PDA

View Full Version : These Religious Nutbags are really peeing me off!


MOBIUS
21-03-2005, 23:22:40
Creationists take their fight to the really big screen (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1441818,00.html)

Just how backward is the US becoming? It seems like every day there is a new story of some new kind of fundamentalist shit going down...:rolleyes:

Normally I wouldn't give a shit cos those morons are safely on the other side of the pond, but when it might start affecting what I can see at an Imax cinema then I start getting annoyed - especially as it might set a dangerous precedent in films in general...

Tossers!

Japher
21-03-2005, 23:44:29
The Galapagos one is very good... that is shame.

At least there are some sane ppl in the world who own IMAXs and will still show it.

Provost Harrison
22-03-2005, 00:21:57
I hate this fucking shit, why don't they get an ounce of common sense in their thick skulls?

Venom
22-03-2005, 00:26:28
Yes. It's all evil, backwards Americans. No stupid people in any other country.

Guess what Mobius...the craziest fundamentalists of all are your precious liberals.

protein
22-03-2005, 00:27:38
It's okay they are miles away. It's not as if the people with their fingers on the button are creationists who think in biblical terms.

Oh shit. We're doomed.

Provost Harrison
22-03-2005, 00:29:00
Particularly shitty tonight I see Venom ;)

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 00:29:53
I've seen this Guardian article at another web site but so far I haven't seen anything mentioned about this in a real news source.

My guess is these are a few isolated cases and not the wide spread conspiracy the Guardian likes to invent.

Provost Harrison
22-03-2005, 00:30:42
What do you mean? The Grauniad wouldn't lie about something like this!

Oh wait...

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 00:37:46
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I hate this fucking shit, why don't they get an ounce of common sense in their thick skulls?

This from a guy who takes anything written in the Guardian at face value? PH, their editor has publically admited that they are an "activist paper" which is written from a particular political ideology. The Guardian frequently slants the news to fit its word view and ignores opinions & facts which don't fit that world view.

There are so many honest papers with real journalism in the world so I'm sure you could find one which offers interesting articles without the lies and misrepresentation found in the Guardian.

protein
22-03-2005, 00:39:43
:lol:

Venom
22-03-2005, 00:48:29
It's a day that ends in y, so yeah, shit's away.

HelloKitty
22-03-2005, 01:07:23
Originally posted by Oerdin
This from a guy who takes anything written in the Guardian at face value? PH, their editor has publically admited that they are an "activist paper" which is written from a particular political ideology. The Guardian frequently slants the news to fit its word view and ignores opinions & facts which don't fit that world view.

There are so many honest papers with real journalism in the world so I'm sure you could find one which offers interesting articles without the lies and misrepresentation found in the Guardian.

Prefer the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html&OQ=pagewantedQ3DprintQ26positionQ3D&OP=10f8b735/JtcwJxPbm2PPsqJqFFZJFQ2BJ@1JQ24usQ26PQ24uiJ@1Q26Q5 BuKLQ27sQ5Bi

MOBIUS
22-03-2005, 01:17:07
Originally posted by HelloKitty
Prefer the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html&OQ=pagewantedQ3DprintQ26positionQ3D&OP=10f8b735/JtcwJxPbm2PPsqJqFFZJFQ2BJ@1JQ24usQ26PQ24uiJ@1Q26Q5 BuKLQ27sQ5Bi

Nah, it doesn't fit Oerdin's World view, so he'll just ignore it...:p

HelloKitty
22-03-2005, 01:18:39
Oerdin is Darkstar?

Provost Harrison
22-03-2005, 01:18:57
Originally posted by Oerdin
This from a guy who takes anything written in the Guardian at face value? PH, their editor has publically admited that they are an "activist paper" which is written from a particular political ideology. The Guardian frequently slants the news to fit its word view and ignores opinions & facts which don't fit that world view.

There are so many honest papers with real journalism in the world so I'm sure you could find one which offers interesting articles without the lies and misrepresentation found in the Guardian.

http://www.joeymines.com/Fishing%20Pictures%20Mack%20Ballard%202002%20008.j pg

MOBIUS
22-03-2005, 01:20:52
Originally posted by Venom
Yes. It's all evil, backwards Americans. No stupid people in any other country.

Guess what Mobius...the craziest fundamentalists of all are your precious liberals.

Hit a soft spot eh? Is ickle Vennykins a creationist?

Don't worry, you'll grow out of it... ;)

MOBIUS
22-03-2005, 01:22:29
Originally posted by HelloKitty
Oerdin is Darkstar?

Nah, Darkstar would write a full blown thesis on why he was ignoring it...:clueless:

HelloKitty
22-03-2005, 01:23:15
But no one would read it, so it would be just like he didn't respond!

MOBIUS
22-03-2005, 01:26:46
A bit like the leaf falling in the forest...:D

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 01:36:38
Originally posted by HelloKitty
Prefer the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html&OQ=pagewantedQ3DprintQ26positionQ3D&OP=10f8b735/JtcwJxPbm2PPsqJqFFZJFQ2BJ@1JQ24usQ26PQ24uiJ@1Q26Q5 BuKLQ27sQ5Bi

Actua the NY Times is a better paper then the Guardian, however, its Public Editor has alos admited that they have a liberal bais. Unlike the Guardian the NY Times actually does give print to conservatives and centrists plus it details their positions in a fair way. That's the hallmark of quality journalism and it's a major reason as to why the Guardian is a tabloid while the NY Times remains a quality journalistic paper dispite it's political stances.

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 01:37:53
Originally posted by protein
:lol:

I notice you laugh alot but you haven't contradicted my basic facts.

miester gandertak
22-03-2005, 01:46:01
-FACT!!

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 01:46:50
Originally posted by MOBIUS
Nah, it doesn't fit Oerdin's World view, so he'll just ignore it...:p

I don't ignore the Guardian but neither do I trust anything it prints unless it is backed up by a reputable paper with at least basic journalism standards.

This was rewarded because by reading the NY Times article we get a much more balanced view:


The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South.

Notice how that is different from the Guardian's hystryonics about massive censorship across the country? Instead we have, exactly as I had guessed, a handful of locations in very religious areas. This is another example of how the NY Times does quality journalism, dispite their self admited liberal bias, while the Guardian does tabloid junk. Maybe when the Guardian starts actually dealing in facts, allowing both sides to state their policies, and other basic journalistic stanards hen they'll be worth reading. Right now they are right up their with Pravda in terms of believability and fairness. ;)

protein
22-03-2005, 01:48:22
You say "liberal bias" as if it's a bad thing. That's like saying "open minded", "educated" or "not constricted".

protein
22-03-2005, 01:50:21
Isn't "a handful" too many? Aren't you worried about the amount of fundamentalists in power in your country?

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 01:56:40
I don't like Bush because of policy reasons but claiming he is a fundimentalist is pretty stupid. Sure, he's a doush bag who will pander to religious nuts by making religious statements but if he was really a fundie who wanted to force religion on people the he'd force convert Jews and Muslims. That hasn't happened.

If you are going to oppose Bush then do what I do and stick to a factual basis instead of resorting to name calling like a three year old.

protein
22-03-2005, 01:59:49
Bush?

Namecalling?

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 02:02:57
Originally posted by protein
You say "liberal bias" as if it's a bad thing. That's like saying "open minded", "educated" or "not constricted".

Any type of bias in journalism is bad liberal, conservative, or other wise. I seem to be one of the few people who still believe in the old fashioned jourlism ethics taught in journalism schools where the journalist should just present the facts as fairly as possible during the news and save the opinions for the editorial section. That way readers can clearly see the difference between facts and opinions.

The NY Times at least tries to live up to this goal while the Guardian simply decided it is better to be a shick jock tabloid that plays lose with the facts, ignores inconvient facts, and adds a huge dose of opinion into everything it writes. Sure, they've found stupid people will fanatically buy papers which reenforce their personal bias (look how well the Guadian does in the UK but how it is laughed at by most real journalism news sources the world over); they made a choice that money matters more to them then fair journalism or ethical standards. That's the Guardian's choice to make but it is everyone else choice if the Guardian is relavant to real journalism.

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 02:06:23
Originally posted by protein
Bush?

Namecalling?

Yes, shall I quote your calling him a fundimentalist? That's name calling and not really connected to reality. I dispise the man as much as the next thinking person but I avoid the name calling and instead point out policy errors and factual mistakes his administration makes.

protein
22-03-2005, 02:20:31
Seriously though, I think there's a language problem here. To me, liberal means balanced and to you it seems to mean something awful. Every time you read "liberal" in one of my posts you can replace it with the word "thoughtful".

Over here we have papers like the Daily Mail who like to run stories about immigrants eating "our" swans and how "our" television is all filth nowerdays.

On he other hand you have papers like the independent and the guardian which have news stories.

Check out these two front pages from the same day. One is a right wing paper. One is liberal. Guess which is which.
http://www.bigdaddymerk.co.uk/mailwatch/wp-content/mailcharlie.jpg
http://www.bigdaddymerk.co.uk/mailwatch/wp-content/indi.jpg

protein
22-03-2005, 02:23:04
Oh, and by liberal I don't mean communist, gay, muslim or whatever it means over there. I mean fair and balanced comments from all over the political spectrum.

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 03:45:19
Originally posted by protein
Seriously though, I think there's a language problem here. To me, liberal means balanced and to you it seems to mean something awful.

Nonsense. Liberals aren't awful despite what other people might say. Liberal just means left of center on the political spectrum so it is no more a synonym for "thoughtful" or "balanced" then conservative or socialist or any other political position. Yes, I do prefer to get news which is based strictly on facts and which does not need a filter to figure out which are facts and which are opinions.

Also I've noticed that several British publications would have been sued to death here in the states but seem to continue their circus of libel unscathed in the UK. I realize the US has stronger libel rules but I am surprised how out right deceitful your tabloids or even supposed news sources like the Guardian are. I much prefer knowing that if I pick up newspaper in America then it is reasonably free of outright falsehoods compared to those found in other countries.

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 03:48:23
Originally posted by protein
Oh, and by liberal I don't mean communist, gay, muslim or whatever it means over there. I mean fair and balanced comments from all over the political spectrum.

Then you're not speaking international standard English.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
22-03-2005, 04:34:47
Originally posted by protein
I mean fair and balanced comments from all over the political spectrum.

