Western news VS non western news sources

[Metal Matt]

The thread about the royal wedding on here sort of got me going on making this thread. It's an issue I've been thinking about a lot lately.

Out of the news channels we have available in my area, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, RT (US oriented, Russian run news station), and a couple business channels and of course internet sources, I've noticed that US news focus is drastically different than anything being reported by sources outside the western media. Non western sources focus on things like the growing gap between the rich and poor in the states, along with growing influence of big corporations on our government. The IMF's forecasts indicate China may surpass us economically in as little as five years, if things continue as they are. And they've said they will lower our credit rating if we don't figure out the budget. Non western sources seem to focus a lot on what our military is doing around the globe, and even touching on social issues like underage sex slavery that exist in our country.

Western media with the exception of a few specific shows do talk about some of these things, but only for a fraction of the time they spend talking about celebrities, the royal wedding, or Donald Trump running around trying to keep his toupee on. Like I said, some shows DO focus mostly on serious matters, but it still seems like a small portion. And of course our news channels are loaded with commercials where stations like RT have absolutely none. I feel our media does us a bit of a disservice by not keeping the focus on the issues that are impacting nearly every American right now and not representing more viewpoints. IMO I think it's partially because as a nation we have this aversion to bad news, and a focus on celebrities and mindless entertainment that borderlines worship. A little bit of blind unquestioning patriotism seems to play into it as well, but that's a little too close to political for discussion here. But all these things result in a media that gives the people exactly what they want, mindless irrelevant stories that distract from a majority of depressing real world issues being covered by non-US news because we want good news, not necessarily "real" news. But, that's all just my take on the matter.

All stations and specific shows on them seem to have an agenda, and do present very one sided views of the world usually. I try to get my news from all stations, even those whose point of view I completely disagree with. I do watch RT news the most now, due to them having no commercials, and generally I agree with a lot of their assessments about current events, but I do realize they are every bit as one sided as any of the other stations, which is sad, but I doubt it'll change anytime soon.

What I'm getting at with all this, and what I'm wondering is where TBer's get their news from and if you feel you get a complete picture of what's going on in the world. Do you feel certain viewpoints are ignored in US media(for whatever reasons that might be so). And also, from users outside the US, do you notice the same sort of dichotomy between US/western media and everyone else? Just curious what my fellow TBer's think about all this stuff is all.

Of course, please try to keep politics out of it, keep it civil, etc.. etc...

[SoonerMatt]

I get my news from....

The Wall Street Journal
CNN
NY Times
BBC
Al Jazeera
The Economist

My twitter feed is pretty much a glorified RSS news feed.

[MJ5150]

When I want to catch non-sports news, I tune in to my local NBC affiliate. Sometimes I check out the CBC news on CBUT, which is in Canada. I don't feel like I am missing anything or not getting the truth.

-Mike

[colcifer]

FWIW, my primary news sources are The Economist, BBC, and NYTimes. The closest I get to watching American television news programing is when I watch the Daily Show. Pundits? **** em.

[bmc]

Originally Posted by colcifer

FWIW, my primary news sources are The Economist, BBC, and NYTimes. The closest I get to watching American television news programing is when I watch the Daily Show. Pundits? **** em.

What he said.

I'd also throw in English Al Jazeera, International Herald Tribune.

The Daily Show, to me, is the most reliable US news source. Sad commentary, I know.

[blendermassacre]

Reuters.com Al Jazeera English, CNN, BBC

[iamlowsound]

I watch the BBC, and CBC and I read the Globe & Mail, McLeans and sometimes the local paper.

lowsound

[Lady Kayri]

Part of the problem in the US is that most of our media is owned, directly or indirectly, by big business. It isn't so much that big business wants to skew the news away from solid news (which might make big business look bad) I suspect, but that, like too much of our entertainment, the news is being directed more toward the lowest common denominator - in other words, they're more concerned about their ratings, ie their bottom line, than anything else. We're well into the age of 'feel good' news programs. At least in the age of the interwebs you can find solid news stories elsewhere, if you're interested. And by the same token, if the big news services tried to show too much of the solid news, their bosses are afraid the public would turn the channel to something else...Personally, I think they're underestimating the the American public. On the other hand, considering what tall tales Americans believe to be true, perhaps they're right. Sigh.

