Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
El Amigo, the simple answer to your question is that the great majority of the posters in these forums are Americans, and as such, exhibit the shallowness that your post intelligently explains the origin of. When American posters present an argument that is based on a narrow and uninformed world view, there are very few here who recognize that, and I, for one, consider (in Great Debates) it to be relevant to point out that the prevailing view is a faulty American perspective.
Let me cite a single example. The American media has shown more minutes of demonstrations in Iran, than the total number of minutes ever shown of Americans protesting our invasion of Iraq. The number of Americans arrested in anti-Iraq war demonstrations (I personally know several myself) is probably larger than the number of Iranians arrested in recent demonstrations, and American protestors were often represented as criminals, as opposed to heroes in Iran. Yet, in both cases, the protestors are liberals objecting to a conservative point of view. With hours of daily news coverage of Iran, Americans have learned nothing about Iran except the no doubt surpriisng fact that they even have elections in other countries. Intelligence that will be quickly forgotten the next time the spotlight it turned on Venezuela.
A classic example of a double standard, and when I see posters with an American viewpoint using a double standard, I see nothing reprehensible about pointing that out.
El Amigo, the simple answer to your question is that the great majority of the posters in these forums are Americans, and as such, exhibit the shallowness that your post intelligently explains the origin of. When American posters present an argument that is based on a narrow and uninformed world view, there are very few here who recognize that, and I, for one, consider (in Great Debates) it to be relevant to point out that the prevailing view is a faulty American perspective.
Let me cite a single example. The American media has shown more minutes of demonstrations in Iran, than the total number of minutes ever shown of Americans protesting our invasion of Iraq. The number of Americans arrested in anti-Iraq war demonstrations (I personally know several myself) is probably larger than the number of Iranians arrested in recent demonstrations, and American protestors were often represented as criminals, as opposed to heroes in Iran. Yet, in both cases, the protestors are liberals objecting to a conservative point of view. With hours of daily news coverage of Iran, Americans have learned nothing about Iran except the no doubt surpriisng fact that they even have elections in other countries. Intelligence that will be quickly forgotten the next time the spotlight it turned on Venezuela.
A classic example of a double standard, and when I see posters with an American viewpoint using a double standard, I see nothing reprehensible about pointing that out.
Thanks for the reply. I agree how the reporting is done. Now, Americans are no different than people on any part of the world. I do believe the news media anywhere in the world can be biased. Actually they often are, in my opinion, easily manipulated. This does not only happen to Americans. I agree with the examples you gave. Now, let me give you examples of the media somewhere else, Korea. When I was the First Sergeant there from 01' to 03' my Soldiers had a traffic incident on a convoy. A drunk driver ignored the safety signs and our road guards and slammed straight into one of our trucks at high speed. Sadly, he died instantly. The media portrayed us as being at fault to incence th populace. The commander and I closed our camp due to the demonstrations against the US. They threw rocks and they had the wife of the korean driver crying right at the gate so you can imagine the impact these scenes had on TV as seen by the korean people. However, there was one article by a korean newspaper stated the driver was at fault and that he was drunk. That was about the only source brave enough to report the truth. It is no different in the States. It is not an American thing. I have experienced similar situations when I have been assigned at other parts of the world. So if you want to say that Americans this and that, the same happens with Germans, Koreans, etc. The media is very biased in other parts of the world in support of whatever national agenda they may have.
In the end why fault that people to the point you are doing. I feel that you are somewhat unfair to the people to some degree.
I am not saying not to bring that up and maybe inform them in this forum if you want but just to bash the people with name calling of portraying as ignorant, arrogant, etc. really does not achieve anything. If we all are our fellow citizens, then inform us, not tear us down.
Thanks for the reply. I agree how the reporting is done. Now, Americans are no different than people on any part of the world. I do believe the news media anywhere in the world can be biased. Actually they often are, in my opinion, easily manipulated. This does not only happen to Americans.
I think there is an important distinction that you are failing to recognize. Everybody in the world gets CNN. But in America, you get ONLY CNN. Everybody in the world gets their own country's presentation, in addition to CNN, BBC, and quite a few others. But in America, TV presents only a single, unadulterated view, that passes through an American prism before you see it. It is, quite naturally, perceived as the ONLY view. Nobody else in the world has ALL other viewpoints systematically excluded from their readily-accessible sources.
