10,000 dead?

[vurbano]

@rockaway: You can't say I'm uninformed. Well, I don't have your view. That's right. I have an european view. But I'm informed. So informed as european media give me the information. It isn't my fault if they bring wrong infos in the news. But for this I'm here to make my eyes more open. And THIS is realy democratic!
FOX NEWS isn't a good source for information. IMO it's just a commercial program of/for the republicans.

@CPanther: AFN-TV is only in Heidelberg and Rammstein to see. In Berlin it's off

The problem is, FOX is one of the very few republican leaning news outlets. Most of the others are under control of the democrats. You have to watch both then decide for yourself who is full of crap. There is rarely an unbiased news outlet either way. So you see it is unfair to bash FOX as you are doing.

 

[Michael-Berlin]

The problem is, FOX is one of the very few republican leaning news outlets. Most of the others are under control of the democrats.

LOL

earlier you wrote this:

We have a free press.

As I see, you have no single one real independent (free) news channel. Is that correct?

You have to watch both then decide for yourself who is full of crap.

agreed!
That's the way how I'm watching news here in Germany ... per splitscreen ... on the one side is "N24" (ProSiebenSat1 Media - right side) and on the other side is "n-tv" (RTL Group - left side)

OT: It's after midnight now in Germany and it's my birthday. I'm starting my 24hours party marathon with good frieds now

 

[vurbano]

LOL

earlier you wrote this:


As I see, you have no single one real independent (free) news channel. Is that correct?


agreed!
That's the way how I'm watching news here in Germany ... per splitscreen ... on the one side is "N24" (ProSiebenSat1 Media - right side) and on the other side is "n-tv" (RTL Group - left side)

In america we use the term "free" to mean they are not controlled by the government. And they are not, they are owned by different people with different political associations. If we didnt have a "free" press they would ALL be controlled by whoever is in power and we would never have scandals reported by them. I.e, Whitewater, Monica lewinski, travelgate, filegate, watergate etc. This free press is one of the things that helps protect our constitutional republic.

 

[T2k]

We have a free press. We have articles from both the left and the right side. Once again, You have no clue WTF you are talking about

Hashaha, this is good.
Since when article from the left and article from the right means free press?

I hope you're joking, vurbano. Having only two sides presented by only huge corporations means anything but free press.

 

[vurbano]

Hashaha, this is good.
Since when article from the left and article from the right means free press?

I hope you're joking, vurbano. Having only two sides presented by only huge corporations means anything but free press.

I know you dont like it. Perhaps there is no middle of the road press. But its the best system on this planet. I invite you to go live in communist china and experience their idea of "free press" where any negative article against the govt would get you a jail sentence.

 

[T2k]

In america we use the term "free" to mean they are not controlled by the government.

Which isn't true in many cases. That's why they aren't free.

And they are not, they are owned by different people with different political associations.

And those people always have close ties with governement. Same thing, no matter how you spin it.

If we didnt have a "free" press they would ALL be controlled by whoever is in power and we would never have scandals reported by them. I.e, Whitewater, Monica lewinski, travelgate, filegate, watergate etc.

You don't even know what free press means, it seems. Definitely not when we have 4-5 giant media outlets and they control everything.

The only way to make balanced opinion if you listen small nonprofit radios and watch non-US news outlets from all around the world.

Otherwise you'll just repeat the crap you've been fed up.

 

[T2k]

I know you dont like it. Perhaps there is no middle of the road press.

Exactly.

But its the best system on this planet.

Really? How so? Having fully controlled and distorted bipolar mainstream media is the best?

I invite you to go live in communist china and experience their idea of "press"

Ouch. You pretty missed it, vurbano: I grew up under a commie regime.

 

[vurbano]

Which isn't true in many cases. That's why they aren't free.



And those people always have close ties with governement. Same thing, no matter how you spin it.



You don't even know what free press means, it seems. Definitely not when we have 4-5 giant media outlets and they control everything.

The only way to make balanced opinion if you listen small nonprofit radios and watch non-US news outlets from all around the world.

Otherwise you'll just repeat the crap you've been fed up.

Noun1.free press - a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideologypublic press, press - the gathering and publishing of news in the form of newspapers or magazines


aparently you have some learning to do. If we didnt have free press there would be only ONE viewpoint

 

[vurbano]

Exactly.



