Say what you want about western media..

I have just watched ~AlJazeera Engish for the past hour and they seem to pick up news stories the MSM just will not cover and are more unbiased than any western source I have seen, even more so than the BBC.

Now the question begs me, is the East really that bad or are we just being brainwashed by the media we see every day?

the "East" isn't a bad place...just don't go to certain places wearing an American flag (lol)...if that's what you're led to believe based on the MSM here in the states then yes...you may be brainwashed

just the media

Fox news = proganda similer to the old "Tass" New agency of the fromer Soviet Union

CNN Much the same

BBC in my opinion is least corrupt.

None of them can be trusted imh, as they are all controlled to a greater or lesser extent by "them".

The BBC is the least biased western news source I know, which imo is why most groups prefer to talk to them before the rest. However I do not believe that the BBC are not biased at all, they certainly are quite a left wing organisation, however at least they report the news without a comercial influence albeit with a government influence.

reply to post by michael1983l


I really like BBC radio. They cater to a somewhat more informed populace.

It would be interesting to know who owns A-J , and who are their greatest shareholders.

I'll look into that, and I might suggest that you do the same and add that info to your thread.

S&F

I'm beginning to wonder if there IS an unbiased news source. Certainly some are more biased than others, and others may only show bias when covering certain topics, but unless one is fairly knowledgeable about the subject how do we really know?

I need a genuine, independent, user friendly, BiaS filter.

I just saw something the other day about a reporter stating that ALL the journalists over there know what's going on; and then they do their reports and toe the Western line. The reporting you see on the MSM is what one might call... ummm... a "polite fiction."

Can you imagine what would happen if *just one* of them broke ranks and attempted to report the TRUTH? LIVE? Somebody would have to pull the plug. That sort of thing is just not done....

reply to post by michael1983l


It's a horrible, horrible place.

From our perspective.

From their perspective we are a horrible horrible place.

The difference is that we use our military to invade, occupy, kill and destroy because they are such horrible people in such a horrible place for their wonderful oil.

All in the hopes of civilizing them!

reply to post by michael1983l


You honestly think the BBC is unbiased?

I'd say I pity you but that'd be condescending. In the UK, you go to Sky News if you want impartial views and news items, not BBC.

Originally posted by curious7
reply to post by michael1983l

 

You honestly think the BBC is unbiased?

I'd say I pity you but that'd be condescending. In the UK, you go to Sky News if you want impartial views and news items, not BBC.

Interestingly I believe Sky is owned by News Corp who own Fox News...

Well I feel like I might be opening a can of worms with this, but it's quite well known that the BBC faces huge pressure from the Israel lobby of the UK if it ever broadcasts anything that could be seen to have an anti Israeli stance

Heres one example

In 2002 journalist John Pilger’s film “Palestine is Still the Issue” was shown on ITV. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, Conservative Friends of Israel and the Israeli Embassy expressed “outrage” and, according to Pilger, demanded a "pro-Israel" film. Pilger states the BBC would not have “dared to incur the wrath of one of the most influential lobbies in this country” by showing the film, citing comments written by Tim Llewellyn, the BBC's longtime Middle East correspondent, that the BBC continues to “duck” the issue. Pilger stated this was "one example of pressure exerted on British journalists from Zionists and the Israeli embassy

So I certainly wouldnt consider them unbiased on that issue at the very least.

wiki link

reply to post by curious7


I'd never rely on Sky for accurate reporting. They have the strongest political bias of any of the news channels in the UK.

That being said, there is no such thing as an unbiased media, even if they try to present unbiased news the chances are the news in many cases comes from a biased source.

Originally posted by michael1983l
The BBC is the least biased western news source I know, which imo is why most groups prefer to talk to them before the rest. However I do not believe that the BBC are not biased at all, they certainly are quite a left wing organisation, however at least they report the news without a comercial influence albeit with a government influence.

Coming from the UK, & putting up with BBC1, 2 & News Channels, I find this comment rather amusing.

Do some research into BBC...& you'll find out they aren't so "squeaky clean"

But on the point of your original post, yes Al Jazeera (my Mauritian friend always had it on when I was around his) & RT (Russia Today) have some unbiased, detailed & concise news clips & interviews.

I even co-incidently managed to watch Al-Jazeera when they had Jesse Ventura on, as a guest! (The kind of person BBC would not touch with a barge-pole).

reply to post by davespanners


Exactly.

I mean, I've heard a lot of "rumours" about the BBC...Our "TV-Licence" for example. Apparently a % of that goes directly to the BBC (which would make sense, since they are the biggest "standard" tv channels out of the others).

reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe


100% of the TV license goes to the BBC, all the other channels get their money through advertising. It's partly supposed to mean that it can remain unbiased by not having to pander to the will of it's advertisers and also so that it can make less "populist" programming like documentaries etc that might only have a niche market.

Whether or not it works like that in practice is debatable

reply to post by davespanners


So we're basically funding shows like 'Eastenders' & 'Cash in the Attic', through TV-licence? When all this time, I thought was necessary for the other channels...When in essence, all the money goes to the BBC...This doesn't make me feel any better, I gotta say.

reply to post by davespanners


Actually Channel 4 get some of the money too.