CNN Just Lost All of Its Credibility

[Arrian]

What's your gripe with NPR, Lincoln? I certainly don't consider it gospel, but I think it's decent. Still, I tend to rely on the internet for my news: AP/Reuters, various newpapers for editorials and such.

-Arrian

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Arrian
Left, Right and Center kinda depend on your perspective, wouldn't you agree, Fez? And I think Boris is merely pointing out that Europe's political center of gravity is well left of the US's. This does not apply to you, clealry.

-Arrian

Well I point out this is the party I support: http://www.pp.es and that is where I get some of my political news, not to mention ideas.

[markusf]

Originally posted by paiktis22
even a company which is not listed has value and actually that value can be determined without the need of stock listing. (as in a takeover of said company).

OPEC controls production only to a point yes.

russia has come to the game lately and its impatc is not yet fullfleged.
(and there are shortcomings there too)
OPEC retains a crucial role.

and actually it is this power of OPEC that tha arabs are using as a "weapon" of sorts to serve their interests sometime.

i think you would agree with me when i say that oil production and the control of it can be (and is) a far more potent "weapon" that say 50 mil shares of new ecnomy companies and has a much more solid value.

Media companies are constantly used as weapons. If arabs own all the ram chip companies etc etc etc they can raise prices. Why do you think the USA does everything in its power not to offend china? Or india, japan, germany etc etc etc Yet they walk all over arab and 3rd world countries. Oil is still a weapon for arab countries but it isn't what it used to be, + arab countries oil production would now be replaced by other means given the pollitical will.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by markusf


Media companies are constantly used as weapons. If arabs own all the ram chip companies etc etc etc they can raise prices. Why do you think the USA does everything in its power not to offend china? Or india, japan, germany etc etc etc Yet they walk all over arab and 3rd world countries. Oil is still a weapon for arab countries but it isn't what it used to be, + arab countries oil production would now be replaced by other means given the pollitical will.

media have power only to the areas they reach.

trust me when i say that the average arab does not watch CNN.

now about the US stepping all over arab countries, it is exactly in order to have some influence over oil. that's why OPEC has not full power to control it as i said.
(kuwait intervantion- pure and simple (and a blatant example) for one)

of course the so called "governments" of said arab countries do not love their citizens any more than the west does...



if arabs somehow managed to stop production or shipping of oil to the US and the west, the world would grind to a halt. (ok, it would at least malfunction, national reserves can do only so much)

do you need any more proof of the game which is at stake here?

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW after 11sept there was a big debate about using alternative forms of energy (and or other places for oil)
exactly so that the US can detach itself from the middle east.


arabs still use oil as a tool to achieve their interests.

but one can say, that is is their right to do so?

in a world of realpolitiks it is the right of the US to try and influence them too.

and that's exactly the world we're living in

[markusf]

Originally posted by paiktis22


media have power only to the areas they reach.

trust me when i say that the average arab does not watch CNN.

now about the US stepping all over arab countries, it is exactly in order to have some influence over oil. that's why OPEC has not full power to control it as i said.
(kuwait intervantion- pure and simple (and a blatant example) for one)

of course the so called "governments" of said arab countries do not love their citizens any more than the west does...

if arabs somehow managed to stop production or shipping of oil to the US and the west, the world would grind to a halt. (ok, it would at least malfunction, national reserves can do only so much)

do you need any more proof of the game which is at stake here?

The average arab doesn't matter one way or another. When your using the media, oil etc as a weapon your trying to influence the public of the USA to get them to change the governments policy.

Yes i agree the USA is expressing its military power to control the price of oil. The usa is still playing the same "Great Game" that was played by the great powers for the last few centeries..

Unfortunately in the long run arabs and asians will rule the world, they have found a far more effective way of winning. Simplely export your population around the world.. Just look at the change in USA's demographics in the last 30 years and look to see what its expected to become in another 30. Spanish will probably become the official langauge in 50 years

[Bereta_Eder]

yes but it is the average arab who will have to stay docile while his "government" does "business" with the US

BTW Not spanish DAMMIT

i just learned (some) english i dont want to change - can we please stick to one international language FFS!
(like... greek...like before )

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Arrian
What's your gripe with NPR, Lincoln? I certainly don't consider it gospel, but I think it's decent. Still, I tend to rely on the internet for my news: AP/Reuters, various newpapers for editorials and such.

-Arrian

Actually I think they are getting better than they were. They got quite a bit of heat for their left leaning bias so I think they were forced to be more objective. There are a couple of websites that expose bias in the news (both left and right) but I haven't bothered to check with them lately. Bias is often manifested in subtle ways and by clever omissions of facts that may be embarrassing to whoever is editing the news. The only way to be sure of bias is to make a list of stories and compare them to the raw wires and then you can see cearly a pattern in both the left and the right.

