| Page: 1 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
Stuff That We See Every Day On Tv...
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 6:59pm |
 Coolness: 121635 | What's your opinion on the news media on TV? Do you think that we always see the whole picture or only the tip of the iceberg. Did you ever notice how some stories become headliners for 2-3 days and then slowly become talked about later and later in the news to just dissapear and let a new 'more serious problem that just has appeared'. Do some people get way too much coverage... do we really care about what Joe Clark ate for breakfast? Some of the information is just ridiculous. There's entire TV channels based on pure crap that I don't know how they got to be accepted and watched by millions of people. And how state owned media brainwashes it's citizens in any way they want. Making them total slaves to the country. I really wonder why humans are so dumb and don't learn from other people's mistakes... how many wars errupted since the WW2?!? How many more innocent people died because of the same reasons. And altho we see all that violence happening around the world... we just don't give a flying fuck (for most of ppl anyways). Anyways.. gimme some thoughts about what I wrote... I think that my opinion is somewhat incoporated in the questions.. but I'll explain myself later.
Peace! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 7:27pm |
 Coolness: 194745 | news media mostly sucks.
there are very few objective and reasonable sources out there... most are biased, paid to blow certain things out of proportion and cover up others. it's all about the money those days... honest independent reporters are rare. they still exist, but what about in 10...20...50 years? I dont know... do we have a choice? not really. finding the right info requires too much time and effort, so unless you're *really* interested in a certain subject and can do research and analysis on your own (which should be able to guide you what to read between the lines, what to believe and what to dismiss), we have to swallow what we're fed off the screen, radio and newspapers. i guess best we can do is trust a channel/radio station/newspaper because it's built a good image we have seen/heard from friends, etc. Now in particular... from my observation and analysis: CNN sucks major ass. ABC news is a little better, but still sucks. Local news dont report anything too different from the main ones, aside from local issues. Hence they are usually copycats when it comes to the big picture and therefore suck. The globe and mail sucks. The Montreal Gazette is mixed. Some columns are alright but alot of them suck. I find the news radios on the AM to be the most objectivt information source I've encountered so far, but they are still shitty. Just less shitty than the rest... The internet is so huge I won't even get into it. But alot of sources are decent for the particular subjects they cover... but are hard to find. Where are we going? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 8:00pm |
 Coolness: 686310 | I don't watch TV. I hate watching the news, and there are very few TV shows that I enjoy. The news are like voting, are like the original Roman olympics. It's something there to distract people from the REAL problems. It's something to make them complacent and apathetic to the things that really go on and to the fact that PEOPLE HAVE NO POWER.
Everything aired goes before an editor. Anything that would stir up the people gets canned. Anything that is truly thought provoking gets thrown out. The people that run things, from bank managers to government officials to clothing companies, are terrified of people that think diffrently and of people that have diffrent oppinions on how things should be run, what people should believe in, how people should dress, etc. We have so many cultural taboos on things that are natural instinct. Puberty starts when? Roughly 11 years old? Give or take a few years based on the individual. At that age, our body develops the capabilities of reproduction, yet society sees it as "wrong". Why? Religion, the first form of media. 1000 years ago, we had no problem with things like parents at 11. It's nature's way of working. Parents were MORE responsible then than they are now. But religion mass-spread the idea that it was "wrong" and shouldn't be done untill it was widely accepted that humans under a certain age shouldn't have sex. We were told they weren't responsible when in fact they were, untill it became so widely believed that they weren't responsible that they BECAME irresponsible. I'm using that as an example solely on the fact that it's controversial, by the way. I am not a pedophile and hate people that are. I'm not condoning pedophilia. But what I *AM* saying, is that popular media outlets affect society as a whole, the way people think and people's oppinions to an incredible degree, and the people are affected in a way that the people controlling the outlet choose. IT's a slow process most of the time, but it's a proven one. How many people here don't think anything "suspicious" when they see muslims? Imagine what that will be like in 100 years, when they are hated by everyone, based solely on what the news was spreading on only ONE side of a battle being fought. I don't read the news paper. I don't listen to the news. I despise politics and religion and think that anyone who believes strongly in either or is an idiot. I am free from many of society's confines and have a much diffrent belief structure than I'm certain 99.9% of the people here have (Paul being the newly added exception :p ) and my indiffrence to the rest of the worlds events leaves me free from the manipulations of popular oppinion. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 8:09pm |
