That just happens to be a CNN show
"Pushing military aganda". You can't find anything on the web to prove this. Only Mr Stewart's CNN show has it?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Anti-CNN website launched
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
That just happens to be a CNN show
"Pushing military aganda". You can't find anything on the web to prove this. Only Mr Stewart's CNN show has it?
d0b33
Honorary Master
That just happens to be a CNN show
"Pushing military aganda". You can't find anything on the web to prove this. Only Mr Stewart's CNN show has it?
It's not a CNN show, its a comedy central show that ironically CNN INTERNATIONAL not US airs.
If you read my earlier post you would know that I don't have a problem with International but the US version.
and what exactly is the difference between the International and the US version?
d0b33
Honorary Master
When they air US shows the Pro war/Support our troops agenda is rampant but the international version/crossover mostly just reports the news and ignore those stories that would be biased.
Examples of this propaganda?
Examples?
Edit: The Daily Show as funny as it is, is not an adequate example.
theratman
Honorary Master
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/cnn-n06.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/cens-o19.shtml
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Classic_CNN_Bias.asp
Anyone that says CNN isnt bias is blind and ignorant and too inlove with america to see the truth.
Hell theres even a website about this:
http://www.cnnexposed.com/
Whats next?you going to tell me that the SABC isnt biased?ha.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/cens-o19.shtml
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Classic_CNN_Bias.asp
Anyone that says CNN isnt bias is blind and ignorant and too inlove with america to see the truth.
Hell theres even a website about this:
http://www.cnnexposed.com/
Whats next?you going to tell me that the SABC isnt biased?ha.
Last edited:
Eh the 'honestreporting' link is proof of an anti U.S slant
As for World Social Website. Well tha name sums it up
theratman
Honorary Master
And the cnn exposed one??....
Why Expose CNN?
Because CNN's news coverage is becoming increasingly biased in favor of government and corporate interests. People who rely on CNN may benefit from learning how any bias may or may not affect CNN news products.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has documented several factors that influence media conglomerates such as AOL Time Warner (CNN's Parent Company). Three major factors described by FAIR are Corporate Ownership, Advertiser Influence, and Official Agendas. The following is FAIR's take on what affects the news we see.
Corporate Ownership
Almost all media that reach a large audience in the United States are owned by for-profit corporations--institutions that by law are obligated to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations. The goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism.
Not only are most major media owned by corporations, these companies are becoming larger and fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This concentration of ownership tends to reduce the diversity of media voices and puts great power in the hands of a few companies. As news outlets fall into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries, conflicts of interest inevitably interfere with newsgathering.
Advertiser Influence
Most of the income of for-profit media outlets comes not from their audiences, but from commercial advertisers who are interested in selling products to that audience. Although people sometimes defend commercial media by arguing that the market gives people what they want, the fact is that the most important transaction in the media marketplace--the only transaction, in the case of broadcast television and radio--does not involve media companies selling content to audiences, but rather media companies selling audiences to sponsors.
This gives corporate sponsors a disproportionate influence over what people get to see or read. Most obviously, they don't want to support media that regularly criticizes their products or discusses corporate wrongdoing. More generally, they would rather support media that puts audiences in a passive, non-critical state of mind-making them easier to sell things to. Advertisers typically find affluent audiences more attractive than poorer ones, and pay a premium for young, white, male consumers-factors that end up skewing the range of content offered to the public.
Official Agendas
Despite the claims that the press has an adversarial relationship with the government, in truth U.S. media generally follow Washington's official line. This is particularly obvious in wartime and in foreign policy coverage, but even with domestic controversies, the spectrum of debate usually falls in the relatively narrow range between the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The owners and managers of dominant media outlets generally share the background, worldview and income bracket of political elites. Top news executives and celebrity reporters frequently socialize with government officials. The most powerful media companies routinely make large contributions to both major political parties, while receiving millions of dollars in return in the form of payments for running political ads.
Why Expose CNN?
Because CNN's news coverage is becoming increasingly biased in favor of government and corporate interests. People who rely on CNN may benefit from learning how any bias may or may not affect CNN news products.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has documented several factors that influence media conglomerates such as AOL Time Warner (CNN's Parent Company). Three major factors described by FAIR are Corporate Ownership, Advertiser Influence, and Official Agendas. The following is FAIR's take on what affects the news we see.