[markusf]

Originally posted by paiktis22
BTW after 11sept there was a big debate about using alternative forms of energy (and or other places for oil)
exactly so that the US can detach itself from the middle east.


arabs still use oil as a tool to achieve their interests.

but one can say, that is is their right to do so?

in a world of realpolitiks it is the right of the US to try and influence them too.

and that's exactly the world we're living in

Bush is in bed with the oil companies so even though the internal combustion engine has been obsolute for 50 years it won't be replaced any time soon. The ballard fuel cells etc could easilly be used to replace the internal combustion engine The problem is the economy relies so heavilly on oil it would result in massive layoffs. These workers then have no useful skills and need to be trained etc etc etc. Think of driving your new car and all it uses is water... You'd never buy gas, oil, etc again

[markusf]

Originally posted by paiktis22
yes but it is the average arab who will have to stay docile while his "government" does "business" with the US

BTW Not spanish DAMMIT

i just learned (some) english i dont want to change - can we please stick to one international language FFS!
(like... greek...like before )

The average citizen of any 3rd or second world country really has nothing to say about what his country does. Perhaps some others can comment, but i would think that some of the southern states in the US already have a population where the majority speak spanish.

[Bereta_Eder]

has nothing to say about what his "government" does exactly because it's not his or not a "governmen".

he can do other things though. like blow himself up if saturated with extreme ideology mantras.

[Giancarlo]

So I am not allowed to post that link?

The average citizen of any 3rd or second world country really has nothing to say about what his country does. Perhaps some others can comment, but i would think that some of the southern states in the US already have a population where the majority speak spanish.

Spain is not 3rd or 2nd world anymore.

[Faboba]

You're still getting paid loads from the EU just for... well.... from the looks of it for being Spanish which I must admit the Spanish are good at. Probably the best Spaniards in the world can be found in Spain.

[Giancarlo]

Our economy is productive and whatever we get paid we make good use of. And plus we are building some major water projects to irrigiate water from the North to the South.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
CNN has credibility?

I don't trust any American media company. They're all part of the evil conservative conspiracy Besides, the BBC is so much better.

Better for Whom?

You?..Because you are perhaps a foreigner to America..perhaps..but CNN is reallly no different than any other news organization out there in cyberspace..it produces what it wants,when it wants and on whom it wants! Shame, but we only know what we hear about and see about, in fact,unless you are there, know one knows what went on, and if you were there, and reported it as such, you would only be reporting on what you saw or heard....much like 10 people at an accident scene..depending upon where you stand..what you were preoccupied with orwhom was beside you to "influence" your decision would help "form" an opinion...doesnt mean you lied or misrepresented anything..just your"opinion" in what you percieved went on. If you feel a certain people group is being taken advantage of, then you would look for a slant toward their cause, its human nature, not British nature, not American nature..but HUMAN NATURE..gets me how folks pick on America and what we have to offer, but when War Ravaging comes, its "HELP! HELP! HELP!" or in times of economic assistance outcries..its America that people want, with our wallets open, but any other time, "America' is some evil conspiracy??

~sigh~

Thats my $0.02 on your "views"..mine are mine yours are yours...kinda like you support the BBC..and I dont support of slander them, they are simply humans reporting on their observations!

Troll

[TCO]

Gatekeeper, et al.

I would think journalists would expect very little from TV news. A lot of times they just use the wire services and the papers to decide what to cover anyway. It's all about what the face looks like on the set.

Galis, et al.:

NPR is a joke. It is very left-leaning. It is also quite pseudo-intellectual (trys to act like it is really insgightful while being lightweight in reality.) And has an annoying throaty style of speech.

If you want some good journalism read The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. 2 are liberal, 1 is conservative, but all are both more honest and more diligent than puffy stuff like NPR or CNN or Fox. You will get a good balance as well as getting good work/reporting. Added benefit of reading the news is that you can cover much more info more quickly and that you can tailor what you read or how deep you go into a subject.

(This of course implies that you read rather than watch or listen. And that you are a critical thinker not a knee-jerk passive little neoliberal yellowjacket.)

[TCO]

Originally posted by paiktis22


This is the paramount principle of journalism, yes.

But isn't Turner out of the loop now?
Meaning that he doesn't hold any position in there any more?

After the merger of Time Warner with AOL didn't he quit from his post?

Not sure, just asking.

