Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    You are correct. Bush was elected by the supreme court, which is Republican.
    It's turning into a full-time job refuting everything you europeans are saying. When the machines counted all the votes, no matter how often it was done, the same guy kept winning. I'm sorry if you didn't like the results.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    1) Unemployment is at 5.6 percent (much lower than yours, I'm sure). The economy has been growing strong over the last 12 months, has grown at some 4.9 percent over the last 12 months, which is the strongest growth in some 20 years.
    British unemployment has been relatively steady at about 4-5%, however we are the exception in Europe amongst 10-11% in France and Germany. for all the talk of a large US defecit, it remains smaller than both that of France and the Eurozone(as a percentage of GDP).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I love English culture too. Language, measurements, and much of our judicial system comes from England. I guess that's why I feel more at home, as a tourist, than just about anywhere else I've been and I've traveled all over the world.

    I think the problem is that, if you live in another country, you can really only learn about the USA from the media. Unfortunately, Europeans consider the BBC to be an objective news source and I think that where the problem lies, since the BBC obviously has an ax to grind with americans. Here are some examples:

    An Islamic militant website has shown a video apparently showing the beheading of an American in Iraq.

    APPARENTLY???

    Why do they throw in qualifiers like that?

    Picture taking out the word apparently. See how different the sentence sounds?

    Here is another one:

    His killers shouted "Allah is great" before holding what appeared to be a head up to the camera.

    APPEARED? See how these words take the edge off of the events that are happening? It didn't APPEAR to be a head, it was a head!!

    I wonder why the BBC never includes little qualifiers like that when discussing the Abu Ghraib photos?

    BBC is not impartial. It is blatantly biased, anti-war and anti-American. CNN international (not the CNN we know) is just as bad. If you and I lived in Europe, we would probably hate America too.
    the Independent is the worst offender in Britain at the moment, i have a hard time deciding between them and Le Monde for most appalling bias. i think whats most significant is their inaccuracy.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    British unemployment has been relatively steady at about 4-5%, however we are the exception in Europe amongst 10-11% in France and Germany. for all the talk of a large US defecit, it remains smaller than both that of France and the Eurozone(as a percentage of GDP).
    Thanks for the info. I knew the French and Germans were experiencing double-digit unemployment, but didn't know that England had such high employment in contrast.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I hated living there, but I don't dislike Americans generally at all. My best friend is from the US in fact.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I love English culture too. Language, measurements, and much of our judicial system comes from England. I guess that's why I feel more at home, as a tourist, than just about anywhere else I've been and I've traveled all over the world.

    I think the problem is that, if you live in another country, you can really only learn about the USA from the media. Unfortunately, Europeans consider the BBC to be an objective news source and I think that where the problem lies, since the BBC obviously has an ax to grind with americans. Here are some examples:

    An Islamic militant website has shown a video apparently showing the beheading of an American in Iraq.

    APPARENTLY???

    Why do they throw in qualifiers like that?

    Picture taking out the word apparently. See how different the sentence sounds?

    Here is another one:

    His killers shouted "Allah is great" before holding what appeared to be a head up to the camera.

    APPEARED? See how these words take the edge off of the events that are happening? It didn't APPEAR to be a head, it was a head!!

    I wonder why the BBC never includes little qualifiers like that when discussing the Abu Ghraib photos?

    BBC is not impartial. It is blatantly biased, anti-war and anti-American. CNN international (not the CNN we know) is just as bad. If you and I lived in Europe, we would probably hate America too.
    The reason that these words are used is because at the time the reports were uncomfirmed and it covers them from being sued if it turns out that the report wasn't completely genuin. For you information I watch the bbc news in the morning and the evening and throughout the publishing of the abu Ghraib photos and they used exactly the same language when descibing them. They will not talk about someone being guilty unless they are found guilty and they will not say alligations are true unless they have been prooven. Personally I think this is a better way of doing it than ploughing in an saying that the reports are deffinately true and then finding out they aren't as happend with the Mirror.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    They will not talk about someone being guilty unless they are found guilty and they will not say alligations are true unless they have been prooven.
    Well, they DID say "Belgian paedophile Marc Dutroux...", although he has not been convicted yet.
    But, that really is a borderline case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    The reason that these words are used is because at the time the reports were uncomfirmed and it covers them from being sued if it turns out that the report wasn't completely genuin. For you information I watch the bbc news in the morning and the evening and throughout the publishing of the abu Ghraib photos and they used exactly the same language when descibing them. They will not talk about someone being guilty unless they are found guilty and they will not say alligations are true unless they have been prooven. Personally I think this is a better way of doing it than ploughing in an saying that the reports are deffinately true and then finding out they aren't as happend with the Mirror.
    how can a severed head be unconfirmed...and what has happened since to confirm it?

    of course, when it comes to the government or indeed anyone else they dont particuarly like, allegation appears to be a credible form of media..hutton anyone? the double standards in the name of objectivity is what pisses people off. just scrap the license fee and come out as the middle-class left wing thatcher hating liberals that they are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    how can a severed head be unconfirmed...and what has happened since to confirm it?