Corporate Ownership
Almost all media that reach a large audience in the United States are owned by for-profit corporations--institutions that by law are obligated to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations. The goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism.
Not only are most major media owned by corporations, these companies are becoming larger and fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This concentration of ownership tends to reduce the diversity of media voices and puts great power in the hands of a few companies. As news outlets fall into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries, conflicts of interest inevitably interfere with newsgathering.
Advertiser Influence
Most of the income of for-profit media outlets comes not from their audiences, but from commercial advertisers who are interested in selling products to that audience. Although people sometimes defend commercial media by arguing that the market gives people what they want, the fact is that the most important transaction in the media marketplace--the only transaction, in the case of broadcast television and radio--does not involve media companies selling content to audiences, but rather media companies selling audiences to sponsors.
This gives corporate sponsors a disproportionate influence over what people get to see or read. Most obviously, they don't want to support media that regularly criticizes their products or discusses corporate wrongdoing. More generally, they would rather support media that puts audiences in a passive, non-critical state of mind-making them easier to sell things to. Advertisers typically find affluent audiences more attractive than poorer ones, and pay a premium for young, white, male consumers-factors that end up skewing the range of content offered to the public.
Official Agendas
Despite the claims that the press has an adversarial relationship with the government, in truth U.S. media generally follow Washington's official line. This is particularly obvious in wartime and in foreign policy coverage, but even with domestic controversies, the spectrum of debate usually falls in the relatively narrow range between the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The owners and managers of dominant media outlets generally share the background, worldview and income bracket of political elites. Top news executives and celebrity reporters frequently socialize with government officials. The most powerful media companies routinely make large contributions to both major political parties, while receiving millions of dollars in return in the form of payments for running political ads.
Last edited:
I had a look at the cnn exposed site (will look at the rest of the links later) and I find it pretty weak. I decided to have a look at the article they consider to have the most slant from CNN.
This is original CNN article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/bush.iraq/index.html
This is there critique of the article:
So their whole beef with the CNN article is that they used a quote from Leiberman? Weak.
This is original CNN article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/bush.iraq/index.html
This is there critique of the article:
So their whole beef with the CNN article is that they used a quote from Leiberman? Weak.
Last edited:
Can you really name many nations/groups that are not responsible for major atrocities? Why single out Americans in particular, and just ignore everyone else's atrocities?
Do you know what the Spanish did in South America? The Japanese did to the Chinese just recently? Heard of the Rape of Nanking? What the Chinese are doing to their own people and in places like Tibet? And did recently too, e.g. heard of the Cultural Revolution? Heard about what the North Koreans are doing? What African leaders like Idi Amin have done, what happened in Rwanda, Darfur, etc.? Do you know what many European countries did in the previous century or two all over the world during their emperialist spread? What Germany did during the two world wars of the previous century? What Pot Pol did? The Belgians? The French? The English? The Aussies to the aboriginals? What Germans did in Namibia? What white SAns did during Apartheid just recently? The Zulus in the Mfecane? What happened/s in Cuba? Phillipines? Tianenmen Square? Kashmir? The Mongolians under Khan? Stalin? Chechnya? Bosnia, Srebrenica etc.? Let's not even get started on the Middle East. I'm just scratching the surface here, this planet is soaked in blood ... but carry on calling me ignorant and brainwashed. (I suppose you'll say all the history books and news sources I've read are full of American lies and that these things all never happened.)
Seriously, why single out America as somehow being the root of all evil in this world? With their "evil" principles of human rights, equality, freedom, democracy? They're rank amateurs in the world of atrocity committers, mere wannabes who have a long way to go. Oooh America is eeeeeviiiill --- puh-lease, open a friggin history book will you.
The main reason we hear about every tiny little thing America does wrong is because of their very media freedoms that many other countries don't have --- I guarantee you much worse sh-t is going on all over this planet everywhere else and you just don't hear about it because guys who try report on it disappear in the middle of the night, and the rest are too sh-t-scared to dare say a word. It's easy to criticise America on forums like this because nobody is coming after you. Criticise the Muslims or the Chinese (for example) and you will be placed on a hit list, end of story. I don't claim the US is perfect, yes they have their share of stuff-ups and atrocities, but get some perspective, America must be the most benign major power ever to emerge on this planet by any measure. If your benchmark is pure idealism then sure, they fail, but then so must everyone else. I would also love to see, and aspire to see, a peaceful major world civilisation based on true human rights and freedom that does everything right, but this is the real world, no such animal ever existed.
