Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on November 14, 2005, 07:30:47 PM
-
NO it's not the picture that bothers me.....it's the caption:
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/in_pictures_shooting_paradise_now_/img/10.jpg)
Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants.
Yup and to some, those that blow up woman and children in the name of "freedom" are called "murderers". Those that teach this to children are far worse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/in_pictures_shooting_paradise_now_/html/10.stm
-
In context, the caption is quite accurate. Or do you think the other terrorists in that picture are telling that kid and his parents that he's gonna blow himself to little bits because they're lowlife dirtbags, and because they believe it's the right thing to do . . . as long as it's not them that blows up.
In other words, you look for something to be outraged about, and you found it.
-
Imagine this in the US:
(http://www.farmworkers.org/bracero5/kkk.gif)
Souther children learn at a young age about the struggle for Supremecy. To some, the KKK are heroes. Here a Dad poses for a photograph with his son at a rally organised by supremists.
If this was a caption by CNN or Foxnews there would be outrage. I guess strapping bombs to yourself and blowing people up is just as normal thing to teach your kids as soccer in the ME?
-
LOL that would be a great caption. Apart from being just funny, it would also be unbiased. I can read it, as I can read the caption in the BBC, and form my own opinion of the subjects of the photograph. In both cases, I fall back on my already formed opinion that the people I'm seeing are a bunch of worthless heaps of human, with the kids being tragically so.
I guess strapping bombs to yourself and blowing people up is just as normal thing to teach your kids as soccer in the ME
Yes, Gunslinger. I think that strapping bombs to yourself and blowing people up is normal. That is exactly it. Thanks for your insight.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Yes, Gunslinger. I think that strapping bombs to yourself and blowing people up is normal. That is exactly it. Thanks for your insight.
I'm glad I amuse you.:D Maybe I'll spoof the FDB board with the second post. Either way I just see this as world wide dumbing down of extremism.
-
Actually looking through the rest of those photos it seems to be about a film glorifying (going by the captions) suicide bombers.
Yes, I agree, the BBC has sunk to a new low. Sure there are two sides to a story, I'm sure Hitler had a side to his story, as did Stalin, Pol Pot, and a few other pyscho's. Suicide bombing of innocent civilians is a very clear line, in glorifying it the BBC have lost any inkling of respect from me.
-
More BBC caption fun:
"During filming, the crew were exposed to the dangers of Israeli missile strikes. In one incident, a strike on a car killed four suspected militants. Here, Palestinians crowd into a hospital morgue demanding to see the bodies."
Amazing stuff, and all the while the same extremist musim terrorists the BBC is so joyfully fellating here are blowing up british people in london left and right. Truly amazing the capacity of ingrained self hatred in the western leftist elites of today...
How could they ever get this impression?
"By day, groups of local children came to the set to watch. According to the director, some locals welcomed the crew in the belief that they were fighting for their freedom."
And to finih it off, here's the crap the modern western sophisticates love the best prolly and the cxause of all this outragus love of terrorists - moral relativism:
"Director Hany Abu-Assad says his film is a "metaphor for emotions that we can all share... This is the story of humanity".
:mad:
-
Originally quoted by GRUNHERZ
"During filming, the crew were exposed to the dangers of Israeli missile strikes. In one incident, a strike on a car killed four suspected militants. Here, Palestinians crowd into a hospital morgue demanding to see the bodies."
That same crew probably exposed themselves to the dangers of Palestinian strikes. I wonder if they rode a bus or had some pizza while waiting for a flight out of Ben Gurion.
-
It seems to be something called objective journalism, where the photographer doesn't take a stance and says what the photos are about.
Hes briefly describing the photos and what the scenes are related to.
It wouldn't make any difference to tell us something we ALREADY know.
Waste of words for no ones benefit and the journalists would only further endanger themselves out there.
I find it more interesting this way; a view into the other side and their thoughts.
The BBC often makes rather interesting documentaries in the "hostile" countries and only way they can do it is to remain objective and do what the reporters are expected to do - report whats happening.
People can make a difference between the good and evil themselves, they don't need to be told; that would only serve as a state propaganda.
