My German wife watches half an hour of US TV and says "this is pure right-wing propaganda!"

[DFW]

We are in the States for a vacation. I turned on the TV here looking for some news.
What we saw nauseated and infuriated her (didn't surprise me after clips I had seen
posted/linked on DU). She was absolutely disgusted--a bit frightened, too. All Germans
learn about the Nazis and how they used propaganda to further their dark aims. She
couldn't believe that a supposedly free press would be this extreme in their propaganda.

Oh, by the way, we weren't watching Fox or MSNBC. We were watching CNN.

[canadianbeaver]

1. I said the exact same thing to my husband the other morning...

watching CNN( I know, stop now)....It so easy to see....and very frustrating...I keep yelling at the TV..saying "We don't believe your shit anymore"...CNN really has lost all credibility..kind of what has happened in the world with regards to the US' standing in it...US has lost all credibility...very unfortunate for the citizens who see whats happening in their own country and can't seem to find a way to stop the madness...

[AntiFascist]

96. CNN should be given credit for showing the Gorbachev interview...

a brief moment of balanced news, but Anderson Cooper was on immediately afterwards spewing the same old propaganda.

[peace13]

2. CNN is the new FOX.

They have slid over to the dark side. Please have a safe and happy vacation. When you get home please let the world know that many good American people are trying to change the course of this country. If for some reason we fail to change the regime this fall please send help. Peace, Km

[tburnsten]

3. What was objectionable about it?

Specifically what were here objections, I don't watch much tv and so "pure right-wing propaganda" doesn't really help me understand what you are saying much. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does without tv.

[YOY]

6. Watch it and then watch any reputable newsource...the BBC comes to mind.

There's your comparison.

[DFW]

10. Specifically

She was listening to a guy named Lou Dobbs rail against our "inaction" in the
Russia-Georgia conflict, almost implying we should rush some non-existent forces
to the Georgians' aid, and heard him diss Obama for being weak, indecisive, and
undependable in a crisis situation. There was more, but that was the part I heard
when I started paying closer attention to what bothered her.

[Romulox]

14. So would our media be "better" if such opinions were not allowed to be expressed?

You seem to be complaining that she disagrees with Lou Dobbs. Are Europeans protected from having to hear opinions with which they disagree back in the old country? :shrug:

[DFW]

21. She thinks that such "opinions" should be designated as such, not passed as news

Reporters should report objectively. Opinions should be clearly labeled as
such. That's the way it is "back in the old country," and that's the way it
used to be, by the way, back in my old country (the USA) before Fox changed
the rules. I grew up with a president of the Gridiron Club and co-holder of
the Thomas Stokes prize for conservation reporting, so you don't need to lecture
me on the nature of objective journalism. My wife's comments weren't limited to
Lou Dobbs, by the way. That's when I started paying attention. She started listening
to the program before, called "the Situation Room," claiming to be "the best political
team on television," although they couldn't have been very convinced of their claim,
as they seemed to need to repeat it once every ten minutes or so.

[ProgressiveFool]

28. lol ouch, what an introduction to American "news"

Lou Dobbs is an arrogant, preening blowhard with usually only a single issue (hate on the Mexicans), so it's almost interesting to hear that he's expanding his horizons a bit to include the Russo-Georgian conflict. His show is one of those that counts these days as "entertainment".

As for the Situation Room and Wolf Blitzer, well, there's not much to be said. The most notable characteristic is the one you mentioned, that they have to affirm their claimed superiority every few minutes or so. The only redeeming part of that show is the crusty curmudgeon Jack Cafferty, who tends to call people out on their bullshit, and has been known to mock the "best political team on television" claim himself from time to time, though he's ostensibly a part of it. Wolf Blitzer is himself quite a smarmy excrescence, who prefers nothing so much as getting his nose browned by the powerful. His interview questions tend to be enabling types, such as "How important is it for you to love our country?" or else questions about an interviewee's opponent already loaded with the negative answer, like "Don't you think it indicates a disrespect for the flag when a politician refuses to wear a flag pin?"

[cliffordu]

49. Exactly.

[Romulox]

36. The Lou Dobbs program is patently not CNN's "straight news" program. It's a talking head program

The BBC, PBS, CBC, etc. etc. all have such shows.

[DFW]

54. The so-called "situation room" IS passed off as news

[Romulox]

76. The "situation room" is some sort of bizarre hybrid. It's a new format, and I admit I don't get it.

"The Situation Room," anchored by Wolf Blitzer, assembles top CNN correspondents, analysts, contributors and guests for complete, up-to-the minute coverage of the day's events. Modeled on the concept of the White House Situation Room, the program combines traditional reporting methods with the newest innovative online resources, making the entire process of newsgathering more transparent and placing the latest news and information at the viewers' fingertips. "The Situation Room" airs weekdays from 4 to 7 p.m. ET.

