I always felt that the BBC was pretty decent in regards to the quality of its reporting. I have recently gotten a new appreciation for them. E.g. their reporting on the Fukushima incident was the least sensationalist of all news outlets. I can highly recommend it. That said, you should not trust just a single news source. There are many news stations broadcasting in English. Try to understand their background and then watch their news while keeping that in the back of your head at all times. Analyze what they say and try to look for manipulation. Then compare to reports on other stations. I do it all the time. Quite enlightening, actually.
I am sure that if we look at two different point of view or more, we can judge better .
Good start. Also note that there are more than two points of view. If you look arround enough, you can find even a 3rd and a fourth point of view on a matter. Whenever you do that, try to understand the background of the news source and where they are coming from and what their intentional or unintentional agenda is.
Then form your own opinion on it. The Iranian government TV cant be a good news source on anything related to Iranian politics. If you think about it, it should be quite clear why that is.
Aslan wrote:
I am sure that if we look at two different point of view or more, we can judge better .
Agreed! That's why many if not most Americans get their news from several different sources, and never trust just one.
Even though we have a "free press" here in the west, each media is controlled by a single source. It always has an agenda its looking for foist upon the people. If you watch Fox News and MSNBS, you'll see the most striking differences are the stories that are neglected. However, these competing news forums are held to accounts by one another, and they almost never participate in sheer fabrication like what is in the vids you linked to us, because those sources would be utterly discredited were they ever to participate in this wholesale fabrication.
And yes, BBC is a pretty great source of info as regards America, because it does not always follow a single, politically sectarian view. BBC is not necessarily "pro" or "anti" American, so it is free to give close to an objective view of events in America--perhaps more objective than any American sources.
Last edited by GIThruster on Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Even though we have a "free press" here in the west, each media is controlled by a single source. It always has an agenda its looking for foist upon the people. If you watch Fox News and MSNBS, you'll see the most striking differences are the stories that are neglected.
ladajo wrote:Aslan,
All I can say is "quality of information". I have read the links you posted, and have felt very sorry for you. What you perceive as "news" is exactly not.
I would strongly reccomend that what you read on "presstv.ir" be taken as suspect and not main stream.
All major news outlets have some sort of bias, however, a good generic mix is Sky, Euronews, BBC, CNN, MSNBC & Fox. As long as you understand the positional bias they have, you can read what they post and compare to gain a better balanced understanding.
Do you have access to all of these? Some even come in Persian versions so you can compare the language translations to see if you understood the nuances correctly.
Again.
And, please read the IAEA report, which is I can assure you, contrary to your government controlled media, non-partisan, and sometimes vehemently so.
In any event the report provides direct contradictions to a number of things you have said. And it even uses references!
Aslan wrote:We need to note that most Western news agencies, is in conflict with the Iranian News Agency.
That's because you don't have a free press. Your news tells you what your government wants you to believe, and given you have a madman in charge of the country, its no wonder it feeds you insane misreadings of daily events.
The Wall Street Occupation news is a great example. There are all sorts of nuances that demonstrate there are good points to both sides of the conflict, but you're not getting any of them. Instead, the entire subject has been manipulated to support the insane doctrines of Iran's leadership.
There's literally next to nothing in the vids you linked to, that is true!
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
That's because you don't have a free press. Your news tells you what your government wants you to believe, and given you have a madman in charge of the country, its no wonder it feeds you insane misreadings of daily events.
The Wall Street Occupation news is a great example. There are all sorts of nuances that demonstrate there are good points to both sides of the conflict, but you're not getting any of them. Instead, the entire subject has been manipulated to support the insane doctrines of Iran's leadership.
There's literally next to nothing in the vids you linked to, that is true!
Aslan, if you read here a bit, then you will know that GIThruster and me often disagree on things, but this is a post that I fully agree with him.
Skipjack wrote:I always felt that the BBC was pretty decent in regards to the quality of its reporting. I have recently gotten a new appreciation for them. E.g. their reporting on the Fukushima incident was the least sensationalist of all news outlets. I can highly recommend it. That said, you should not trust just a single news source. There are many news stations broadcasting in English. Try to understand their background and then watch their news while keeping that in the back of your head at all times. Analyze what they say and try to look for manipulation. Then compare to reports on other stations. I do it all the time. Quite enlightening, actually.
Perhaps they should have been more sensationalist:
Perhaps they should have been more sensationalist:
I dont think that they could have been...
Remind me again, how many people were killed by Fukushima?
And how many people die as the result of fossile fuels every year?
Sensationalism, that is all!
Perhaps they should have been more sensationalist:
I dont think that they could have been...
Remind me again, how many people were killed by Fukushima?
And how many people die as the result of fossile fuels every year?
Sensationalism, that is all!
Ah. I get it. As long as they die quietly with a decent interval between the event and the death the dying is just "natural causes".
And yes other fuels kill too. But you don't need to evacuate populations for 20 or 30 miles around in case of an accident.
BTW recriticality means that the radiation levels will not be decreasing any time soon. I certainly wouldn't want an uncontrolled criticality in my neighborhood. I live 10 miles from the Byron, Illinois nuke plant. Well within the evacuation zone.
We can design better. And we should.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
ladajo wrote:And where in your article does it say ANYTHING about US police gunning down protestors?
The nearest it gets is the incredibly funny;
huge massing of police and the police in most American cities now look more like military than police --you'll see Uzi's and heavy-duty rioting gear and such; they're pretty frightening to look at. And then, a huge massing of them, of these aluminum barriers, the orange police netting, and such that are ready to be deployed
That last time I saw a cop with a machine gun was on a TV show. Cops responding to crowd control do not do so with automatic weapons.
I have yet to ever see a cop in the US with and "uzi". That is classic...
ROFTL
WTF .
Aslan wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
Please do not judge one way.
I dont even trust my own Austrian government run TV, if it is a comfort for you (run by ultra leftist morons).
I am sure that if we look at two different point of view or more, we can judge better.
Please visit both of them every day, if it is possible. Maybe it makes us to be more friendly.
How about a third point of view, for even better judgement - First person view? Like Giorgio's.
Aslan wrote:
[(Western News Agencies)+PressTV]= Perfect Conclusion
You really believe that? Not just taking for granted what says some talking head in an office somewhere, but taking for granted that it's perfect account of reality?
Last edited by Betruger on Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I am not arguing that. The NRC is a pointless institution these days. They have not licensed a new reactor design since what? The 50ies?
The only reactot designs they ever licensed could be used for nuclear weapons development...
That said, I would love to refer you to this little article by Brian Wang. He really does sum up the situation quite nicely:
To sum it up quickly:
Deaths per TWh:
Fossile fuels:
201
Nuclear: 0.04
Deaths due to Chernobyl so far (acording to the WHO):
less than 60
With maybe 4000 deaths expected total but so many decades later it is hard to say what caused the deaths.
Coal allone kills about 30,000 people a year in the US allone.
Any country where information is limited by the government or must be approved by government before being released cannot teach other nations about freedom.
Fix your problems before anything else.
Kick out your religious leaders and/or give back freedom to think, talk, dress and live to your people, than you will have the right to judge others.