Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/22/03 08:34 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/22/03 07:59 PM, PreacherJ wrote: "OMFG You started it11!!1" "Nah-uh j00 started it!!!11!1"

Whatever. I don't give a fuck. I'm trying to end it. Stop. It's pointless and non-constructive.

Fine, I wont post in here anymore. *adds the URL of this to his blocked sites list*

Oh please describe more of what youre doing *laugh histerically at sween for being a complete moron*

At 5/22/03 10:13 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Oh please describe more of what youre doing *laugh histerically at sween for being a complete moron*

I have to exit IE before it blocks the URL, dumbass.

At 5/22/03 10:13 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 5/22/03 08:34 PM, jimsween wrote: Fine, I wont post in here anymore. *adds the URL of this to his blocked sites list*

Oh please describe more of what youre doing *laugh histerically at sween for being a complete moron*

Poppy-

Shut up. Jimmy didn't lash out at you at all, and here you come with another flame. That being said...

How much of the news on TV do you (anybody) think is biased toward politicians? How much of it tries to actually report the truth? How much of it is just total bullshit?

Thoughts?

Let me get down to the heart of Sween's argument:

"I don't like you, Brits are stupid, you're wrong, I'm a little bitch."

And it took you three pages to admit it.

At 5/23/03 09:45 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Let me get down to the heart of Sween's argument:

"I don't like you, Brits are stupid, you're wrong, I'm a little bitch."

And it took you three pages to admit it.

WTF? what good are we doing flaming at this point? I thought this was a political discussion, not a giant flame war. Every time I read this thread it is flame after flame, completely obscuring the fact that American TV does have quit a bit of propaganda in it, although there are still some sources that are just commercialist, and not propagandist. Both are bad, the latter more than the former. However, the only way around commercialist news is a non-profit tv station, and that is just asking for federally run television. My solution? Support PBS, and request more unbiased news from them. As long as we keep the greenbacks coming, theyll listen.

I seem to recall I repeatedly stuck to the subject, in fact inserted a tangient thread, while he just kept ranting on, accusing me of believing blacks are stupid, apparently every American I ever met is Canadian, thinking the IRA are Irish (Northern Ireland, you'll get killed for making that statement), and doing a pitch-perfect Anarchy_Balsac impression as a coup de grace.

Who's the agressor, then? Hint: Who went right in with "you just have your head too far up your ass to see them" in THE VERY FIRST RESPONSE to this thread.

At 5/23/03 10:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

So, do you support Public Broadcasting as a solution to the problems of propaganda and commercialism in the media? Do you think the current system is fine? Or do you have a different solution?

At 5/23/03 11:26 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:
So, do you support Public Broadcasting as a solution to the problems of propaganda and commercialism in the media? Do you think the current system is fine? Or do you have a different solution?

It depends on the situation. For example, the mining communities in Bolivia use public broadcasting to keep themselves informed of events around the world because they are cut off, although it can be argued that it might also stem from bordom of being stuck in the middle of nowhere, isolated from regular community. But, in gaining their own broadcasting space, they have thrived on that form of communication.

There are other occasions where public broadcasting has been to a distinct advantage, such as the Anti-Milosevic media in Yugoslavia/Serbia, since the State media would've quashed (insert an 's' if you feel like it) their voice.

These do not rely heavily on income from advertisers, who hold power as they are able to just stop the funding if they do not agree: just this week, Judicial Watch are trying to organise boycotts against companies that have adverts fronted by celebrities that were Anti-War, and it's a regular occurance that people buckle in front of pressure groups, regardless of whether they have a point, or just an inate sense of when to piss people off for no apparent reason, apart from to look vaguely important.

The current system is flawed, as news is seen as another ratings gaining whore, and they have to keep it "interesting", yet in doing that, the actual news is filtered out in favour of a few soundbites, graphics, good looking presenters, supplimenting reports to stoke your fears, and they have to fit in sport, weather, and other stories into their 20-30 minute schedule.