[Flubadubya]

57. I think your complaint has been resoundlingly trounced, refuted, and rebuffed...

You might ought to leave it alone. Do you actually think that the American news media is well balanced and fairly reports facts in lieu of right-wing rhetoricized opinion? If you do, then I have no idea what channel you tune in... SETI maybe? :evilgrin:

[roody]

75. The "straight news" is lies as well.

[Romulox]

78. OK, but that's not what the OP was complaining about. nt

[madeline_con]

106. I agree wholeheartedly.

I've noticed mroe and more commentary from the news reader lately. I don't want some afternoon news lady's opinion of the players in a story, just the facts, thank you!

[treestar]

50. No, because only one view is expressed

Only one side shows up on the TV news.

It's not that we disagree, it's that those who disagree do not get any airtime.

[Dover]

108. I wonder if you've ever been abroad and exposed to international

sources. We can access some of it through the internet, but can't really get the full
effect of what it's like not being under a barrage of propaganda 24/7.

[wryter2000]

74. Here's an example I saw on ABC this week

In a piece talking about support for Obama among Republicans and support for McCain among Democrats...

They brought up instances where both candidates went against their party. They listed three things for McCain that he's already done a 180 on. They failed to point out that he now actively opposes his own bill on at least one of those things.

I don't know how that could be sloppiness or ignorance. It could be a conscious attempt to create balance where none exists, but that, in itself, is propaganda, imho.

[tburnsten]

80. Going by some of their other reporting

(not ABC specifically, just mainstream media) especially on anything gun-related, I'm betting its an equal combination of sloppiness and not wanting to get anything right.

[CrispyQ]

124. And here's what I saw:

In one of his first reports from Georgia, CNNs Michael Ware made a comment to the effect that the Americans were more involved in the initial conflict than was being reported. Cafferty also made a comment implying American involvement from the start. Since then, nary a word. I've no doubt they were both reminded that corporate toady's who want to keep their six figure jobs better stick to the corporate script.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. So, does my American wife...somewhat more profanely.

[hobbit709]

5. She's 100% correct

[Overseas]

7. That's how I always felt. It has gotten much worse with media consolidation over the years. /nt

[kenny blankenship]

8. Just don't call it Fascism!

People get VERY upset when you call attention to the fascist tone and content of corporate news media.

[tavalon]

11. People do get feisty about it, but it's definitely not my job to kowtow to their petty concerns

It is fascism and yes, I suspect I'm speaking to a fellow choir member here.

[nc4bo]

12. The truth hurts for some reason. nt

[Jazzgirl]

41. It is fascism and I don't give a shit who it upsets!

n/t

[Greyhound]

102. It is a very small, but consistently vocal, group that freaks out over

that accurate label.

Apparently, it cannot be fascism until there are tanks in the streets and people are pulled out of their homes and shot in full view of witnesses.

[Romulox]

9. This thread is pointless echo-chamber without reference to exactly what was objectionable.

Generally, most news organizations reflect the biases of their audiences. Only a fool believes that their favorite news organ is "unbiased"...

[peace13]

13. Only a fool dictates to others what is pointless.

go figure.....

[Romulox]

But a wise person can always dictate what (or who) is foolish, huh?

That makes no sense. :silly:

[pollo poco]

115. silly troll

You should get out more. You come off as kinda smug and pig ignorant.
Troll.

[carlyhippy]

122. ....

:thumbsup:

[carlyhippy]

119. :)

:applause:

[malaise]

17. Generally, most news organizations reflect the biases of their audiences.

Incorrect - the media reflects the interests of their owners and advertisers. Their only roles are profits and impression-management.

[Romulox]

19. News is a commodity, like everything else. It only makes money if the audience consumes it.

Moreover, it's silly to assume that only American news organs are influenced by those who supply the money. But not German media. Never! :silly:


"Incorrect - the media reflects the interests of their owners and advertisers. Their only roles are profits and impression-management."

[DFW]

27. Actually, the main German electronic media is arm's length government financed

They do accept some advertising on TV, but the advertisers have no say in
the content of the news reports. There are sensationalist rags, like the
Inquirer, but they usually report mostly sports and have a few bare-breasted
women to get men to buy them. It's silly to comment on the German media, with
it's completely different structure, unless you speak fluent German and have
lived there. I do, and I have (still stationed there).

[Romulox]

38. Government funding = / = "independent", "objective", or "without bias"...

Otherwise, the "Star and Stripes" would be the most objective news source out there. :eyes:

[DFW]

48. Not the same government.

It does make a difference. USA ≠ CCCP ≠ UK ≠ Grossdeutches Reich ≠ Bundesrepublik etc etc.

[Romulox]

64. Right but... the UK, Canada, and German governments each have their own interests...

[DFW]

77. Of course they do. However:

Do they protect those interests to the point of intruding on the content
of their state-financed TV? The answer, at least in the case of Britain
and Germany, is no. They are that confident that there is no need to,
just as the current US government apparently is frightened of its populace
to the point that they need to influence the media to any extent they can.

