Why is there no longer unbiased news on TV ?

Brilliant.
He's an early Madonna.
"There's no such thing as bad press."

I think the only problem is he wasn't telling the woman's story either,
but the male version of commoditizing women. But he was much more restrained
than I would have been with that obvious prude sitting to his right.

I also now see that the violence industry doesn't use single words during kill scenes
so flipping the seven dirty words for violent ones and leaving the porn doesn't work.
We are now squarely in the realm of judicial review of fictional works.
I guess I'm advocating that the government can't censor,
but it can fund a sequel. If that makes sense.

Thoughtful segment.


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Agreed, the truths and discernable facts after filtration, are only partially visible through the subtleties
of presentation, body language, and human error. Even then, the amount of frosting and gloss renders
the meal practically inedible.
best regards...

Edit: this reply concerns your prior post , not post "after Zappa"

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Glad you enjoyed that. True , Beverly DiAngelo wasn't present to represent the female side of the topic,
would have really balanced it out. Point taken. Hey, does the U.N have a news Channel? With real footage
and interviews taken by U.N Peacekeepers? I thought you might know.

reply to post by davidgrouchy
This is a jewel and I thank you so much for posting it David Grouchy. Frank Zappa was a true genius who never wavered in his beliefs, and who was a true storyteller. None of Frank's music ever addresed anything morally deviant and he was a genius in his execution, style and convictions. If his style of music and lyrics didn't appeal to you, you were free to spend your money on something else. I was a big fan of Frank but ensured that my young children weren't exposed to the words they wouldn'T understand. That was my parental perrogative and I can assume you that I never needed the assistance of the government to make that decision for me. I miss Frank terribly and to this day, have yet to find such an eccentric storyteller (with the exception of Todd Rundgren and Harry Chapain, both of whom had their own unique styles for telling stories through their music). I got a kick watching Jonn Lofton McCarthy foaming at the mouth spuddering his senseless drivel about our founding fathers. He should have been a founding father of the tea party (sorry but I couldn't resist). To this day, I still miss Frank's uniqueness and will forever "watch out where the huskies go and stay aware from that yellow snow" (for true Frank fans). As for his perception of women, I never found that he cast dispersions on women or presented them in a derrogatory light; most of his stories focused on ensuring that the woman was treated equally (if you get what I mean). A bit graphic?? Perhaps, but times were different and it truly was different strokes for different folks. Anway, thanks for sharing this bit of nastalgia. Really enjoyed it.

Timidgal

When was there ever unbiased news?

I watch Fox for my news and when the commentators come on I turn it off.

Alot of people confuse commentators as journalists, there is a differance that few care to acknowledge.

If you watch CNN, Fox and MSNBC, they all report the same news pretty much identicle, its only when the commentators come on that things get stupid.

And I get flamed for watching Fox in 3,2...............

reply to post by timidgal


Glad you enjoyed that.

So....do you know of any good news channels on TV?

reply to post by Wildmanimal


they already set the ultimatum...your either with us, or your with the terrorists. they are systematically removing us from their society.

reply to post by yourmaker


Well that may very well be so. But I'm not with the terrorists. Nor an I with "Them" either if I am not going to
get paid. I cannot afford to work for free. Quite simple really. Pay me back every single dime you have stolen from
me, and then we can talk.

Rather uncomplicated.

reply to post by Becoming


I watch Fox now and then. I like Megan K. , her pretty face brightens up my day.

As far as commentary and what you said, my concern is that many do not know the difference.

That is alarming.

reply to post by Wildmanimal
Geez, I used to watch a lot of foreign press on the internet but that too, became "Americanized" over time. I remember that my young daughter and I would watch Italian news and we had a translation box that would give English sub-titles but again, the meat of the stories became diluted over time and it became a waste. I've really come to reply on ATS for a lot of information and have stayed loyal to my Sunday morning political shows. If you stay diligent enough on political topics, you can usually disregard the BS fairly easily and come away with a decent sense of what's happening in American politics (not that I necessarily agree with or like what's going on). I also like Frontline on PBS but their specials are not aways timely. I will tell you one thing though, if you really want to have a concise understanding of the US Economy and where we've been/where we're going, check out Frontline's Economy section. What about you?

reply to post by Wildmanimal
That's exactly my point, Becoming. How could we expect the average person to know what is true and false or that they have the right to expect nothing but the truth? It's taken us some time to get to this point and it's going to take the mass majority to say "we're not going to be sheep anymore". It's scary - it's our future we're talking about here.

reply to post by choppedbrisket


Well there is inherently going to be Some bias. Even Ben Franklin was biased. I am sure he played around
with the type set once in a while. But remember,,,it should be proportional . A small proportion at that.

The Big Sixreply to post by Wildmanimal

Make every new generation a little more apathetic than the one before it. Gradual slavery, like the story about how to boil a frog. Give it a few years, and the internet may be as watered down as TV. To answer your original question, PBS may be the only one i've seen that comes close to being acceptable.

reply to post by timidgal


Well as far as "What about me," I would have to say that I scan dozens of media sites on the web daily.
I am a rapid and avid reader. Some of the sites are questionable, but I have learned to scan through their
material for the random "Diamond in the Rough" so to speak. What I find to be almost comical, is that some
and I repeat Some, of the best news and fastest delivery is right here on a so called "Conspiracy Site."

Truth being, I'm not what you would consider a conspiracy buff. Maybe I am? Who Knows.I have never been very good
at self judgement. A couple things about myself that I am pretty sure of though...Most Talking Heads Lie through
their teeth, and I am tired of being lied to and ripped off on a daily basis.
Anyway, here are the only Talking Heads that i like to listen to...

Link www.youtube.com...

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Hey Did any of you folks notice when Zappa mentioned Ben Franklin and "The Hellfire Club?"

That stopped the "Inquisition" right in its shoes there for a moment.

Also, did you notice how he mentioned congress? Zappa actually had the ballz to subtley say on mainstream news
television back in 1986 that he knew damn well what was going on in D.C. behind closed doors.

We need real Journalists in these times of trouble, not jellyfish. Anyone can do that.

Thanks for your comments...you people are great.

It actually has its roots with the Reagan administration's policy to end the "Fairness Doctrine".

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.

Source

FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, was appointed by Reagan to head the FCC. The commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In June 1987, Congress had attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine, but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

There you go, any and all regulation requiring true fair and balanced airtime to both sides of a debate vanished, never to return, and opening up the door to the almost exclusively OP ED programming we see now.

the Billmeister

The bigger question and one I hope to find an answer to is where can we go today to get unbiased, or should I say, non major massive media sponsored news.

All news is biased, but is there a website that specifically picks out news stories from alternative media not controlled by the Elites? Even on Google, if you want news most of the stories on the front page are always CNN, BBC, Times, etc.

You can alway find alternative media on the last refuge of free speech: the Internet.

The corporate-controlled mainstream media outlets are the brainwashing mind control entities that get people to rely on them as their 'legitimate' source of news, when all you need is a PC, internet subscription and a proper web browser to see what you want...

I love your posts.. and read them often.. The answer is obvious and that is why most answer indirectly. The direct answer is fear. A dangerous animal (the Government) is feeling threatened. The people doing this are reacting in the opposite way that they need too because of fear.

The empire is collapsing. It is not their fault. They are only at fault for the corruption and the delays.

The Russian Empire collapsed economically. This Empire is collapsing because of corruption and secrecy. You cannot run a country of this size and complexity when everything is marked top secret.