For example, I was sick for a few days in Hanoi, so all I did was lie in bed and watch Vietnamese cable. I saw direct, unfiltered programs from the USA, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Australia, China, Thailand, and probably others I cant think of right off hand. If I watch my TV, here in America, I get over 100 channels, and every single one of them has passed through the watchful filter of an American, assuring that the content is fit for an American viewer. And Americans (here I go again) believe the Vietnamese are not free, and we are not presented any information that would suggest otherwise.
(For clarity, I should point out that BBC America is an American cable company, located in northern Virginia, that buys the rights to show selected suitable BBC programs on cable to an American audience. The BBC news that is shown on BBC America is produced in a newsroom in Washington, but it does carry some content that originates in BBC London. Similarly, Univision and Telemundo are American cable companies that buy the rights to show selected programs of Laltin American origin. Nothing goes on the air until it is approved by Americans who judge it for suitability for a US audience. You know, make sure boobs are pixellated for the ruling church ladies.)
I think there is an important distinction that you are failing to recognize. Everybody in the world gets CNN. But in America, you get ONLY CNN. Everybody in the world gets their own country's presentation, in addition to CNN, BBC, and quite a few others. But in America, TV presents only a single, unadulterated view, that passes through an American prism before you see it. It is, quite naturally, perceived as the ONLY view. Nobody else in the world has ALL other viewpoints systematically excluded from their readily-accessible sources.
For example, I was sick for a few days in Hanoi, so all I did was lie in bed and watch Vietnamese cable. I saw direct, unfiltered programs from the USA, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Australia, China, Thailand, and probably others I cant think of right off hand. If I watch my TV, here in America, I get over 100 channels, and every single one of them has passed through the watchful filter of an American, assuring that the content is fit for an American viewer. And Americans (here I go again) believe the Vietnamese are not free, and we are not presented any information that would suggest otherwise.
(For clarity, I should point out that BBC America is an American cable company, located in northern Virginia, that buys the rights to show selected suitable BBC programs on cable to an American audience. The BBC news that is shown on BBC America is produced in a newsroom in Washington, but it does carry some content that originates in BBC London. Similarly, Univision and Telemundo are American cable companies that buy the rights to show selected programs of Laltin American origin. Nothing goes on the air until it is approved by Americans who judge it for suitability for a US audience. You know, make sure boobs are pixellated for the ruling church ladies.)
No, I did not miss that point. I have seen CNN in different parts of the world and I have discussed that with other people.
Again, this filtering does happen all over the world, not just in the US. Do you meant to tell me the rest of the world get the unadulterated and fair news and we don't?
I have seen how on other parts of the world they do give a distorted picture of the US also. One prime example from the BBC I saw in Europe was this reporter when the Columbia exploded. She was interviewing this expert on the subject. He was also british. I do not think the reporter was aware this expert was a very fair guy. She kept asking questions expecting to get the response that made the US look bad and he kept telling here that was not the case. She was so frustrated she finally gave up. He actually told her he was not going to give the answers he felt she wanted to hear and the audience also.
I have similar examples like this.
Another example. Some of my peer have expressed frustration on how the American news does portray the war in Iraq. They have told me when they come from the front lines they cannot believe they came from the Iraq that is portrayed in the news. They say there are many positives and they have expressed how many Iraqies have expressed gratitude but you do not see that in the news either.
So sure, news are filtered but you seem to think it just happening with us here in America. I have seen that filtering here and wherever I have been.
Now, the point still remains, why do you have the negative approach on Americans. That is my observation. I have no problem you addressing something we do wrong because there are things that we do wrong. However, you sometimes do not even comment on the wrong, you just go into how bad, ignorant, arrogant, etc. Americans are. Again, I would think you as a fellow American would work on informing us, not tear us down. That seems your cruzade. Me, I address the issue and give my input so maybe we can be better.
Do you meant to tell me the rest of the world get the unadulterated and fair news and we don't?
I have seen how on other parts of the world they do give a distorted picture of the US also. One prime example from the BBC
You could have watched the BBC and CNN, and gotten two versions. I'm telling you that in any country that has news sources from several different countries will have alternatives in which viewers at least have a chance of finding out there is another version, besides the official version. How am I failing to express this to you?
You get all your news from one country, you see no alternative versions. (USA nearly the only example.) You get news from several different countries, you see alternative versions, and accept the one you trust. ( All other countries fall into this category.)
You could have watched the BBC and CNN, and gotten two versions. I'm telling you that in any country that has news sources from several different countries will have alternatives in which viewers at least have a chance of finding out there is another version, besides the official version. How am I failing to express this to you?