This is not new, of course. Remember Nixon's Ron Ziegler complaining of the
so-called "hysterical reporting" of the Watergate scandal, which brought
them down not by propaganda, but by reporting facts as they emerged. Lies
by Ziegler were subsequently, upon being called, renamed "inoperative
statements." Quite a bit of what American TV "news" is airing these days
seems to be future "inoperative" material.

Not a new tactic, but not a reason to reincarnate "Remember the Maine!" either.

[Selatius]

29. Historically speaking, news have been a loser in terms of profits for network television.

When the FCC mandated certain periods of the day be devoted to news, such as the 5 o'clock (or was it 6 o'clock news?) the news outlets opposed doing so but did it anyway in order to avoid having their broadcast license revoked. Television programs got more ratings than boring news, but because the airwaves were considered a public good, the corporations couldn't get away with enriching themselves without also providing a public benefit: The news.

With the invention of all-news channels like CNN or FOX News, the people who ran the news found out there was an interest in media commentary such as O'Reilly and Dobbs and now Olbermann, and they could also get away from some FCC requirements being that it's cable, not broadcast television. If you aired a person who favors war, naturally you will attract people who also think the same, a niche is created. However, if you aired someone who is anti-war, you can also create a niche, but political pressure would have to be calculated in. Olbermann gets ratings, but now "it's popular to hate the president." He makes some bucks for MSNBC.

But I wouldn't say that there is no evidence that corporate politics gets in the way of objective reporting or political commentary that runs contrary to the White House's position on things. For example, look at criticism of the White House from folks such as Phil Donahue, whose show was cancelled despite being the highest ratings getter for MSNBC for that network's primetime slots in that time period. Unfortunately for Phil, he opposed the war in Iraq while many other commentators were simply passing on information from the White House with little critical examination. Also unfortunate for Phil is that NBC networks is owned by General Electric, a defense contractor that could stand to make more money off the order of more jet engines and spare parts for warplanes that could be involved in war.

[malaise]

44. Where did I say this?

Moreover, it's silly to assume that only American news organs are influenced by those who supply the money. But not German media. Never!

The bottom line is that US media pretend to be free, fair and balanced and they are not. For the record media in Europe is light years ahead of the US establishment media when it comes to delivering on facts and not government talking points. BBC or DW news and analysis programs make M$M look like a carton fantasy network. Travel a bit and you'll get the picture.

[POAS]

59. Back in the day------

Networks provided the news programming as part of their obligation to community service as part of their being allowed to use the public airwaves.

In fact newsrooms lost money for many decades and were NOT seen as revenue sources.

Now they are driven by the bottom line and easily controlled, implicitly in not explicitly, by the purse strings of the corporations.

More and more we see the line between news reporting and news commentary and opinion being blurred.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. In much of the world, and in our own past, news has no bias.

News is a recounting of facts, not opinions. What we have here is constant editorializing passing itself off as news.

Are you so young you don't remember, as recently as 25 years ago, when there was unbiased news? When the only bias shown was a bias toward the truth?

And news organizations do not 'reflect' the biases of their audiences - today, they create the biases they wish to present. Are you under the impression that Fox presents in the way it does because they want to 'reflect' that demographic - it is pure propaganda, and the purpose is to reinforce a particular viewpoint to their audience. They are the active agent in the equation.

The US media was once an outstanding example for the world of a free press: today, it is an unparalleled example of corporate manipulation, and around the world people look at it with horror.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. The US media was NEVER an outstanding example of a free press

The US media has ALWAYS been in the can for propaganda purposes. You're being nostalgic. A review of the historical record will show you that news organs were explicitly aligned with various political positions for most of our history. Then, spurred by general scientism, the mythology of the "objective" journalist developed in the late 19th century and really cemented itself in the 1920's. Since then, news has been IMPLICITLY aligned with various political positions, while feigning objectivity. Hell, Time and Life were notorious conservative organs since their inception in the 20's and 30's, and only managed to cover the stench of Henry Luce's radical conservative politics in the 1960's. Luce took open credit for getting Eisenhower elected. Critiques of the news media for political bias have been constant and pretty much exactly the same thing as we see today ever since the myth of objective news took hold in the journalism schools. It's a fucking joke.

[Lorien]

42. But anyone who watched or read the news pre-Reagn knows the difference

I recall "old journalism" well. We had the fairness doctrine. A topic was brought up, facts were laid out fairly objectively, and it was followed with something like "Democrats say the plan will benefit workers and the economy, while republicans claim that it will be an unfair burden on small business and force companies to make job cuts." These days no attempt at describing both perspectives is made. They have an agenda, and the aggressively push that agenda. Sometimes with school yard bully behavior and often with exceptionally slanted reporting and NO reporting of the most critical issues. We also almost NEVER saw tabloid celebrity reporting in the mainstream press. Deaths of major celebrities were briefly noted, but nothing else.

[POAS]

61. Fairness doctrine, one of my favorite subjects

Reagan replaced it with the fairness fantasy!

[annabanana]

123. There are plenty of "vintage" DUers here. We know when the "news"

changed. There would be reports on the news shows that would LEAVE out the substantive information. The first thing to go was the "who?". They would speak of "a company" and not name the name.....

