Click Here to see the latest posts!
Ask any questions related to business / entrepreneurship / money-making / life
NO BLATANT ADS PLEASE
Stay up to date! Get email notifications or
News: You can live (better) without it...
This post is right on. Most modern news shows (at least here in the US) are either biased or incompetently reported (or both). The overall effect is terribly negative on society as a whole -- which they do deliberately because negative news keeps people watching so they can sell more advertising. That's one reason I like getting news from the Internet: I can quickly pick out any events that I may need to know about while limiting my exposure to the negativity.
I find that the more I ignore the news, the happier and more productive I tend to be.
> There are standard terms and phrases news
> readers say when reading the news. And there
> are ways to interpret what they really mean.
> "Public opinons shows... insert
> whatever you want the public to believe
> The question you need to ask is, WHO are
> these public who think this? The
> newsreader's son, daughter, husband, wife,
> friend, nextdoor neighbor?
> "Lastest polls show... insert whatever
> you want the public to believe here."
> When was this poll taken? What was asked?
> How was it asked (method of polling - in
> person, phone, etc.) How many people were
> polled. What is the political demographic of
> those who were polled?
> During the Olympic games in Sydney, the
> media kept harping on and on and on and on
> and on about how the country was all goo-goo
> with that little girl from the opening
> The reality was... the media were the only
> ones going on about her. No-one else cared.
> "X% of Americans are... insert what you
> want to scare the public about."
> What they should really say is, "X% of
> the small tiny number of people we survey
> are..." Of course, because those people
> were Americans...
> Remember that piece of Mars rock with those
> odd looking things on them? Remember how the
> media said the scientists reckon it showed
> proof of life - or some such claim?
> The reality was completely different. The
> scientists NEVER said anything of the sort.
> They said they did not know what the things
> were but they did resemble certain bacteria.
> The news often does what the current affairs
> shows do... leave out words and splice
> together things.
> For instance... "The reality was... the
> things were... certain bacteria."
> If you read the above paragraph relating to
> this quoted comment, you will see the words
> used and used in the same order.
> Technically, I said it... but I didn't say
> it that way.
> Splice together. Also they will deliberately
> take words out of context to help create the
> impression they want to.
> It's for this reason I prefer Fox News. They
> manipulate the least of all news channels.
> As they say... we report, YOU decide.
> I post, you decide.
> Michael Ross
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
Other recent posts on the forum...
Get the report on Harvey Brody's Answers to a Question-Oriented-Person