Conquer Club

JCUGoose wrote:The American media is a joke to be completely honest. It's owned by large corporations, so how can it be anything but biased? They broadcast what they believe people will want, because more people are going to buy newspapers when the cover is on the tragedy at VT than if it was the tragedy of the bombings in Iraq.

The bottom line is, well, the bottom line. They want to sell, and the best way to do that is to pander to companies and show stuff that isn't even real news or is just incredibly biased. Fox News is a embarrassing and the other stations aren't a whole heck of a lot better.

I try to get my news elsewhere, because American Media isn't really news at all.

fox is the worst by far, but the others arent far behind

salr15 wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:

dwightschrute wrote:so wat paper

I write for the O'Collegian at Oklahoma State, and get published in the Oklahoman and the tulsa World sometimes too.

Still finishing up my second degree right now... So, I'm waiting until that's done before I go get a reporter job as opposed to just a 'contributing writer'

Stick with Entertainment, that way you might actually have a soul when you retire. Only problem is that you will have to keep up with who Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt is banging this week.

i want to do sports
salr r u a writer

salr15 wrote:Stick with Entertainment, that way you might actually have a soul when you retire. Only problem is that you will have to keep up with who Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt is banging this week.

Ha ha, reading that stuff makes me feel like my brain is slowly turning to warm soup.

lol

Another reason for selective media coverage of violence is who it is perpetrated against. In a hierarchical system violence is only acceptable flowing down the chain. So for example when a police officer is killed it is all over the news and they get a huge state funeral. When a police officer kills someone else, it will be reported briefly then forgotten. Another example is terrorism. Terrorism is seen as so horrible because it is against the powerful and thus unacceptable. The insane amount of civilian deaths due the Iraq invasion (way more than Sept. 11) is seen as unfortunate but acceptable.

foolish_yeti wrote:Another reason for selective media coverage of violence is who it is perpetrated against. In a hierarchical system violence is only acceptable flowing down the chain. So for example when a police officer is killed it is all over the news and they get a huge state funeral. When a police officer kills someone else, it will be reported briefly then forgotten. Another example is terrorism. Terrorism is seen as so horrible because it is against the powerful and thus unacceptable. The insane amount of civilian deaths due the Iraq invasion (way more than Sept. 11) is seen as unfortunate but acceptable.

another good point. its all about viewers. thats it.
but VT does deserve media coverage. it is an awful US tragedy

JCUGoose wrote:I try to get my news elsewhere, because American Media isn't really news at all.

A lot are just as bad, I try to watch Mosaic News every now and again (find it on google video) to get a view from another bias. At least then I get another angle.

Edit: Just a warning if you do decide to watch Mosaic News - there is a different culture and so you may find that they are more likely to show violence and death then western media.

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:

JCUGoose wrote:I try to get my news elsewhere, because American Media isn't really news at all.

A lot are just as bad, I try to watch Mosaic News every now and again (find it on google video) to get a view from another bias. At least then I get another angle.

the local news isnt that bad here, and BBC isnt bad either

but that is an english channel anyway

I like the BBC as they always try to give both sides of the arguament, rather then just broadcasting what they want. This goes got their radio stations (or Radio 5 which is the one I listen to) and their news on tv.

I've never watched any American news channels before so I cant really comment on how good/bad they are..

Titanic wrote:I like the BBC as they always try to give both sides of the arguament, rather then just broadcasting what they want. This goes got their radio stations (or Radio 5 which is the one I listen to) and their news on tv.

I've never watched any American news channels before so I cant really comment on how good/bad they are..

i barely get to c BBC in america

If you were complaining about the Iraqi news stations not covering the deaths of Iraqi's, then you'd have a valid argument. The fact is this was a US event on US soil being covered by the US media. The common theme to that all being "US". I for one am grateful for their in-depth coverage. I've been able to watch press conferences live, as well as the convocation yesterday.

US > Iraq to Americans, just like Iraq > US to Iraqis or Canada > US to Canadians. Home is where the heart is. Get a real argument. This one isn't valid.

wicked wrote:If you were complaining about the Iraqi news stations not covering the deaths of Iraqi's, then you'd have a valid argument. The fact is this was a US event on US soil being covered by the US media. The common theme to that all being "US". I for one am grateful for their in-depth coverage. I've been able to watch press conferences live, as well as the convocation yesterday.

US > Iraq to Americans, just like Iraq > US to Iraqis or Canada > US to Canadians. Home is where the heart is. Get a real argument. This one isn't valid.

YES

wicked wrote:If you were complaining about the Iraqi news stations not covering the deaths of Iraqi's, then you'd have a valid argument. The fact is this was a US event on US soil being covered by the US media. The common theme to that all being "US". I for one am grateful for their in-depth coverage. I've been able to watch press conferences live, as well as the convocation yesterday.

US > Iraq to Americans, just like Iraq > US to Iraqis or Canada > US to Canadians. Home is where the heart is. Get a real argument. This one isn't valid.

FOR ONCE, Wicked agrees with me!

WOW!

haha

wicked wrote:If you were complaining about the Iraqi news stations not covering the deaths of Iraqi's, then you'd have a valid argument. The fact is this was a US event on US soil being covered by the US media. The common theme to that all being "US". I for one am grateful for their in-depth coverage. I've been able to watch press conferences live, as well as the convocation yesterday.

