BBC announced collapse of WT7 before it happened!

[editor]

You may have noticed that self-delusion is a mass disease...

Explain this please. Who's suffering "self delusion" here?

 

[8den]

Explain this please. Who's suffering "self delusion" here?

Why Fela is, with his unnerving ability to take everything he reads in the media with a pinch of salt.

Unless its something that supports his conspiracy theories, then he swallows it whole and asks for fucking seconds.

 

[fela fan]

Explain this please. Who's suffering "self delusion" here?

Anybody who puts any kind of trust in what the UK media spout forth.

And of course the same goes for the US media.

Okay?

 

[8den]

Anybody who puts any kind of trust in what the UK media spout forth.

And of course the same goes for the US media.

Okay?

But prisonplanet and that kind of ilk is pure 100% uncut truth?

 

[fela fan]

Why yes, cmere Fela you figured out what constitute's "intelligence" yet?

Pst. You won't find it in the mirror.

Now look here boy. I've told you once, and i'll tell you one more time. Go bother other folk. Your impoliteness and inability to read properly mean that i have no time for you.

Piss off. And give up trying to get any more replies from me.

 

[8den]

Now look here boy. I've told you once, and i'll tell you one more time. Go bother other folk. Your impoliteness and inability to read properly mean that i have no time for you.

Piss off. And give up trying to get any more replies from me.

It's kinda funny watching you try and patronise me, it's like getting talked down to by someone wearing urine stained pants.

 

[editor]

Anybody who puts any kind of trust in what the UK media spout forth.

And of course the same goes for the US media.

Okay?

I'd imagine that far from blindly "trusting" the mainstream press, most people here use their intelligence and experience to judge the credibility of the content being offered and judge accordingly.

But seeing as that apparently makes us all guilty of suffering mass "self delusion" be sure to educate me with the sources you rely on for the 'truth'.

 

[WouldBe]

be sure to educate me with the sources you rely on for the 'truth'.

Gibberish Weekly.

 

[fela fan]

I'd imagine that far from blindly "trusting" the mainstream press, most people here use their intelligence and experience to judge the credibility of the content being offered and judge accordingly.

And on what basis, what parameters, what reference points do they make those judgments? Yes, you said their own intelligence and experience. But how has that been formed?

Of course there's plenty here that can do that well. But i have argued that they can't do it by reading the press or listening to the daily tv news. Just about nothing in the british press is informative in an objective way. Nearly all of it is written and presented with an anglo-centric slant.

If you want a more objective knowledge of what is actually happening in the world, without an agenda, then read AP, reuters, gemini, and other news agencies. Why? Coz the same story is printed in newspapers all around the world. It is written for an international audience, not a british one or american one, who come from and perpetuate an anglo hegemony.

 

[fela fan]

And since you wanted my help in educating you editor, i can recommend to you non-fiction books. Particularly informative is stuff written by asian or south american writers. As is their journalism too.

 

[editor]

If you want a more objective knowledge of what is actually happening in the world, without an agenda, then read AP, reuters, gemini, and other news agencies.

I work as a journalist and use news agency feeds daily, you clueless dreamer. Have you noted that they're not very keen on running 9/11 loon stories though? Why is that, do you think?

 

[kyser_soze]

you want a more objective knowledge of what is actually happening in the world, without an agenda, then read AP, reuters, gemini, and other news agencies

This is a genuinely funnycomment coming from someone who is slagging off 'mainstream media' - AP, Reuters etc are about as mainstream as you can get, and like ALL jounrnalsts and news orgs also have their own biases within the house style. If anything, aside from 'breaking news' they are a pertty ineffective source of information since there is very little historical context given in their reporting - plus of course they report 'news' as it happens, and aren't the types of organisation who generally get involved with the kind of long term investigative journalism you claim to want about 9/11 - the kind of journallism that happens in good newspapers in fact, and relies on a subjective view from the paper to make it worth reading.

 

[pk]

I've worked for Reuters and AP as well as the BBC - I can tell you categorically that everyone working there with any proper journalistic qualifications is routinely laughing their tits off at the thought of taking any of these Loose Change myths seriously.

 

[Aldebaran]

And on what basis, what parameters, what reference points do they make those judgments? Yes, you said their own intelligence and experience. But how has that been formed?

mmm... ??... Sorry, I can't follow. Do you claim that "intellect and experience" gets "formed" in such a way that it blocks itself from operating?

Why? Coz the same story is printed in newspapers all around the world. It is written for an international audience, not a british one or american one, who come from and perpetuate an anglo hegemony.