Ah! Liberal like Fox News!

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
22-03-2005, 04:39:42
Protien: They're both awful. One is sensationalist, poorly presented, glitzy and draws the eye with color. The other looks like a soap opera gossip society mag.

In my mind, you can't take it seriously unless there's one picture or less on the front, preferably black and white, and covered with tiny, tiny print :)

Actually, I don't read newspapers anymore. It got to the point where I was reading nothing but the comic pages because the rest was poorly written or biased BS. Most of my news comes from radio nowadays, where they can't grab your attention with colorful pictures, glamorous flashy video or 144 point headlines. Give me quiet, thoughtful commentators with balanced guest speakers anyday.

Gary
22-03-2005, 08:28:08
'It is going to be hard for our film-makers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know that 10 per cent of the market will reject them,' said Joe DeAmicis, vice-president of the California Science Centre in Los Angeles. It's going to be considerably harder to take a stand that offends the remaining 90% of the market. If thy IMAX offends ye, tell them to stuff their product.

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 09:02:07
BTW I contend that 12 theaters or less represent far, far less then 10% of the total US market. We're talking about a tiny minority of idiots. Of course you wouldnlt know that reading the Guardian article but that's why the Guardian is laughed at by serious journalists the world over.

MoSe
22-03-2005, 11:08:44
Originally posted by Oerdin
I've seen this Guardian article at another web site but so far I haven't seen anything mentioned about this in a real news source.

My guess is these are a few isolated cases and not the wide spread conspiracy the Guardian likes to invent.

Excuse me Oerdin, I usually steer far away from opinionated discussions like this, and I never read The Guardian or any other international news sources online (my fault and limit), but I fail to catch what are you after here...

I know nothing to object to your statement that the Guardian is a biased and not serious (or not reliable if you prefer) source, and I don't care, but maybe as a non-native speaker I'm blind and naive, can't read coded innuendos and in-between-the-lines, and you might help to enlighten me.

"Conspiracy"?
"Invent"?

Isn't it a fact that some fundamentalist minority, rightfully upholding their beliefs, expressed their dissent to how the content of some movie indirectly undermined those beliefs and offended them?
Isn't it a fact that some theatre managers and movie producer based some of their marketing decisions on the reaction those part of audience, albeit a niche customer section, had?
I don't know, but I've no basis to deem those reports unreliable, you tell me.

So, "conspiracy"? It seems all in the open and straightforward to me, some customers declare what they do like or dislike in some products (whichever their personal reasons might be), and some producers and distributors decide whether they have enought weight and impact to influence their decisions or not, and to which extent.
"conspiracy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy)"?
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
...
A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design...
:confused: Where does the Guardian article state or suggest or hint anything like that? I can't find it in what I read.

The article mainly reports facts, and when it reports opinions those are not the Guardian's, but those of the involved parts.
Superficially, the decision affects only a dozen or so cinemas. But it could have a profound knock-on effect across the world [...]
The economics of Imax film-making are therefore very tight, and the actions of these southern Imax cinemas will only exacerbate the problem. It is expected that producers will be far less likely to make films that could offend fundamentalists, as the loss of venues in the southern states could be enough to turn profit to loss.
Well, "it is expected", is this a Guardian's biased invention? could be, but:
'It is going to be hard for our film-makers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know that 10 per cent of the market will reject them,' said Joe DeAmicis, vice-president of the California Science Centre in Los Angele
It seems to me that they were just summarising and explaining the position of someone else, whose opinion they reported in quotes!
And they reported a factual new ("only a dozen or so"), the "10%" statement is NOT theirs. Btw, I checked, and in case you objected the use of "several" in the beginning of the article as invented or conspiratory, its definition is "more than two or three but not many". I think that "a dozen" qualifies for that and the article is correct. Unless it's *false* that they are a dozen, and I have no means to verify that.

So, what I'm able to read in the article is:
some fundamentalist objected - Is it a fact, or do you deny it?
a dozen Imax theaters decided to reject some movies because of that - Is it a fact, or do you deny it?
the QUOTES of 2 Science Centers (I presume with Imax theatres) and 2 Imax movies directors, expressing THEIR worry for an eventual impact the above facts could bear on the Imax market and industry choices - is this invented? or biased?

Well, the latter point is the only one prone to exceptions (imho).
Despite I can't disagree with the very good and wise general principle you reminded us all earlierOerdin:I seem to be one of the few people who still believe in the old fashioned jourlism ethics taught in journalism schools where the journalist should just present the facts as fairly as possible during the news and save the opinions for the editorial section. That way readers can clearly see the difference between facts and opinions.
I also like to be aware that the above might be illusory and more devious and conspiratory than a declared bias.
Even mere facts could be presented in a biased way. Carefully avoiding attaching opinions to the report, you still can decide how to present the fact, which details to select or to omit, which ones to emphasise.
I had a Literature teacher in high school who used to tell us "You can't delude yourself hoping all the infomation getting to you will be unbiased and innocent. You will NEED tools to filter, weigh and decypher it, and I'll do my best to give such tools to you. I'll begin telling you that I'll strive to present you all the PoVs about the issues we'll study, but I'm a catholic, and while I believe in freeedom of thought and tolerance it will be *inevitable* that even unvilling my beliefs more or less subtly influence my being and living, including my teaching. I'm better serving you by making you aware of it and helping you handle it, rather than in hiding it." One of the best lessons I got (and the best way I can commemorate her is by testimonying it and taking on the torch... :cute: ).

So...
The Guardian, didn't actually report any quotes of those who considered the (albeit factual) phenomenon irrelevant and negligible. That's the only objection I could understand here.
"Conspiracy"? bah...
And you could object that what happened (albeit factual) wasn't worth to become an article and get to public attention in the first place.
"Invention"? I don't know.
I know that I'm glad Mobius brought it to my attention, and I prefer that some journalist, notwithstanding all the limits and bias, reported it, rather than ignore it or worse silence it, which could be an even worse bias...

If I may tho, I'll add a personal consideration, which of course might be wrong or ugrounded, but it IS the impression I got by reading this thread.

Couldn't it be that you were more interested in stating what you wanted, and the Guardian article was just an excuse you took to vent?
I mean, rather than a biased journalist and paper, I see in this thread a biased *reader* and poster.
C'mon admit it ;) provided I still know how to use those "tools", a honestly biased interlocutor enriches you more than someone failing to be "balanced" (?)

:D :coolgrin:

Beta1
22-03-2005, 11:45:36
random fact

I went to see if I could find out how many IMAX screens there are to see how close to 10% it is.

Best I can find is "more than 240" worldwide (Imax.com). Probably 250 odd total then. So 12 would be around 5% of worldwide screens. I would guess theres a hell of a lot more in the states than anywhere else so to say 10% seems a little over optimistic. probably 7-8%.

/Random fact

Funko
22-03-2005, 12:02:53
First thing is that US Liberal has a different meaning to UK the UK definition of liberal. In the Guardian's case it's basically just supporting individual personal freedoms/civil liberties. Which I don't see why anyone would have any problem with. It's fundamentally what America should stand for.

The Guardian news coverage is nowhere near as biased as Oerdin's view of it, it's certainly a hell of a lot more in depth and balanced than the BBC for instance.

It does publish a variety of left wing opinion pieces which are often the ones that get linked on the web but all papers publish opinion pieces that support their editorial line. But it does give coverage to the other side too. During the US election they had a blog from someone working on the Republican campaign. I have a problem with people who read Guardian opinion pieces and treat them as fact, but I have the same problem with people who read any editorial/opinion piece and see it as factual. You need to take any news/opinion in context and read around the subject. News isn't an easy 'on a plate' thing you need to work for it.

The other point is that of course no UK media source is as right wing as the right wing US press, and what's considered middle of the road there would be fairly far right here.

And The Guardian has the most fair and balanced sports coverage which is all anyone really cares about anyway.

MoSe
22-03-2005, 12:05:07
Beta, you beat me to posting it (unlike you, I have to work in the meanwhile too)

from wikipedia I indeed found
As of May 2003, there were 230 IMAX theatres in 34 countries around the world. Half of these are commercial theaters and half are in educational venues.
that was 2 years ago

but in the official Imax site www.imax.com I *currently*read
With a network of more than 240 IMAX theatres operating in 35 countries, you will find IMAX theatres at your local cinema complexes and pre-eminent institutions such as museums, planetariums, zoos and marine centers so the report is still substantially up to date.

10% would be correct if half of them were in the USA.
Would you say that half in the USA and half in the rest of the world, (i.e. other 34 countries, 3.5 per country) is not enough given the commercial prominence of the States?

Even so, if the Guardian states the exact number, and than when quoting someone saying 10% they neglect to correct that estimate to the hypothetically actual value of 7-8%, I would not stretch that as far as saying that they conspired and maliciously distorted the truth in a biased way...

:rolleyes:

btw, you can find out the currently exact USA market total theatres number.
Unfortunately imax.com doesnt' report that as aggregate or single list, you have to poll them 1 by 1 with this tool
http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/theatres.do?param_section=findTheatres&param_subMenuSelect=findTheatresSelect
beggining from Birmingham AL, and tally them by hand :p


Should I finally address a warmhearted "ASSHOLE" to Oerdin?
Probably I should...
But I won't.
Because I'm an eagle. Ah....!

Funko
22-03-2005, 12:08:41
I actually think that Mobius' thread titling and the way he presented this link are the major sources of problems with this report - his obvious extreme bias skews the report more than anything in the actual story.

MoSe
22-03-2005, 12:11:00
:lol:
that slam-biased commie!

Immortal Wombat
22-03-2005, 12:11:26
Originally posted by Oerdin
Notice how that is different from the Guardian's hystryonics about massive censorship across the country? Instead we have, exactly as I had guessed, a handful of locations in very religious areas.
You mean this line?


...the decision affects only a dozen or so cinemas.

MoSe
22-03-2005, 12:16:15
Originally posted by Oerdin
I much prefer knowing that if I pick up newspaper in America then it is reasonably free of outright falsehoods compared to those found in other countries. .

Do you mean "believing", or were you actually positive in meaning "KNOWING"?

Could "believing to know" be a good compromise? ;)

Funko
22-03-2005, 12:20:58
I seem to remember at least two stories in recent times of Journalists in the US being caught fabricating stories. One was TV, CBS? And I think a major paper journalist as well.