Was waiting for someone to not this...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Paiktis:

True, but as a journalist I've been told in no uncertain terms to never let my *personal* feelings on an issue affect my quality of work. That same principle should hold true for the "kings" and "queens" of journalism as well, not just for us "groundpounders."

Gatekeeper

You really believe that? All news media are biased in some fashion. There's none that is perfectly objective, and I don't think it is possible.

You can put a spin by the arrangement of information, what goes into the headline, etc.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GP
(This of course implies that you read rather than watch or listen. And that you are a critical thinker not a knee-jerk passive little neoliberal yellowjacket.)

Or a knee-jerk, aggressive little uberconservative dittohead (FOX's constituency).

[TCO]

Read my whole friggen comment, yankee! Try to remember that I am making a point about print versus broadcast...and that my big gripe with NPR is NOT it's bias but it's faux sophistication.

[Boris Godunov]

You were talking about achieving balance and critical thought, and then seemed to imply it was only folks on the left who needed this. I was just asserting that the right does as well, johnny reb.

[TCO]

Oh pull the d*k out of your ear. Reread my post. I slammed Fox and then recommended two lib papers.

If you read the whole anti-lib comment...you will not the word yellowjacket. That shows that comment was designed for Galis in particular...the friggen Varsity-burger eating GT bow-ay!

[Felch]

Originally posted by paiktis22
if arabs somehow managed to stop production or shipping of oil to the US and the west, the world would grind to a halt. (ok, it would at least malfunction, national reserves can do only so much)

Two things - One, the US is the second largest producer of oil in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. The third largest is Russia, IIRC, and there is no great love for Muslims in Russia today.

Second, the effect on the non-Arab economies would be relatively mild compared to what would happen to the oil-producing states. I'm not saying that we would come out unscathed, but oil is essentially the only source of income for many of these countries. If they stopped selling it, they would rapidly descend into deep poverty. Without cash flowing in from oil sales, they wouldn't have the money to buy new military equipment, maintain their infrastructures, pay salaries, have investment capital, or in some cases even afford food. The US is constantly accused of committing a terrible crime because of the sanctions regime (One which was put in place by the UN, not the US by the way) on Iraq. Iraq however is selling small amounts of oil. If all Arab countries stopped selling oil, they would be bringing about an humanitarian catastrophe on themselves.

[TCO]

He's a liberal jacket too...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Felch X


Two things - One, the US is the second largest producer of oil in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. The third largest is Russia, IIRC, and there is no great love for Muslims in Russia today.

Second, the effect on the non-Arab economies would be relatively mild compared to what would happen to the oil-producing states. I'm not saying that we would come out unscathed, but oil is essentially the only source of income for many of these countries. If they stopped selling it, they would rapidly descend into deep poverty. Without cash flowing in from oil sales, they wouldn't have the money to buy new military equipment, maintain their infrastructures, pay salaries, have investment capital, or in some cases even afford food. The US is constantly accused of committing a terrible crime because of the sanctions regime (One which was put in place by the UN, not the US by the way) on Iraq. Iraq however is selling small amounts of oil. If all Arab countries stopped selling oil, they would be bringing about an humanitarian catastrophe on themselves.

crack the cartel...

[markusf]

Uhm here are the real stats from 2 years ago. Right now russia is about to become the biggest oil producer in the world.

[TCO]

USA!!!

[markusf]

uhm GP, that is net importer Others are all net exporters.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by GP
Gatekeeper, et al.

I would think journalists would expect very little from TV news. A lot of times they just use the wire services and the papers to decide what to cover anyway. It's all about what the face looks like on the set.

The wire services — such as The Associated Press, Knight Ridder Tribune, Reuters and so on — are, indeed, the raw source of news for a good number of media organizations that come to trough, so to speak.

Also, the larger the media company, the more likely they are to send over their own crews/reporters to a "happening" news story (ex. The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune and so on). But all media companies do rely on the wire services from one degree to another.

Technically, we're all journalists no matter the medium we use to convey what we cover: TV, radio, print and Internet. There is, however, a healthy rivalry among the mediums and I happen to have much faith in the print and Internet mediums. That's 'cause I work for a newspaper.

The nice thing about the wire services is that you often have only the reporter and an editor between you and what's going on. Two people, most of the time. From there the wire reports are picked up by other news organizations and made to fit whatever format it's going to appear in. I happen to think that the print and Internet mediums allow for the most in-depth coverage of issues at hand while television and radio allows you to get snatches of news, which is good for "breaking news," but aggravating in other circumstances.

Gatekeeper

[markusf]

What do you think of this newspaper?

http://www.independent.co.uk/