As a bonus, the BBC gets an easier access into the "hostile" countries than their more aggressive collegues.
I wan't to know whats happening in the countries; I wan't to know what they think; I wan't to know their perspective; I wan't to see hows it like there; I want to know why they do what they do; I wan't to know what causes them to do what they do.
Objective journalism is the answer, the rest is up to the audience.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It seems to be something called objective journalism, where the photographer doesn't take a stance and says what the photos are about.
Hes briefly describing the photos and what the scenes are related to.
It wouldn't make any difference to tell us something we ALREADY know.
Waste of words for no ones benefit and the journalists would only further endanger themselves out there.
I find it more interesting this way; a view into the other side and their thoughts.
The BBC often makes rather interesting documentaries in the "hostile" countries and only way they can do it is to remain objective and do what the reporters are expected to do - report whats happening.
People can make a difference between the good and evil themselves, they don't need to be told; that would only serve as a state propaganda.
As a bonus, the BBC gets an easier access into the "hostile" countries than their more aggressive collegues.
"To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes" OBECTIVE :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Objective would be "To most, the Palestinian martyrs are murderers and mosters, to a few they are heroes"
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Objective would be "To most, the Palestinian martyrs are murderers and mosters, to a few they are heroes"
Not really, because that is a clear opinion and taking of a stance.
Besides being twice longer sentance of something we already know.
"To some" already tells alot, which is a delicate way of saying "but not to most", while remaining neutral.
Geez.. english isn't my native language, but I can interpret it better than some whos for it is their native language.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Not really, because that is a clear opinion and taking of a stance.
"To some, Hitler and the Nazis were heroes"
Is that really an "objective view" PLEASE! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Yes a kid with a bomb strapped to himself and the words "heroes" in the caption is an objecive view at a monstrocity.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
"To some, Hitler and the Nazis were heroes"
But that is true, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
"To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes" OBECTIVE :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Objective would be "To most, the Palestinian martyrs are murderers and mosters, to a few they are heroes"
The first sentence is an objective and true statement. It is also a statement that introduces an idea that may be suprising or interesting.
The second sentence is also true, and quite obvious. It's reasonable to expect that a vast majority of the readership of the BBC feels this way, so what is gained by using this?
In the context of that picture, the caption is appropriate. I can form my own opinions, and I don't need a news agency helping me out with that or expressing my opinion. You, apparently, are interested in reporting that expresses a viewpoint in agreement with you.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
But that is true, isn't it?
yes but by saying it by itself not objective and is misleading at best.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes but by saying it by itself not objective and is misleading at best.
Isn't it misleading to lead people towards someones personal viewpoint?
Like the austrian corporal did, with his view of the truth?
We all do know Boroda, don't we.
Hes got pretty interesting views, don't you agree?
Think of all the little Borodas' whos taking Boroda's words as the truth.
-
BTW...I'm obviously right about this (I'm always right), but I'm on the same side as Fishu. Somebody shoot me.
-
If I shot you, would that make me a hero?
-
Deleted.
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
If I shot you, would that make me a hero?
LOL, I guess that all depends on who you're asking.
-
Originally posted by SOB
The first sentence is an objective and true statement.
"To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes."
It's not an objective statement at all. An objective statement would have been along the lines of: "To some, the Palestinian homicide bombers are martyrs and heroes"
The statement in the caption would be like showing an Isreali soldier and captioning it: "To some, the warriors of peace are heroes."
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It's not an objective statement at all. An objective statement would have been along the lines of:
Didn't we already go through the issue of viewpoint?
Don't make me repeat myself please.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Didn't we already go through the issue of viewpoint?
Don't make me repeat myself please.
Use of the word martyr is not objective. It implies somebody sacrificing their life for some great cause. Subsitute matry with suicide bomber and you'd be objective.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
"To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes."
It's not an objective statement at all. An objective statement would have been along the lines of: "To some, the Palestinian homicide bombers are martyrs and heroes"
Objective: "To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes."
Not Objective: "The Palestinian martyrs are heroes."
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/martyr
Main Entry: 1mar·tyr
Pronunciation: 'mär-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek martyr-, martys, literally, witness
1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
3 : VICTIM; especially : a great or constant sufferer
-
Im surprised the BBC hasn't called for the destruction of Isreal :confused:
-
If you read the captions in a certain way, they actually do!