Weren't there a couple of stories more recently of people being found to be on the government payroll?

Then there's the Fox News thing...

It's a myth that US press' shit doesn't totally stink.

Nav
22-03-2005, 12:25:29
what's the issue with the number of cinemas affected by this? This is straight from the Observer (read Guardian on Sunday) article.

Superficially, the decision affects only a dozen or so cinemas. But it could have a profound knock-on effect across the world because of the high cost of producing Imax films.

Funko
22-03-2005, 12:27:40
That's the third time that's been posted. :)

MoSe
22-03-2005, 12:28:57
welcome to being the 3rd one quoting that same passage in this thread!

maybe we need some more yet, to help Oerdin reconsider his comments from a more correct perspective....

(see IW few posts above this)

Nav
22-03-2005, 12:32:16
just noticed one. :)

Thread is far too long for me to have checked every line in every post. but it's a valid point worth making again, and again, and again, and again... :D

Beta1
22-03-2005, 13:32:13
Originally posted by MoSe
Beta, you beat me to posting it (unlike you, I have to work in the meanwhile too)


LOL.

I have work to do too. I'm just not doing it. And the fact that the boss is away for the whole week has nothing to do with it honest.

MoSe
22-03-2005, 13:55:10
there must be something wrong with it, as my direct boss is away this week too (and I'll be the next one :cool: ), but this only means that his boss swoops down directly on me without my boss mediation.....

Luckily I spent last year stating that actual 1 hour work required 2 days to be done, so it's not difficult now to claim 2 hours for it.
This has almost killed all my slack, I outrageously need to work half the time I spend here, if not even more !!!

Beta1
22-03-2005, 15:48:31
shocking. You need a good union.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-03-2005, 17:06:10
Originally posted by Oerdin
This from a guy who takes anything written in the Guardian at face value? PH, their editor has publically admited that they are an "activist paper" which is written from a particular political ideology. The Guardian frequently slants the news to fit its word view and ignores opinions & facts which don't fit that world view.

There are so many honest papers with real journalism in the world so I'm sure you could find one which offers interesting articles without the lies and misrepresentation found in the Guardian.

NEWSPAPER AIMED AT A CERTAIN POLITICAL VIEWPOINT SHOCK REVELATION!

Just like all the others in fact. Personally, I read "The Guardian", "The Times" and "Metro" daily, and then make my own mind up.

protein
22-03-2005, 17:09:32
If you breed the times and the guardian you'd get an independent.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-03-2005, 17:12:47
Seriously, Oerdin- blanket rejection of news on the grounds that you distrust the paper is just knee-jerk stuff. Admittedly I think "The Sun" and the "Daily Mail" are evil, but at least I'll tackle the stories on their own merits.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-03-2005, 17:13:40
Anyway- news isn't news until it's on the BBC.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-03-2005, 17:19:48
Originally posted by Oerdin
(look how well the Guadian does in the UK but how it is laughed at by most real journalism news sources the world over); they made a choice that money matters more to them then fair journalism or ethical standards. That's the Guardian's choice to make but it is everyone else choice if the Guardian is relavant to real journalism.

That's a nonsense. The Guardian has a reputation for investigative journalism that is hard to match- just check the quality of writers that have been employed by the Guardian and Observer over the years.

Duncan Campbell. John Pilger. George Orwell. These are the heavyweights.

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 17:58:14
Originally posted by Funko

The Guardian news coverage is nowhere near as biased as Oerdin's view of it, it's certainly a hell of a lot more in depth and balanced than the BBC for instance.

I despise Fox News because it is biased and I hear people here routinely speak about how biased Fox News is. The Guardian is much much worse then Fox News. I suppose if it supports your personal bias then you will react like FFZers who claim Fox News is a paragon of journalistic integrity. :lol:

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 18:01:46
btw it is laughable that any paper can claim to be supporters of all things good, as Funko has claimed. The Guardian should stop trying to claim it is sugar & spice & everything nice and start dealing with the reality that they are just another ideologically bent publication which ignores or plays up stories based upon sales projections & politics.

paiktis22
22-03-2005, 18:12:07
The Guardian does investigate in depth and when it says something more times than not it's based on research that it has done. So you can't say it is biased per se since there's a basis formed for it through the research it has done. Now of course the topics it choses to research are based to some point by its leanings. But that's good pluralism helps (assuming one believes there is pluralism at all)

Venom
22-03-2005, 18:14:02
KAKA!

paiktis22
22-03-2005, 18:17:57
I'm blissfully unfamiliar with Fox News.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-03-2005, 18:26:12
Originally posted by Venom
KAKA!

Sport forum!

Venom
22-03-2005, 18:26:30
I'm desperately trying to think of a copy cat thread about my nutbags itching a alot.

Lurker
22-03-2005, 18:38:16
MEDICAL FORUM!

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 18:48:17
Exploring Bias in "reporting" (if you can call it that) at the Guardian nets a plethora of good leads. The Guardian is a text book case of how EVERYTHING is Israeli's fault and how the Palestinians are never to blame; the Guardian has even written articles supporting terrorism and the murdering of civilians. How's that for your Guardian= all things good thinking, Funko?

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Whos_Watching_the_Guardian$.asp

Here is an example article from the Guardian along with step by step analysis about why it is a biased and crap piece of reporting.

http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/WebPage/MediaBias/guardian010222.html

Another article from honestreporting.com showing how yet another Guardian piece is biased crap.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/The_Guardian_is_Getting_-Boering-.asp

A nice piece by hillnews (a Washington DC based paper which deals mainly with Washington politics). The paper discuses how the Guardian frequently throws in opinions disgused as facts (which I spoke about before) and that some US papers are lowering their journalism stanards because sensationalist reporting (a la Guardian) sells papers even if it freequently lies or misrepresents facts.

http://www.hillnews.com/living/010704_british.aspx

There are pages and pages of examples of bias, crap reporting, and ow journalistic integrity from the Guardian listed by google but I'll just leave you with one last link. Here is an analysis of the Guardian's coverage of the US elections last November. It was so outrageously one sided and dismissive of the issues that even a strong anti-bush guy like my self had to shake his head at the Guardian's stupidity.

http://insignificantthoughts.com/index.php?p=614

Oerdin
22-03-2005, 18:51:41
Originally posted by MoSe
welcome to being the 3rd one quoting that same passage in this thread!

maybe we need some more yet, to help Oerdin reconsider his comments from a more correct perspective....

(see IW few posts above this)

Sorry mate but the Guardian is one of the worst papers in terms of keeping facts seporate from opinions and in terms of honest and fair reporting. I'm a left of center guy who even likes left of center news but the Guardian really is the modern Provda in the way it ignores things which are inconvient and the way it slanders the opposition. I honestly don't see how an intelligent person could read that crap at face value.

Immortal Wombat
22-03-2005, 19:13:10
An intelligent person doesn't read anything at face value.

The two quotes from your last link are from opinion pieces. I can't really be arsed to read the rest, or form opinions on your opinions (stated as fact) on whether the Guardian prints opinions as fact.

Maybe it's just a disparity another between the US and the UK. Over there your opinion-news comes from TV, so the newspapers are there to report The Truth. Here, the BBC is our televisual paragon of reporting, and the other TV stations are forced to compete on the same ground. And so the newspapers are filling in the news-with-opinions market niche.

Funko
22-03-2005, 19:27:08
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
An intelligent person doesn't read anything at face value.

The two quotes from your last link are from opinion pieces. I can't really be arsed to read the rest, or form opinions on your opinions (stated as fact) on whether the Guardian prints opinions as fact.

Exactly.

Funko
22-03-2005, 19:34:51
Originally posted by Oerdin
Exploring Bias in "reporting" (if you can call it that) at the Guardian nets a plethora of good leads.

Yeah and I can find a plethora of links proving Elvis is alive.

Originally posted by Oerdin
the Guardian has even written articles supporting terrorism and the murdering of civilians. How's that for your Guardian= all things good thinking, Funko?

For one thing I never said The Guardian was all things good thinking, whatever that means, they print more opinion pieces that I don't agree with than that I do, but I find it interesting to read different perspectives on stuff.

That thing about them supporting terrorism is just made up.

My point is that your anti-Guardian abuse of their news coverage is totally overexaggerated.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-03-2005, 21:13:07
Originally posted by Oerdin
Exploring Bias in "reporting" (if you can call it that) at the Guardian nets a plethora of good leads. The Guardian is a text book case of how [b]EVERYTHING is Israeli's fault and how the Palestinians are never to blame

That's flatly untrue. Sorry. You're wrong. The most memorable story of this intifada was the lynching of those Israeli soldiers, and it was all over the Guardian. And no, they weren't hailing it as a victory for the oppressed.

Look- this is a paper I read daily, along with others. I don't think for one moment I've got weird politics or brain damage, so why do you think that you have The Truth on this issue? Maybe you're being misled by internet opinion pieces printing selecting commentary to fit another agenda.

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-03-2005, 21:16:24
Explain this, Oerdin. I read the Guardian on a daily basis. I also listen to the BBC on a daily basis. I clearly disagree with you about their worth?

Why did I therefore support the Iraq invasion, and still do? Why do I refrain from thinking the sun shines out of every Palestinian's arsehole?

Pepare yourself for a shock, but could it be bcause you're wrong?

Lazarus and the Gimp
22-03-2005, 21:30:16
OK, Oerdin. I've started checking out those links you provided.

The first one is a 404 error.

The second one is hilarious. It's a bitchy exchange between a miffed journalist and a frothing freak. This is not news- please tell me you don't take this seriously.

The third is a hysterical denouncement of a rather thoughtful OPINION piece. That's OPINION, in case you missed it. Not news. It's from their "Comment" section, which is for OPINION pieces. Not news.

Do the rest improve, because this is bullshit.

Lurker
22-03-2005, 21:45:27
I hate it when the facts get in the way of a strongly held opinion.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
22-03-2005, 21:46:39
Originally posted by Oerdin
The Guardian is much much worse then Fox News.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

MOBIUS
22-03-2005, 22:13:20
Originally posted by Funko
My point is that your anti-Guardian abuse of their news coverage is totally overexaggerated.