In the case of rolling news (CNN, BBC News 24), they keep this format, when, let's face it, how many earth-shattering events that require deep analysis happen every day? It may be hundreds (I'm thinking Top Stories, here, not the whole running order), yet then there's editing because it isn't "relevant" (it's not a National or US based), and what if it isn't easy to report, as the pigeonholes aren't clearly marked? Just to be a tad random, here's some Cuban news:

http://www.theroyalgazette.com...e?AID=/20030522/NEWS/105220043
(Source: The Royal Gazette, Bermuda)

Is that more, or less, importtant than who wins American Idol? Which reminds me, fuck, we're in for 10 weeks of Big Brother, starting tonight...

They have the opportunity to find news around the globe, yet that receives passing coverage of a few seconds, unless it's an earthquake, war, or the country mysteriously disappeared during the night, with glowing lights seen in the sky by neighbouring countries. Instead, they get desperate: One time on (US) CNN, they reported that an American cargo plane crashed in Columbia, and were following it up for a while, hoping that...something better happened. What if, at that exact moment, Mob Rule was declared in El Salvador, and there was bloodbaths in the streets?

Another example would be thanks to my news tracker. Look up Argentina, and you'll find this:

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters05-23-085239.asp?reg=AMERICAS

Yet what counts as Current Affairs in the last 15-30 minutes to the BBC website? The Eurovision Song Contest, and some guy winning a section of the Tour de France. Both involve UK entrants, by the way. There's plenty of news filtering from Iraq (who happens to have massed forces there, by the way?), Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Israel - all current hot spots of US foreign policy, but the old enemy of Russia? Links to Afghan stories, a touch of swine fever, and a movie of the Opera House Siege. Chechnya has it's own page, but most of that is Russian agencies.

If you're going to have rolling news coverage, have agencies around the globe, rather than having to airlift crews out to the next convenient disaster spot, unless it happens to be in Paris, London, Rome, or whichever Middle Eastern nation happens to be flavour du jour. But if it's half hour broadcasts, three times a day, such as the BBC, if you're going to focus on the news, you could at least have the decency not to book your slot in direct competition with the "opposition." And in half an hour, can you impart a balanced, informative view of two news stories? You can, but you'd be talking quickly, before you get nudged out for the regional news to try and desperatly fill out their 30 minutes. Can't it be 45 minutes of national, 15 minutes of regional? Unless you live in London, there isn't going to be much of interest happening near you, let's be brutally honest. Come on, have you ever seen the West Country? Think regional news of Kentucky, only more boring.

Is there a solution? Reading through my copy of Wisconsin Death Trip, from a time where there were no nationals, only regional papers, yet they didn't have a world to portray to the people. But, on the flip side, nationals can be very centric: UK papers to London (where are they all published from I wonder?), US papers to New York, LA, and DC, with maybe some consideration for places like Boston, Dallas et al. I have read them, you know.

The problem is that, by increasing the distribution and broadcast range, it isn't making the sources of news greater, but having the adverse effect, in effect making the world smaller. The solution isn't forthcoming, yet the current form of media delivery is woefully lacking. If a story such as the Serbian president being assassinated is forgotten, in favour of a war that hasn't kicked off (and didn't for a whole fortnight after) in Iraq by Team Freedom, there is something that is horribly wrong with the news media at present.

And remember, galtung and Ruge wrote their news values 1965. In the space of nearly 40 years, the structure remains the same, and shows little sign of deviation.

At 5/23/03 09:45 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Let me get down to the heart of Sween's argument:

"I don't like you, Brits are stupid, you're wrong, I'm a little bitch."

And it took you three pages to admit it.

1. I dont like you, but youre not any different to me.

2. You still dont get it do you, the stereotypes were to show you what you have been doing this whole time.

3. Actually thats your argument, escpescially with the claiming that it's a fact that all our media is biased, which makes me think that you never took a class in debate or journalism because claiming your opinion is fact is about the stupidest thing you can do.

4. I agree with you, you are a little bitch. Espescially when it comes to stereotypes.

At 5/23/03 05:33 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/23/03 09:45 AM, D2KVirus wrote: One long rant, again.

Wasn't this thread on your blocked websites list?

