Slashdot == Sucks
<div class="IPBDescription">The very definition of bias...</div> First they post this story about Fox News supposedly suing Fox for showing some Simpsons episode that made fun of Fox News.
<a href='http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/31/1453248.shtml?tid=129&tid=133&tid=186&tid=188' target='_blank'>http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/31/1453...tid=186&tid=188</a>
The same day, I see this story on Fark showing that indeed Matt Groening was joking about the whole thing.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44898-2003Oct30.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Oct30.html</a>
Of course reading the comments, theres pages upon pages of why Fox is merely a bunch of evil biased republicans trying to brainwash the public. Seems like they ignore the fact that CNN is just as biased as Fox news, just for democrats (and if you don't think CNN is biased, well, do your homework on it). Oh yes, don't expect Slashdot to update the article with this new info, godforbid.
The irony of all this, is that who cares if Fox is biased. CNN is too. Is it really so awful to have 2 networks with different views? Sounds like democrats are just mad they don't have the only major news network in their pocket anymore... hypocricy at its best ladies and gentlemen...
<a href='http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/31/1453248.shtml?tid=129&tid=133&tid=186&tid=188' target='_blank'>http://slashdot.org/articles/03/10/31/1453...tid=186&tid=188</a>
The same day, I see this story on Fark showing that indeed Matt Groening was joking about the whole thing.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44898-2003Oct30.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Oct30.html</a>
Of course reading the comments, theres pages upon pages of why Fox is merely a bunch of evil biased republicans trying to brainwash the public. Seems like they ignore the fact that CNN is just as biased as Fox news, just for democrats (and if you don't think CNN is biased, well, do your homework on it). Oh yes, don't expect Slashdot to update the article with this new info, godforbid.
The irony of all this, is that who cares if Fox is biased. CNN is too. Is it really so awful to have 2 networks with different views? Sounds like democrats are just mad they don't have the only major news network in their pocket anymore... hypocricy at its best ladies and gentlemen...
Comments
"Slashdot", as you are referring to it, is nothing more than a whole bunch of geeks expressing their opinions. Any bias you're referring to isn't the bias of some single entity, so your point is moot. They post stories they think are interesting, and any moron can comment on them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We Europeans see CNN as the official US propaganda channel.
And now you're telling us that CNN is liberal?
"Slashdot", as you are referring to it, is nothing more than a whole bunch of geeks expressing their opinions. Any bias you're referring to isn't the bias of some single entity, so your point is moot. They post stories they think are interesting, and any moron can comment on them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bias wasnt with the comments, but with the new post itself. The Slashdot mods like to top stuff off with their own little comments, which is just fine and dandy, except no one cares about their comments. And flat out trying to say something that isnt true is... well... lying. Do you like to be lied to? Me neither.
"Slashdot", as you are referring to it, is nothing more than a whole bunch of geeks expressing their opinions. Any bias you're referring to isn't the bias of some single entity, so your point is moot. They post stories they think are interesting, and any moron can comment on them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bias wasnt with the comments, but with the new post itself. The Slashdot mods like to top stuff off with their own little comments, which is just fine and dandy, except no one cares about their comments. And flat out trying to say something that isnt true is... well... lying. Do you like to be lied to? Me neither. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, it's got nothing to do with lies. There's no conspiracy, and Slashdot aren't giving one side of a story. 1: The articles <i>themselves</i> are just some crap someone's written and sent in. If you believe there's some inaccuracy, <i>tell them</i>. They'll update it.
The posts originate from people sending them in, not from the organization itself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>ZeDanimal writes</b> "The Simpsons' pooh-bah Matt Groening said in an NPR interview this week that the Fox News Channel considered legal action against the show for its parody of the station's news ticker. Broadcast, of course, by Fox Entertainment, the episode that raised the ire of the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News crew was Krusty For Congress, which mocked the perceived rightward-leanings of the channel with pseudo-news items such as "Do Democrats cause cancer?" and "Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple" scrolling across the bottom of the screen. Guess the powers-that-be learned something from the Al Franken affair... or maybe they just feared getting into a popularity contest with the likes of the inanimate carbon rod."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ZeDanimal is not on Slashdot's staff. That whole piece was written by him; Slashdot didn't scrawl their own comments on it.
2: In this particular case, I don't understand what you're getting at. The article on Yahoo referenced in the Slashdot post and the article you've refered to from Fark are not contradictory. They both said that Groening thought that Fox was going to "sue itself", and one of them said that wasn't the case. So... what exactly is wrong with the article?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We Europeans see CNN as the official US propaganda channel.
And now you're telling us that CNN is liberal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Liberal.
-----
Can we truly be sure FOX News is republican/conservative? CNN avoids some stories. Just because FOX doesn't ignore those makes it conservative? Maybe because we're so used to the opposite, FOX seems to go 180 degrees opposite. I'm not sure... just pondering.
Perhaps Crystalsnake's quote is actually true, and is the entire reason that eerybody hates America but...America - if CNN is regarded as the "American Propoganda" channel, then we Americans are getting a pretty bum rap, eh? Trust me - most of the crap that CNN publishes is as biased as things published by Fox News.
Of course, this leads to an interesting concept (forgive me if I get all Baudrillard on your collective a*ses) - what is the truth? Is it actually possible for a news institution to be completely objective? I would say not. And how about the undue facts perpetuated by these <i>subjective</i> media bastions? Just becuase we don't know the truth of things, is what we hear through the media reality?