-
how about a picture of an Indian, holding custers scap at the little big horn?
"And for the slaughter of 4,300 non combatant indian women and children, the heroic braves of the sioux nation struck down the killers.. "
i'd guess the 'truth' of a pictures caption in vile circumstances like this is more a matter of perspective than any of us would care to admit.
-
Terrorist are the turds of the world.
They should all be flushed right down the old crapper.
I think by there actions {the bombing in Jordan} that they are doing a very god job just proving our point that they are idiots.
They are making enemies all over the world so there time is limited.
I have tried to go thru life with out hating anyone but I can truthfully say I have no use for these clowns at all.
Want to know how to get rid of terrorist?
Just do like Holland did and evict them and dont let anymore muslims in the country.
If we closed down all mosque they would leave in droves.
See ya habib dont let the door hit ya.
-
Originally posted by SOB
BTW...I'm obviously right about this (I'm always right), but I'm on the same side as Fishu. Somebody shoot me.
It's worse than even that.
I agree with you as well.
:aok
-
Originally posted by SOB
Objective: "To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes."
Not Objective: "The Palestinian martyrs are heroes."
I can see it your way too, technically. But it's on the cusp and since it's the BBC, I take it as a biased description of what everyone else knows is just a suicide bomber. I know you know that and a lot of people know that, but it seems purposley "nice" to the terrorist scum.
To me, just because "to some" is preceding doesn't really doesn't alter the meaning in refering to sucide bombers as martyrs istead of just describing them more truthfully.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Objective: "To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes."
Not Objective: "The Palestinian martyrs are heroes."
Read your own definition:
3 : VICTIM; especially : a great or constant sufferer
Would you label Hitler a matyr?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
how about a picture of an Indian, holding custers scap at the little big horn?
"And for the slaughter of 4,300 non combatant indian women and children, the heroic braves of the sioux nation struck down the killers.. "
i'd guess the 'truth' of a pictures caption in vile circumstances like this is more a matter of perspective than any of us would care to admit.
Well to an Indian, that would most likely be an appropiate attitude in that occurance..perspective and personal point of view is what we judge almost everything.
ie. The difference between a resistance/freedom fighter and terrorist is usually our point of view...
..also SOB and Fishu were absolutely correct
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Would you label Hitler a matyr?
Did Hitler have asthma?
-
Random thoughts:
Unfortunately, man is a creature of nature, and in nature, you either thump on or get thumped on. I know what side of the thumping I want to be on.
If a group of people, a minority group of people...whatever, want to strap explosives on, man woman or child, Im afraid that population, however insignificant, needs to get thumped on. In the age of atomics, suicide bombers are no good.
For me, seeing a young child wearing a body bomb is simply justificatin for killing that child. Premptively is obviously the preffered timeline on suicide bombers. Its sad and pitiful but thats the way this game has evolved......
Draw a bead on the little bugger and let er fly.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Did Hitler have asthma?
I was about to ask !
Don't you think you are a weirdo ? (so I m btw :))
-
Biased/Subjective:
"Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants."
Unbiased/Objective:
"Palestinian children learn at a young age about what thier teachers call the struggle for freedom. To some, those who engage in suicide bombing are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants."
You will notice that the second example is truely objective, while the first is not. The BBC caption appears to have been written for the Palestinian readers.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes but by saying it by itself not objective and is misleading at best.
It is. I'm currently watching a BBC documentary on the nazis, and the documentary describes the view of the pple back then.
This is why it's called "documentary".
If it had to start every sentance with "those horrible pple back then who were the nazis..." i would have used the DVDs as toasters.
-
Let me see if I have this right... easy scenario here.
If SOB was flying a twittler Biplane and "intentually" dived and took out an enemy hanger fully knowing that it would cost him his life would he then be refered to as "Martyr twittler SOB"?