[burk48237]

The New Republic
The National Review
Dailey Beast
Drudge-links to everybody

Haretz
Jerusalem Post
(I've always had an interest in the ME)

NPR Mourning edition(on the road-although I find some of their local affiliates biased to the point of unlistenable)

Fox news hour
The Economist
Financial Times
WSJ
Rush for commentary although I prefer when Mark Steyn is hosting of late
Canadian Free Press

[Kwesi]

For me it's been:

The Huffington Post
BBC
Gawker
The Washington Post
and whatever channel Rachel Maddow is on, lol.

[WillPlay4Food]

Autotunethenews
Wait wait don't tell me

[Cabazon]

My main sources of news are BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, and TalkBass OT.
I used to also read Newsweek, but they stopped featuring news.

[steamthief]

It's sad that not only do we import oil from the Middle East, but also a credible news source in Al-Jazeera. In the LA market, the broadcast news is over the top in reporting on celebrities, live car chases, "hot" products, etc., and incredibly lacking in stories outside the US, unless it's a natural disaster.

[colcifer]

Lady Kayri, 'Big Business' makes me laugh. I like to wonder what Freud would think of us using the word 'big' to make something seem scary or otherwise bad.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Lady Kayri

Part of the problem in the US is that most of our media is owned, directly or indirectly, by big business. It isn't so much that big business wants to skew the news away from solid news (which might make big business look bad) I suspect, but that, like too much of our entertainment, the news is being directed more toward the lowest common denominator - in other words, they're more concerned about their ratings, ie their bottom line, than anything else. We're well into the age of 'feel good' news programs. At least in the age of the interwebs you can find solid news stories elsewhere, if you're interested. And by the same token, if the big news services tried to show too much of the solid news, their bosses are afraid the public would turn the channel to something else...Personally, I think they're underestimating the the American public. On the other hand, considering what tall tales Americans believe to be true, perhaps they're right. Sigh.

True, but there's a flip side to that. Many foreign sources are state owned, and a few other have admitted biases. You don't tell a story from any POV, you tell what happened, and let your readers-watchers figure out why. The why stuff is for the editorial page, and when it appears on the front page, it skewers things. As far as big business owning US new outlets, most of our news organizations are remarkably independent. It certainly doesn't effect content when it comes to business. Most business leaders consider themselves to be treated pretty poorly by our media. The story that Exon made 11 billion will make front pages everywhere. The story that they paid 10 billion in taxes in the same quarter will be buried on 7d or something.

But you are certainly right about the ratings and entertainment factors. Our local news spends far more time covering a local hat maker for the patrons at the Royal Wedding then they do covering the city budget. But OTOH, we have a multitude of net sources now. We just have to be far more cautious consumers and not get our news just from one source. But we have far more available to us then we did when Walter Cronkite was saying "that's the way it is".

[iamlowsound]

Originally Posted by Cabazon

My main sources of news are BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, and TalkBass OT.
I used to also read Newsweek, but they stopped featuring news.

Good point, I do get a lot of news from TBOT. Lots of good articles being posted. Case in point, the article Dr Cheese posted the other day about the 1987 war in Lybia.

lowsound

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by iamlowsound

Good point, I do get a lot of news from TBOT.

Me too. I dont watch much TV myself, so I let TB filter out the filler and give me the cold hard facts.

That and my morning drive to work, I listen to the local radio talk show.

[Metal Matt]

Originally Posted by bmc

What he said.

I'd also throw in English Al Jazeera, International Herald Tribune.

The Daily Show, to me, is the most reliable US news source. Sad commentary, I know.

Very sad, but I've felt the same. Always loved the Daily Show, and the interviews he does with guests have gotten way more serious over the years which I think is awesome. But it is indeed sad when you feel like you get more reliable news from a comedy show.

