Answering the Critics Part 3
The last comment that I'll address comes from "Paul Mc", who also declined to leave any contact information. He writes:
George... Galloway? If you can "whip someone's ass" by ranting and raving, while completely failing to address the actual claims or evidence against you, I wish someone would teach me the technique; it would be terribly useful at dinner parties.
How is the American media cowed by politicians? Dan Rather made a complete ass of himself by rushing to report an unsubstantiated story that was easily proven false within hours of its airing. Newsweek is being lambasted in every major press agency in the world for completely failing to confirm a report that was essentially rushed to print in an effort to discredit the Bush administration. These are examples of the market, and the international community, holding the media accountable for their screw-ups. One of the great failings of many of the international news agencies is that they completely fail to both A) objectively report any issue and B) completely fail to commit. The BBC will report any innuendo that serves to forward their own agenda, and use words like "alleged" or "rumored". Explain to me how that's responsible journalism?
I'll agree with you that American media outlets tend to report primarily American news. I'm not terribly happy about it, and that's why I seek news from multiple sources. A look at my news links on the right side of the page will reveal that I seek my news from four major sources, two of them international ones. Every day I do my best to see what's going on in every corner of the world. You also have to keep in mind that reporting an event that happened in Idaho, followed by an event that happened in Florida, is about like reporting an event that happened in Scotland and following it with an event that happened in Sicily. The States represent a major geographical portion of the world, and although we're all united under a federal government, that doesn't change the fact that American news outlets report news from a wide swath of the earth, even when they're only reporting internal news.
It's also worth noting that the news agencies, all of which exist in this country for the sole purpose of making money, report what people want to see. That's what competition and capitalism bring you. It doesn't always get us what we want; I've already said that I wish American outlets gave a better effort at reporting world news. The BBC can report whatever they want, because they're entirely funded by the government through licensing fees on television sets and radios. A person in the United Kingdom can go their entire life without watching or listening to the BBC, and as long as they pay their taxes and licensing fees (which are required by law), they're still paying for the BBC. How is this reflected? It's reflected in the fact that the ratings of the BBC are continually declining. How do I know this? I happen to have a friend who's a managing editor for a BBC division in Scotland. If BBC News reported only what the average Britons wanted to see, they wouldn't be losing market share. Hate the American media all you want, but they happen to be self-sufficient. That is, of course, excepting NPR and PBS and such, which are largely ignored by the majority of the population.
As for the attempted cheap shot at American coverage with respect to the tsunami, you're absolutely, positively, entirely wrong. American news outlets covered the tsunami for weeks, and it was top news for at least most of that time. I still see a story about the fallout from the tsunami every couple of days. Just this week I saw a report on Fox News Live about how Aceh Province in Indonesia is still waiting to start rebuilding due to disagreements between the government, the various rebel groups, and various municipal agencies regarding how the funding will be distributed.
Summing up the media aspect, you make a couple of good points, and I agree with a couple of your statements in theory, but on the whole I think you would do well to reconsider your position.
With respect to the libel case that Mr. Galloway has apparently already won, I'd love it if you'd give me a link. You'll also excuse my skepticism at a member of parliament winning a lawsuit. I also don't know what the news agencies said. All of this is, of course, moot: winning a lawsuit does not demonstrate innocence, it merely means that enough evidence was presented to demonstrate to a magistrate (or a jury, if we're lucky, but the British legal system is a tad archaic) that there was impropriety on the part of journalists.
I'd also love to see a link regarding this claim that more than fifty percent of the corruption in Iraq (or elsewhere?) came from American companies. I would also answer that claim by noting that there have been several American companies indicted in the Oil-For-Food scandal, and these companies are being appropriately prosecuted. If you think that the Senate is going after George Galloway while letting American offenders get off scott free, you're very much mistaken.
And, for what it's worth, you're right, some Americans give politicians far too much credit. I'm not one of them, and neither are most of the people I associate with. Most of the Americans I know would tend to consider government to be a necessary evil. I've met my Congressional representative twice, and suffered through two campaigns as one of his constituents. I thought he was a jackass both times, and if I saw him being abducted by aliens, I'd likely point and laugh, and try to get it on film.
For what it's worth, I do hope that you can provide some references to back up the claims you've made. I've got my opinions, but I pride myself on being open-minded and reasonable, and you seem reasonable, if a bit disgruntled.
I don't like the guy but let's face it, George whipped their asses. You Yanks now have too much respect for politicians. The Senate are not God.... your media are cowed by politicians. On my evidence on my travels to your beautiful country (no sarcasm in it, I love the US). But your 'news' is a joke... Mostly along the lines of "Headlines: a house fell down in Idaho. Other items: 250000 died in a tsunami in a Muslim country".