Really? How so? Having fully controlled and distorted bipolar mainstream media is the best?



Ouch. You pretty missed it, vurbano: I grew up under a commie regime.

that doesnt excuse your ignorance of the meaning of the term "free press"

 

[T2k]

Noun1.free press - a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideologypublic press, press - the gathering and publishing of news in the form of newspapers or magazines


aparently you have some learning to do

Or perhaps I didn't learn it from your thefreedictionary.com?

Read again my posts above, please. It is controlled by servant groups - one this way, the other that way. Since the ruler class here makes sure that no other party can emerge, one servant group will be always in the pocket of the government.
For me it's the same story like republic != democrac or our utterly stupid and retarded election system.

 

[W_Tracy_Parnell]

We have a free press in the sense that it is not controlled by the state. TV and radio networks and newspapers are corporations or owned by corporations and are in business to make a profit so this will have an effect on the way they report news (and an effect on what BECOMES news).
Reporters have bias of course-they are people after all not robots. Polls show the vast majority are liberal and so most of the news coverage is slanted that way. That is why Fox has been so successful, because they are at least willing to consider the conservative viewpoint and not dismiss it out of hand.

Viewers need to educate themselves regarding media outlets and even individual reporters in order to ascertain their bias. If you know where they are coming from, you can filter out "the bad stuff". For example, you can pick one liberal, one conservative and one moderate reporter and watch how they present a given story. You can then pretty much tell what the truth about the story is. And of course, your "truth" and mine may be very different!

 

[Madtown HD Junkie]

Or perhaps I didn't learn it from your thefreedictionary.com?

Read again my posts above, please. It is controlled by servant groups - one this way, the other that way.
For me it's the same story like republic != democrac or our utterly stupid and retarded election system.

The election system was desinged to give a fair outcome if the vast majority of states vote one way and the population votes another, while keep the population of the states factored into the amount of weight each states vote outcome has. If you have the majority of the population living on the coasts and the whole middle of the country less populated voting another, as is the case now, you can still have a outcome that that does not turn it's back on the majority of states. Perfect no maybe not but you see when the USA was formed it had states rights as a center point of the founding fathers thinking. Now you have courts saying local Gov's can confiscate people's property, which is insane IMO. If we follow your thinking we need to get rid of the Senate, I guess, as each state is represented by 2 Senators regardless of population. It is often easy to criticize but offer no alternative.

Do you suggest a better system of goverment? Theacracy, dictatorship, communism, maybe a king?

 

[rockaway1836]

As I see, you have no single one real independent (free) news channel. Is that correct?

Not as you understand it maybe. But we have CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC (MSNBC), CBS, and PBS as national broadcasts. CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are cable news stations, that are news 24/7. The others are more traditional broadcasters with their news shows being on for one hour each evening and in some cases switch over to all news formats over the late night hours.They are independent and are free to say whatever they like. FOX leans to the right while the others tend to lean to the left. I think NBC is the most neutral of them. All of them at least make an attempt to bring both sides of issues to the public. Besides the national broadcasters, there are hundreds of local TV stations throughout the country. Many are affiliates of the national networks, buy still totally independent of them. Besides the TV networks there many radio stations. (too many to count NY alone must have over 100) Then there are the newspapers, again way too many to count. So you see we could drown ourselfs in opposing viewpoints if we chose to.

 

[vurbano]

Not as you understand it maybe. But we have CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC (MSNBC), CBS, and PBS as national broadcasts. CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are cable news stations, that are news 24/7. The others are more traditional broadcasters with their news shows being on for one hour each evening and in some cases switch over to all news formats over the late night hours.They are independent and are free to say whatever they like. FOX leans to the right while the others tend to lean to the left. I think NBC is the most neutral of them. All of them at least make an attempt to bring both sides of issues to the public. Besides the national broadcasters, there are hundreds of local TV stations throughout the country. Many are affiliates of the national networks, buy still totally independent of them. Besides the TV networks there many radio stations. (too many to count NY alone must have over 100) Then there are the newspapers, again way too many to count. So you see we could drown ourselfs in opposing viewpoints if we chose to.

great points. There are many many newspapers and Tv stations with news. They are not all republican or democrat.