In fact Oerdin's attack on the Grauniad appears far more hysterical and biased than the reasons why he's attacking it in the 1st place... :lol:

What happened Oerdin, did a crack squad of Guardian reporters kidnap you in Iraq and gangbang ass-rape you with diamond and salt encrusted stilettoes and told you it was your fault cos you led them on!?:eek:

Man you have issues, dude!:D

Funko
22-03-2005, 22:15:15
Your post in the first place wasn't exactly a fair representation of the story was it. :p

MOBIUS
22-03-2005, 22:23:54
Originally posted by Funko
Your post in the first place wasn't exactly a fair representation of the story was it. :p

Let me see...

They are creationists, so they are religious nutbags - end of fucking story!

These people are gradually eroding the freedoms of normal free-thinking Americans by forcing their views on them, be it education, entertainment, abortion or euthanasia - so yes, to normal non-fundamentalist people, the US would appear to be becoming more backward IMO and these types of stories do seem to be becoming alarmingly more prevalent, so it does seem like every day there is a new story of some new kind of fundamentalist shit going down (or every week if you want to be a pedant)...

And they've pissed me off, cos this could potentially impinge on my entertainment - so I do think they're tossers.:p

So yeah, it is a fairly fair representation of the story - unless you are a religious nutbag that is...

MOBIUS
22-03-2005, 22:25:46
On second thoughts...

You were right after all, I wasn't being fair.

Those shitheads are worse than tossers!:shoot:

Venom
22-03-2005, 22:30:08
So you fly off the handle and overexaggerate about a news story and then insult and mock someone for doing the same. The arrogance a lot of you Europeans display is amazing.

MOBIUS
22-03-2005, 22:33:57
Except I didn't fly the handle.:)

Funko
22-03-2005, 22:35:49
Well I'm not a religious nutbag and I thought your post was just being deliberately provocative for the sake of it...

Spartak
22-03-2005, 23:19:27
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
That's a nonsense. The Guardian has a reputation for investigative journalism that is hard to match- just check the quality of writers that have been employed by the Guardian and Observer over the years.

Duncan Campbell. John Pilger. George Orwell. These are the heavyweights. I'd be a bit offended if I were Paul Foot being left off that list.

This thread is a really good example of the fact that despite sharing a common language Brits don't actually think at all like Americans and in fact have more in common with other Europeans than we really like to let on.

I read the Guardian most days and I wouldn't even describe myself as a socialist although I would stretch to being an old fashioned radical liberal but then the party they were part of hasn't existed for over 100 years. Actually, while the Guardian has its faults it is usually very carefull to correct factual errors and publishes corrections prominently every day. IIRC they were the first paper to do this in the UK.

My undertanding of liberal means economically left of centre and socially liberal - i.e. the opposite of authoritarian and I really don't understand why the term is such an offensive label to stick on someone. I'll probably vote LibDem in the election but that's more to do with the chances of unseating the Tory rather than to do with real conviction but I would actually consider being called a liberal (small L) as a complement rather than an insult.

Obviously Oerdin is right by his own world view but then so are the rest of us by ours. {Now that's a genuine Guardian opinion for Oerdin to get his teeth into}.

All news is filtered by the prism of the person reporting it and its useful to have an understanding of the politics of the author so you understand what direction their article is coming from. At the end of the day I couldn't read the Torygraph (although I check the sport on-line every day) for more than a week without incurring major anger attacks.

Oh, I disagree with Funko. The sport in the Torygraph is still better than in the Guardian although it has got much better over the last couple of years but then I'm not very interested in football.

Spartak
22-03-2005, 23:21:35
I think I have exorcised Darkstar now.

Greg W
22-03-2005, 23:23:12
Not. Even. Close.

Spartak
22-03-2005, 23:26:54
eh?

MOBIUS
23-03-2005, 00:36:33
Originally posted by Funko
Well I'm not a religious nutbag and I thought your post was just being deliberately provocative for the sake of it...

Nah, I was just telling it how I saw it - personally I would have thought the only people that might have been provoked by that post would be the religious nutbags themselves...:cute:

MOBIUS
23-03-2005, 00:42:40
BTW, the only reason I even read that article was because the Observer was the only decent (read: other than Express, Mail, Screws) paper left by the time I decided I wanted to buy a paper on the day after Wales' glorious Grand Slam victory to read about it...

Even more tellingly, I only read the rest of the paper yesterday because I wanted to finish it before recycling it - far too left-wing for me...:p

protein
23-03-2005, 01:27:50
Planet-loving hippy scum.

Oerdin
23-03-2005, 01:48:00
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Why did I therefore support the Iraq invasion, and still do? Why do I refrain from thinking the sun shines out of every Palestinian's arsehole?

Just because the Guardian is selling it doesn't mean you have to buy it. They don't brain wash anyone but they most certainly do mix opinions and facts which simply is bad journalism practice.

Oerdin
23-03-2005, 01:50:16
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

The two quotes from your last link are from opinion pieces.

Of course because in America we seporate editorials from factual news reporting and anything to do with other papers (unless it is a legal case or some other such matter) would be reported in the opinion section. That wall doesn't seem to be as high or as well defined at the Guardian and that's why it's not a good paper for journalism.

Darkstar
23-03-2005, 04:01:21
First off, it will be less then 12 cinemas. Most of the Imax's that are in the South, and they are few, are already located at places that don't cater to the wacko fundies. You know, places like aerospace museums, that feature prominently the history of the universe as standing diplays (you know, Big Bang to now). Or natural science museums (which all have evolution displays). So I doubt that the small handful of Imax cinemas left from that are actually not going to affect the offerings. These are the same people, after all, that protest the Star Wars movies being shown on the Imax, as they also protested Harry Potter, and we still got SW Ep 2 and all the Potters on Imax.

There are two kinds of fundies... the wackos and the mainstream practicing christian. It's common in the more liberal media (US reference point for liberal) to consider anyone that actually practices or believes in anything as "fundamentalist" and "religious nutbug" even though they are in fact, average joes and janes.

Liberal is a very nasty word here in the US. No liberal wants the label, or uses the label in public. That's because it doesn't mean "open minded". It means "I want to be the ruler of your life and make it so you can only do whatever I decide is appropriate, and I want all of your money, NOW!". We are slightly off from its original meaning, politically speaking. Or so "true leftists" try to explain to me.

You guys are way past Darkstarian standards in this thread. Is this what happens whenever I leave you alone for a few days?

Oerdin
23-03-2005, 05:01:08
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
NEWSPAPER AIMED AT A CERTAIN POLITICAL VIEWPOINT SHOCK REVELATION!

Just like all the others in fact. Personally, I read "The Guardian", "The Times" and "Metro" daily, and then make my own mind up.

Oh, I read the Guardian if someone posts an article but I don't trust anything it says until it's back up by a good paper.

Oerdin
23-03-2005, 05:12:52
Originally posted by Darkstar

Liberal is a very nasty word here in the US. No liberal wants the label, or uses the label in public. That's because it doesn't mean "open minded". It means "I want to be the ruler of your life and make it so you can only do whatever I decide is appropriate, and I want all of your money, NOW!".

:lol: I disagree. That definition is used only by the people who have given up thinking and who rely upon idiots like Rush Limbaugh to give them direction in life. :lol:

Also I would be very surprised if anyone in the "liberal media" (:rolleyes: ) would refer to average Janes as fundimentalists. Instead the nutjobs that get labeled that are usually the idiots who try to force their views on everyone else by bombing family planning clinics, passing lame morality laws (like the no drinking on Sunday laws the south just loves), or other such extremist nonsense. Average people who mind their own business and who don't try to force their religion upon others do0n't get labeled at all.

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 08:35:58
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
An intelligent person doesn't read anything at face value.

The two quotes from your last link are from opinion pieces. I can't really be arsed to read the rest, or form opinions on your opinions (stated as fact) on whether the Guardian prints opinions as fact.

Maybe it's just a disparity another between the US and the UK. Over there your opinion-news comes from TV, so the newspapers are there to report The Truth. Here, the BBC is our televisual paragon of reporting, and the other TV stations are forced to compete on the same ground. And so the newspapers are filling in the news-with-opinions market niche.

Any rag that publishes exhortations to political violence is just that, a rag.

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 08:37:30
Originally posted by Funko
That thing about them supporting terrorism is just made up.

Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

What do you call that? A lesson in civics?

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 08:55:56
And, in case people on the right side of the pond missed that day in publishers school...

No, it isn't just the fault of the writer. The publisher wears the egg when the publisher prints something that is clearly across the line. The fact the Guardian didn't have an editor (you know, those guys who are supposed to be experienced and have a clue about the rules) who could recognise that urging political assassination went an expression too far, is on them. Not the writer.

The writer is clearly an idiot. It is the publishers job to know that and to keep the blathering of idiots away from the presses.

King_Ghidra
23-03-2005, 09:05:31
i'd rather read the occasional outrageous or controversial piece of writing than have those opinions fail to be aired at all

there is plenty of room in a newspaper for both factual journalism and hyperbolic opinion

the intelligent reader takes everything in context and is not a victim of journofiction

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:07:38
Originally posted by notyoueither
What do you call that? A lesson in civics?

I read that piece, it was quite clearly a joke. Maybe this is one of those humour doesn't translate things.

Calling that supporing terrorism is like suggesting Venom is conspiring to mass murder.

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:08:05
Really? You'd welcome Dr. Goebbels to fire up the presses?

Has the term 'responsible' totally lost its meaning over there?

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:08:26
And IIRC the guy apologised for that anyway and it was printed in the paper?

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:11:40
Half-assadely and excused. That's no apology.

An editors head on a pike would begin to apologise.

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:15:21
Originally posted by Funko
I read that piece, it was quite clearly a joke. Maybe this is one of those humour doesn't translate things.

Calling that supporing terrorism is like suggesting Venom is conspiring to mass murder.

It sort of amuses me that people in London, of all places, would claim 'but I didn't know English was spoken so many places'.

That's sort of funny, in a really brain dead, fucked up sort of way.

Beta1
23-03-2005, 09:20:34
Originally posted by Funko
Calling that supporing terrorism is like suggesting Venom is conspiring to mass murder.

just to clarify are you agreeing or disagreeing?

:lol:

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:21:24
Originally posted by notyoueither
Really? You'd welcome Dr. Goebbels to fire up the presses?

Has the term 'responsible' totally lost its meaning over there?