:huh
-
the part about "to some" is objective... the part about "the struggle for freedom" is not. The person doing the documentary let's his michele moorenss slip out in the latter. In this case.. the anti semitism...
oh wait... "to many... the BBC and yourop eans are anti semites.. the young are taught at an early age to hate the nasty oppresive jew"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the part about "to some" is objective... the part about "the struggle for freedom" is not. The person doing the documentary let's his michele moorenss slip out in the latter. In this case.. the anti semitism...
So you are saying that the media should stop referring to the US war campaign as a war against terror?
-
no... in my opinion.. the people we are fighting in Iraq are the perfect examples of terrorists.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no... in my opinion.. the people we are fighting in Iraq are the perfect examples of terrorists.
lazs
Why reporting things on the other side how they see it isn't objective?
I hear people complaining and wondering why is someone doing this and that, but when offered the chance to get an insight to their reasons, they dismiss it like you do and insult the reporter.
However you want them to express your viewpoint instead.
-
Too much thinking Fishu, not enough teeth.
-
See Rule #4
-
I see no problem with that quote. I don't particularly like it but it's probably true to Palestinian people/families involved in terrorism.
It's no different than the IRA being called Freedom Fighters by some and terrorists by others. They're officially terrorists but I've heard some people on this forum call them freedom fighters. Go figure.
-
"Militants" is a favorite term for the media, its "terrorist-lite", all the TNT but only 1/2 the guilt.
-
there is no way to "see the other side" suicide bombing, video beheadings.. car bombs.. against innocents.. these are terrorists acts...
Don't want to be called a terrorist? then don't do terrorist acts.
And... I really don't care why they do what they do.
lazs
-
It's not terrorist versus freedom fighter thing.
Terrorism is a method of waging war.
Fighting for freedom is an ideological goal.
Freedom fighters can (and do) engage in terrorism. This doesn't mean that all freedom fighters are terrorists.
-
Sandman.
IMO, a "freedom fighter" uses unconventional warfare (guerilla) methods to attack legitimate government, military, and infrastructure targets in order to acheive his goals. Casualties among the general populace, in this case, can be considered as "collateral damage", a consequence of military action. Blowing up a police station, a government building, or attacking a military patrol are examples of this type of activity.
A terrorist attacks the general populace in order to acheive his goals. Casualties among the general populace are the method and desired effect. Exploding a bomb in a subway, attacking an airport, or taking hostages fit in this category.
I disagree with the premise that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". I really think there are objective ways to evaluate methods vs. goals. That's the criterion I would use. Your opinion may differ.
-
Comparing KKK and Islamic fundamenalists is a bit of a stretch.
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
Comparing KKK and Islamic fundamenalists is a bit of a stretch.
How so?
Both are motivated by hatred and feelings of justified anger.
Both use violence against innocents to acheive their goals.
Both are readily identified with a warped religious ethnic image.
Both deserve a good azzwhuppin.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Let me see if I have this right... easy scenario here.
If SOB was flying a twittler Biplane and "intentually" dived and took out an enemy hanger fully knowing that it would cost him his life would he then be refered to as "Martyr twittler SOB"?
:huh
'
I don't believe no one caught the play on words... Sheesh are we all so "Anal Retentive" that we can't laff at a good stab? I worked a good maybe 3 minutes on that.
Tuff crowd, no wonder the waitresses are pissssed.....
Mac
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
Comparing KKK and Islamic fundamenalists is a bit of a stretch.
BIG stretch..........at least we haven't firebombed a Mosque yet with 3 Islamic girls inside that showed up early to practice piano...
Nor have we interupted a Soccor game to do a beheading... Evil is just that, Evil.
Lets just NUKE the Hell out of the World and let start it all over again. Seems fair. The inhabitants occupying this planet now don't deserve to live on it....
But the War is still young......
Mac
Ohhh forgot...
~Touche~
IN
This thread is going nowhere but Hate...
World needs better, all around.
or let it Burn!
Mac
-
Comparing the two is like comparing a school bully who stuffed a kid in a trash can and a serial killer. Yes, some of their motives are the same. But please, their methods are different.
P.S. Ur nuts
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Sandman.
IMO, a "freedom fighter" uses unconventional warfare (guerilla) methods to attack legitimate government, military, and infrastructure targets in order to acheive his goals.