Try researching the background before you blog. George has already won libel case against various news organisations because of dubious written material unearthed in Baghdad just after the regime change.
More 50% of money made by companies getting round UN sanctions was made by US companies.
George... Galloway? If you can "whip someone's ass" by ranting and raving, while completely failing to address the actual claims or evidence against you, I wish someone would teach me the technique; it would be terribly useful at dinner parties.
How is the American media cowed by politicians? Dan Rather made a complete ass of himself by rushing to report an unsubstantiated story that was easily proven false within hours of its airing. Newsweek is being lambasted in every major press agency in the world for completely failing to confirm a report that was essentially rushed to print in an effort to discredit the Bush administration. These are examples of the market, and the international community, holding the media accountable for their screw-ups. One of the great failings of many of the international news agencies is that they completely fail to both A) objectively report any issue and B) completely fail to commit. The BBC will report any innuendo that serves to forward their own agenda, and use words like "alleged" or "rumored". Explain to me how that's responsible journalism?
I'll agree with you that American media outlets tend to report primarily American news. I'm not terribly happy about it, and that's why I seek news from multiple sources. A look at my news links on the right side of the page will reveal that I seek my news from four major sources, two of them international ones. Every day I do my best to see what's going on in every corner of the world. You also have to keep in mind that reporting an event that happened in Idaho, followed by an event that happened in Florida, is about like reporting an event that happened in Scotland and following it with an event that happened in Sicily. The States represent a major geographical portion of the world, and although we're all united under a federal government, that doesn't change the fact that American news outlets report news from a wide swath of the earth, even when they're only reporting internal news.
It's also worth noting that the news agencies, all of which exist in this country for the sole purpose of making money, report what people want to see. That's what competition and capitalism bring you. It doesn't always get us what we want; I've already said that I wish American outlets gave a better effort at reporting world news. The BBC can report whatever they want, because they're entirely funded by the government through licensing fees on television sets and radios. A person in the United Kingdom can go their entire life without watching or listening to the BBC, and as long as they pay their taxes and licensing fees (which are required by law), they're still paying for the BBC. How is this reflected? It's reflected in the fact that the ratings of the BBC are continually declining. How do I know this? I happen to have a friend who's a managing editor for a BBC division in Scotland. If BBC News reported only what the average Britons wanted to see, they wouldn't be losing market share. Hate the American media all you want, but they happen to be self-sufficient. That is, of course, excepting NPR and PBS and such, which are largely ignored by the majority of the population.
As for the attempted cheap shot at American coverage with respect to the tsunami, you're absolutely, positively, entirely wrong. American news outlets covered the tsunami for weeks, and it was top news for at least most of that time. I still see a story about the fallout from the tsunami every couple of days. Just this week I saw a report on Fox News Live about how Aceh Province in Indonesia is still waiting to start rebuilding due to disagreements between the government, the various rebel groups, and various municipal agencies regarding how the funding will be distributed.
Summing up the media aspect, you make a couple of good points, and I agree with a couple of your statements in theory, but on the whole I think you would do well to reconsider your position.
With respect to the libel case that Mr. Galloway has apparently already won, I'd love it if you'd give me a link. You'll also excuse my skepticism at a member of parliament winning a lawsuit. I also don't know what the news agencies said. All of this is, of course, moot: winning a lawsuit does not demonstrate innocence, it merely means that enough evidence was presented to demonstrate to a magistrate (or a jury, if we're lucky, but the British legal system is a tad archaic) that there was impropriety on the part of journalists.
I'd also love to see a link regarding this claim that more than fifty percent of the corruption in Iraq (or elsewhere?) came from American companies. I would also answer that claim by noting that there have been several American companies indicted in the Oil-For-Food scandal, and these companies are being appropriately prosecuted. If you think that the Senate is going after George Galloway while letting American offenders get off scott free, you're very much mistaken.
And, for what it's worth, you're right, some Americans give politicians far too much credit. I'm not one of them, and neither are most of the people I associate with. Most of the Americans I know would tend to consider government to be a necessary evil. I've met my Congressional representative twice, and suffered through two campaigns as one of his constituents. I thought he was a jackass both times, and if I saw him being abducted by aliens, I'd likely point and laugh, and try to get it on film.
For what it's worth, I do hope that you can provide some references to back up the claims you've made. I've got my opinions, but I pride myself on being open-minded and reasonable, and you seem reasonable, if a bit disgruntled.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home