| Coolness: 121635 | Finaly a smart thread. And it's cool to see that people think the same way that I do. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 8:33pm |
| Coolness: 686310 | Yup. I swear I thought I was the only person on the planet that realised these things. By any odd twist, would the name Anton LaVey mean anything to you? :) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 8:49pm |
| Coolness: 121635 | Finaly a smart thread. And it's cool to see that people think the same way that I do. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Agent_Yogurt replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 9:04pm |
 Coolness: 134330 | i just think it's stoopid to cover a story like the sniper shootings if they can't give you any information. everything is no comment. without these details, there really isn't any news at all. you have to watch cnn for like 5 hours to actually get some information mixed in with all their live conferences and repeat interviews. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 9:53pm |
 Coolness: 122160 | CNN all the way :) best channel on tv, and it's hardly biased, mostly jsut facts, plus there's the bonus of larry king *drools* |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Agent_Yogurt replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 11:18pm |
| Coolness: 134330 | first of all larry king is SO old and ugly. second, it is a pretty unbiased channel but when they cover a story 24/7 they repeat a lot of shit and it's annoying when there is no new info after like 4 hours. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 11:22pm |
| Coolness: 122160 | yeah but what kind of new information are they suposed to come up with if they have nothing new? besides, they repeat the same stuff over and over so that you only have to watch 1/2 an hour to find out what's going on. and yes. larry is the hottest piece of man there is. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Agent_Yogurt replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 11:24pm |
| Coolness: 134330 | well they shouldn't keep covering the same shit for a week straight. i think it's stoopid that everything is "no comment". wherre's the fun in that?
and larry king is soo nasty, but i guess old wrinkly men float your boat so whatever... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 11:33pm |
| Coolness: 122160 | mm.. well i think if you watched it, they must have said like 100x, "well we don't know if he's watching, and we don't want him to know if we've advanced on this case or not. it's jsut a safety precaution, nanana" |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Oct 18, 2002 @ 11:46pm |
 Coolness: 340385 | larry king is way hotter then danny devito. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Agent_Yogurt replied on Sat Oct 19, 2002 @ 9:39am |
| Coolness: 134330 | both = ugly |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat Oct 19, 2002 @ 11:03am |
| Coolness: 340385 | george carlin??
say he's ugly and i'll slaughter you all. Update » Holly_Golightly wrote on Tue Apr 17, 2007 @ 9:58am i wanna mention that almost all the footages come from the '90 and are staring delta 9 himself and his jackass friends! :) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Agent_Yogurt replied on Sat Oct 19, 2002 @ 11:44am |
| Coolness: 134330 | sowee he's old and ugly too
now in the ways of hot older men we've got pierce brosnan, sean connery and harrison ford. that is all. thank you |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ApR1zM replied on Sat Oct 19, 2002 @ 12:17pm |
 Coolness: 165520 | SEAN CONNERY *slurp* hmmmm Mr.Bond you are so sexyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
ps: im not gay! i just have an undying crush for mr connery :) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Sat Oct 19, 2002 @ 7:37pm |
| Coolness: 122160 | *drools like crazy*
...now he's fUcking hoT |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Agent_Yogurt replied on Sat Oct 19, 2002 @ 8:11pm |
| Coolness: 134330 | omg he is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
hot you don't even understand |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Sun Oct 20, 2002 @ 1:44pm |
| Coolness: 122160 | oh yes :) believe me i do :) mmm... |
Stuff That We See Every Day On Tv...
| Page: 1 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
