anonymous) person's opinion be decisive about my views on putin?

I am very suspicious about powerful populist leaders. One Milosevic is enough for me in my lifetime. Thanks, but no thanks.
i am very suspicious about your tendency do use extensive personifications. smells like pliability for manipulation.

ssin
04-24-2013, 07:40 PM
"solid institutions", "rule of law", "separation of powers"... give me a break! i not impressed with sweet words. do you seriously think that voters REALLY decide about anything substantial?
democracy (with or without quotation marks) is a deception.

:bs:

democracy is a concept which doesn't exist in perfect form, but history teaches us that it's for the best to try to achieve at least some degree of that concept in practice. We have seen the alternatives and they end in personality cults, abuse of power and violence.

You should first look at the local, municipal levels to see how it goes and than tell me that your opinion doesn't count. The bigger the system the harder it is to determine your individual influence and there are more chances for manipulation but it doesn't mean your opinion is irrelevant.


do you consider integrity a doubtful, outdated concept in your everyday real life?


Be more specific and I'll try to answer, since I very much value my personal integrity but I'm not sure what you mean.


why would one (anonymous) person's opinion be decisive about my views on putin?

maybe because some people unlike you have more direct, first-hand experiences about that question? It's never a bad thing to hear other people. Also, people can change their minds dear zeleni. I know I can change mine so I keep some healthy distance all the time when discussing politics.


i am very suspicious about your tendency do use extensive personifications. smells like pliability for manipulation.

I'm not sure I understand your point but I never wanted to proclaim any politician "a great wise leader", "father of the nation" etc, they did it themselves together with their minions.

If there is a personality cult being built around a person and the person apparently doesn't mind it, I'll take it as it is. Thus the descriptions like "Putin's Russia", "Putin's media" etc are in place, but not because I invented that or have some evil agenda.

buddyholly
04-24-2013, 08:35 PM
i can believe you it is so when they are reporting about canada's internal affairs. however i am sceptical about your claim when canada's foreign affairs are the issue of reporting.

can you describe (or give examples) what is exactly the difference between "left wing" cbc (acronym?) and "conservative" government?
Today's newspaper has an article on one of their reporters who has received her fourth warning in 3 years for inaccurately reporting events in Israel and Palestine. She is not fired, just slapped on the wrist.

My post says that CBC is Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is funded by the government.

Unforced Terror
05-04-2013, 01:07 PM
I have to agree with this thread. In Bangladesh, a building collapsed and over 400 people died. Yet it didn't even go on the front page in any newspaper. It did not even get a thread here on MTF, and Boston Bombing got over 5 pages. What, do people think things like that happen in Bangladesh every day, so it's not unusual?

buddyholly
05-04-2013, 07:45 PM
I have to agree with this thread. In Bangladesh, a building collapsed and over 400 people died. Yet it didn't even go on the front page in any newspaper. It did not even get a thread here on MTF, and Boston Bombing got over 5 pages. What, do people think things like that happen in Bangladesh every day, so it's not unusual?

To say it did not get on the front page of any newspaper is just nonsense. Of course it did.

And actually it is not that unusual for Bangladesh. Poorly constructed buildings - overcrowded sweat factories - ignoring safety warnings. It did not get a thread because it has become a familiar story and there is no need to discuss why it happened and who did it. We already know when we see the first report.

Unforced Terror
05-04-2013, 11:26 PM
To say it did not get on the front page of any newspaper is just nonsense. Of course it did.

And actually it is not that unusual for Bangladesh. Poorly constructed buildings - overcrowded sweat factories - ignoring safety warnings. It did not get a thread because it has become a familiar story and there is no need to discuss why it happened and who did it. We already know when we see the first report.

Which newspaper? Canadian newspaper?

It is not usual for 400+ people do die in one accident :o even in Bangladesh

buddyholly
05-05-2013, 05:04 PM
Which newspaper? Canadian newspaper?



You said, "any newspaper" so I don't see that it matters if it was Canadian or not.