Why is the Guardian irresponsible? It shows a lot less bias in it's news reporting than any of the US TV media I see (CNN I had but it was scarily US centric and biased). The opinion pieces are clearly labeled. They have a big banner saying OPINION over them.

It's stereotypical readership is teachers, university lecturers and Social Workers they are hardly going to read a joke about Lee Harvey Oswald and go and give money to Al Qaeda.

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:22:47
Originally posted by notyoueither
Half-assadely and excused. That's no apology.

An editors head on a pike would begin to apologise.

You think that silencing people who say things you don't like by execution is a good idea do you? No concept of free speech?

Gary
23-03-2005, 09:24:55
Originally posted by Funko
Calling that supporing terrorism is like suggesting Venom is conspiring to mass murder. What ? A given ?


Hmmm doncha just hate it when you think the bottom of one page is the end of a the thread, and after posting you find there's another half page of them ?!?!?

Hey it's about time there was a major disagreement here that I wasn't involved in ;)

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:28:38
As for Fox being better...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000837511

Indeed, Fox News journalists offer their own opinion in seven out of ten stories on the news channel, versus less than one in ten stories on CNN and one in four on MSNBC.

And bearing in mind I thought CNN was very one sided... :eek:

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:38:23
Originally posted by Funko
Why is the Guardian irresponsible? It shows a lot less bias in it's news reporting than any of the US TV media I see (CNN I had but it was scarily US centric and biased). The opinion pieces are clearly labeled. They have a big banner saying OPINION over them.

It's stereotypical readership is teachers, university lecturers and Social Workers they are hardly going to read a joke about Lee Harvey Oswald and go and give money to Al Qaeda.

Here's a news flash for you, skippy, they printed it! How are they not responsible for their irresponsibility? Your red herrings that 'the US TV media are bad too' are no defence. That's like saying that someone else was an idiot as well, so you should get off for the crime.

And maybe you could grant that the intended readers have turned out not to be the whole audience. That 'joke' about political assassination is now all over the planet, and a lot of people are not seeing the whole article for the context. How the hell did that happen? Gee, I don't know, it might have occured to any 'responsible' editor of a 'reponsible' publication that such a thing could happen. Don't cha think?

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:41:15
Originally posted by Funko
As for Fox being better...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000837511

And bearing in mind I thought CNN was very one sided... :eek:

Fox sucks, and the fact you need to respond to this by saying they do is pretty pathetic.

Beyond pathetic. Where is your white flag? You should be running it up any time now.

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:42:00
Oerdin said they were better than The Guardian which is insanity.

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:45:08
Originally posted by notyoueither
Here's a news flash for you, skippy, they printed it! How are they not responsible for their irresponsibility? Your red herrings that 'the US TV media are bad too' are no defence. That's like saying that someone else was an idiot as well, so you should get off for the crime.

And maybe you could grant that the intended readers have turned out not to be the whole audience. That 'joke' about political assassination is now all over the planet, and a lot of people are not seeing the whole article for the context. How the hell did that happen? Gee, I don't know, it might have occured to any 'responsible' editor of a 'reponsible' publication that such a thing could happen. Don't cha think?

I could quote any number of things out of context to make people seem bad. You are the only one quoting it out of context here though, Oerdin posted the link.

What's wrong with joking about political assassination? Absolutely nothing. That doesn't mean assassination is ok does it. Joking about it is fine. I wouldn't say that joking about killing a politician was entirely an everyday thing here but it's certainly something you might see on mainstream TV comedy and not exceptional or something to get worked up about.

So I don't see the fuss basically.

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:46:36
Originally posted by Funko
Oerdin said they were better than The Guardian which is insanity.

No, it's not insanity.

The Guardian is really bad. That is his point.

Some lot of people 'over there' seem to think that 'your' shit don't stink, and you get your jollies off by laughing at Fox.

Well, guess what? You have your own sources that may as well be Fox as far as anyone not living there or there is concerned.

They are both jokes of journalism.

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:51:23
Right.

Todays front page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1443885,00.html

And in case that's too UK centric, coverage of this shooting in the US:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,2763,1443918,00.html

Please explain to me what exactly is wrong biased and jokey about that coverage?

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:51:40
Originally posted by Funko
I could quote any number of things out of context to make people seem bad. You are the only one quoting it out of context here though, Oerdin posted the link.

What's wrong with joking about political assassination? Absolutely nothing. That doesn't mean assassination is ok does it. Joking about it is fine. I wouldn't say that joking about killing a politician was entirely an everyday thing here but it's certainly something you might see on mainstream TV comedy and not exceptional or something to get worked up about.

So I don't see the fuss basically.

Here's a heads up. the US has had several presidents killed by gun shot while in office. Most recently, JFK was wasted. Closer to now, Reagan was shot but survived. Most every president since Eisenhower has had threats and attempts on their lives by gun fire, most plots broken up, thankfully.

Where is the humour in laughing about students shooting up schools? There is none, right?

Now, do you see why Americans don't see the humour?

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:51:53
Although the URL admittedly doesn't help me. :D

Funko
23-03-2005, 09:54:33
Originally posted by notyoueither
Where is the humour in laughing about students shooting up schools? There is none, right?


I made a joke about that yesterday. :o I remember when the Hungerford massacre happened (Hungerford's just down the road from here) the joke in the playground was Why should you go shopping in Hungerford in the morning? 'cause it's murder in the afternoon.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now, do you see why Americans don't see the humour?

No.

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:55:09
Originally posted by Funko
Right.

Todays front page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1443885,00.html

And in case that's too UK centric, coverage of this shooting in the US:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,2763,1443918,00.html

Please explain to me what exactly is wrong biased and jokey about that coverage?

I'm sure Fox can do a good job on some days on some stories as well.

Your point?

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 09:57:56
Originally posted by Funko
I made a joke about that yesterday. :o I remember when the Hungerford massacre happened (Hungerford's just down the road from here) the joke in the playground was Why should you go shopping in Hungerford in the morning? 'cause it's murder in the afternoon.

No.

Well. You would be an ideal editor for the Guardian then.

To the rest of us (us not being left leaning Brits who have little idea of the interconnectedness that the English language brings to the world) it's trash.

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 10:00:58
However, I will grant your point that they most likely have a good football section.

I think many of Murdoch's papers colud say the same thing about sports and maybe topless girls.

Enjoy.

Funko
23-03-2005, 10:01:49
Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm sure Fox can do a good job on some days on some stories as well.

Your point?

The news coverage is like that every day. I'll leave you to your predjudice.

Funko
23-03-2005, 10:03:17
Originally posted by notyoueither
However, I will grant your point that they most likely have a good football section.

I think many of Murdoch's papers colud say the same thing about sports and maybe topless girls.

Enjoy.

The murdoch papers are terrible for sport. No depth, all opinion, all 'scandle' and rumour. Just like the news sections. You can't even compare them to a real paper like the Times, Independent or Guardian for any kind of coverage.

notyoueither
23-03-2005, 10:13:29
Originally posted by Funko
The news coverage is like that every day. I'll leave you to your predjudice.

Pot, kettle, black.

Isn't that what this is amounting to?

For what it's worth, I find both you and Oerdin to be defending laughable positions.

Him, if he wants to defend Fox as 'better' than that Brit rag, and you for defending that Brit rag.

I'm the one that isn't prejudiced. I neither liked not disliked either when first exposed to them. I have seen or read them both, and see them both as crap.

I have to give you a slight edge that Fox is rather more obvious as crap, but being less obvious is hardly a defence for the Guardian.

protein
23-03-2005, 10:22:45
I think we should send a few copies of the guardian over to you lot and you'll see how increadibly amusing this all is.

MOBIUS
23-03-2005, 12:00:25
So a brief summary of NYE's posts are that he cannot understand the subtleties of the English language and that he has no sense of humour...?:cute:

MOBIUS
23-03-2005, 12:01:43
Originally posted by Funko
The murdoch papers are terrible for sport. No depth, all opinion, all 'scandle' and rumour. Just like the news sections. You can't even compare them to a real paper like the Times, Independent or Guardian for any kind of coverage.

Except that the Times is a Murdoch paper...;)

Funko
23-03-2005, 12:01:53
You don't make being on your side in an argument very easy.

Funko
23-03-2005, 12:02:29
Originally posted by MOBIUS
Except that the Times is a Murdoch paper...;)

You know what I mean. :lol:

MOBIUS
23-03-2005, 12:17:20
Originally posted by Funko
You don't make being on your side in an argument very easy.

I no need your steenking help...:D

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2005, 12:23:20
Originally posted by Oerdin
Of course because in America we seporate editorials from factual news reporting and anything to do with other papers (unless it is a legal case or some other such matter) would be reported in the opinion section. That wall doesn't seem to be as high or as well defined at the Guardian and that's why it's not a good paper for journalism.

That separation is heavily subjective, and identifying and describing the "factual" is the result of bias, too.

Example: US media referred to a change in the occupation regime in Iraq in mid 2004 as "transfer of power". Most european media referred to it as a "so-called transfer of power". The latter is factually correct and the US media coverage a perfect case of being a government propaganda mouthpiece - in my opinion. In your opinion it is different.

And Mike, for the very same reason CNN appears stupidly american rightwing biased to us, and left-biased to poeple like DS, NYE or Oerdom, I suppose.

It's just a matter of your perspective. For an american fascist, even Fox news appears objective, maybe with a slight leftist twist.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2005, 12:24:45
Originally posted by Venom
The arrogance a lot of you Europeans display is amazing.

And so justified.

King_Ghidra
23-03-2005, 12:34:01
Originally posted by MOBIUS
So a brief summary of NYE's posts are that he cannot understand the subtleties of the English language and that he has no sense of humour...?:cute:

management, could we get this auto-inserted beneath all of nye's posts please


to sit here and see someone calling the guardian 'trash' is the most bizarre, mundus invertus scenario i have seen on this board for quite some time

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2005, 12:39:37
arragont nitpicking eurotrash comment: "mundus inversus"

MOBIUS
23-03-2005, 12:50:06
Careful, if NYE can't understand English he's unlikely to have the first clue about Latin...

King_Ghidra
23-03-2005, 12:54:57
just like me apparently :o

protein
23-03-2005, 12:59:00
Centurion: What's this then? "Romanes Eunt Domus"? People called Romanes, they go to the house?

Brian (defiantly): It says "Romans go home."

