People who "think" can recognize crap when they see it.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
VOA To Do Propaganda?
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
People who "think" can recognize crap when they see it.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
That's why they recognize that the two major NPR newscasts are biased.
I like listening to Morning Edition and All Things Considered. I know they are biased, but I don't care. They are a pleasant way to pass time when stuck in traffic. They're not perfect, but when their competition is either tight-playlist music format radio or pompous conservatives whose opinions I agree with but whose delivery is offensive, they're the least objectionable programs on the air at the time.
Now, if I lived in some third world country that was ruled by some evil socialist dictator, then I'd care more about hearing ALL of the truth.
Who is "they?" You? Be careful how you throw around the word "they." That shows bias.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I don't care if people realize I am biased or not. I do not pretend to be an "objective journalist". The only time that being biased is an issue is when the biased entity claims otherwise. I have a point of view. I do not deny it. I'm proud to have a point of view.
So then you're admitting when you used the word "they" you were simply talking about yourself. And I guess that means you believe you're the only one who thinks. And the rest of us are sheep who believe anything we're told.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
No such thing. You're inventing stuff out of thin air.
Not thin air...your posts tell the whole story.
Been there, done that, even had radio stations taken away from me for trying to report the news during the time of a socialist dictator.I was escorted away by guys with big nasty rifles, but I did not get the t-shirt.
What was our best source for unbiased an impartial news then? The VOA.
Not the BBC, not Radio Habana Cuba, not Radio Mosscú. All of those were notably tainted with bias or a slant to a particular point of view.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Once again: Biased. Not biased. I know. Trust me. Take my word for it. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
How many times must it be pointed out to you that "propaganda" is not always or automatically dishonest? How many different people need to inform you that just because Soviet Propaganda was dishonest, that doesn't mean that ALL propaganda is dishonest?
Likewise, how many people have to point out to you that "bias" doesn't always mean lies, it can also mean the selective withholding of some of the truth?
And how naive does someone have to be in order to believe that the American government because it will tell the truth when it's in the government's best interests to tell the truth, it won't lie when it's in the government's best interests to lie? Governments do what the people running the government believe is the best thing to do at the time. If that means telling the truth, they'll tell the truth. If it means lying, then they'll lie.
Now he's hearing stories that weren't reported. Maybe he picks up the signals on the aluminum foil inside his hat? Sheeeeshh...
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Avid: You've raised some valid points but you're digging yourself into a hole lately.
NPR's Ombudsman's page comment section is filled with complaints of stories, topics or issues which posters feel have been ignored or given short-shrift by NPR. As I pointed out in my thread on NPR bias in the public radio section, NPR seems to over-cover some topics and ignore others. But NPR isn't the only outlet with certain obsessions. A local guy is a political geek and he goes over-board with horse race stories and creative speculation about the next election, as if nothing else matters in the world. Wearing blinders isn't unique to NPR. But that's different from what Fox or Rush do.
The quickest way for any news outlet to lose credibility is to claim to be objective. Nobody buys it. Funny thing: Fox and partisan newspapers decades ago had more credibility than these so-called "objective" outlets.
NPR's Ombudsman's page comment section is filled with complaints of stories, topics or issues which posters feel have been ignored or given short-shrift by NPR. As I pointed out in my thread on NPR bias in the public radio section, NPR seems to over-cover some topics and ignore others. But NPR isn't the only outlet with certain obsessions. A local guy is a political geek and he goes over-board with horse race stories and creative speculation about the next election, as if nothing else matters in the world. Wearing blinders isn't unique to NPR. But that's different from what Fox or Rush do.
The quickest way for any news outlet to lose credibility is to claim to be objective. Nobody buys it. Funny thing: Fox and partisan newspapers decades ago had more credibility than these so-called "objective" outlets.
But once again, the government has highly paid spokespeople who do this. No need to use VOA when they get their guy on NBC any time they want. And when their spokespeople talk, it gets used and makes news.
It's hard to be naive when you are out there living where the news is actually happens.
The point, as Big A has stated, is that VOA is uniquely chartered to be neutral and impartial. Other state broadcasters on the international level were set up to present a specific national point of view or perspective. One is "reporting" and the other is "interpreting and slanting".
The U.S.A. has other methods of making its national point of view known, specifically the Department of State. The VOA is intended to enhance America's reputation as a free, democratic nation where opinions of all kinds are welcomed, expressed and reported on. The VOA is a showcase for democracy and the staff is proud of that.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Anyone who listens to Morning Edition and/or All Things Considered who then reads newspapers and news reports on reliable internet sources who actually pays attention will notice that there are stories they read that they never heard about on NPR.
Maybe if you spent more time reading the news instead of trying to come up with "clever" insults, you'd actually learn something.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
And so what? Newspapers have a lot more space than a radio show. An Internet site has almost infinite space. Of course, there are going to be lots of stories that radio does not have time for. And if they do have time one day, they won't keep mentioning it every day as newspapers often do. Radio news is by its nature superficial. Stories are shorter and there a fewer of them. Radio is a headline service. You should know that.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I know that well. However, I'm not talking about radio in general, I'm talking about two very specific programs, Morning Edition and All Things Considered. If you spend morning drive time listening to Morning Edition, then read the headlines of the day's top stories on other media, you'll notice that the stories Morning Edition left out "for lack of time" were almost always the stories that were good news from the conservative perspective, but bad news from the liberal perspective.
It would take a book, or at least a much more lengthy post to cover all the details. But this is a radio discussion forum, where posts aren't as long or in-depth as newspaper articles or internet news sites. Radio discussion forums are based on shorter posts. You should know that.
So you're telling me they haven't covered any of the controversies about the President, the whole Obamacare mess, any of the hearings in Congress about his policies or his Attorney General, any of the defeats he's had in the courts, or how his poll numbers are down? Because if you do a quick search of npr.org, you'll see all of those stories were covered. Even the VOA covered some of them!
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Avid, I know. But all you need to do is offer a for instance now and then. Like this morning I saw X in the Times (or Washington Post or USA Today or Guardian) website and NPR had nothing on it.
- Status