I tell you what... if a country invaded ours and then sent their families in here as well, I'd feel no compunction at all targeting their wives and children.
-
i am willing to bet that a huge majority of you dont even watch BBC news. dont comment on what you dont know. is it objective for the american media to call firefighters or soldiers heros? no. the word hero is an opinion. i personally dont take shots at ANY media outlet that i dont read, watch, or listen to on the radio. so do yourselves a favor and flip the channel to BBC America and view for yourselves. but dont take ONE FRIGGIN CAPTION UNDER ONE SINGLE PHOTO AND JUDGE THEM FOR IT!!! that is called prejudice.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
i am willing to bet that a huge majority of you dont even watch BBC news. dont comment on what you dont know. is it objective for the american media to call firefighters or soldiers heros? no. the word hero is an opinion. i personally dont take shots at ANY media outlet that i dont read, watch, or listen to on the radio. so do yourselves a favor and flip the channel to BBC America and view for yourselves. but dont take ONE FRIGGIN CAPTION UNDER ONE SINGLE PHOTO AND JUDGE THEM FOR IT!!! that is called prejudice.
and if you happen to watch and read the bbc, what's it called then? Or am I not supposed to have an opnion on somone that refers to mass murderers as heroes?
BIIIIIIGGGGGGGGG difference.....Firefighter... ..suicide bomber????? We report you decide ;)
-
Originally posted by AWMac
...Nor have we interupted a Soccor game to do a beheading... Evil is just that, Evil...
As you certainly know, there are no klan members at soccer games
-
If you read through the entire sequence you will find that the "to some" is referring to the Palestinians in particular rather than everyone in the universe. A s such it is a perfectly reasonably statement.
This just seems to be yet another case or right wingers determined to find bias in new outfits, especially ones that have journalistic credibility.
-
Originally posted by Pei
If you read through the entire sequence you will find that the "to some" is referring to the Palestinians in particular rather than everyone in the universe. A s such it is a perfectly reasonably statement.
This just seems to be yet another case or right wingers determined to find bias in new outfits, especially ones that have journalistic credibility.
Journalistic credibility doesn't seek to create sympothy for mass-murderers.
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
Comparing KKK and Islamic fundamenalists is a bit of a stretch.
The comparison was for the caption mostly. If a picture of the KKK apeared on fox news with the caption below it you know AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the whole NAACP would have boat loads of airtime complaining the next day. But since "some veiw these mass-murderers as heroes" I guess it's ok to glorify them and to some on this board compare there "status" to firefighters.
-
gunslinger. try to think what makes a hero? how bout a defition?
A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or SACRIFICED HIS OR HER LIFE.
so although you dont believe in their cause (if you even understand it), technically they are "heros". i personally think they are wasting their lives and they are only pissing off the civilian population.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup and to some, those that blow up woman and children in the name of "freedom" are called "murderers".
So how do you feel about the Nicaraguan Contras and the Reagan administration officials that backed them illegally knowing full well that they were conducting attacks against civilians? The same officials that got presidential pardons for their actions and are considered Patriotic heros by many. Are they murderers too?
-
Gunslinger, to say "some view X as heroes" is stating a fact, no matter if X is a suicide bomber, sports star, KKK member whatever you want.
Some people do view the suicide bombers as heroes. Fact.
I really do think you're reading too much into that caption.
If it had said "the suicide bombers are heroes, supported by most of the Palestinians", I think you would have a point. But it doesn't. And you don't.
It really seems you're scratching around for something to object to.
Perhaps Israelis who face the threat of suicide bombings could offer a more rounded opinion:
"Despite Paradise Now's subject, it was supported by the Israeli Film Fund. "For many Israelis," says IFF director Katriel Schory, "I think it is not a bad idea to understand the circumstances, the psyche and everything involved in these terrible steps."
I clicked on the link provided. Here's the actual quote:
To some, the Palestinian BOMBERS are heroes. Here a child poses for a picture wearing a fake suicide bomb belt at a rally organised by militants.
No mention of martyrs there, yet your quote includes them. Why?
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
Comparing KKK and Islamic fundamenalists is a bit of a stretch.
Calling palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters" as the photo /article does is a real big stretch.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Calling palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters" as the photo /article does is a real big stretch.