You get all your news from one country, you see no alternative versions. (USA nearly the only example.) You get news from several different countries, you see alternative versions, and accept the one you trust. ( All other countries fall into this category.)
Is this going over everybody's heads?
I think you may be going a bit overboard with this American censorship slant. Sure, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC may dominate the TV news media here, but that in no way implies that we do not have choice. Honestly, from a subjective standpoint of TV in other countries (I've been to 40+ countries, many non-Western), the US gives you the most choice with regards to news options.
It also should be expected that most of our TV programming is American, we are the media center of the world.
You are also ignoring this thing called the Internet. Again, from a subjective standpoint: I feel that in the USA, I have the most access to information that I wish to seek out.
As far as TV, if I want to watch Al-Jazeera, I can. If I want to watch SkyNews, I can. If I want to watch BBC, I can. And with the Internet, I can access almost any news source I can think of. You may be confusing popularity with accessibility, though they sometimes influence each other. It would be like me complaining that I have no choice to listen to anything but Britney Spears or Green Day in America.
I think you may be going a bit overboard with this American censorship slant. Sure, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC may dominate the TV news media here, but that in no way implies that we do not have choice.
As far as TV, if I want to watch Al-Jazeera, I can. If I want to watch SkyNews, I can.
Try living in China or Iran.
The worst kind of censorship is self-censorship. It's boundaries never get tested. CNN, Fox and MSNBC provide basicly the same slant, they get their news from the same sources, at best they offer commentators who question it from different directions.
As far as I know, Jazeera and Sky are only on dish, and dish reaches only 20% of the population.
So now we can only defend the USA by comparing it with China and Iran? You're right about China, I think on China TV I saw only Chinese channels.But my hotels way out in the boondocks only had about 4 channels, so I don't know what is on in the city. I bet Iran has at least BBC, maybe Sky and CNN.
The worst kind of censorship is self-censorship. It's boundaries never get tested. CNN, Fox and MSNBC provide basicly the same slant, they get their news from the same sources, at best they offer commentators who question it from different directions.
As far as I know, Jazeera and Sky are only on dish, and I doubt if dish reaches more than about 10% of the population.
So now we can only defend the USA by comparing it with China and Iran? You're right about China, I think on China TV I saw only Chinese channels.But my hotels way out in the boondocks only had about 4 channels, so I don't know what is on in the city. I bet Iran has at least BBC, maybe Sky and CNN.
Staying in hotels is not a great representation of TV news access across the world. I would strongly advise against using that as the metric, especially if you are using market penetration as an argument against Dish network.
Low market penetration for Al-Jazeera still does not preclude one from watching it. I would be genuinely interested in seeing the market penetration for all news networks in all countries, and not just to further my/your argument one way or the other.
Your rhetoric sounds like your implying that we have State-sponsored insularity in the USA. People CHOOSE to watch CNN and Fox. Easier access plays a factor, yes. But to suggest that we cannot access different points of views is ludicrous. And this is just for TV.
The internet is the great equalizer in all of this. For me, and an increasingly large population of people, the internet is where I get my news. If I want to see an Arabic point of view on something, I'll go to their news websites.
Again, I will use the Britney Spears example. Just because Britney Spears has music playing on MTV, VH1, the radio, does not mean I am stuck strictly listening to her. I actually manage quite well to avoid such things. Yes, it is easier to hear her music than some indie band in the UK, but that does not mean we don't have options.
Staying in hotels is not a great representation of TV news access across the world. .
You're right. Home TV access is even better than in hotels in all countries. So people in all countries have access to even more sources than I think they have. But not in the US, where I know exactly what is on cable.
My point remains valid. In America, cable viewers (70% of us) have access only to the news that American cable providers consider suitable for out tender ears. In other countries, a wide range of choices is available to cable viewers.
So, if a Christian Iranian woman in France wishes to continue to wear a headscarf, because that's the way she grew up and she would feel uncomfortable and indecently exposed without one, she should certainly have the right to wear one. Doing so would neither be an expression of her Christianity nor of the Muslim faith predominant in Iran. It is merely an expression that she does not wish to expose a part of her body indecently to the general public.
So, if a non-religious French woman in Iran or Saudi Arabia wishes to continue to wear short skirts, no headscarf and a bikini at the beach because that's the way she grew up and she would feel uncomfortable not being able to do so and overly restricted in a long dress and headscarf or burka, she should certainly have the right to wear this. Doing so would neither be an expression of her French secularism nor of the secularism predominant in France. It is merely an expression that she wish to expose a part of her body in keeping with her culture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