Centurion: No it doesn't. What's Latin for Romans? (slaps him) Come on...come on...

Brian: Romanus!

Centurion: Goes like?

Brian: Er...annus.

Centurion (tweaking Brian's hair): Vocative plural of annus is...?

Brian: Anni.

Centurion (crossing out Es and substituting I): Romani...

MOBIUS
23-03-2005, 13:04:45
"Now, write it out a hundred times.":D

My favourite bit!

MoSe
23-03-2005, 13:26:10
:lol:

Roma Kaputt.
Mundi.

MoSe
23-03-2005, 13:50:18
Originally posted by Oerdin
Sorry mate but the Guardian is one of the worst papers in terms of keeping facts seporate from opinions and in terms of honest and fair reporting. I'm a left of center guy who even likes left of center news but the Guardian really is the modern Provda in the way it ignores things which are inconvient and the way it slanders the opposition. I honestly don't see how an intelligent person could read that crap at face value.

Oerdin, I'm probably only leftist in theory but not at all in facts and behavior, so I might indeed be less LoC than you :D
but this is not the point.

I understand that it's much more fun to argue with those who fling direct insults at you ;) rather than answerin my boring longwinded previous post. :p

I don't know and don't care about the Guardian. For what I care, you might be 110% right.
I only know about THIS article.

A brief summary for you.
In THIS ARTICLE, I fail to see conspiracy and invention.
I read
2 things reported as facts (fundies protested, 12 US IMAX theaters rejected offending movies), which are presented without comments and I see no reason to reject as false (why should they?) unless proved otherwise.
The QUOTED reactions of 4 involved and worried public personages to the 2 facts.
Point already given, they omitted to interview people NOT worried by the two facts, and the decision to write THIS ARTICLE itself could be seen as factious and provocative.
[/summary]

Then, I saw you (intentionally?) blatantly distort what's written in THIS ARTICLE, and use what you wanted to read to launch in what you wanted to say in general about the Guardian, totally ungrounded in THIS ARTICLE.

Am I blind and naive about what I fail to read in-between-the-lines of THIS ARTICLE? I don't know and I don't care about the rest of he paper. THIS ARTICLE.
I asked you to help me understand and see what I missed in THIS ARTICLE.
You didn't (that's OK!).
I stand so far by my 1st impression that YOU are a very biased reader of THIS imho innocuous ARTICLE.

Others here raged against you much more directly, maybe that's why they're worther to catch your attention ;) :p

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2005, 14:03:50
"Then, I saw you (intentionally?) blatantly distort what's written in THIS ARTICLE, and use what you wanted to read to launch in what you wanted to say in general about the Guardian, totally ungrounded in THIS ARTICLE."

Certain people around here have developped this into an art form: React to the name, not to the content.

protein
23-03-2005, 14:08:36
That's typical Dyl Ulenspiegel that is.

MOBIUS
23-03-2005, 14:14:28
Originally posted by MoSe
Oerdin, I'm probably only leftist in theory but not at all in facts and behavior, so I might indeed be less LoC than you :D

Less Lady of Chicken?:D

I suppose if we could find out her stance, we could give everyone LoC ratings based on that outcome...:)

MoSe
23-03-2005, 15:07:18
Originally posted by Beta1
random fact

I went to see if I could find out how many IMAX screens there are to see how close to 10% it is.

Best I can find is "more than 240" worldwide (Imax.com). Probably 250 odd total then. So 12 would be around 5% of worldwide screens. I would guess theres a hell of a lot more in the states than anywhere else so to say 10% seems a little over optimistic. probably 7-8%.

/Random fact

Checked.
There are 119 Imax theatres in USA, in 105 cities in 41 states.
Houston has 3
12 cities have 2 (LA, Denver, Washington, Tampa, Chicago, Louisville, Boston, Las Vegas, New York, Cincinnati, Dallas, Seattle)
92 cities have 1
including King of Prussia (?) and Chantilly (???) :clueless:
Natick's one address is... 1 Underpriced Way :lol: :lol: :lol:

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2005, 15:20:11
Originally posted by protein
That's typical Dyl Ulenspiegel that is.

Protein would have to say that.

MoSe
23-03-2005, 15:33:36
Originally posted by Oerdin
My guess is these are a few isolated cases and not the wide spread conspiracy the Guardian likes to invent.
Originally posted by Oerdin
Notice how that is different from the Guardian's hystryonics about massive censorship across the country?
Originally posted by Oerdin
I notice you laugh alot but you haven't contradicted my basic facts.

Originally written in THIS Guardian ARTICLE
In most southern states, theatre officials found recent test screenings of several of these films triggered accusations from viewers that the films were blasphemous.
...
Carol Murray, marketing director of the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History in Texas, said audience members who had watched Volcanoes had commented 'I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact', or 'I don't agree with their presentation of human existence.'

As a result, the science museum had decided not to screen the film. 'If it is not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy, from a marketing point of view, I cannot make a recommendation,' Murray told the New York Times yesterday

Superficially, the decision affects only a dozen or so cinemas. But it could have a profound knock-on effect across the world because of the high cost of producing Imax films.
...
'It is going to be hard for our film-makers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know that 10 per cent of the market will reject them,' said Joe DeAmicis, vice-president of the California Science Centre in Los Angeles.


Imax theaters in USA: 119
Theaters who rejected the"offending" movies: a dozen or so, mostly in the south states, reported in the same way by BOTH the NYT and the Guardian.

Only doubt I have, is wheter by southern states you intend for instance California too, or more strictly the backwards minded (my stereotype prejuduce :p) Bible Belt ones.
In any case:

12/119 = 10.08%
"or so" ???
13/119 = 10.92%
11/119 = 9.24%
:coolgrin:

Oerdin? You're a
BIASED ASSHOLE!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :p

CASE CLOSED!
:D

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2005, 15:37:47
And MoSe is an attention whore.

MoSe
23-03-2005, 15:45:54
Dem Kampfwörter!
considering I'm only the 7th poster in this thread by post#, tallying less than 7% of the posts (this one excluded) :p

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2005, 15:47:08
Ok, a statistically inclined attention whore.

Funko
23-03-2005, 15:48:07
MoSe:

http://www.muf.me.uk/files/theatres.jpg

King_Ghidra
23-03-2005, 15:48:19
:lol: touché!

Funko
23-03-2005, 15:48:29
Originally posted by MoSe
Dem Kampfwörter!
considering I'm only the 7th poster in this thread by post#, tallying less than 7% of the posts (this one excluded) :p

And 85% of the words. ;)

MoSe
23-03-2005, 15:50:40
LOL!!!!

If you tilted the pie slice origin tho, it could have looked like a laughing pacman! :lol:

Funko
23-03-2005, 15:51:19
That was the way Exel made it for me!

Dyl Ulenspiegel
23-03-2005, 15:51:35
That's a pizza graph!

Funko
23-03-2005, 15:52:50
I'm fed up with MoSe not doing graphs and charts to go with his statistics so I had to do it myself.

MoSe
23-03-2005, 15:57:02
I think I'll need to make use of the "upload feature"... :cute:

Funko
23-03-2005, 15:59:24
Indeed! Get MoSe an upload feature immediately!

If only you knew someone with webspace!?

MoSe
23-03-2005, 16:09:06
I had one with an old account, I got fed up with continually downloading leapftp or something from twocows when it got past its trial period, and rereading everytime the instructions to remember how it worked and my notes for where I had stored the files.

I think it's now dismissed, or rotting and full of WEBS.

I figure SP posted something to that extent in the site features forum.
Oh, and og :p

Funko
23-03-2005, 16:12:20
You know you can do FTP graphically straight out of IE or as a free plug-in for Firefox? :D

zmama
23-03-2005, 16:12:34
Ah so it's really just a question of being too old and lazy :D

MoSe
23-03-2005, 16:14:12
that's fer sure!

but also I think my company's proxies and firewalls have something against ftp, and my home rig is agonising on Win98Se and dialup

paiktis22
23-03-2005, 16:14:49
historic cconfiguration. unchangable.

Lazarus and the Gimp
23-03-2005, 18:01:37
Open question- does anyone actually take that "honest reporting" website seriously?

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/The_Guardian_is_Getting_-Boering-.asp

The above link (which Oerdin posted) is the only example I've ever read, and it's a joke. Take the declaration that "There are no bans on inter-marriage"- in one sense that's true, they significantly fail to dwell upon the fact that Israel's marriage laws have been damned as racist and discriminatory within the Knesset.

That, in my book, ain't honest.

paiktis22
23-03-2005, 18:51:38
BTW according to communications principles one will inanvertibly turn mostly to the media that already fit their leanings be that political, social whatever. There's no harm in that. The harm begins when one media consciously manipulates information in order to underline a specific goal. Most times than not that goal is linked to financial interests mainly of big corporations but also governmental, national etc. Whatever the goal it is always harmful. I have seen that widely in english media (not counting the australian or american) when reporting about the olympics specifically in the times, outwordly in your face lies which if you search a little bit you can find that the paper has a specific interest with some comapny that has interest in presenting things a specific way. That is bad journalism. And that is just one example. There's a huge amount of examples all over the press in all over the world for whatever goals. But whatever the goal, if there is a goal, it is always bad journalism.

paiktis22
23-03-2005, 18:53:40
Anyway there are no illusions about the world we live in. To believe that everyone strives to be clean pristine and uphold principles of profession is to be naive which maybe is the worst insult of all to some people.

Darkstar
23-03-2005, 20:28:55
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
That separation is heavily subjective, and identifying and describing the "factual" is the result of bias, too.

And Mike, for the very same reason CNN appears stupidly american rightwing biased to us, and left-biased to poeple like DS, NYE or Oerdom, I suppose.

It's just a matter of your perspective. For an american fascist, even Fox news appears objective, maybe with a slight leftist twist.

:D Dyl? Being a voice of reason? You don't expect to be listened to do you? And it's not even fun...

What I find laughingly ironic is that I am much more of a Leftie then a Rightie, in American terms. American Center and American Right are a fair bit right of me. Considering I often get the impression that many EU and Brits on this forum consider me a wacky rightie, that makes me wonder if you'd self combust if you got near a gaggle of average Americans. ;)

Darkstar
23-03-2005, 20:44:11
Two minor points:

#1) That 12 figure was taken as an estimate out of that guy's ass, right? He was taking a wild guess.

