Al Jazeera in the sports world

[Vas Deferens]

(12-28-2015, 03:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would toss in bbc as well.   To me they are all equally worthless.  Carrying water for their governments.  

There is absolutely no need for state ran media.   And we certainly shouldn't have other government pumping their propaganda through our airwaves.   The fact that I can watch any of these on Comcast or directv but can't watch an American privately ran media (blaze) is a complete joke.  

Media outlets should be small and independent and always adversarial to the government.

you honestly believe 'the blaze' is a more reputable organization with better content than the BBC?

I want whatever your wife is getting shipped to your house for you.  the tracers must be sublime.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-30-2015, 02:11 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: you honestly believe 'the blaze' is a more reputable organization with better content than the BBC?

I want whatever your wife is getting shipped to your house for you.  the tracers must be sublime.

if there was any name except the blaze you wouldn't feel that way. You are just caught up on the name. And yes the bbc is great if I want to know the English governments position,

who is likely to be more critical on the British govenment .... Bbc or the blaze?

Same issue we have now with our large corporate media which is ran by the political donors. It's all agenda driven and no one has an adversarial relationship with the government.

[GMDino]

(12-30-2015, 09:57 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: if there was any name except the blaze you wouldn't feel that way.  You are just caught up on the name.   And yes the bbc is great if I want to know the English governments position,  

who is likely to be more critical on the British govenment .... Bbc or the blaze?  

Same issue we have now with our large corporate media which is ran by the political donors.   It's all agenda driven and no one has an adversarial relationship with the government.

No, if you read the stories it is pretty obvious what the Blaze is.  They don't try to hide it.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-30-2015, 09:57 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: if there was any name except the blaze you wouldn't feel that way.  You are just caught up on the name.   And yes the bbc is great if I want to know the English governments position,  

who is likely to be more critical on the British govenment .... Bbc or the blaze?  

Same issue we have now with our large corporate media which is ran by the political donors.   It's all agenda driven and no one has an adversarial relationship with the government.

No. It's not the name. It's the content. 

Are you saying that NPR was too cozy with the bush administration as well?  Or is this a brand new phenomenon relating to their support of Muslims and Obama?

[StLucieBengal]

(12-30-2015, 12:02 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: No. It's not the name. It's the content. 

Are you saying that NPR was too cozy with the bush administration as well?  Or is this a brand new phenomenon relating to their support of Muslims and Obama?

Why would you listen and pay attention to government propaganda? I'm not against it because Obama is in office ...... I am against it no matter who is in offices.

Media should be small and adversarial with the government. No corporate media. They are beholden to one party of the other or both.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-30-2015, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, if you read the stories it is pretty obvious what the Blaze is.  They don't try to hide it.

If Ted Cruz is elected president and they Carry water for his administration and I don't call it out. Please feel free to remind me.

I assure you this media nonsense grinds my gears.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-30-2015, 03:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why would you listen and pay attention to government propaganda?  I'm not against it because Obama is in office ...... I am against it no matter who is in offices.  

Media should be small and adversarial with the government.    No corporate media.   They are beholden to one party of the other or both.

So the blaze is not propaganda?  Or is it merely the gov subsidy given to NPR you have issues with?  

[StLucieBengal]

(12-30-2015, 03:20 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: So the blaze is not propaganda?  Or is it merely the gov subsidy given to NPR you have issues with?  

Should be zero money given by the government. Once you take money you are beholden to a master. If NPR stopped taking gov cash and only used private funds/donations then I would take them off the list.

The blaze isn't propaganda in the sense that they are not beholden to anyone except themselves. You may disagree with their slant, but that's not propaganda.

You can tell even which networks the politicians are beholden .... Look at which networks do the debates. Those are the ones filling the coffers of the parties and politicians and in return the beholden parties grant them the ratings bump of a debate. The parties could stream the debates and keep them as a file we could always go back to watch on demand to compare positions of the candidates. Break them up by candidate and position. Which would be a game changer for the voter.

The slant of the news is what it is ... It's when the politicians/gov and media are cahoots that we all suffer. In the other examples we mentioned before .... The actual gov funds and runs the networks. That's just crazy. I admit I like Russian culture and will always give Russian people the benefit of the doubt but there is no need we need to pretend that RT isn't biased.

[GMDino]

(12-30-2015, 08:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Should be zero money given by the government.    Once you take money you are beholden to a master.    If NPR stopped taking gov cash and only used private funds/donations then I would take them off the list.  

The blaze isn't propaganda in the sense that they are not beholden to anyone except themselves.    You may disagree with their slant, but that's not propaganda.  

You can tell even which networks the politicians are beholden .... Look at which networks do the debates.    Those are the ones filling the coffers of the parties and politicians and in return the beholden parties grant them the ratings bump of a debate.    The parties could stream the debates and keep them as a file we could always go back to watch on demand to compare positions of the candidates.    Break them up by candidate and position.     Which would be a game changer for the voter.  

The slant of the news is what it is ...   It's when the politicians/gov and media are cahoots that we all suffer.    In the other examples we mentioned before .... The actual gov funds and runs the networks.    That's just crazy.    I admit I like Russian culture and will always give Russian people the benefit of the doubt but there is no need we need to pretend that RT isn't biased.

You could not be more wrong.  If they are simply blasting the party line with a deliberate slant they nothing more than propaganda.  Period.



It in no way MUST be government sponsored.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-30-2015, 09:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: You could not be more wrong.  If they are simply blasting the party line with a deliberate slant they nothing more than propaganda.  Period.



It in no way MUST be government sponsored.

Nice word play..  However Walter Cronkite was probably the last nightly news anchor to carry himself with integrity, and not allow his own bias to show through.  Heck, he told us all about the Iran hostage crisis and kept a straight face the entire way. 

Heck, when I studied Journalism, in the early '90s, I still thought that the point was to tell the news.  But, after the way Dessert Storm was covered, the focus went on "human life", rather than the hard facts.  People wanted the soft news, rather than the hard facts.  The Left controlled media recognized that, and was able to help the philandering Bill Clinton get elected. 

Things in the media have only went downhill since..