Do you sincerely believe that a translation of an article - or other news item - changes its contenance? Do you believe that even *if* somewhat adapted towards the target audience, that automatically leads to a better, less prejudiced information?
How do you filter out addition/change/bias from original and adaptation, how do you conclude what is in fact the true story (told or untold)? And not to forget: How many languages do you use for this daily research?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

And since you wanted my help in educating you editor, i can recommend to you non-fiction books. Particularly informative is stuff written by asian or south american writers. As is their journalism too.

Which non-fiction books? Do you read them in the original language or do you trust a translation.

salaam.

 

[fela fan]

This is a genuinely funnycomment coming from someone who is slagging off 'mainstream media' - AP, Reuters etc are about as mainstream as you can get, and like ALL jounrnalsts and news orgs also have their own biases within the house style. If anything, aside from 'breaking news' they are a pertty ineffective source of information since there is very little historical context given in their reporting - plus of course they report 'news' as it happens, and aren't the types of organisation who generally get involved with the kind of long term investigative journalism you claim to want about 9/11 - the kind of journallism that happens in good newspapers in fact, and relies on a subjective view from the paper to make it worth reading.

You know well that i always refer to UK and US mainstream media. As for british media, they all have their own journalists, although i guess one or two of them make the odd use of an agency report.

I maintain that british media report world events through a biased anglo-centric viewpoint.

As for the biases you talk about, and having to fit the 'house style', that is the problem with news in british media. Whereas the agencies will have their news story put in papers in various countries. Factual reporting would then need to be their 'bias'.

I saw how the media in britain reported the lead-up to the second iraq war, and subsequent to it. I saw how they reported the ouster of thaksin. I see the mistakes and warped viewpoints they make. Just two recent examples, i see them all the time.

For me personally i don't want to read a paper that has its own political stance. It is automatically slanted.

 

[fela fan]

Which non-fiction books? Do you read them in the original language or do you trust a translation.

salaam.

Has it not occurred to you that they write in English? There are plenty of excellent journalists who write for english language newspapers, no translation required.

And yes, i trust translations per se, but take into account that some things may be wrongly presented or even not really translatable. Aldebaran, i have studied language and its use and structure extensively, and require a thorough understanding of it for my job. I have a pretty keen radar with regard to what i can trust and how much, and how it is used to pull the wool over people's eyes.

The best journalism is written by those who are writing about what they see, rather than what they think. Too much of it is written according to predefined reader expectations.

 

[fela fan]

mmm... ??... Sorry, I can't follow. Do you claim that "intellect and experience" gets "formed" in such a way that it blocks itself from operating?

Experiences in life help shape, help form, one's intelligence. One's intelligence is dependant upon an acquisition of knowledge plus awareness. Hence our intelligence is an organic body, it can always improve. Hope that clears things up.

 

[editor]

You know well that i always refer to UK and US mainstream media. As for british media, they all have their own journalists, although i guess one or two of them make the odd use of an agency report.

That's quite frightening ignorance.

 

[kyser_soze]

As for the biases you talk about, and having to fit the 'house style', that is the problem with news in british media. Whereas the agencies will have their news story put in papers in various countries. Factual reporting would then need to be their 'bias'.

ALL news stories carry a specfic bias - there is no such thing as an objective news story, irrespective of the source. Reuters and AP carried basically the same information in the run up to the Iraq war as everyone else, had the same embedded troops etc.

Reuters is a UK company that specialises in information primarily or financial markets, and it's reporting is biased toward a uniform positive tone toward the capitalist system - same goes for AP and all the others.

This is REALLY basic stuff we're talking about - all news outlets have bias, all journalists decide what to put in or leave out, and that decision is made again by the editors.

 

[fela fan]

That's quite frightening ignorance.

Oh, is it? Are you going to enlighten me and show me how i've been ignorant?

 

[fela fan]

This is REALLY basic stuff we're talking about - all news outlets have bias, all journalists decide what to put in or leave out, and that decision is made again by the editors.

As far as the british media are concerned fine. How can you be sure that's the case for all other news outlets? Mind you, if you're calling biased simply as what a writer leaves out or puts in, then i can't argue any more.

Now, what about a journalist who sees things happening, and writes exactly what he sees. How is that biased?

And there's no need to resort to a tone that says i know nothing, it won't add to the debate. If i'm wrong, just point out to me where i'm wrong so i can learn and become right.

 

[tarannau]

'kin ell. even though I'm accustomed to Fela's special own brand blend of patronising naivety and crass stupidity, his belief that Reuters and AP bulletins aren't mainstream is quite jaw-dropping.

All media outlets display bias, whether Fela wants to accept that or not.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

And there's no need to resort to a tone that says i know nothing, it won't add to the debate. If i'm wrong, just point out to me where i'm wrong so i can learn and become right.