Learn Chinese and go read real Chinese newspapers in China if you think CNN is all that biased, I challenge you, and I guarantee your eyes will open at least a little bit. Or look at a picture like this (for example, from 'liberation of Paris' article) and tell me you see evil. Quite frankly if it wasn't for those "evil" Americans actions in the previous century, we'd likely either be speaking German or Japanese or Russian or something else by now (and that's a friendly way of saying you probably wouldn't exist because your parents or grandparents would probably have been slaughtered by now).
Last edited:
Balstrome
Banned
Cheers! Well Said Turtle. I was thing of running two threads here on this forumn, one anti-usa and one anti-muslim, and checking which one got the more support and vice versa. I think I know the results.
Um, CNN is not America. It doesn't represent America. It's not owned, controlled or sanctioned by the US government, nor is it the only allowed news source in the US. It's just a private source exercising press freedom with its own viewpoint - and if that viewpoint is biased, so what? Ignore it then. CNN is only one of literally thousands of independent American media sources amongst which you will find every imaginable viewpoint possible (so many will always be biased in either direction, that's actually a good thing), including, incidentally, rabid anti-American rants like yours - people can publicly declare their hatred of America with no fear of reprisal precisely because of American liberty; this isn't even really possible in places like China. And if you don't like CNN, anyone is free to start competing news sources. China has a state-controlled press, do you really truly believe that is better?
Last edited:
If human rights is what USA stand for, how come they aren't in any of the african countires such as Rwanda and Sudan trying to curb the mass atrocities that are occuring there?
Rank amatuers you say? I dunno about you, but once you drop atomic bombs (Hiroshima) and wipe out entire cities, or drop bombs after bombs and destroy a countiy's infrastructure (Iraq), you kinda surpass the amatuer name tag.
By "benign" you mean the only country to ever use weapons of mass destruction, or as our pals at CNN will tell you WMDs, to wipe out an entire city with one bomb, then you are deluded!
Freedoms you say? When america was throwing around the bulls**t that they are attacking afghanistan because of the taliban, and they want to bring to justice those responsible for the human rights violations that the taliban carried out, did CNN also mention that it was in fact America that trained AND equiped the taliban? That it was america that provided the chemical weapons to the taliban to use? That it was George Bush Snr. that allowed this all to happen? And that america should also pursue George Bush Snr. for his part in those very war crimes that they were accusing the taliban of committing? Incidentally, they were also at the forefront of convicting Russian leaders at the time for war crimes committed in the past, yet no mention of them charging their own country's past war criminals!
Did you by any chance happen to watch Micheal Moore's Farenheit 911? How many Americans do you think watched it? How many of their mainstream cinemas allowed that movie to be showed? Media freedom my ass!
By the hit list, do you mean the axis of evil list? Or would it be the FBI's top 10 most wanted, or maybe interpol's list, or how about that list of playing cards with alleged terroists on them, all spewed out by CNN!!
USA attacked Iraq on the premise of WMD's, their proof was all fabricated and, again, spewed out by CNN in order to target the mass audience of america to garner support to attack iraq, even when the UN said that america must not attack iraq!!
But over in North Korea, they have OPENLY admitted to developping WMD's, nuclear warheads to be more precise, and yet america seems that its fine for them NOT to engage North Korea the way they have (and still are) engaging Iraq! So tel me, how come they aren't attacking North Korea? Its because they dont have a vested interest in taking over that country!! In iraq they have taken total control of all the oil fields in order to monopolise it for themselves!!
PostmanPot
Honorary Master
He who points fingers owns the issue.
How do you point your finger on a internet forum
It's obvious that tinfoil hat is firmly planted on that head of yours
It's obvious that tinfoil hat is firmly planted on that head of yours
Maybe so, but i bet that space blanket is working really well for you!
Still avoiding the questions are we?
theratman
Honorary Master
Yeah they never killed indians,had a BS war with Nicaragua,iraq etc etc.Why arent we picking on china etc,cus they dont impose themselves on the rest of the world as america does.
Well, for example, the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism. It is by no means the worst, and it continues right to the present, so for example...
Last edited: