To our fellow muricans

[pingpong]

y/n? hmm

Actual on topic stuff

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/

http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/

Lol, Russia Today is the complete opposite of neutral media, its a barking dog for kreml, much like fox news is to neocons in USA, if those inbred islamist retards would be even close to mounting such an attack against israel mossad would have taken care of them by now.

[Angantyr]

Haven't watched above videos, but unlike Fox RT actually (mostly) adheres to European journalistic standards, as much as everyone else.

I've watched a decent amount of RT and its journalism is closer to CNN and even BBC (both of whom are of course highly politicized) than Fox, which is globally comparable only to the worst propaganda stations in history.
Same as BBC and CNN it is a certain viewpoint, but it is usually not outright lying and distortion of truth, as Fox has made its profile.

Same about Al Jazeera btw. which among the general Western population (western politicians rather) seems to have received a bad reputation but is well-acclaimed in (serious) journalistic and political science circles.
BBC is the World seen from an Anglo-Saxon/European viewpoint, Al Jazeera from the Middle-East and RT from Russia/old Soviet Bloc.


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

[Tibe]

Oh Benkei's back to start flame wars again, i was being playful, you are being annoying.  At every turn throughout this whole thread you have made discussion like 2 times, and then for the rest of it you make it your job to just poke and prod and annoy everyone within the thread for its duration.  your participation in this thread is essentially being a child for 24 pages.

To Benkei's defence, you are a quite a spinning image of a redneck by your opinions. I can see why he couldnt help himself.

[Gnjus]

[Yarl]

http://coub.com/view/3rrusc30?from_embed=fb_embed

[Rumblood]

Same about Al Jazeera btw. which among the general Western population (western politicians rather) seems to have received a bad reputation but is well-acclaimed in (serious) journalistic and political science circles.

I considered watching Al Jazeera, but then the NSA would break into my house to steal my very expensive PC along with all of my expensive devices and smash everything else because they like to steal and smash stuff because they can. I like my stuff and prefer to keep it in my home and unsmashed.

[Kajia]

I considered watching Al Jazeera, but then the NSA would break into my house to steal my very expensive PC along with all of my expensive devices and smash everything else because they like to steal and smash stuff because they can. I like my stuff and prefer to keep it in my home and unsmashed.

if it's that bad already over where you live, you should consider killing yourself.
seriously, keep your head up. using only one source of news media is not the way to go. I'd rather face the things ahead while knowing what's going on. psychologically, a better understanding works a great deal against fear.
that counts even if you're joking, as I actually believe things are or may become as grim as you make 'em sound. over there, and sooner or later in EU too.
also: use a proxy while you still can. it ain't THAT hard.

http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-handover-619/
http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-chemical-attack-israel-618/

I found this recent one interesting:
http://rt.com/news/experts-un-syria-chemical-649/

BBC is the World seen from an Anglo-Saxon/European viewpoint, Al Jazeera from the Middle-East and RT from Russia/old Soviet Bloc.

agreed.

in that sense it's not as much about who speaks the truth as no-one actually knows 'the truth' (if someone says otherwise, he's lying), rather there are meda-distorted facts, claims, reports, etc. and then there is - sometimes - proof, which will support a number of facts.
I say we should use as much different perspectives as we can get until SOLID proof is delivered, period.
and I mean actual perspectives, not faked ones. there is a lot of news services that use the same damn sources = not different from each other and not worth our time.

I must highly recommend this series (and this show in particular):
youtube: Why so Syria | Unfilter 65
(bunch of videogamers and linux geeks doing solid social commentary, reviewing news and asking the right questions)

it explains some possibilites why syria could be such an issue at all, for the US government (apart from the obvious 'humanitarian aid' :rolleyes:).


[edit to make video work]

[Rumblood]

I was being sarcastic. It is watching Al Jazeera in conjunction with reading Panos' propaganda that will bring the NSA. 

[Xant]

in that sense it's not as much about who speaks the truth as no-one actually knows 'the truth' (if someone says otherwise, he's lying)

Uh, what?

[Kafein]

Haven't watched above videos, but unlike Fox RT actually (mostly) adheres to European journalistic standards, as much as everyone else.