#2) The truth is: they'd show the damn movies if they thought it would generate profits. Having a religious group *picket* your movie ups your ticket sales in this age (and gets you free publicity to help further boost your sales). Most likely, the reality is that the majority test screeners were walking out of the showing and said: "I'd never pay my money to see that boring thing."

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-03-2005, 10:05:28
Originally posted by Darkstar
Considering I often get the impression that many EU and Brits on this forum consider me a wacky rightie

With an emphasis on "wacky". Actually, you are so crazy, that I do not think one can label you left or right.

"that makes me wonder if you'd self combust if you got near a gaggle of average Americans."

Nope, but I can try all funny facial expressions when they spout their bizarre beliefs.

Funko
24-03-2005, 10:07:33
I have no idea whether Darkstar is Right or Left but definitely Wacky.

Funko
24-03-2005, 10:09:05
Anyway, this whole "right" "left" thing seems totally overemphasised in the US. It's possible to have some opinions from either side and your economic leanings don't necessarily define your other views.

You can't define someone's views with one word right or left, that's ludicrous.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 10:44:00
Originally posted by MOBIUS
So a brief summary of NYE's posts are that he cannot understand the subtleties of the English language and that he has no sense of humour...?:cute:

Mobius gives up any attempt to address the posts and instead attacks the posters.

Why am I not surprised?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-03-2005, 10:48:18
Because you took a look in the mirror.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 10:50:57
Originally posted by Funko
Anyway, this whole "right" "left" thing seems totally overemphasised in the US. It's possible to have some opinions from either side and your economic leanings don't necessarily define your other views.

You can't define someone's views with one word right or left, that's ludicrous.

Agreed, BUT...

There do seem to be groupings of people based on ideology and culture.

Left wing Americans might seem middle of the road to some Euros, but those Euros only hear the discourse that is current in most of the US.

Meanwhile Mass has gay marriage ahead of many Euro states, or pick another topic where California might be in advance of the rest of the US, like environmental controls.

From the outside, the Guardian seems to be less than a middle of the road publication, and it is strange that so many readers would not grant that the paper has a very definite slant when it comes to editorial policy.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 10:51:39
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Because you took a look in the mirror.

And dweedle dum is heard from.

I was wondering how long it would take.

Funko
24-03-2005, 10:56:57
"From the outside, the Guardian seems to be less than a middle of the road publication, and it is strange that so many readers would not grant that the paper has a very definite slant when it comes to editorial policy."

We're responding to criticisms that the paper is screaming die Israelis! Murder Bush! in it's news coverage.

It's definitely a (UK) liberal paper but it does have clear split between factual reporting and opinion, it's news coverage probably has a slight left bias, all reporting has a slight bias, but it's orders of magnitude away from the kind of bias you guys are accusing it of.

Opinion and columnists are a different matter, but that's not what we are talking about here.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-03-2005, 10:58:02
Originally posted by notyoueither
And dweedle dum is heard from.

I was wondering how long it would take.

QED :D

Funko
24-03-2005, 10:58:11
Originally posted by notyoueither
And dweedle dum is heard from.

I was wondering how long it would take.

Complain about MOBIUS insulting posters not arguing the point, Dyl says it was a reflection of how you argue, and you insult him. Not the cleverest way to contest his point.

MoSe
24-03-2005, 10:59:29
can you make a chart, Funko?
it's a bit hard to get in just words, for me

Funko
24-03-2005, 11:00:04
It's al dente.

MoSe
24-03-2005, 11:00:53
aaahhh, cockbiters, I see.
thanks!

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:03:43
Originally posted by Funko
Complain about MOBIUS insulting posters not arguing the point, Dyl says it was a reflection of how you argue, and you insult him. Not the cleverest way to contest his point.

As if you need a refresher on the bad blood that goes way back and the fact that Dyl can do nothing but comment on me and not what I say.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-03-2005, 11:04:56
You truly are a riot.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:06:19
Originally posted by Funko
"From the outside, the Guardian seems to be less than a middle of the road publication, and it is strange that so many readers would not grant that the paper has a very definite slant when it comes to editorial policy."

We're responding to criticisms that the paper is screaming die Israelis! Murder Bush! in it's news coverage.

It's definitely a (UK) liberal paper but it does have clear split between factual reporting and opinion, it's news coverage probably has a slight left bias, all reporting has a slight bias, but it's orders of magnitude away from the kind of bias you guys are accusing it of.

Opinion and columnists are a different matter, but that's not what we are talking about here.

Sorry, I don't differentiate that much from page 1 to page comment.

Ther soul of a paper can be seen in its editorial board.

You hate Fox because of its editorial position, in other words, what they air and what they 'print'. The same thing makes the guardian a rag in my eyes.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:06:56
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
You truly are a riot.

Then they should ban me from Europe to stop the violence.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-03-2005, 11:10:39
No, you're welcome. Our local zoo is under new management, btw.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:13:47
Let's see how long we can keep this grudge going.

MoSe
24-03-2005, 11:14:06
handbags at dawn?

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:15:24
I want a fuchsia hand bag, please.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-03-2005, 11:18:56
I'd prefer tupperware at noon.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:21:41
I'm never awake at your noon.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:23:12
Revolvers at 6 PM would be doable, but they would have to have quite the range.

Funko
24-03-2005, 11:26:01
Originally posted by notyoueither
Sorry, I don't differentiate that much from page 1 to page comment.

Ther soul of a paper can be seen in its editorial board.

How can you not differentiate between the two?

I'm not arguing with you any more then you clearly have a totally alien perception of the matter.

Funko
24-03-2005, 11:28:53
Originally posted by notyoueither
As if you need a refresher on the bad blood that goes way back and the fact that Dyl can do nothing but comment on me and not what I say.

Not my experience and perception of reading your discussions he seems to get annoyed when you don't listen to what he says and put words in his mouth and argue a point he hasn't made. Then when he tells you that (not in a diplomatic way) you accuse him of being insulting not debating the issue.

I've seen that happen about a zillion times.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:30:40
Originally posted by Funko
How can you not differentiate between the two?

I'm not arguing with you any more then you clearly have a totally alien perception of the matter.

Alien?

Isn't the spirit behind the paper the issue? You think that the editors that let pass crap about assassination, or Afghanistan being a disaster, or Isreal is akin to the Boers magically gain a different perspective when it comes to the news items they edit?

Isn't it realy the editorial position that is being debated?

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:32:28
Originally posted by Funko
Not my experience and perception of reading your discussions he seems to get annoyed when you don't listen to what he says and put words in his mouth and argue a point he hasn't made. Then when he tells you that (not in a diplomatic way) you accuse him of being insulting not debating the issue.

I've seen that happen about a zillion times.

And my perception differs.

Go figure.

Funko
24-03-2005, 11:35:02
Of course they do, that's their job. You only need to read the Guardian's news coverage to see that. That's the whole point of seperating the two things.

News is fact based reporting. There should be as little (ideally none) opinion as possible in the story.

Not only that but your perception of exactly what opinion the guardian allows is extremely narrow, probably based on a few of the more 'controversial in the states' ones that you've seen on the net. Although it does tend to be uk liberal (ie. pro individual freedom, human rights etc. ) slanted which I obviously think is a good thing.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:38:39
You can't seperate the two, Mike.

That's like saying that Fox can be loony toons when they air bigoted bullshit, but you can count on the news they report.

Of course the attitude of the editors effects the news that gets reported. You can see the attitudes of the editors in what gets printed as comment.

Or are Guardian editors somehow inhuman that they are different from all others?

Funko
24-03-2005, 11:46:49
"That's like saying that Fox can be loony toons when they air bigoted bullshit, but you can count on the news they report."

It would be like that but the actual News on Fox is totally skewed too. We don't have any opinion pieces on our TV news, that's saved for the print media. So Fox seems particularly offensive to us in the UK.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:48:00
The editors decide what gets printed, what gets killed, and what gets hacked up to meet with their standards before it gets printed. That's how papers work.

When you see a paper saying that some minority should be rounded up and deported on the editorial pages, you have a fair idea of how they cut the news.

You judge a paper by the comment and editorial sections. That is the only place where the real bias shines through. You can be assured that the editorial board agrees with what is printed there.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:51:27
Originally posted by Funko
"That's like saying that Fox can be loony toons when they air bigoted bullshit, but you can count on the news they report."

It would be like that but the actual News on Fox is totally skewed too. We don't have any opinion pieces on our TV news, that's saved for the print media. So Fox seems particularly offensive to us in the UK.

Once again, the fact that Fox is offensive does nothing to save the Guardians reputation.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:52:59
I'm gonna repeat this, so it doesn't get lost at the bottom of a page...

The editors decide what gets printed, what gets killed, and what gets hacked up to meet with their standards before it gets printed. That's how papers work.

When you see a paper saying that some minority should be rounded up and deported on the editorial pages, you have a fair idea of how they cut the news.

You judge a paper by the comment and editorial sections. That is the only place where the real bias shines through. You can be assured that the editorial board agrees with what is printed there.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:55:33
Shoukld say approve of, not agree with.

Debaser
24-03-2005, 11:56:05
Just out of interest NYE, and apologies if this has been covered elsewhere in the thread, but what exactly is your experience of reading the Guardian? Did you live in England for a while or something? Or like Funko says, are you basing your opinions on a few stories which have been seen as particularly outragous in America?

Nills Lagerbaak
24-03-2005, 11:57:02
Just thought I'd join in as I have a couple of minutes....

And a good editor knows how to retain an objective news report. What diffewrentiates the readers of the Gaurdian from most readers of (for example) the sun, is that they know when a news report is being heavily opinionated. The editors of the Guardian would not be able to pull the wool over their readers eyes like that.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 11:59:33
Originally posted by Debaser
Just out of interest NYE, and apologies if this has been covered elsewhere in the thread, but what exactly is your experience of reading the Guardian? Did you live in England for a while or something? Or like Funko says, are you basing your opinions on a few stories which have been seen as particularly outragous in America?

Never lived in England, so mostly the outrageous bits. Not just outrageous in America though.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:03:21
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Just thought I'd join in as I have a couple of minutes....

And a good editor knows how to retain an objective news report. What diffewrentiates the readers of the Gaurdian from most readers of (for example) the sun, is that they know when a news report is being heavily opinionated. The editors of the Guardian would not be able to pull the wool over their readers eyes like that.

