Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: TrojanChispas on October 29, 2004, 03:28:19 PM

Title: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 29, 2004, 03:28:19 PM
during the game the channel would cut away to a group of US soldiers in Iraq caling them "Multinational Iraq Force" or something.  Multinational makes it sound like the whole world is contributing to this war...you still think fox is fair and balanced?  seems pretty biased these days
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: foxnewssucks on October 29, 2004, 03:29:22 PM
foxnewssucks, i brought this message months ago
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: TheDecline on October 29, 2004, 03:40:02 PM
You guys are crazy.  They are "fair and balanced."  ::)
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: TheDecline on October 29, 2004, 03:41:37 PM
BTW, I did see Scott Stapp sing "God Bless America."  Bless his heart, he's such a tool. 
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: buster on October 29, 2004, 06:30:47 PM
I have the parental lock on FNC and won't tell Mrs. Buster the code.  ;)


I didn't see this, but I don't watch Faux News. In fact, I have a running battle with someone in my company's break room who always turns it to FN and I turn it back to CNN whenever I go in there, then he/she changes it back. Good times.

However, I did hear about the picture of Bush's speech where they photoshopped a bunch of soldiers into the crowd.
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: buster on October 29, 2004, 07:32:39 PM
Tonight? Nope. This would be one sad anniversary if it were.

Hee, nice going. I hope it's not your wedding anniversary or something.

I have the parental lock on FNC and won't tell Mrs. Buster the code.  ;)


I didn't see this, but I don't watch Faux News. In fact, I have a running battle with someone in my company's break room who always turns it to FN and I turn it back to CNN whenever I go in there, then he/she changes it back. Good times.

However, I did hear about the picture of Bush's speech where they photoshopped a bunch of soldiers into the crowd.
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: buster on October 29, 2004, 11:32:27 PM
Oh, I see. I had no idea why you wrote that, lol.

I was joking (which I think you probably knew anyway so I don't know why I'm still going with this), but were I to actually set the parental code to lock out FNC I would definitely make it something Mrs. Buster doesn't know, like my birthday maybe. Yeah, that just might work. ::sinister smirk::  ;)

No, I meant the code, I hope it's not the date of your anniversary ;)
Tonight? Nope. This would be one sad anniversary if it were.

Hee, nice going. I hope it's not your wedding anniversary or something.

I have the parental lock on FNC and won't tell Mrs. Buster the code.  ;)


I didn't see this, but I don't watch Faux News. In fact, I have a running battle with someone in my company's break room who always turns it to FN and I turn it back to CNN whenever I go in there, then he/she changes it back. Good times.

However, I did hear about the picture of Bush's speech where they photoshopped a bunch of soldiers into the crowd.
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 30, 2004, 12:14:34 AM
during the game the channel would cut away to a group of US soldiers in Iraq caling them "Multinational Iraq Force" or something. Multinational makes it sound like the whole world is contributing to this war...you still think fox is fair and balanced? seems pretty biased these days

the media is a huge problem...and the money making cable "news stations" are all...biased...what's interesting is that it is so obvious and some people can't see it. sad.
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: buster on October 30, 2004, 10:11:49 AM
How 'bout, for a start, we get back to real regulation against corporate media consolidation?


I agree, but what's the solution? Government run news? Would the media really be less biased if it were coming from the government? It's not an easy question.

during the game the channel would cut away to a group of US soldiers in Iraq caling them "Multinational Iraq Force" or something. Multinational makes it sound like the whole world is contributing to this war...you still think fox is fair and balanced? seems pretty biased these days

the media is a huge problem...and the money making cable "news stations" are all...biased...what's interesting is that it is so obvious and some people can't see it. sad.
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: buster on October 30, 2004, 05:36:19 PM
I don't know anything about the mechanics of the BBC; could you give me a quick summary? Thanks amarain.