[NuttyFluffers]

113. holy crap! someone who actually remembers USA media history!

and someone who knows a deeper understanding of mythologizing social transformations and behind-the-scenes events that create the current contextual framework of our current perceptions of media! WOW... just wow. it's been so long, like waiting for Godot, to find a more comprehensive awareness of USA media's past.

it's something that i've only recently educated myself around 1999~2004, and even then there's so much to learn. but it was my passion for a good few years, something turned on by reading Vidal and others and sifting backwards through their references. which, interestingly enough, such effort ended up being an excellent method of preparation for college about critical thinking in art history and literature from the 19th and 20th centuries. humanities' concern about perception and construction of image really lays out the importance of narratives, particularly social narratives. seeing someone here provide past context and explain the connecting (and problematic) narrative which affects us today is quite a refreshing change of pace in my reading at DU.

thank you.

[Romulox]

39. It is NOT POSSIBLE to be unbiased. There is no such thing. Never has been. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. If you believe that, then you have been properly propagandized.

The only way the right has been able to get away with 90% of the crap they do is by making Americans mistrust the news.

You are an example of their success.

The glass is half full = propaganda.
The glass is half empty = propaganda.
There is a half glass of water = objective reporting.

It's not rocket science.

[Lorien]

46. Exactly. It's like their assertions that there is no "truth"

that everyone has their own version of the truth. Facts exist, but they don't like the facts, so they say that "truth" can't really exist and cast doubt on the facts to achieve their objective. People foolishly buy it and keep repeating their lies.

[Romulox]

71. Ummm, who are "they"?

"Facts exist, but they don't like the facts, so they say that "truth" can't really exist and cast doubt on the facts to achieve their objective."

And please define "the truth" if it won't take too long! :hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. "They" is anyone who spins the truth.

Yourself included.

And "truth" is that which can be empirically proven.

News: Russian tanks move into Georgia.

Spin: Russian tanks move into Georgia in response to Georgian aggression.
Spin: Russian tanks move into Georgia to seize the breakaway province.
Spin: Russian tanks move into Georgia to protect Russian citizens.

When a media talking head ascribes motives, it is spin. Facts are immutable. When a newshead says "Russian tanks moved into Georgia to defend the Russian ethnic minority in North Ossetia" he is editorializing, unless someone who ordered the tanks into Georgia TOLD him "we are sending them in to protect ethnic Russians", at which point he needs to identify the source.

Why is this so hard?

[Romulox]

63. Everyone has interests. Interests impact perception. But it goes even deeper than this...

The glass is half full = propaganda.
The glass is half empty = propaganda.
There is a half glass of water = objective reporting.

But what about the bowl? Choosing to cover the glass to the exclusion of the bowl may itself be an example of bias...

[Lorien]

45. Not true. I know several journalists personally. The British ones are

particularly good about examining and re-examining their reports to remove all bias. They go into every story with no preconceived ideas of anything. Objectivity IS actually possible with some people. I can ask them about their opinion on any subject, and they'll give me the pros and cons from every side of the issue. You won't see the same from a reporter with Fox news, though.

[DFW]

58. Actually, I agree that it is impossible to be 100% unbiased. BUT:

One can make an attempt at it, or one can drop all pretense of objectivity,
all the while falsely claiming that objectivity. This is the aspect of the
American media at present that so many find so objectionable.

[POAS]

62. Reporters should leave

their bias at the front door of the newsroom.

Editors and producers should make sure that they do!

Editorial writers and commentators should stay out of the newsroom and their commentary should be clearly labeled as such. Most persons getting their news today have trouble telling the two apart.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Only a fool believes that news merely reflects beliefs rather than creating them

You're like the people draped in Gap clothing and Nike sneakers who swear that they've never been affected by advertising.

[Romulox]

40. I ask what was objectionable, and all of sudden I am "draped in Gap clothing and Nike sneakers"?

Hoookay. :silly:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. The OP references CNN.

:shrug:

[treestar]

52. the objection was clear

That the bias is extremely right wing. And that opinion is given, rather than just facts. When does CNN etc. ever just give the facts and let the viewers make up their own minds? They love to put the spin on it. Media people believe they have power to influence opinion and they love to attempt to exercise that power.

[Romulox]

66. It was clear, but it was not specific. nt

[pollo poco]

116. wow, you give writing lessons too!

Bet you're in AP English and everything.
Ignorant tool.

[malaise]

15. CNN has been really bad for years but the propaganda surrounding Georgia's

attack on South Ossetia represents a nadir of frightening proportions.

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. It's not "free". It'$ mega-expen$$$ive.

>>>She
couldn't believe that a supposedly free press would be this extreme in their propaganda>>>>

That's part of the problem.

And she's right: it is RW propaganda.

[Zenlitened]

18. It definitely is bad, and getting worse. It's also important to note that...

... information is being presented in a very disjointed fashion. It's the Twitter effect, on full display on what used to be news and information broadcasts.