He's pointed out where you're wrong. However by the looks of things you don't understand why you're wrong.

 

[8den]

As far as the british media are concerned fine. How can you be sure that's the case for all other news outlets? Mind you, if you're calling biased simply as what a writer leaves out or puts in, then i can't argue any more.

Now, what about a journalist who sees things happening, and writes exactly what he sees. How is that biased?

Iraq freedom fighters struck a blow today for an independent Iraq, killing three Imperalists Occupation troops.

Three 19 year old British medics killed by an IED

Same story different bias. Fela fan this is extremely basic stuff here.

 

[tarannau]

As far as the british media are concerned fine. How can you be sure that's the case for all other news outlets? Mind you, if you're calling biased simply as what a writer leaves out or puts in, then i can't argue any more.

Now, what about a journalist who sees things happening, and writes exactly what he sees. How is that biased?

And there's no need to resort to a tone that says i know nothing, it won't add to the debate. If i'm wrong, just point out to me where i'm wrong so i can learn and become right.

People have been pointing out that you've been talking guff for years and you have displayed absolutely no sign of learning whatsoever.

See contibution 662 of Kyser's on this thread for example:

...and have been pwned on a number of occassions when you've started or contributed to threads claiming that 'This hasn't been covered in the UK media' and then been shown links to various UK national newpapers (on one occassion from about 2 months prior to you posting) demonstrating that it has.

And here you again pontificating about the UK media and bias again, despite you clearly not having any real context or insight. Love the idea that writers should just write what they see by the way, as if that wouldn't lead to bias.

If I didn't know your contributions better I'd think you were on the wind-up. But I suspect you're actually arrogant and misguided enough to believe that your airy-fairy man-man-mate-matey 'write what you see' bollocks is something other than a ludicrously simplistic pile of cobblers that clearly demonstrates a lack of critical thought and understanding of how the media works.

 

[Aldebaran]

Has it not occurred to you that they write in English? There are plenty of excellent journalists who write for english language newspapers, no translation required.

To me this comes across as you saying you only read "news" and "books" written in English. What makes you then any different as all the billions of others who reason from the viewpoint I describe with: "If not in English, it doesn't exist".
?

Aldebaran, i have studied language and its use and structure extensively, and require a thorough understanding of it for my job.

Doesn't answer my question, does it? How many languages, besides English, do you use for your gathering of "different viewpoints" and hence "different news, etc.. "?

I have a pretty keen radar with regard to what i can trust and how much, and how it is used to pull the wool over people's eyes.

I you can't read a book, article, or whatever in the original language, how can you ever know if an to which extend a translation deviates?
Shall I give you some simple examples about how to completely alter the focus of a random article, even without any textual alteration, let alone a translation, involved?

The best journalism is written by those who are writing about what they see, rather than what they think. Too much of it is written according to predefined reader expectations.

Doesn't this indicate that in your view journalists are automatically excluded from what you say here

And on what basis, what parameters, what reference points do they make those judgments? Yes, you said their own intelligence and experience. But how has that been formed?

I know a European journalist who "non-embedded" reported and reports on the war in Iraq and on other ME issues as well. One of the few who see it indeed as a mission do do this job while taking all sorts of crazy risks. If yo say you are able to find, read, look at such independent journalism that isn't part of what you call "mainstream", surely you must know his name?

salaam.

 

[editor]

Now, what about a journalist who sees things happening, and writes exactly what he sees. How is that biased?

Because without an understanding of the big picture, a journalist who just writes about "things he sees happening" may get it spectacularly wrong.

There was an advert a while ago that showed a hoodie-type yoot determinedly racing towards a woman. She looked worried and it looked like he was going to attack her.

Then it panned back to show that there was a heavy load about to fall on her head and he was running to push her out of way.

Understand, now?

 

[Aldebaran]

Experiences in life help shape, help form, one's intelligence.

Can you give a definition of your interpretation of the word "intelligence" because I'm a bit puzzled here.

One's intelligence is dependant upon an acquisition of knowledge plus awareness. Hence our intelligence is an organic body, it can always improve. Hope that clears things up.

No, it doesn't.
"Intelligence" is an abstract.
It is said and thought that "knowledge" can improve.
Yuo sem to say that any acquired knowledge is correct by definition.

salaam.

 

[MikeMcc]

...
And here you again pontificating about the UK media and bias again, despite you clearly not having any real context or insight. Love the idea that writers should just write what they see by the way, as if that wouldn't lead to bias.
...

Or to simple misunderstandings through inexperience, lack of specialist knowledge, or emotional bias (intentional or otherwise) towards the subject in question.