At 5/23/03 05:33 PM, jimsween wrote:
1. I dont like you, but youre not any different to me.

When did I start using bitchy little comments on other users' nationality when...it wasn't even their nationality.

2. You still dont get it do you, the stereotypes were to show you what you have been doing this whole time.

Yes, and I went on to show that your notions of stereotypes are wrong. Why should the Brits believe that the French are chickenshits, after warring with them for the past millenium, on and off? That's the Italian army you're thinking of. Or the Swiss.

Wouldn't that be stereotyping, thinking that somebody you don't agree with just lives by stereotypes, such as blacks are ignorant and Jews control the media, complete with a comeback of "So, you think Rupert Murdoch controls all the media"? Besides, he controls a large part of it. And, remember, you're the one that believes the entire Arab world are a bunch of savages that want to massacre the population of Israel, not me. Available in Black & White.

3. Actually thats your argument, escpescially with the claiming that it's a fact that all our media is biased, which makes me think that you never took a class in debate or journalism because claiming your opinion is fact is about the stupidest thing you can do.

So I just imagined that BA Honours in Film & Media studies I passed with flying colours, then? Three guesses what core modules were for the duration of the three years.

And what are you claiming your opinon to be? is this a confession you're writing, using me as a cypher?

4. I agree with you, you are a little bitch. Espescially when it comes to stereotypes.

I'm sorry. not because I'm a little bitch, but because you're American. And a liar, a hypocrite, and still incapable of backing yourself up with any proof WHATSEOEVER.

At 5/24/03 12:16 AM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 5/23/03 05:33 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/23/03 09:45 AM, D2KVirus wrote: One long rant, again.

Wasn't this thread on your blocked websites list?

It was until you started being an idiot again.

At 5/25/03 10:39 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 5/23/03 05:33 PM, jimsween wrote:
1. I dont like you, but youre not any different to me.

When did I start using bitchy little comments on other users' nationality when...it wasn't even their nationality.

No you just went strait for thier nationality, and you STILL didnt get what I was saying. But you did make bitchy comments about republicans and I'm not even a republican.

2. You still dont get it do you, the stereotypes were to show you what you have been doing this whole time.

Yes, and I went on to show that your notions of stereotypes are wrong. Why should the Brits believe that the French are chickenshits, after warring with them for the past millenium, on and off? That's the Italian army you're thinking of. Or the Swiss.

You are so dense it's unbeliveable, you just even more proved my point. Those stereotypes are wrong (in fact every one is) so that makes you no better than the people who say them.

Wouldn't that be stereotyping, thinking that somebody you don't agree with just lives by stereotypes, such as blacks are ignorant and Jews control the media, complete with a comeback of "So, you think Rupert Murdoch controls all the media"? Besides, he controls a large part of it. And, remember, you're the one that believes the entire Arab world are a bunch of savages that want to massacre the population of Israel, not me. Available in Black & White.

I never said anything about them being savages, but when they go out and say that a nuclear attack on isreal wouldnt be a bad idea I dont know why but that gives me the idea taht they want to attack it.

3. Actually thats your argument, escpescially with the claiming that it's a fact that all our media is biased, which makes me think that you never took a class in debate or journalism because claiming your opinion is fact is about the stupidest thing you can do.

So I just imagined that BA Honours in Film & Media studies I passed with flying colours, then? Three guesses what core modules were for the duration of the three years.

You must have to think that all american media is biased.

And what are you claiming your opinon to be? is this a confession you're writing, using me as a cypher?

An opinion, but I have alot more evidense to support mine than you do yours.

4. I agree with you, you are a little bitch. Espescially when it comes to stereotypes.

I'm sorry. not because I'm a little bitch, but because you're American. And a liar, a hypocrite, and still incapable of backing yourself up with any proof WHATSEOEVER.

I keep offering you proof but you just seem to ignore it, you care too much about your stereotypes to think your opinion could EVER be wrong.

I think CNN is the best exemple of prpaganda on TV

At 5/26/03 12:24 AM, bengui wrote: I think CNN is the best exemple of prpaganda on TV

How so, just today they were talking about the US benefiting most from Iraq's oil and they had a debate about the republicans homeland security bills (and how they were flawed).