 

[vurbano]

Or perhaps I didn't learn it from your thefreedictionary.com?

Read again my posts above, please. It is controlled by servant groups - one this way, the other that way. Since the ruler class here makes sure that no other party can emerge, one servant group will be always in the pocket of the government.
For me it's the same story like republic != democrac or our utterly stupid and retarded election system.

With your twisted logic half of the media outlets would have been defending Nixon when he was impeached.

 

[rockaway1836]

Oh, I should have metioned that The BBC is also available here. BBC news is shown on many PBS stations. Also availble here are many other international broadcasts. You need Dishnetwork for these, but they are available.
http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/International/

 

[vurbano]

We have free press

 

[T2k]

We have a free press in the sense that it is not controlled by the state. TV and radio networks and newspapers are corporations or owned by corporations and are in business to make a profit so this will have an effect on the way they report news (and an effect on what BECOMES news).
Reporters have bias of course-they are people after all not robots. Polls show the vast majority are liberal and so most of the news coverage is slanted that way. That is why Fox has been so successful, because they are at least willing to consider the conservative viewpoint and not dismiss it out of hand.

Viewers need to educate themselves regarding media outlets and even individual reporters in order to ascertain their bias. If you know where they are coming from, you can filter out "the bad stuff". For example, you can pick one liberal, one conservative and one moderate reporter and watch how they present a given story. You can then pretty much tell what the truth about the story is. And of course, your "truth" and mine may be very different!

It sounds nice until a point when you realize that on any day at least half of the world's stories doesn't even being reported by any of our outlets.

Perfect case was that completely ridiculous hysteria about Terry Schiavo - it immediately became a "case".... nothing else was available at all.
Have you ever noticed reading some int'l website report about something which should be reported here but mysteriously never found its way into mainstream newsfeeds?
That's not an accident. There are well-shaped rules and groups who decide what "serves" "your" interests and what doesn't. They didn't ask you? Ah, I'm so sorry - too bad nobody gives a flying frog about your opinion.

 

[Bruno]

The people in nola were in homes being flooded with contaminated water, indoor temperatures could easily reach the high 90's if they were stranded in attics the temperatures could reach 120 - 140 degrea's within a few hours of sunrise, physical activity would generaly be constant or close to it

Van..I must admit its really a diasater but the people I was talking about were in the superdome not in attics. Yes i could see how them people might run low on fuel but still not sure they could fall over dead from lack of water and food for just a few days.

Yes i wish the mayor and gov. of La would have carried out the evacution plan for there states but who knows if the people there would have even left then.

What i was sick of was reporters like Shepard Smith saying how those people were starting to death and i can tell you he never missed a meal while in NO. Nor did i see him share a drop of water or food with any of the needy.

And ever ten minutes reporting 10,000 dead and nobody even still has a clue how many people died in the storm. The death total will be too high but think its been blowed out of preportion.

 

[T2k]

The election system was desinged to give a fair outcome if the vast majority of states vote one way and the population votes another, while keep the population of the states factored into the amount of weight each states vote outcome has. If you have the majority of the population living on the coasts and the whole middle of the country less populated voting another, as is the case now, you can still have a outcome that that does not turn it's back on the majority of states. Perfect no maybe not but you see when the USA was formed it had states rights as a center point of the founding fathers thinking. Now you have courts saying local Gov's can confiscate people's property, which is insane IMO. If we follow your thinking we need to get rid of the Senate, I guess, as each state is represented by 2 Senators regardless of population. It is often easy to criticize but offer no alternative.

Ah, c'mon. PLeahhhse. This is the best explanation you know? So tell me, how is that possible that these utterly skewed electoral votes being decided without proportional system, resulting complete waste of blue folks in overwhelmingly red states or vica versa, hmmm?

Do you suggest a better system of goverment? Theacracy, dictatorship, communism, maybe a king?

Or perhaps multi-party parlamentarian democracy like everywhere else in the Western World?

The biggest problem is this system is set for one purpose: to keep these two parties in power and nobody else. Also it's shockingly easy to manipulate, as we've seen in last election, particularly those massive irregularities in Ohio (read the Conyers report), let alone the fact that it makes possible to completely overturn the people's vote.