I've watched a decent amount of RT and its journalism is closer to CNN and even BBC (both of whom are of course highly politicized) than Fox, which is globally comparable only to the worst propaganda stations in history.
Same as BBC and CNN it is a certain viewpoint, but it is usually not outright lying and distortion of truth, as Fox has made its profile.

Same about Al Jazeera btw. which among the general Western population (western politicians rather) seems to have received a bad reputation but is well-acclaimed in (serious) journalistic and political science circles.
BBC is the World seen from an Anglo-Saxon/European viewpoint, Al Jazeera from the Middle-East and RT from Russia/old Soviet Bloc.


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

If I remember correctly even the FCC doesn't consider Fox a "legitimate news source" anymore.

What about euronews btw ?

Also a little bit of inaccurate humor

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Uh, what?

I think what is meant is that any convenient way to gather and aggregate news cannot guarantee its audience to be flawless in accuracy even if genuinely trying. Pushing that to the extreme, you sometimes must have a high degree of confidence in some people in order to have a nice live. The way I formulated this makes it evident to me that I'm turning into a full-blown Bayesian. And that was an attempt at thread derailing.

[zagibu]

Most news are borderline wrong. You realize this when they treat a matter you have been personally involved in. A large part is over-generalization, mixed in with some convenient blindness in different areas and a small part that is just plain wrong. There are many reasons for this, and one of the most important ones is that it's impossible to reduce most matters to an article of a few hundred words without losing relevance.

[Kafein]

Most news are borderline wrong. You realize this when they treat a matter you have been personally involved in. A large part is over-generalization, mixed in with some convenient blindness in different areas and a small part that is just plain wrong. There are many reasons for this, and one of the most important ones is that it's impossible for most matters to reduce them to an article of a few hundred words without losing relevance.

The problem also resides in the nature of generalist journalism. By definition, a generalist journalist cannot master or even have the beginning of an understanding about every subject. Hence why every single person highly knowlegeable about every single possible subject will tell you mainstream media articles about that subject are crap. The only "worthy" journalism is investigations, really.

[Kajia]

it's impossible for most matters to reduce them to an article of a few hundred words without losing relevance.

The only "worthy" journalism is investigations, really.

this, and this exactly.
I was interviewed a couple of times in my local news (very small unimportant stuff), and even there the result always made me facepalm. information distorting formulations for the sake of having proverbs and all that. journalists that report on matters more important than that should have standards you'd hope. there is codexes and such for a reason.
and damn, I can totally understand how hard it must be to get things right in important matters, with very high pressure in time and from all sides and all the while being attacked as not doing your job right, or even physically. but I hate the so-called "journalists" and "news-reporters" that don't even try. not to mention the malicious well-poisoners that populate fox news for example.
but I have seen some horrible "investigation" techniques aswell, and "interviews".

jesus, why don't people get that the public is not their playground. fucking sociopaths.

[Xant]

I think what is meant is that any convenient way to gather and aggregate news cannot guarantee its audience to be flawless in accuracy even if genuinely trying. Pushing that to the extreme, you sometimes must have a high degree of confidence in some people in order to have a nice live. The way I formulated this makes it evident to me that I'm turning into a full-blown Bayesian. And that was an attempt at thread derailing.

According to legend, one who fully grasped Bayes' Theorem would gain the ability to create and physically enter an alternate universe using only off-the-shelf equipment and a short computer program.  One who fully grasps Bayes' Theorem, yet remains in our universe to aid others, is known as a Bayesattva.

Also, the news are obviously mistaken a lot of the time, if not most of the time. But saying, because of that, that no one knows the truth is, shall we say, slightly exaggerating it.

[Kajia]

Also, the news are obviously mistaken a lot of the time, if not most of the time. But saying, because of that, that no one knows the truth is, shall we say, slightly exaggerating it.

well, it would be useful to know how you define truth for yourself?

as I'd like to understand it, truth is a word and words are never the worldly things they point to. the map is not the territory.
surely there are some more accurate descriptions and models of the worldly things, but there is no such thing as truth, or ultimate facts, when you're communicating in everyday language. every phrase is subject to interpretation, therefore you cannot transmit reality, not even into your own brain, which thinks in language.

surely you'd counter that we then have to look for those more accurate descriptions with all the proof we can get. yes, sure, but I'd rather not look for the truth. "knowing stuff" is not linear.