At 5/26/03 12:55 AM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/26/03 12:24 AM, bengui wrote: I think CNN is the best exemple of prpaganda on TV

How so, just today they were talking about the US benefiting most from Iraq's oil and they had a debate about the republicans homeland security bills (and how they were flawed).

Actually, I have to agree with Jim here. CNN aren't biased and I like them just as much as I do the BBC news in that they both give unbiased opinions.

At 5/25/03 02:51 PM, jimsween wrote:

No you just went strait for thier nationality, and you STILL didnt get what I was saying. But you did make bitchy comments about republicans and I'm not even a republican.

When was the extent of my argument, at any point, "Shut up you American twat"? Not counting AmericanBADASS, but that's mainly the latter.

You are so dense it's unbeliveable, you just even more proved my point. Those stereotypes are wrong (in fact every one is) so that makes you no better than the people who say them.

The Italian Army haven't been surrendering left and right for the past 100 years, no matter what the war? The Swiss haven't been remaining neutral, no matter what? Those just so happen to be fact, you know. People don't make up stereotypes, they come from somewhere.

Besides, your stereotyping all the time. People that don't agree with you are dumb, non members of the PC are clearly not knowledgable, other people are idiots, but you aren't.

I never said anything about them being savages, but when they go out and say that a nuclear attack on isreal wouldnt be a bad idea I dont know why but that gives me the idea taht they want to attack it.

Sources, please. And, yes, you stated that, if the US Army weren't there, the entire Arab World would rasiee their scimitars and flock to Tel Aviv. And I thought they all just wanted to kill Americans...

You must have to think that all american media is biased.

Great comeback...

Name one American stattion that was Anti War when it happened. They all subscribed to the dominant discourse, since it wouldn't have been smart from a ratings standpoint.

And to think that the media isn't is a tad optimistic, isn't it? No matter what, it's biased, as it's a reflection of the views of whoever runs it, be it Murdoch, Turner, or those Jews you told me about. There is a bias wherever you look.

An opinion, but I have alot more evidense to support mine than you do yours.

Again, sources. Don't meantion them, don't have your opinion accepted.

I keep offering you proof but you just seem to ignore it, you care too much about your stereotypes to think your opinion could EVER be wrong.

There you go, stereotyping again. See what I mean? And where is your proof, it's just another bunch of hearsay, nothing concrete.

So I just imagined that BA Honours in Film & Media studies I passed with flying colours, then? Three guesses what core modules were for the duration of the three years.

Where did you study? Oh, and have you read Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent?

At 5/26/03 10:40 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 5/25/03 02:51 PM, jimsween wrote:

No you just went strait for thier nationality, and you STILL didnt get what I was saying. But you did make bitchy comments about republicans and I'm not even a republican.

When was the extent of my argument, at any point, "Shut up you American twat"? Not counting AmericanBADASS, but that's mainly the latter.

When you claimed all our media was propaganda.

You are so dense it's unbeliveable, you just even more proved my point. Those stereotypes are wrong (in fact every one is) so that makes you no better than the people who say them.

The Italian Army haven't been surrendering left and right for the past 100 years, no matter what the war? The Swiss haven't been remaining neutral, no matter what? Those just so happen to be fact, you know. People don't make up stereotypes, they come from somewhere.

So youre sasying blacks really are dumber than whites and mexicans are lazy.

Besides, your stereotyping all the time. People that don't agree with you are dumb, non members of the PC are clearly not knowledgable, other people are idiots, but you aren't.

I never said any of those, all I said is YOU'RE dumb.

I never said anything about them being savages, but when they go out and say that a nuclear attack on isreal wouldnt be a bad idea I dont know why but that gives me the idea taht they want to attack it.

Sources, please. And, yes, you stated that, if the US Army weren't there, the entire Arab World would rasiee their scimitars and flock to Tel Aviv. And I thought they all just wanted to kill Americans...

I never said anything about shmitars, I just said they would attack them.