They go from a story about cute kittens... to Russia-Georgia conflict... to sports tidbits... to a few lines about gas prices. But those few lines turn out to be a teaser for "news" that's "coming up."

It's hard to believe this is all just a matter of lousy production values. Because it's not just CNN. On CNBC, for example, they talk over each other so much, then go whip-sawing from one talking head to another, that no real point is ever made. There's no coherent narrative about what's really going on in the economy -- until it's too late.

Even on the Weather Channel, they hop-skip-and-jump around the map in a way that's dizzying. I have heard them talk about rain in Indianapolis and "the threat of mudslides" in Los Angeles literally in the same breath. No pause, no transition at all. And this was not a teaser, but a "report" within the main segment. Heads up, viewers in the Indy/LA Greater Metropolitan Viewing Area!

At the very least, all this seems to be a deliberate decision to dilute the information content in such a way that the viewer is never satisfied that he or she has the whole story... and can thus turn the TV off. Just another way to pump up ratings, in other words.

So maybe it's not a conspiracy to dumb America down. But the effect is the same, "conspiracy" or no. The viewer has to work harder and harder to discern a coherent thread to some of the most important stories. And most folks can't or won't put that much time and effort into it.

So what's the result? An ever-increasing number of "low-information" voters. Some of them are too stupid to know any better, certainly. But many are simply being denied useful information, apparently by design. Because even Democracy is a ratings game now.

/rant

[cliffordu]

55. Excellent post. I believe it should be it's own OP.

[LuckyLib]

83. And huge portions of screens are cluttered with additional info/crap.

Guaranteed to keep that attention span minimized, and focus diluted. The "twitter" effect is exactly right. Soundbite input.

[Union Thug]

20. My Russian wife says the same thing...

She can't believe Americans can't see that the propaganda machine operates more efficiently and effectively through the private media apparatus than the state.

[defendandprotect]

22. Even those who are simply smart enough to be uneasy about it should STOP watching!!!

What in the hell is on TV that anyone would want to bother with it --- ????

PLEASE name something --- !!!

[DFW]

24. Maybe you have to come from a country with a history of news propaganda to get really upset

Germany and Russia have been two extreme examples of what happens when media becomes
an arm of State propaganda. In the USA it is more subtle, as financial interests
close to the ruling party buying up mass media to support that party is a step
removed from total State control (Russia is almost back there again). The US media also
always have the option of playing CYA in case there should ever again be a Democratic
head of the FCC. In that case, the more extreme of the radical right, the ones who call
for killing Democrats will either be quiet or be gone.

[pollo poco]

117. No, you just have to have seen something

other than your own merican teevee. And you have to have been old enough to watch for more than eight years.
My Irish family is appalled.

[Mojorabbit]

33. My elderly Portuguese mother

says the same thing. She watches the Portuguese news via satellite. The disconnect is jarring to her.

[Marr]

25. I never realized how bad our media is until I went to Europe.

I lived in Britain and France for a while, then came back to America was just blown away by how biased our TV news is. Not Fox, as you say-- that's so extreme it almost seemed like satire. CNN and network news.

The things they omit are the worst part, but there's also a lot of misinformation and value judgements inserted into the coverage.

For instance, one of the big issues in France when I left was that the population was getting older and the government was looking at cutting back on some social services to stay within the EU's requirements. Your debt can't be more than a certain percentage of your GDP-- possibly 3%, though I don't recall the exact figure. It wasn't that big a deal-- just a little adjustment and everything would be back in acceptable ranges.

Anyway, when got back to the states, I had the most surreal moment. I turned on CNN and they had a panel on discussing the US debt. In the space of 2 minutes they said that, A) it was nothing to worry about because our debt was only 6% of the GDP (far higher than that allowed by EU standards), and that B) our system was obviously superior to socialism because hey- just look at France and their 'social services crisis'.

[bdamomma]

26. all the more reason not to watch our media

go with BBC or any other country.

[Golden Raisin]

30. She is correct.

And it is too frequently passed off as "news", even impartial news, when in fact, it is opinion, repetition of talking points or outright propaganda. I search out BBC, RAI and French news to counterbalance and get some sense of proportion. I'm going to go into deep mourning or deep depression when Bill Moyers finally retires.

[glitch]

56. There will be a national day of mourning when Moyers retires.

It may not be official but it will be very real.

[Jim Sagle]

104. It will not be televised. Miley and Britney and Lindsay will as usual be covered head to toe.

So to speak.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Joanne98]

34. I say that everyday.

[slackmaster]

35. Pretty much - You have to go to the Internet to pick up the left-wing propaganda

:nuke:

[Lorien]

47. Why don't you give us some examples of that

you're all over these threads attacking the left wing (meaning those of us on these boards). Give us your examples.

[slackmaster]

70. If I gave you examples, you probably wouldn't recognize them as propaganda

They'd just be "truth" to you. How about "global warming will make the Earth inhospitable to anything larger than a house cat."? That came from the E/E forum. Your contributions in the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3438938 thread make it pretty clear you believe the left has a monopoly on truth.