Editors don't pull any wool over anything. They kill stories they don't like and they drop reporters who aren't with the program.

The readership wouldn't notice it, because the readership generally agrees with the editorial position which is why they read the paper.

Spartak
24-03-2005, 12:04:29
Why are we having this discussion at all. Its obvious that no-one agrees with each other and no-one is going to change their mind and that nothing you say will make a blind spot of difference so why don't we consign this thread to 'Poly and go back to peaceful spamming?

Nills Lagerbaak
24-03-2005, 12:06:07
Well, reading a variety of papers from all over the political spectrum, I don't see any blatant ommissions in the stories covered by the Guardian

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:07:12
Originally posted by Spartak
Why are we having this discussion at all. Its obvious that no-one agrees with each other and no-one is going to change their mind and that nothing you say will make a blind spot of difference so why don't we consign this thread to 'Poly and go back to peaceful spamming?

So long as I get a fuchia hand bag, I don't care.

MOBIUS
24-03-2005, 12:07:17
Originally posted by notyoueither
Mobius gives up any attempt to address the posts and instead attacks the posters.

I was addressing the posts, however Funko is doing such a good job that I can't see how I could improve upon his points. Instead I thought I might better avail myself by examining the crux of our mutual impasse...

I was just disseminating your own words as to why your opinions differed into a pithy sentence so as to prevent any further misunderstanding vis a vis our relative positions...:)

As Dyl says, look into the mirror if you want someone to blame - don't shoot the messenger.:cute:

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:08:19
Blah, blah, blah.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:12:55
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Well, reading a variety of papers from all over the political spectrum, I don't see any blatant ommissions in the stories covered by the Guardian

The point is the editorial position of the Guardian, as opposed to say, Fox.

They do have an editorial position, right?

It's not like Tories form a majority of their columnists, right?

What doesn't get printed (Tories) tells you a bit. What does get printed (a lot of good, but some crap) tells you more.

It's the crap the editors let through that has them as a rag in my book, even though they do print a lot of good stuff. I have read a bit of it.

MOBIUS
24-03-2005, 12:13:42
Originally posted by Funko
Complain about MOBIUS insulting posters not arguing the point, Dyl says it was a reflection of how you argue, and you insult him. Not the cleverest way to contest his point.

Whatever, but how can you expect to be taken seriously if this is your debating style. Too many times there is a semi serious(:eek:!) thread here on CG, this is how you let it degenerate...:hmm:

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:15:18
Of course, maybe they are aiming to be the left wing Sun. Sensational. That's possible.

It would mean they were aiming to be the left wing crap.

And that's where I think they've landed.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:16:34
Originally posted by MOBIUS
Whatever, but how can you expect to be taken seriously if this is your debating style. Too many times there is a semi serious(:eek:!) thread here on CG, this is how you let it degenerate...:hmm:

You remind me of the ipod like device on that energizer commercial.

Runs very energentically and yaps a lot.

Funko
24-03-2005, 12:16:36
Originally posted by notyoueither
The point is the editorial position of the Guardian, as opposed to say, Fox.

They do have an editorial position, right?


That's your point, not what anyone else was arguing about, certainly not what I've been arguing about. We were all talking about news.

No wonder we're not making any progress, you are having your own argument about your own issue on your own terms again.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-03-2005, 12:19:36
Indeed. We were talking about the ability of a good newspaper to distinguish between news and opinion. You have already said that you don't make the differentiation so why argue?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-03-2005, 12:20:37
Now if NYE could have his own argument about his own issue on his own terms all on his own, this would be a better place.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:21:04
Originally posted by Funko
That's your point, not what anyone else was arguing about, certainly not what I've been arguing about. We were all talking about news.

No wonder we're not making any progress, you are having your own argument about your own issue on your own terms again.

May I quote something from earlier in this thread? Thank you.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Actua the NY Times is a better paper then the Guardian, however, its Public Editor has alos admited that they have a liberal bais. Unlike the Guardian the NY Times actually does give print to conservatives and centrists plus it details their positions in a fair way. That's the hallmark of quality journalism and it's a major reason as to why the Guardian is a tabloid while the NY Times remains a quality journalistic paper dispite it's political stances.

Where does that say just news coverage?

And anyhow, why are you so determined to deny that editorial position would effect news coverage?

Funko
24-03-2005, 12:23:25
You labeled one of the most respected NEWSpapers in Britain worthless trash. We're explaining to you why, just because it prints opinion pieces you don't like, it isn't.

Anyway. Stop annoying me with your bullshit. It's giving me a headache.

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:23:48
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Indeed. We were talking about the ability of a good newspaper to distinguish between news and opinion. You have already said that you don't make the differentiation so why argue?

Mike does the same thing every time the Guardian comes up.

'But the news is good!'

Well, bullshit. The news and the rest are not readilly distringuishable.

Anyone here read pravda for 'truth' in news?

MOBIUS
24-03-2005, 12:24:05
Originally posted by notyoueither
You remind me of the ipod like device on that energizer commercial.

Runs very energentically and yaps a lot.

Sounds like your position on the Guardian, you seem to have this irrational and hysterical hatred for them - if the Guardian is that bad, surely it would be an easy matter for you to find some examples of their terrible bias...?

Right now all we're getting from you is sensationalist hearsay.

Blah, blah, blah...?

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 12:26:39
Originally posted by Funko
You labeled one of the most respected NEWSpapers in Britain worthless trash. We're explaining to you why, just because it prints opinion pieces you don't like, it isn't.

Anyway. Stop annoying me with your bullshit. It's giving me a headache.

Respected by whom?

I called a spade a spade.

Did it occur to you that Fox is well regarded by some Americans, and they are baffled by your belligerence?

MattHiggs
24-03-2005, 12:41:36
I called a spade a spade.

Stop stereotyping!

HelloKitty
24-03-2005, 12:44:56
Originally posted by notyoueither
Respected by whom?

I called a spade a spade.

Did it occur to you that Fox is well regarded by some Americans, and they are baffled by your belligerence?

Micheal Jackson is well regarded by some parents who are baffled by the belligerence of the US justice system.

Spartak
24-03-2005, 12:49:28
Originally posted by Spartak
Why are we having this discussion at all. Its obvious that no-one agrees with each other and no-one is going to change their mind and that nothing you say will make a blind spot of difference so why don't we consign this thread to 'Poly and go back to peaceful spamming? Ahem.

MoSe
24-03-2005, 12:54:31
Originally posted by notyoueither
I called a spade a spade.


*clubs him*
;)

Lazarus and the Gimp
24-03-2005, 17:27:33
Originally posted by notyoueither


Isn't the spirit behind the paper the issue? You think that the editors that let pass crap about assassination,

IT WAS IN A REGULAR JOKE TV REVIEWS COLUMN! Charlie Brooker writes a humour column, not news.

Jesus Christ, man. Do you really the "Funnies" section is journalism? I dread to think what you'd make of Steve Bell's cartoons.

Darkstar
24-03-2005, 19:40:10
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
With an emphasis on "wacky". Actually, you are so crazy, that I do not think one can label you left or right.

:heart: Aww! How sweet. ;)

Although I have always preferred the term "weird".

notyoueither
24-03-2005, 19:48:30
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
IT WAS IN A REGULAR JOKE TV REVIEWS COLUMN! Charlie Brooker writes a humour column, not news.

Jesus Christ, man. Do you really the "Funnies" section is journalism? I dread to think what you'd make of Steve Bell's cartoons.

I think they're quite... unique.

Anyways, you may be right about it, but if there was nothing wrong why was an apology printed?

Darkstar
24-03-2005, 20:07:12
BTW... you guys defending the Guardian sound just like the guys elsewhere that defend Fox. Same arguments for the defense, like how it is quality news, how you can tell when a reporter or editor is having a go rather then just telling the news, etc etc etc.

I would hazard a wild guess that the reason that this thread is going on, is that it is actually something that the pro-G care about and find it offensive that anyone would dare think less of something they care for. *Indeed, they have posted several phrases saying that in this thread!* That is very out of place here, considering those CGers normally only respect a good mug of beer and a good joke or very bad pun. If it was the Royals or astrology or Sleeper that was being disrespected, they cerainly wouldn't give a shit. I don't think anyone is going to get Oerdin or NYE to say "Whoops! You were right." But, it will be possible to get a "Whoops! You are being total hypocritical shit heads." if this thread keeps going.

But hey, when Roland and I are the ones trying to be reasonable in a thread, that's got to be a blazing sign that the thread has gone all super-Poly. Perhaps you guys should start a thread discussing the pros and cons of the Guardian, journalism, and the modern age over at Poly? I'm sure they'd love it. They must be bored waiting for the Gun Control, ME, and Kill All Jew threads to recycle to the top of the troll pile.

Lazarus and the Gimp
24-03-2005, 20:34:52
Originally posted by notyoueither
I think they're quite... unique.

Anyways, you may be right about it, but if there was nothing wrong why was an apology printed?

They print apologies for Charlie Brooker on about a monthly basis. While he was writing for PC Zone he proposed setting up a zoo entirely dedicated to cruelty to animals, with accompanying cartoon pictures. The UK's biggest newsagent chain promptly banned the magazine.

When he co-wrote an episode of "Brass Eye", it generated a record number of complaints and caused questions to be asked in Parliament. He's a national treasure, and I think he's the funniest columnist in the country.

HelloKitty
25-03-2005, 03:52:16
The guardian has to be good. Rik from the Young ones reads it.

notyoueither
25-03-2005, 04:28:54
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
They print apologies for Charlie Brooker on about a monthly basis. While he was writing for PC Zone he proposed setting up a zoo entirely dedicated to cruelty to animals, with accompanying cartoon pictures. The UK's biggest newsagent chain promptly banned the magazine.

When he co-wrote an episode of "Brass Eye", it generated a record number of complaints and caused questions to be asked in Parliament. He's a national treasure, and I think he's the funniest columnist in the country.

While rebelliousness can be amusing, all that says is that any 'responsible' publication he is associated with should have an editor and a very short leash assigned to him.

Lazarus and the Gimp
25-03-2005, 08:15:53
Then praise be to God that "The Guide" (which has a different editorial team to "The Guardian") are a bunch of irresponsible turd-touching yobs.