Media outlets are out for success and that success is ratings and money nowadays. It's becoming quite hard to trust any of them. Quite frankly you can't really blame them most people think of success with money usually ranking number one. Don't get me wrong on that not everyone is this way, but many people are. FOX and Huffingtonpost.com rank high on the sites you should trust that's including the onion with those. Man I felt bad saying that the onion is a great site and shouldn't be put in the same sentence with those two places. It seems that I can't trust anyone. It's whoever I trust the most I can watch, but that's like trusting my life to an 8 pound fishing line when an elephant and I are trying to go up a mountain together. Man none of my lines are coming out great. What do you guys think? Anyone to trust anymore?
Hmm CNN , BBC and EuroNews seem to keep a high standard of professionalism . I do enjoy the ability to get the news as fresh as they can be .
First two came to mind. Last one I have no idea of what it is. I watch the BBC news by mistake especially today it might happen with the top gear series on all day. I enjoy the BBC because it seems like it's outside of America. I wish Iran had the news in English on tv. That would be interesting to see what was happening or even best yet north korea.
Well I've seen that kind of TV and it's buttkissing all day. News are censored , if they're not good they don't exist and the news are more of : another reason to love our leader . It is truly terrifying this is why i will fight those that want to take my freedom by all means necessary . I pity those that are not free .
Fox --- I'm sick of the socialist bias on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and the list goes on...... Conservative.
Fox News is one of the biggest source of bullshit. Never trust the shit they come up with. BBC News is pretty good.
I think you can trust any Mainstream Media outlet including but not limited to, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, CBS, The Huffington Post, DW, etc. At least they have to vet stories before airing them and normally cant get away with presenting pure conjecture, like you see in the rumor mill we call the blogosphere. The problem with MSM is the selection of what stories they present, and how they are presented. Unfortunately, you have to watch several different channels to get a well rounded picture of what is going on in the world, and the opinions of the broadcasters on that news. I personally think CNN plays it closest to the middle, though now and again, especially around election season, they present some pretty horrible opinion journalism as news, and it almost always leans left. Fox most definitely leans right, but they are quite literally the only broadcaster in their market segment. With no competition, no wonder they are so successful.
Yeah they did but they generally tell the truth since they aren't allowed to lie. Back then the evidence suggested that it had to be terrorists but now there is plenty of evidence to suggest it was the American government. They also aren't allowed to show Loose Change - too controversial and would tell the UK that their opinion on the attacks were that the government did it - they just aren't allowed to be bias - everything is neutral on their channels.
Really , they got brain chips preventing them from lying or they just tell the news after everyone knows it so everyone knows they didn't lie ?
No, they aren't allowed to lie since that channel is funded by money people pay from having a TV License, you have to have a TV License if you have a colour TV I think ^^. One other rule they have is that they have to show a wide variety of programmes that will appeal to all audiences. They also are one of the first in the UK to report on breaking news so: BBC aint allowed to lie, they would get owned if they did.
So they're not allowed to tell the truth . But their not allowed to lie . You're contradicting yourself . Have a gift .
Ahhh, once again you failed to understand my point. They aren't allowed to show loose change because it's bias, they just say what they and most of the world think it was, terrorists from the middle east. If you buy sweets and someone asks you if you have sweets and you say "maybe", does that mean you're lying or does it mean that you're just not telling the truth? It's not contradiction on my part, it's a failed government policy, take it up with the prime minister PL0X. Also, instead of reposting that image, I'm going to suggest that you take another look at it. ^^
What point ? You're saying that Bush did 9/11 and that BBC won't show your truth . Therefore according to you their lying . Or maybe terrorist did 9/11 ? Neee that's a crazy though , terrorist are such nice and cuddly creatures .
I think Geek is referring to the fact the LEGALLY in most places a television network cannot present a non truth as fact, nor can they present a theory as truth. (That's why they must say "alleged" before a person is convicted.) He's saying that because it's accepted that terrorists were responsible for 9/11 (and I for one believe that this is the case) that they can't very well say "the American government did it" - especially as there is zero actual, real proof.
I also refuse to continue this argument with someone who is capable of understanding my point but refuses to. Guys on 4Chan are like this - maybe you should check that website out?
I know what geek was saying but to me any argument he makes about truth is invalid . I can't trust the words of a someone that says Bush did 9/11 . It is beyond stupid to say something like that .