Of course many of us realize there are Web forums and blogs dedicated entirely to left-wing viewpoints. DU is refreshing to me because it does tolerate other perspectives. At least most DUers do.

Being able to see things from different perspectives gives one a great advantage in many situations. You should try to develop that ability.

[dailykoff]

53. CNN is 99.4% pure neocon disinfo/propaganda.

I don't have cable but a friend does and we were watching CNN last Friday and it was wall-to-wall Reile. Switch to PBS Newshour (not a huge improvement but anyway) and not a word about Edwards, lol.

[Evoman]

60. Canada has a government owned TV station called CBC.

You'd think I should be more wary of watching it then "independant" news station. Couldn't be farther from the truth...CBC is way more impartial than anything on American news programs.

I'll be straight with you...I get access to a lot of American news channels and I think they are the most blantant displays of propoganda and right wing bullshit I have EVER seen in my life. To be commpletely honest, it makes you all look really gullible.

[DFW]

68. The big question to ask is:

Is Obama's supposed lead in current polls as result of distrust of the
stuff you see on the American media, or in spite of it?

[Evoman]

85. Given the huge amount of praise Saint Timmeh got on DU, I would have to answer

"in spite"

[Jazzgirl]

88. I damn sure didn't praise Timmeh.

I thought (still do) he was a worthless piece of shit and puke shill. Not gonna apologize for it either. :evilgrin:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Yes, one of the saddest days in my media life was when

Newsworld International went off the air to be replaced by the Current (Thanks for nothing, Al Gore!)

Newsworld International received much of its content from CBC, and during the invasion of Iraq, they were the only news I could stand to watch, because unlike the US news and to a certain extent, even the BBC, they weren't cheerleading for the invasion.

Damn, I miss them, and the only saving grace of Comcast's line-up is that even their basic-basic service carries MHz Worldview and the public access station carries Democracy Now.

[Maat]

103. Many of us don't watch.

I haven't watched it in YEARS.

I have DISH satellite, and I get Free Speech TV; my favorites are The I.N.N. Report, Democracy Now (can be seen at www.democracynow.org) and GRIT-TV. I also enjoy Al Jazeera English. I read overseas newspapers, and listen to Pacifica Radio programs.

Oh, and I always watch The Colbert Report and The Daily Show.

I teach my child what to watch; I always keep in mind what the world must be thinking about us.

To the OP, have a great vacation!

[onager]

109. Those CBC documentaries are great!

I search them out on the Internets here in Egypt.

Their program called "Mortgage Meltdown" should be required viewing for every American. It starts with the story of a hedge fund collapsing in Australia, then connects that event to the whole sorry story of the American subprime mortgage industry. (In which the Australian fund was heavily invested, which is why it collapsed.)

There are even comments about Americans taking out dodgy home-equity loans, then blowing the money on large-screen TVs and other fripperies.

Wal-Mart and CitiGroup would NEVER allow this thing to be shown in the USA! Or a related documentary dealing with a problem common to both the US and Canada--"The Debt Trap." That one interviewed many ordinary Canadians who are struggling with the consequences of easy credit.

It's really refreshing to watch programs that treat you as an intelligent, adult human. No smarmy blowhards explaining the obvious, no industry "spokespersons" spinning corporate propaganda. (Or when they do, it is hilariously obvious.)

Great stuff!

[marshall]

65. I wouldn't spend my vacation watching the news--there's too much else to do

The US if full of beautiful parks and exciting attractions. Time would be much better spent there than worrying over the distillation of news on the corporate controlled television.

[DFW]

69. 98% of the time, we do, have no fear!

And we are in/near one of those very same parks (Cape Cod National Seashore) for
our whole vacation. It's just a cloudy day today. Otherwise, we'd be in the water!

[Bluebear]

73. I would certainly watch 30 minutes of news and not call it a waste of time

Especially in a foreign country. I would think that would be tremendously interesting myself.

[K8-EEE]

84. I always find it interesting to watch TV news in another country

Not en lieu of doing other things but it's a good way to get the feel of the place, watching the news -- and ours is totally pathetic.

[Marr]

92. Absolutely. Reading the papers in other countries in fascinating.

It's one of my favorite things about traveling to new places. Read the news, watch some of their media, talk to people... gives you a more complete view of the country. I mean, looking at trees and parks is fine, but c'mon-- there's more to any nation than it's tourist attractions.

I was in Costa Rica when the CAFTA vote went through there, and I've got to say that, while the country is stunningly beautful, the things I remember most are the conversations I had with people around the country. I had a local paper with me on a cab ride, for instance. I pointed out a full-page pro-CAFTA ad and asked the cabbie what he thought of the whole thing. He pointed out that all the expensive, paid ads about the issue were pro-CAFTA. Then he spent the rest of the ride pointing out graffiti that was decidedly anti-CAFTA. It was everywhere-- an organized tagging campaign protesting the "free trade" deal.

That's what I think of when I think about Costa Rica, not so much the rain forests and bullet ants. Haha.

