What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
42 Comments
- jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -7/+43CNN: We'll catch up with Fox if we have to make up more stuff than they do!
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34CNN would love for us to go to war with Iran. War mean ratings and viewers.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31In the future media channels will start wars in order to entertain people.
- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30The US is going to balance the budget by making the Iran war Pay-Per-View.
- cjdunn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+36It's a sad statement that the most independent voices to be heard in the mass media are not journalists: Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert. First CNN and now ABC going down the drain even faster.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24I was forced to watch CNN over my holidays for most of my news (non-english speaking country). It's quickly becoming less and less of a reputable news source for me. Everything quietly portrays muslims (and even just people of middle eastern appearance) as terrorists, or otherwise is newstainment. In comparison the BBC is definitely much better. Do you receive BBC world in America? At least their bias seems to be against Apple (as many digg users would put it) instead of Muslims.
- Zoshchenko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23CNN has proven by its continual coverage of the Anna Nicole Smith story that it has absolutely NO journalistic integrity and should no longer be considered a "news" organization. They hire "reporters" and "correspondents" simply to stir up controversy with no regard for any facts. They are an embarrassment.
- bustaballs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I'm sick and tired of the massive mainstream media propaganda. It's about time people stopped listening to this bogus crap and switch to alternative media.
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@EmileVictor: As a Brit, I'm glad you like the BBC. Bear in mind that Apple is less popular in the UK compared to the US, so that may have something to do with the 'bias'.
- akyra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7These media companies make more money (get more viewership) by presenting stories in a certain way. If exaggarate the fear or shock value, more people are interested in the story. They also present political news with a noticeable pro US bias. A lot of people in this country prefer hearing news which makes the US government look like the good guy on foreign policy matters. Maybe it makes them feel better to think that their government is acting in a morally responsible way. In the end I think there is a conflict of interest with these media companies between increasing revenues and in presenting the news in an unbiased way.
- dakboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Have you people not seen Tomorrow Never Dies? It's not just a movie, it's a prediction.
- roprot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ermm .. I got news for you. Mainstream media has been nothing but stirred up controversy and ill regard for facts, from day one. Its a sick society that relies on a single source for all its self-awareness ..
- booozeninja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The main stream american media is so afraid to question those in power its embarrassing. Watching an episode of the show "The West Wing" you would think that american journalists were a pack of rabid dogs after blood. In real life though they are toothless pussies. Afraid to ask what needs to be asked. Afraid to rock the boat.
The spirit of the 70s and Watergate style journalism is dead an buried. - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Think progress is no worse than linking o'reily or anyone of the other extremist toolbags.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4cnn-world to a non-english speaking country is usually the single voice of the 'ministry of truth' of usa. everything is perfect when it gets to america, never news that may sound embarassing.
and bbc-world is only slightly better. it never shows embarrassing news for the uk and never has news for other european countries. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There is no 'anti Apple bias' in the BBC. That is just plumb delusional and ridiculous. Apple is not a big platform in the UK - as it is also not such a big platform in the rest of the world outside America - so the fact that it doesn't get that much airtime for it's computing products is reflected in it's market share. It does however give major airtime to all Apple's other products - such as the iPod, the iPhone and all the other iStuff that Apple produce - because again, proportionally these do enjoy a higher market share and therefore greater market visibility.
If you are referring to the recent spat about the BBC not supporting Apple platforms in their new iPTV service - that again was a decision motivated by market share. The BBC has a public duty laid down in law to provide the greatest level of access to the greatest number of people possible, in the most cost effective way possible too. (They are genuinely not allowed to just willfully waste money). As much as it might suck, the conclusion that they came to was that the best way to do this was to serve Microsoft only platforms - since 97% of the people who watch the BBC online, commonly use Microsoft only products to do so.
However even this decision was later reversed to ensure that everyone was able to gain access 'regardless of platform'. So your concerns and accusations in this regard are again entirely unfounded.
You see you forget that you are a geek (well kind of - although I am not sure if Apple users really qualifiy as a geeks) and that on the whole, no one really cares at all about what you think. The BBC certainly have better things to think about - and are unlikely in the extreme to have issued some kind of nationwide edict to it's reporters to spread 'negative' Apple propaganda. If this is truly what you believe, I suggest you step outside and breath some fresh air for a while - because it has clearly been some time since you have last done so. - CandidateZero, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8For real. CNN is probably just after ratings, though. Fox is too, but also has a political agenda as set by Murdoch. In the Aussie's own words: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ah well, there's always CBC Newsworld.
- tankexmortis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The mainstream media has flat-out failed it's job as the fourth estate.
- wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4this is documentary evidence of CNN doing something sleazy...so, how is it biased simply because that evidence is posted on thinkprogress? Are you claiming that they've omitted context? omitted content? what? what's your claim exactly?
- mattclark1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I get the whole story from both sides and 2 angles"
I disagree that you are getting the whole story from both sides, but 2 angles could be accurate. When you are learning about an international story, it's always a good idea to learn about it from international sources, say one source from within the US (CNN or fox, or whatever else you fancy) and some other international source. I find it entertaining to do this because the differences are sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle. If the majority of Americans had been doing this back when Bush was beating the war drums, there likely never would have been an Iraq invasion. - dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@barbarino:
"I'm not a huge CNN fan, I like Fox better, I do watch both so I get the whole story from both sides and 2 angles."
You mean you get the story from two slightly different angles, both clearly on the same side?
It's like saying "I'm not a huge left-eye fan, I like my right-eye better, I do use both to look at things so I can see the whole object from both sides and 2 angles."
You'll see things from slightly different angles, which does grant you depth perception (which is kind of like noticing those little differences between CNN and Fox, and using it to judge roughly how accurate some things are), but you still have no idea what's actually on the other side...
(edit: I agree with mattclark on some of his points also. Oh, and admitting to prefering fox over anything is going to get you dugg down, diggers, on average, disapprove of fox.) - jhaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Must be that damn liberal bias we hear so much about...
- hadi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3this site has been blocked by Iran telecom! Damn Censorship!
- morningmatters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CNN is trying hard to copy FoxNews at the moment. It recently hired the rightwing hack Glenn Beck in it's primetime line-ups so to woo the FOXNews crowd. Since the O'Reilly/Hannity types only like to watch what they want to hear, CNN must "invent" news in order to keep the newly acquired rightwinger viewers happy.
- ZennZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@raid517
I can't speak to the "rest of the world," but Apple is surprisingly popular in Japan -- and I don't mean just iPods. - dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DMZ = demilitarized zone.
(aka the computer that the router/firewall sends any unexpected packets to) - linville, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, those silly right-wingers at CNN are in the tank for the Bush administration.
You guys (i.e. the diggberals) are off your rockers... - laterallateral, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Anybody read DMZ here?
Umm... FREE ARMY NOW! (?)
Okay, nevermind. - TjChubbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2US Media is an entertainment business now it seems, everyone has their show to watch to hear what they want. They all know it, and they pander like hell to their audience. I prefer to check the BBC website for news now, i don't know if its the BBC themselves that are more reputable, or merely that they have a foreign viewpoint, but it seems like they give a less biased point of view.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/default.stm
Plus, American news companies are only interested in America, and you lose sight of the world, and how connected we all are. Reading BBC definitely broadens your mind to what is really going on in the world. - nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The Economist is a good magazine as well, nice to be able to read an article (20 minutes) rather then watch it on the news (3 min)
- Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On a credibility scale of 1--100, CNN is 10 and FOX is 0. I guess you're right that it's much more credible, but that's not saying much.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0CNN, isn't that the network with the catty newswoman who left her mic on in the bathroom?
Mee-ow.
Nevertheless, CNN is still much more credible than FAUX NEWS. - frankbi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bush only? Not Rice? Not Cheney? Not Rumsfeld? ... :)
-- bi, http://zompower.tk/ - WTF666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Both of them are the same. The delusion that CNN is liberal is just a myth.
As most Americans seems to like bs instead of impartial news and CNN is a business they just copy Fox.
Proof is that the Europe CNN showed images of the carnage in Lebanon, while the American CNN didn't and was clearly pro Israel.
whatreallyhappened.com
and others for the other side. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1bbc-world is only slightly better than cnn-world. it never has news from other european countries and never has embarrassing news for the uk. in fact, it's like the "english speaking world news, all others are bad mkay".
- Barbarino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If you had to put on 24 hours of news a day for 365 days a year, you are bound to do some dumb things from time to time, and while I'm not a huge CNN fan, I like Fox better, I do watch both so I get the whole story from both sides and 2 angles. Now as for digg, you could take ANY news station and post about a screw up and you'd get the same dumb comments as seen above..
- lnman888, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Test only ...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+14Olbermann is a sportscaster and he should have stuck to that. He was at least entertaining on ESPN, now he's just a waste of airtime.
- lnman888, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0hi,this is a test
- Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9Olbermann? Wrong. He's a *real* news anchor. His bias is towards keeping his job.
The other two....*claps*. - Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -23/+13Seriously, why must we continue to link to thinkprogress? If you have a thing for complete BS I suggest going to the nearest cattle farm, but don't go dragging it in here.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is