US > Iraq to Americans, just like Iraq > US to Iraqis or Canada > US to Canadians. Home is where the heart is. Get a real argument. This one isn't valid.

I actually disagree with you and you come across as the typical American. Its not about US, its about HUMANS. I am not trying to downplay what happened in VT, granted it was a tragedy and I understand you are emotional about it because you went to school there.

But I don't agree with your "if its not US I don't care mentality". The fact is all those Iraqis that died today also had families and relatives BUT the US media doesn't want you to care which obviously is working in your case.

Salr... There ARE news channels that would talk about it more... And I am sure it will be constantly addressed for the rest of the day. However, I also believe that it is APPROPRIATE to spend more time on news happening in your home country than news that is not...

wicked wrote:If you were complaining about the Iraqi news stations not covering the deaths of Iraqi's, then you'd have a valid argument. The fact is this was a US event on US soil being covered by the US media. The common theme to that all being "US". I for one am grateful for their in-depth coverage. I've been able to watch press conferences live, as well as the convocation yesterday.

US > Iraq to Americans, just like Iraq > US to Iraqis or Canada > US to Canadians. Home is where the heart is. Get a real argument. This one isn't valid.

It's not that smaller acts of violence like VT shouldn't be covered. It's very important to cover them- not only because they are tragic but they can teach us alot about our own society (which isn't really covered). This tragic event will be all over the news for a long time....but a culture should not ignore the violence it is perpetrating on others- deeming one as acceptable and another as tragic. US violence around the world is no less local news than the VT shootings- it's just geographically further away and thus easier to ignore.

Anyone will be more concerned about deaths of fellow countrymen, wherever they are located, but foremost in their own country.

sally, more people died in the US in car crashes this past week than died at VT and in Iraq combined. Society is just "used" to hearing about crash fatalities, and unless it effects you personally, it's glossed over and soon forgotten. So are you therefore as inhumane as you claim we are because you were not on here mourning for all those lives lost? No. And for the same reason the Iraqi bombing "isn't a big deal" to many worldwide (not just in US)... we've become conditioned to it.

wicked wrote:Anyone will be more concerned about deaths of fellow countrymen, wherever they are located, but foremost in their own country.

sally, more people died in the US in car crashes this past week than died at VT and in Iraq combined. Society is just "used" to hearing about crash fatalities, and unless it effects you personally, it's glossed over and soon forgotten. So are you therefore as inhumane as you claim we are because you were not on here mourning for all those lives lost? No. And for the same reason the Iraqi bombing "isn't a big deal" to many worldwide (not just in US)... we've become conditioned to it.

Thank you, that's what I was looking for.

foolish_yeti wrote:US violence around the world is no less local news than the VT shootings- it's just geographically further away and thus easier to ignore.

Wrong foolish. I would bet money the majority of people in the US did not know any Iraqis who were killed in the bombing. The VT tragedy IS local, it IS personal for many, many Americans, and other nationalities worldwide. Your failure to see that makes you look not only foolish, but ignorant as well.

salr15 wrote:Thank you, that's what I was looking for.

Well duh, everyone here knows that. Just like I said, you've become conditioned to people dying daily in car crashes. How come you don't care about them? Those deaths FAR outnumber the Iraqi deaths. You're just as insensitive as you're purporting us to be.

wicked wrote:

salr15 wrote:Thank you, that's what I was looking for.

Well duh, everyone here knows that. Just like I said, you've become conditioned to people dying daily in car crashes. How come you don't care about them? Those deaths FAR outnumber the Iraqi deaths. You're just as insensitive as you're purporting us to be.

What are you talking about car crashes? I must have missed that there was some car crash that killed 40 people. Your argument makes no sense. I am sure if there was a crash that killed numerous people at once, we would hear about it.

A car accident is exactly what it is, an ACCIDENT. Just like people dying from a heart attack or slipping and falling off a ledge. You can't compare a car accident to a bombing.

And yes you have been conditioned to believe that Iraqis dying in a bombing is not relevant, its just another day in Iraq.

Just the fact that you are comparing this bombing to a a car crash disgusts me.

wicked wrote:

foolish_yeti wrote:US violence around the world is no less local news than the VT shootings- it's just geographically further away and thus easier to ignore.

Wrong foolish. I would bet money the majority of people in the US did not know any Iraqis who were killed in the bombing. The VT tragedy IS local, it IS personal for many, many Americans, and other nationalities worldwide. Your failure to see that makes you look not only foolish, but ignorant as well.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I can relate to what is going on in VT- the recent shooting at Dawson College in Montreal was very personal to me. My argument is not about things being personal- I am not saying, as you imply, that I expect people to take geographical local events less personal than ones that happen overseas. That is an impossibility.

My point sally is how conditioned we ALL are to deaths we hear about on a continual basis, like fatalities from car crashes. Every day on the news: x more dead in Iraq, y dead in car crash. Yes the media reports it, but unless we're personally involved, it holds less meaning for us and is soon forgotten. And that goes for you as well, so your "holier than thou" humanitarian crusade is total BS. What about the tragic state of affairs in Darfur? Why haven't you been championing their cause? Probably because you're unaware, and just looking for an excuse to argue, and the Iraqi bombing was something convenient to argue about.

And BTW, you can't claim a drunk driver killing people is an accident, which is why no one in the traffic safety field will call a crash an accident.