[B Calm]

67. She should turn on the am radio for half an hour. . . .

[wryter2000]

72. It took her 30 minutes?

I guess she had to wade through 30 minutes of commercials and missing blode stories before they got to anything of substance.

[Prophet 451]

79. LIBERAL MEDIA!

I'm always amused when American conservatives talk about a liberal bias in their mainstream media. You see, I'm British so my main source of news is the BBC which I consider fairly impartial. Perfect, no but fairly reliable and unbiased. However, I do read the electronic versions of the NY Times and Washington Post and we can get CNN and an edited version of Fox here (the unedited version violates our balanced media laws) and reading/watching those, the accusation of "liberal bias" becomes laughable. The USA has probably the most conservative media in the western world. Reports are slanted and opinion is mixed in with reportage. On top of that, the entire thing is suffused with the "USA! NUMBER1!" mentality which considers criticism of one's country or even reporting distasteful facts (like, the USA tortures people as a matter of official policy) as somehow treasonous.

Despite funding being provided by the government (via the TV licensing system), the Beeb often criticises the government of the day (some would say too often). Serious discussion is had on the subject of whether Gordon Brown should resign. When was the last time that the mainstream US media even raised the possibility of Chimpy (whose crimes are both more numerous and egregious than Brown's) resigning or being impeached? If this "liberal bias" is so prevelent, why was Dennis Kucinich's (the only genuine liberal of the bunch) primary campaign treated as a joke when it was mentioned at all? Kucinich got portrayed as a radical leftie one step away from Karl Marx. In Europe, he'd be a slightly left-of-centre but perfectly respectable Liberal Democrat.

People misunderstand the power structure of media. People think we are the consumers and the programs are the product. Wrong. We are the product and the consumers are advertisers. Most corporations tend to be conservative for fairly obvious reasons. By allowing those corporations to control the virtual entirety of mainstream media, removing most of the rules regarding how they can cover news in addition to corporations providing the main revenue stream (in the form of advertising funds), the US media has become incredibly conservative.

[Rambis]

81. I shut them off 8 years ago

I do not get news from US sources. If you want to now what is going on in america read the
BBC or a Canadian newspaper. The last place I would go for news is a television talking hairdoo.

[K8-EEE]

82. I haven't been able to watch CNN since I got back from France

They have more normal news there -- I got back and it was 24/7 the Briney/Paris are like Obama "scandal" with various tools weighing in FOR DAYS. I turned it off and haven't turned it back on -- it really is pure propaganda.

[Ishoutandscream2]

86. Shoot, you don't even have to go across the pond to see the difference

Watch BBC News America. Usually, it's just on dish. But if you have dish, take a gander. It's amazing and quite startling to see the difference. It really puts our visual media to shame.

[iamthebandfanman]

87. all the mainstream big media companies

have their own agenda, make no mistake about that.

i tend to believe tho, their agenda follows whatever makes them the most money... not necessarily a specific ideaology.

[Norrin Radd]

90. She needs to watch The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report.

Though I prefer Colbert, as John Stewart often coddles repukes.

[magellan]

93. I think anyone who has lived overseas would find our "news" jarring

I have and can say without reservation that what passes for "news" in the US is a fucking nightmare of propaganda interspersed with opinion. The BBC does a more honest and consistent job of covering US news for their people than our own media does for us.

If anyone actually thought about it they'd realize this is why world opinion has moved against us time and again: everyone outside these shores is being told more than just the APPROVED story.

[Brigid]

95. This is true, but . . .

some people just haven't figured it out yet.

[Brigid]

94. It's fascinating to get . . .

a foreigner's take on the news(?) we get all the time and take for granted.

[npincus]

97. my Japanese husband knows our media sucks

and says it's about keeping Americans dumb so they can be controlled.

[Brigid]

100. Your Japanese hubby has right idea, methinks.

Our media is so bad sometimes, there's no way it isn't deliberate.

[donco6]

98. One week of the Berliner Zeitung will cure you.

"Wow, world news right there on the front page. Who'd a thunk it?"

Our media is positively abysmal.

[DFW]

99. We're at the other end of Germany, so it's the WAZ (Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung) for us

But I was actually addressing the electronic media, so it's the ARD or the ZDF.
We get the WDR, too, and find it to be a fabulous regional network.

[offog]

101. Good to see an "outsider's" viewpoint.

I'm German-Canadian, and my parents grew up in Germany during the WWII. They always had a strong appreciation for Canadian democracy and free press, and passed that on to their kids. I get cable, and watch American news regularly just to see how the other half lives. It can be pretty freaking scary. (This is why I appreciate DU, Crooks and Liars, etc.)
America has plenty of good folks, but the country can be quite ethnocentric. I don't think those right wingers in the Bush administration and American news outlets have a clue about what they look like to the outside world.

[1]

105. well there you go. your "german" wife watches one half hour of american tv...

and the issue is settled.

good enough for me. case closed.

[DFW]

114. "german" in quotes?