Please can you link us to the section of the piece where the term "freedom fighter" is used?
-
The most awful part that is surfacing from this debate is the fact that the opinions of most people are based on this media game.
I use the word game because:
1) Individual media outlets battle for ratings (popularity) and a fundemental basis of this is number of viewers. Simple math:
# of viewers = Amt of money
2) The media gains viewership by depicting sensational and/or controversial material either first, or in more detail or from a new angle yet unimagined or unknown. This means that they want to capture the public interest by pushing the "event" as far as possible. They are only limited by the digestive fortitude of their target audience. (i.e. they cannot get too gruesome or people won't watch or the FCC or other regulatory agencies might get PO'd OR they cannot put down one side too much (unless that side has no choice but to take the abuse) for fear of losing access to that side.
3) All those who claim to truly be only observervers will, in fact, affect the event that they are trying to objectively capture (a simple fact of science). The media cannot be objective...once they get involved they impact the event ... they cannot be outside and inside at the same time.
4) The media never apololgizes based on the excuse that they "did the best based on the information available at the time" (something that we accept as a "good enough exuse for lies"). They are never questioned as to why they did not wait to get better facts (the excuse would be that they needed to capture the event before someone else [no doubt someone else who is less reputable] did ... see # 2 above). This lack of responsibility is a great "get out of jail free card". Luckily (for the media) people forget too quickly once something new and sensational comes along. The most ironic (and annoying) side of this is the fact that media portrays themselves as honest and in servitude of the public (they are performing a public service for the benefit of all)
Reminder # of viewers = amount of money
5) The media plays a game of teasing viewers (or scaring them) into watching. This is often done (particularily on TV but also surfacing in News Papers) through the threat of something they know that could have a direct impact on the viewer (i.e. - something I hear recently between prime times shows on a local TV channel - "Is the toy your child is playing with right now putting him at risk? Tune in at 10 and find out"). If the media knows something that could help save a child's life they need to tell everyone ASAP. Even in the BBC in the so called "Objective" quote above:
Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants
It tells the reader that there is a struggle for "freedom" and that this struggle involves "CHILDREN". Furthermore, they might be heroes! Who are they heroes to? What are their targets (we know they target civilians...could that civilian be someone significant to me?) I feel bad because I know of and have children that I care for. How can I not care for these children???.. DO I feel sypathy? SHould I feel sypathy? Seems like the BBC wants me to feel some sympathy..
There is just enough information to spark concern but not enough to truly define the situation. The picture and the caption create more questions than answers and "I just might have to watch some more of the BBC in order to get more details".
6) The media is a form of entertainment. Anything based on and driven popularity is a form entertainment. Also, a joke is a form entertainment and therefore:
Media = Joke
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Sven
A Government-funded news service that reports the news.
-
Originally posted by Sven
The BBC is not government funded.
You are incorrect. From their website:
"BBC World Service is funded by Government grants"
-
The World Service is one small part of the BBC. The rest is publically funded.
-
News agencies (BBC or otherwise) are entertainment industries. If they get you to watch (by rubbing whatever emotion) they have completed their mission. When news reporters capture the news they affect the news. It is their decision (based on their director's guidance) how they depict their position (what they show and how it is shown).
The only true regulation of the media is in the form of viewership and access to news stories. The BBC is concerned about getting the stories other media agencies might not get and to do so they have to appear sympathetic to all causes. So it is actually a desire to appease the news source that drives the presentation. If the BBC had used the word murderer instead of martyr the US would have been happy but this would have been the last time they had access to this imagery. Had they used the word crusader instead of martyr they probably have recieved threats.
Sorry but the media is not a camera floating free in space. It is confined by its earthly existence (like all bioligical creatures - you know bent on self preservation with the goal of food-chain supremacy). Claiming state funding only serves to cloud the issue and not really address the claim that the media is a joke.
Uhm and hyper-sensitivity is a weak claim. To attack a response to a challenge to a news agency report because it was found offensive is close minded. Had this been something you found offensive you would have been twice as offended if we labeled you as "over-sensitive" when you complained about it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The World Service is one small part of the BBC. The rest is publically funded.
