> Dana wrote: > I would agree with most of this. I would also add straight news > however, which *is* possibel especially when dealiing with objective > fact, ie "Gunmen in Baghdad today took an American journalist from his > vehicle. His whereabouts are not currently known."
Well 6 months ago the criticism wouldn't have been how that story was reported, but that it was reported rather than, say, the fact that 10 new schools were built. This is the scary part - there are actually a lot of people that support the argument that the US should have more "news" supporting pro-government positions. The same people then criticize al Jazeera for taking supportive positions of anti-US governments or ideas. That is, they feel if the "news" support the existing government it's ok, but if it doesn't then it's propaganda. The disturbing solution has been to degrade the quality of our press by creating an explicitly pro-government news network. I wouldn't argue that possibly CNN was biased, but the solution isn't to create a network solely devoted to propaganda supporting other views. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:150223 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