Originally Posted by Lady Kayri

Part of the problem in the US is that most of our media is owned, directly or indirectly, by big business. It isn't so much that big business wants to skew the news away from solid news (which might make big business look bad) I suspect, but that, like too much of our entertainment, the news is being directed more toward the lowest common denominator - in other words, they're more concerned about their ratings, ie their bottom line, than anything else. We're well into the age of 'feel good' news programs. At least in the age of the interwebs you can find solid news stories elsewhere, if you're interested. And by the same token, if the big news services tried to show too much of the solid news, their bosses are afraid the public would turn the channel to something else...Personally, I think they're underestimating the the American public. On the other hand, considering what tall tales Americans believe to be true, perhaps they're right. Sigh.

+1. Pretty much sums it up.

Originally Posted by burk48237

True, but there's a flip side to that. Many foreign sources are state owned, and a few other have admitted biases. You don't tell a story from any POV, you tell what happened, and let your readers-watchers figure out why. The why stuff is for the editorial page, and when it appears on the front page, it skewers things. As far as big business owning US new outlets, most of our news organizations are remarkably independent. It certainly doesn't effect content when it comes to business. Most business leaders consider themselves to be treated pretty poorly by our media. The story that Exon made 11 billion will make front pages everywhere. The story that they paid 10 billion in taxes in the same quarter will be buried on 7d or something.

No doubt there. I brought up RT news. They are Russian state owned and certainly have an agenda but they do show a side of America we almost never see. MSNBC largely seems to lean left, Fox right, and CNN, Al Jazeera seem somewhere in the middle. There have been some in the US pushing the idea that RT and Al Jazeera are nothing more than anti-American propaganda and I think it's a bit sad that some would instantly label an opposing view as "propaganda".

Originally Posted by colcifer

Lady Kayri, 'Big Business' makes me laugh. I like to wonder what Freud would think of us using the word 'big' to make something seem scary or otherwise bad.

Well, for what it's worth, there are some throwing out the word "big government" as well. It seems in certain states, and in our government as a whole, big business has more and more influence on what our elected leaders are doing by way of lobbying, and campaign contributions, getting people in power that support their corporate agenda. There's this big push by some for increasingly "free markets" which unfortunately is giving the individual in this country less and less say in matters. Seems in some states there is major privatization of what used to be state run infrastructure, and decisions making public schools private in areas where it will affect the already poor and strugglings ability to get a quality education. IMO a lot of people are being misled by big business interests into thinking that supporting less government means less government in their personal lives when all it means is less government regulation over big corporations. Michigan recently passed a bill that gave the governor the power to appoint an "emergency management team" to any town he deems to be in an emergency. This means he can go and throw out any elected officials and replace them. There are plans to privatize what used to be public schools, as I mentioned above, that will have an impact on people in poverty getting access to quality education.

On the flip side, you have Vermont moving towards treating health care as a basic human right. Pretty much the opposite direction of states taking rights out of the hands of people and putting it into the hands of those with the most money. So perhaps things aren't all bad.

I do think court decisions such as Citizens United are pretty messed up. Do we really believe a huge multi-billion dollar corporation should have the same rights that individuals do? And that we should allow them to pour endless amounts of money towards candidates that support their agenda (not always in the best interest of our country)? I think it leads us to a place where the government ceases to represent the people that it's supposed to. At the least, it gives those with huge corporate backing an unfair advantage in elections IMO. This is also a problem of people only considering candidates they hear the most about on TV. So if you have millions in ads for someone, and the other guy can only afford a few thousand, well... I think you see what I'm getting at..

We do hear about this issue in our news, but I'd still say it takes a back burner to less important issues. Meanwhile, as I mentioned it's a pretty big focus on RT, and a couple specific hosts on US channels. I do think it's one of the major problems in our country today. I don't know that I believe we'll see our government turned into a full blown plutocracy, but it seems there are some out there that would like it to happen, and I think it's a scary direction to head in, and I do wish US news media would talk about it more, because I believe it's a very real problem.

[bassybill]

BBC. The rest is pretty much just filler.

[tycobb73]

In a free market the new reports what people want to hear. If it doesn't, it dies out. News run by the government reports what the government wants you to know. I don't care about the wedding but I did pay close attention to the draft.