She was born in Quackenbrück, Niedersachsen, grew up there, went to school
in Münster (Westfalen), and we now live near Düsseldorf. She holds only
German citizenship, and has never held any other. I guess that makes us "american?"

[Dover]

107. SO true. I learned just how bad it was back during the FIRST Gulf War

I'm a U.S. citizen and just happened to be abroad when the first Gulf War broke out.
Besides experiencing, for the first time, the anger that many Europeans had toward our
country (and particularly our foreign policy and hubris), I read as many foreign papers
on the situation as I could to learn what was happening. I devoured it like someone
being fed real food after living off a diet of fast food.
The quality of the journalism, the depth and comprehensive approach to all the players involved,
the history of each country's role going back many years, and a surprisingly unbiased perspective. I got a crash course in current events.

When I got back to the U.S. all I could find on what was happening in the Gulf were those STUPID
government films showing our "surgical strikes" ad nauseum, and the parading of all our super duper
weapons across the teevee screen. No comprehensive discussion, no consideration of the consequences of our actions, no on the ground coverage of what the various players were saying, doing etc. NO discussion of foreign policy ANYWHERE!!! It was the beginning of the Dark Ages for us.

I was in total shock. My eyes were opened for the first time. Europeans are angry with
our 'stupidity' and isolationist stance, but they need to know that we are being kept in the
dark and our one-sided views are being carefully cultivated and wrapped in the flag.
And sadly, NOTHING has changed for the better in that regard. It's only gotten worse.
This is the price paid for a government and media run by the all powerful corporate oligarchy.
And now it's become so difficult to travel, that I fear that these doses of reality one gets
when abroad are going to be few and far between.

[onager]

111. I was working in Saudi Arabia when Gulf War 1 started.

For all the comments about the lousy American media in here, with most of which I completely agree, some of our...cough...Valiant Allies are even worse.

I will never forget the night Iraq invaded Kuwait. I lived in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and the only legal, foreign-owned satellite dish in the whole city belonged to the American Consulate.

So the only TV news we got was a Saudi govt. channel, which had one news show in English.

The Saudi news-reader, a smiling fellow wearing thobe and ghuttra kept talking about "...UNCONFIRMED RUMORS of Iraqi troops moving toward Kuwait."

Unfortunately, we also had a radio, and at the same time we watched this tool, we were switching between the BBC and--OF ALL DAMN PLACES FOR A PATRIOTIC 'MURICAN LIKE ME TO GET THE NEWS...Radio Moscow's African channel.

They, of course, were both reporting: "Thousands of Iraqi troops and hundreds of tanks have poured into Kuwait and may be heading for the Saudi border."

I also remember the Saudi media--for about 2 days--pushing hard for a "purely Arab solution" to the Kuwait invasion.

No need for thousands of infidels to invade the Land Of The Two Holy Cities! A devout Saudi philanthropist volunteered to kick Saddam out with his own army of dedicated Muslims.

His name was Osama bin-Laden.

The Saudi news got even more hilarious after the war started. By then the Saudi media was mostly relying on reports from CNN, BBC, etc.

Remember those SCUD missiles hitting Tel Aviv? We could always tell when a report about Israel came on. The TV screen went blank, then a static image of the Saudi national coat-of-arms appeared, with patriotic music playing behind it. (At least when I was there, the name "Israel" almost never appeared in Saudi media. The proper term was "Occupied Palestine.")

But by then, we were getting tapes from the American Consulate, though they were always at least a day old by the time we got them.

I could also tell when the B-52's were bombing Iraq. They took off from Jeddah and flew right over my house. I have some great photos, looking up into the open wheel wells.

[LynnTheDem]

110. "supposedly free press"? USA ranks #53 for free press.

We're #53!!1!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1027/dailyUpdate.html

That would be why your wife believes US "media" is rightwing propaganda.

It is rightwing propaganda.

[Dover]

112. Wikipedia - U.S. Propaganda

The Pentagon acknowledged in a newly declassified document that the US public is increasingly exposed to propaganda disseminated overseas in psychological operations.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States

[windoe]

118. Yes, and even if you don't agree with it, they have done a job by distracting you

-by forcing you to process the information. A lot of partial images and partial information (sound bites) are used--the mind constructs the rest of the story subconsciously, without needing evidence or data....this is a high art, and I employ every one reading this to please STOP watching--we have to boycott the MSM, this is my conclusion these days.

Other than monitoring them, they must not be used for information, they are not on our side, they lie to us and are being used to control us.

[Tindalos]

120. One reason I've largely stopped watching TV.

The fictional TV shows are more realistic and informative than the supposed news. I also dislike being told to hate and fear.

[pollo poco]

121. thanks for the post

You can tell who hasn't been abroad by the comments.
These people think that this is the best country, so they assume that the rest of the world must be even worse.
They should get out.
I am appalled by the anti European sentiment.
These a***oles can't even imagine a real democracy. Or even a country where public transit exists.
Dudes, I got news for the whole falsely proud pig ignorant bunch of you- Europe kicks our dysfunctional a**.