Is not the topic of the post a published story from the World service division?
-
Okay,
I cannot speak for Americans, only for myself (something that gets too easy to do when trying to capture a society for the sake of an argument).
In general I agree that Americans have a fairly well established perspective on what they deem acceptable TV "viewing". I do not always agree with it but it is popular and so the status quo (our idea of freedom of speech is another debate altogether). I don't think the argument is about our particular editing requirements but rather about our right to express our opinion. As Americans we are pro-America - again that is our right. As pro-America we feel it is appropriate to address all images (i.e photos, new stories) that indicate the growing threat to our society. We also deem it appropriate to question the medium for the image when it comes to their method of presentation. We will not simple accept that the BBC is a legitimate (because it is unbiased) source of information. We do not believe that anything is unbiased. To protect ourselves and our society we critique (carefully) all bits of information. Hyper-sensitivity is a good word in some sense in that it indicates a extended sense of awareness. We do have that sense and our society is open enough where we can search for information through vast resources (both pro and anti opinions of the question we are researching). We count on TV mostly to be our entertainment and not our source of information. We can find facts if we need them. TV is not our only fact tool (and I believe not a fact tool at all). So, when you claim that our TV news is "edited" I agree but that has nothing to do with our knowledge of the world. The BBC image was offensive to some of us in that it indicated there was some possible legitamacy to the martyrdom that was mentioned. Again, BBC is entertainment (i.e. a Joke) even if it is edited "less" for other countries. (and we were not concerned over our idea of right and wrong but rather a civilized societie's definition of right or wrong unless you consider suicide bombing somehow OK?).
-
IN a Hijacked thread....
soon to be.........
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/images/threadclosed.gif)
:D
-
Originally posted by Momus--
So how do you feel about the Nicaraguan Contras and the Reagan administration officials that backed them illegally knowing full well that they were conducting attacks against civilians? The same officials that got presidential pardons for their actions and are considered Patriotic heros by many. Are they murderers too?
that's a tad off side momus, they only support the good terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
So how do you feel about the Nicaraguan Contras and the Reagan administration officials that backed them illegally knowing full well that they were conducting attacks against civilians? The same officials that got presidential pardons for their actions and are considered Patriotic heros by many. Are they murderers too?
show me a paper from a reputable newspaper calling them heros and I'll disagree with it as well.
Originally posted by Dowding--
No mention of martyrs there, yet your quote includes them. Why?
OH SNAP.....they changed it!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
show me a paper from a reputable newspaper calling them heros and I'll disagree with it as well.
OH SNAP.....they changed it!
Original
Palestinian children learn at a young age about the struggle for freedom. To some, the Palestinian martyrs are heroes. Here a child poses for a photograph at a rally organised by militants.
Revision
To some, the Palestinian bombers are heroes. Here a child poses for a picture wearing a fake suicide bomb belt at a rally organised by militants.
anyone else catch this, I copied and pasted directly from the site!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
anyone else catch this, I copied and pasted directly from the site!
Sure you did. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Sure you did. ;)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18241_BBC_Hits_Bottom_Digs&only
-
A blog? You offer a blog as proof?
How do I know that this is not your blog?
:D
NOTE: I can't actually see it. I'm guessing on the contents. Something about my firewall here at work restricting it.
I'm also jerking your chain. I've no doubt that it was changed.
-
So, I guess someone at the BBC probably realized it was not an objective statement to begin with.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18241_BBC_Hits_Bottom_Digs&only
So you were not the only one complaining about the title. Seems the BBC must have been swamped in complaints, thereby validating your complaint as well as the thread itself.:aok
-
Who decided that the news has to be objective anyway?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Who decided that the news has to be objective anyway?
The people who decided it should SUBjective?:eek: :rofl
-
That wasn't the issue Sandman. The issue was that Gun was pointing out a biased statement and it turns out that he was probably right about it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
That wasn't the issue Sandman. The issue was that Gun was pointing out a biased statement and it turns out that he was probably right about it.
Actually... it only seems to prove that some unknown number of people probably shared Gunslingers' opinion. ;)
The people that did not take issue with the caption probably didn't write in to not complain about it.