And...

http://clickit.go2net.com/sear...p;cp=info.dogpl&rawto=http://www.iran-pres
s-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

You must have to think that all american media is biased.

Great comeback...

Better than yours.

Name one American stattion that was Anti War when it happened. They all subscribed to the dominant discourse, since it wouldn't have been smart from a ratings standpoint.

The only station that took either side is fox, just yesterday CNN was talking about the US benefiting from Iraq's oil.

And to think that the media isn't is a tad optimistic, isn't it? No matter what, it's biased, as it's a reflection of the views of whoever runs it, be it Murdoch, Turner, or those Jews you told me about. There is a bias wherever you look.

Yet you claim your news isnt biased?

An opinion, but I have alot more evidense to support mine than you do yours.

Again, sources. Don't meantion them, don't have your opinion accepted.

Sources for what? Evidence? I gave them to you in the last page but you never responded.

I keep offering you proof but you just seem to ignore it, you care too much about your stereotypes to think your opinion could EVER be wrong.

There you go, stereotyping again. See what I mean? And where is your proof, it's just another bunch of hearsay, nothing concrete.

DERRR, it was articles from CNN and MSNBC (I think) that are anti war. How is that hearsay?

Sween, I believe you lost this war quite a while back. You haven't showed any proof to back up what your'e saying for a while now and every time you cant come back to whatever it is d2k wrote, you just call him "dumb" or "ignorant". I suggest you just give up because with every passing line you write, you just keep getting deeper and deeper in the brown stuff.

At 5/26/03 04:47 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Sween, I believe you lost this war quite a while back. You haven't showed any proof to back up what your'e saying for a while now and every time you cant come back to whatever it is d2k wrote, you just call him "dumb" or "ignorant". I suggest you just give up because with every passing line you write, you just keep getting deeper and deeper in the brown stuff.

Who even asked you, you must not be reading this because I keep showing proof. You have yet to make any decent points in this entire forum and only spout garbage and nonsense. I'm sure your thoughts would be more apprecieated in the kidergarten class you belong in.

Go play with your Yu-Gi-oh cards.

At 5/26/03 05:28 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Go play with your Yu-Gi-oh cards.

Why is it every topic you post in ends up in a flame war, people must really hate you.

At 5/26/03 05:40 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/26/03 05:28 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Go play with your Yu-Gi-oh cards.

Why is it every topic you post in ends up in a flame war, people must really hate you.

Its more like you hate me. Check it out, youv'e started every last one of these, either by calling me a complete moron with nothing to back up your hypothesis or by criticizing my typing (might I add that english IS NOT my first language). Stick to the facts, maybe people would respect you more.

At 5/26/03 06:38 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

Its more like you hate me. Check it out, youv'e started every last one of these, either by calling me a complete moron with nothing to back up your hypothesis or by criticizing my typing (might I add that english IS NOT my first language). Stick to the facts, maybe people would respect you more.

I have NEVER heard you state a fact. And yes I do hate you. And you started all of these, and I supposed telling you to type better next time is critisizing. Well I cant help it if you cry every time someone points out a mistake you made.

At 5/26/03 09:16 PM, jimsween wrote:

I have NEVER heard you state a fact.

If youy look at my history, I have stated facts. The difference is that I stated them when I needed to instead of saying "no, your'e wrong, i'm right, but I don't have time to waste showing proof that I am"

:And yes I do hate you.

I kinda saw that one coming

:And you started all of these, and I supposed telling you to type better next time is critisizing.

If its not criticizing, what is it?

:Well I cant help it if you cry every time someone points out a mistake you made.

There you go again with the bad burns

And you never did deny that you liked Yu-Gi Oh did you?

At 5/26/03 09:27 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 5/26/03 09:16 PM, jimsween wrote:

I have NEVER heard you state a fact.

If youy look at my history, I have stated facts. The difference is that I stated them when I needed to instead of saying "no, your'e wrong, i'm right, but I don't have time to waste showing proof that I am"

It cant be disputed if it's a fact, claiming that American TV is propaganda is NOT a fact.

And yes I do hate you.

I kinda saw that one coming

Than youre smarter than I expected.