In short, none of us exist. The end. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
So to think that the major news sources are primarily liberal makes no sense... after all, we have a conservative president and a generally conservative congress and a slightly conservative Surpreme Court. CNN and every single other liberal media source didn't do a very good job about being liberal propagandists now, did they? And saying that Fox News is primarily conservative is unfair as well. Bill O'Reilly and the rest of those guys are nothing more than opinion pundits who got elevated to high status due to popularity, and those are the individuals we primarily associated with Fox. Yes you can extrapolate biases based upon the nextworks' agendas, but it's far above something like partisanship (even if individuals working for both channels make not think it is, per se).
CNN is a wee bit right (looks liberal from over there)
Slashdot is a gathering of internet nerds, therefore moderately left.
chill out, and turn off the fox news.
"Slashdot", as you are referring to it, is nothing more than a whole bunch of geeks expressing their opinions. Any bias you're referring to isn't the bias of some single entity, so your point is moot. They post stories they think are interesting, <b>and any moron can comment on them.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In fact, they encourage morons to post...
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The British Broadcasting Corporation does not have adverts (at least not in their UK broadcasts, don't know about anywhere else), it gets its money from the TV Licence (compulsory £116(approx.) per year for anyone with a colour TV/can recieve and view colour TV - black and white TVs get a discount).
So the BBC is quite good about just trying to report, rather than reporting for selling advertising space.
Impartiality is a MYTH in reporting - it does not exist. It never has. It probably never will, unless you replace editors, columnists, reporters, and producers with robots; you have human beings running those outlets, and they all have a bias. Stop imagining otherwise people, or I will write another big editorial about how all teens suck and have it appear in all major news outlets under a heading of 'Video Games make kids violent'.
but you make a fair point (in an angry manner)
Impartiality is a MYTH in reporting - it does not exist. It never has. It probably never will, unless you replace editors, columnists, reporters, and producers with robots; you have human beings running those outlets, and they all have a bias. Stop imagining otherwise people, or I will write another big editorial about how all teens suck and have it appear in all major news outlets under a heading of 'Video Games make kids violent'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't say it wasn't.
Brit basher <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Personally I think the BBC is OK considering all three major politcal parties over here complain they don't get shown enough <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Which is why I like the wire services. You also get the added hilarity of bad grammar with them!
but you make a fair point (in an angry manner) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am an angry man. It gets you chicks - they think you're 'dark' and a 'bad boy'.
PS: Robin Lusting from BBCWS is a complete moron that would be better suited to writing Page 3 Girl copy than doing his pseudo-interviews with world leaders where he rudely interrupts them every 5 seconds in order to make some imbecilic observation or ask some tiresome leading question.
Yes... I am very angry. Veeerrrryyyyyyyyyy angry...
but you make a fair point (in an angry manner) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am an angry man. It gets you chicks - they think you're 'dark' and a 'bad boy'.
PS: Robin Lusting from BBCWS is a complete moron that would be better suited to writing Page 3 Girl copy than doing his pseudo-interviews with world leaders where he rudly interrupts them every 5 seconds in order to make some imbecilic observation or ask some tiresome leading question.
Yes... I am very angry. Veeerrrryyyyyyyyyy angry... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok.
<img src='http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/cnnfoxnewssign.jpeg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
I heard it last night on audio-book. it's really good stuff.
"Slashdot", as you are referring to it, is nothing more than a whole bunch of geeks expressing their opinions. Any bias you're referring to isn't the bias of some single entity, so your point is moot. They post stories they think are interesting, <b>and any moron can comment on them.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In fact, they encourage morons to post...
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, put it this way: they don't <b>dis</b>courage them. Slashdot has one of the most well-developed troll communities I've heard of.
...
Of course news isn't impartial. It never has been and it never will be. First thing we learned in high-school English (weeeeel actually it was maybe the ninth or tenth thing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). Even if a news organisation itself aims to be impartial, it will never accurately deliver impartial content; at some point, someone has to make a decision about what content goes in. As soon as anyone makes a decision about the content, it's been altered in some way. Even when presenting both sides of the argument, one side must be presented before the other; even such decisions alter the overall effect. And it's got nothing to do with any supposed conscious intentions to decieve and coerce - it's simply a fact of being human, and it is often unconscious.
Simply put: what you see isn't "news". It's someone's opinion of what news is. Since it is opinion, it is not valid as fact (at least, not by itself).
However, as long as they don't condemn criminals without trial, post false information or overly exagerrate information it'd be fine with me...but they all do it anyway.
Going out and seeing the world and getting your own news is far to unrealistic; only rich people could afford to investigate stories they'd be intrested in. How am I supposed to be updated about wars? Go into a battle and ask a soldier how many buddies he lost today? Survey a town to see how many homes are lost to fires? Interrogate witnesses and suspects myself and draw my own conclusions?
I don't have time for that, there's NS to be played!
If you want a true american news network...go with the weather channel...no bias there! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> (although, its predictions are almost never accurate)
However, as long as they don't condemn criminals without trial, post false information or overly exagerrate information it'd be fine with me...but they all do it anyway.
Going out and seeing the world and getting your own news is far to unrealistic; only rich people could afford to investigate stories they'd be intrested in. How am I supposed to be updated about wars? Go into a battle and ask a soldier how many buddies he lost today? Survey a town to see how many homes are lost to fires? Interrogate witnesses and suspects myself and draw my own conclusions?
I don't have time for that, there's NS to be played!
If you want a true american news network...go with the weather channel...no bias there! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> (although, its predictions are almost never accurate) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude in the early 1900's politicians would start newspapers with the sole purpose of slandering thier opponents. Usualy by making up thier own "facts". Sorry, but in the earlier part of the century all newspapers were tabloids. Its was called Yellow Journalism. Its mostly because of the rediculous sensationalism of that era that newspapers are so sensational and bias today.