That would certainly be a good start. I'm actually taking a class that deals with this right now (well I'm studying mass comm, so most of my classes have, really). The BBC model is probably the best out there, but it would be nearly impossible to have that here in the US. But definitely the courts need to stop letting these media corporations hide behind the First Amendment just to dodge antitrust laws.
 
How 'bout, for a start, we get back to real regulation against corporate media consolidation?


I agree, but what's the solution? Government run news? Would the media really be less biased if it were coming from the government? It's not an easy question.

during the game the channel would cut away to a group of US soldiers in Iraq caling them "Multinational Iraq Force" or something. Multinational makes it sound like the whole world is contributing to this war...you still think fox is fair and balanced? seems pretty biased these days

the media is a huge problem...and the money making cable "news stations" are all...biased...what's interesting is that it is so obvious and some people can't see it. sad.
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 31, 2004, 08:38:32 PM
bbc okay.
still a little swayed.




I don't know anything about the mechanics of the BBC; could you give me a quick summary? Thanks amarain.

All righty buster, I cancelled my party plans for tonight just so I could talk BBC with you ;)

The BBC basically began in the postwar era in a time when the ideal for media was to provide a public service. (Actually the BBC was founded long before this, in the 20's, but it basically shut down during WWII and didn't really start up majorly until after the war). There's BBC Radio and BBC TV. BBC TV basically has 5 channels - BBC1, BBC2, and Channel 3 (ITV), 4 and 5. Each channel is set up a different way. BBC is financed by a license fee that TV set owners pay to the government, ITV and Channel 5 are funded by mass advertising, and Channel 4 by minority advertising (this is so they don't compete with each other for the same market revenue). Channel 4 doesn't produce its own programming - it just commissions it. They each provide somewhat different programming as well.

OK, what's important though is the BBC model - it's funded by the government as well as the market. The vast majority of its production is domestic. But the most important thing is that it is basically independent of the government and the staff is allowed a wide degree of freedom. Producers of BBC shows have much more independence than producers in the US or int he rest of Europe. The philosophy is that the BBC sees the public as an audience of citizens to be informed and entertained rather than consumers who need to be provided a product. The BBC is required by law to show due impartiality (I think that's the exact phasing). I think the reason that it actually acts according to its values is that it has developed in this tradition from the beginning, starting with after the war when there was a real feeling of obligation, that this new technology of television should be used for the good of the public, rebuilding our society, etc.

Of course, all of this is changing, and the BBC is facing a lot of budget cuts, so who knows what will happen in the future. But personally, I feel that I get the most impartial, extensive international news from the BBC, so that's what I tend to read online. Actually I did some studies for my classes, doing a content analysis of BBC online news vs. other online news sources (the New York Times, etc), and from a quantitative standpoint, the BBC really is more impartial and less emotional in its coverage.
Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: amarain on October 31, 2004, 09:12:37 PM
yeah, it's not perfect, but in my opinion, it's the most objective, comprehensive news coverage I've come across. But I'd be open to other suggestions if someone knows of a better source.

bbc okay.
still a little swayed.

Title: Re: anyone see the fourth game of the world series?
Post by: buster on November 01, 2004, 06:07:45 AM
Thanks for the info, amarain. I hope you didn't stay in Saturday night waiting for my response.  ;)

I think (not that this is any brilliant insight or anything) independence from both governmental and corporate masters, responsibility and public service are the key components that separate the BBC from the junk we deal with here. Theoretically, of course, these are all standard journalistic ethics, but that's a whole other depressing topic.

Unfortunately (to me) we as a society seem unwilling to consider that things with benefits which are difficult to quantify (i.e. public broadcasting, public transportation, etc.) can nonetheless be worth substantial commitments. Even the minimal investments we make in PBS are constantly under siege. I realize that this leaves out of the equation our storied collective distrust of government, but I think that is secondary in this case. Perhaps, anyway, that distrust in government has been fostered by those who benefit, such as those who have somehow convinced us that we have little say in the appropriate use of our public airwaves.