And you started all of these, and I supposed telling you to type better next time is critisizing.

If its not criticizing, what is it?

Telling you to type better next time, if your gym teacher tells you to run faster is it critisism?

Well I cant help it if you cry every time someone points out a mistake you made.

There you go again with the bad burns

But you dont deny it?.

And you never did deny that you liked Yu-Gi Oh did you?

I've only seen it once or twice so I really havent developed any opinions about it, however I dont see anything wrong with a person liking a show. If somone my age liked power rangers I would be creeped out but I wouldnt insult them.

At 5/26/03 09:34 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/26/03 09:27 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 5/26/03 09:16 PM, jimsween wrote:

It cant be disputed if it's a fact, claiming that American TV is propaganda is NOT a fact.

Im not reffering to this post,

Telling you to type better next time, if your gym teacher tells you to run faster is it critisism?

You cant compare these two things.

Well I cant help it if you cry every time someone points out a mistake you made.

There you go again with the bad burns

But you dont deny it?.

See? Bad burn. Again. And yes I do deny it.

I've only seen it once or twice so I really havent developed any opinions about it, however I dont see anything wrong with a person liking a show. If somone my age liked power rangers I would be creeped out but I wouldnt insult them.

I dont think you can remember that there's a card called black palladin by watching a show just a couple of times, if you ask me, you gotta know quite a bit to learn the name of a card like that. As for the second part of your text, no one, and I mean NO ONE wouldn't be creeped out by a 13-14 year old that likes power rangers. Besides, when you get to 15, your ultimately grow more mature interests than cartoons or other childish things. And by looking a people in the age range of 15-16 that like anime, Yu-Gi Oh or whatever in that manner, I have a pretty good impression of what kind of person he is. (I know that this is a type of stereotype, but trust me on this one)

At 5/26/03 10:12 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 5/26/03 09:34 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/26/03 09:27 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:

At 5/26/03 09:16 PM, jimsween wrote:

It cant be disputed if it's a fact, claiming that American TV is propaganda is NOT a fact.

Im not reffering to this post,

Doesnt matter, if it can be disputed it is not a fact, and I dont recall you ever saying something involving the topic in another post so what else would I have said is wrong?

Telling you to type better next time, if your gym teacher tells you to run faster is it critisism?

You cant compare these two things.

Yes you can, the only different things are the people and the action. Withing the requirements of comparing the two.

Well I cant help it if you cry every time someone points out a mistake you made.

There you go again with the bad burns

But you dont deny it?.

See? Bad burn. Again. And yes I do deny it.

Odd, if thats a bad burn than why did you say the same thing.

I've only seen it once or twice so I really havent developed any opinions about it, however I dont see anything wrong with a person liking a show. If somone my age liked power rangers I would be creeped out but I wouldnt insult them.

I dont think you can remember that there's a card called black palladin by watching a show just a couple of times, if you ask me, you gotta know quite a bit to learn the name of a card like that. As for the second part of your text, no one, and I mean NO ONE wouldn't be creeped out by a 13-14 year old that likes power rangers. Besides, when you get to 15, your ultimately grow more mature interests than cartoons or other childish things. And by looking a people in the age range of 15-16 that like anime, Yu-Gi Oh or whatever in that manner, I have a pretty good impression of what kind of person he is. (I know that this is a type of stereotype, but trust me on this one)

I originally had no idea why you were making fun of yu-gi-oh, then I looked at his name and it sounded like one of the cards on the show (grey eyes white dragon). And it's funny you talk about people growing in maturity through age yet you show no maturity at all. Espescially if you would insult a person who watched power rangers, who must have some sort of emotional problem to be watching it.

At 5/26/03 05:40 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/26/03 05:28 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Go play with your Yu-Gi-oh cards.

Why is it every topic you post in ends up in a flame war, people must really hate you.

GODDAMNIT!!!

Sween, by starting in yet another flame war in the same thread, you're invalidating yourself further, anbd just making yourself a bigger target, as if you needed help anyway. It's about DEBATE in here, not vendettas (which, if you're so "Anti me", is what you fall into).

POF, chill, seriously...