    its not so much the language as the reports in the first place.
    The initial reports were unconfirmed because films can be faked and the BBC waited until the American government authenticated the video until the said that it deffinately happend. The BBC are a lot more unbiased than many news reports I have seen especially when I saw some American they are much more biased than anything I have seen on the BBC.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    The initial reports were unconfirmed because films can be faked and the BBC waited until the American government authenticated the video until the said that it deffinately happend. The BBC are a lot more unbiased than many news reports I have seen especially when I saw some American they are much more biased than anything I have seen on the BBC.
    reporting is about iteratively returning to an article and updating it appropriately, in the case of the BBC this did not happen. no follow up was made and thus this 'apparently' remained in the piece long after it was confirmed by the US.

    the US media doesnt potray itself as objective. the BBC is obliged to. thats the point.
    (ive edited my other post.)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=vienna95]of course, when it comes to the government or indeed anyone else they dont particuarly like, allegation appears to be a credible form of media..hutton anyone? the double standards in the name of objectivity is what pisses people off. just scrap the license fee and come out as the middle-class left wing thatcher hating liberals that they are.QUOTE]

    I think the reason the BBC come accross this way is because the can't show really right wing hatefull programs because they are funded by the public and much of the public will find this offensive. They also don't show extreme left wing programs either. The liberal view is generally less contriversial than the right wing view which is why the BBC have it. I wouldn't say they are thatcher hateing I saw some very nice reports on her recently when Reagan died. The BBC were unfairly criticised in the Hutton report. I think they are the most credible form of the media that we have in this country. They give the british public what it wants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the reason the BBC come accross this way is because the can't show really right wing hatefull programs because they are funded by the public and much of the public will find this offensive. They also don't show extreme left wing programs either. The liberal view is generally less contriversial than the right wing view which is why the BBC have it. I wouldn't say they are thatcher hateing I saw some very nice reports on her recently when Reagan died.
    its a case of taking a basic objective approach to news reporting.


    The BBC were unfairly criticised in the Hutton report.
    how? the report was entirely accurate.



    They give the british public what it wants.
    which is not its job.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    its a case of taking a basic objective approach to news reporting.
    I still don't think that it is unobjective. The news reports are very informative and give a wide spectrum of views. During the elections they interview all the parties from the extreme left to the extreme right and they were unbiased in their doing so.

    how? the report was entirely accurate.
    Was it? it didn't seem to condem the government at all when the government was at least slightly to blame. Many of the news papers, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 all seemed to report that the report was unfair and what would they have to gain by supporting the BBC.

    which is not its job.
    It is to the extent that the Licence payer supports it and therefore it has to provide programs the the British public want to see.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most people I know don't care about America, it's just a mild curiosity. Americans are generally regarded as fat, stupid and ignorant but then, of course, that is just a stereotype and the people who take stereotypes seriously are usually ignorant themselves. Being honest, I don't care about America much either, it's just some other country filled with people who delude themselves into thinking they live in the best country in the world. I only care when it directly effects me, i.e. George Bush and this bloody war. American media is everywhere but if you're like me and you don't like it, you avoid it, simple as. I have only ever met an American once and she seemed alright to me, even if she did shout a lot.
    Also (as regards to some while back), I may be biased because my Gran is French but I think French are ok really, they take you more seriously if you make an effort to speak their language. I have noticed a lot in English speaking countries, they just expect the rest of the world to speak English and accuse foreigners of being rude when they get annoyed about this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ally)
    Most people I know don't care about America, it's just a mild curiosity. Americans are generally regarded as fat, stupid and ignorant but then, of course, that is just a stereotype and the people who take stereotypes seriously are usually ignorant themselves.
    quite.

    Being honest, it's just some other country filled with people who delude themselves into thinking they live in the best country in the world.
    oh dear, why the change of heart?

    American media is everywhere
    such as?

    Also (as regards to some while back), I may be biased because my Gran is French but I think French are ok really, they take you more seriously if you make an effort to speak their language.
    cant blame them, they do have a large colonial chip on their shoulder.

    I have noticed a lot in English speaking countries, they just expect the rest of the world to speak English and accuse foreigners of being rude when they get annoyed about this.
    erm, like the french then?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    The initial reports were unconfirmed because films can be faked and the BBC waited until the American government authenticated the video until the said that it deffinately happend. The BBC are a lot more unbiased than many news reports I have seen especially when I saw some American they are much more biased than anything I have seen on the BBC.
    http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/...14.html#007292
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I have read some articles that said that this story led to several resignations and the suicide of the source identified for the BBC's story. With an incident like that occuring, it is a bit of a surprise that Europeans find the BBC a credible source of news.

    It reminds me a little of what has gone on at the NY times. Fortunately, no one committed suicide, but, for some reason, the paper has yet to be completely discredited by the American public for it's lies and propaganda.

    Jayson Blair was a New York Times reporter that stole the articles of other journalists. He was not fair to the people in his stories and lied many times to the public. Often, when he was in New York, his editors thought he was covering stories in remote locations. Blair frequently turned in receipts from New York restaurants and stores portrayed as receipts from traveling. Despite this, many Americans still consider the NY times to be a legitimate source of news. Sometimes I wonder what it will take for people to hold the media accountable for their actions.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I have read some articles that said that this story led to several resignations and the suicide of the source identified for the BBC's story. With an incident like that occuring, it is a bit of a surprise that Europeans find the BBC a credible source of news.

    It reminds me a little of what has gone on at the NY times. Fortunately, no one committed suicide, but, for some reason, the paper has yet to be completely discredited by the American public for it's lies and propaganda.

    Jayson Blair was a New York Times reporter that stole the articles of other journalists. He was not fair to the people in his stories and lied many times to the public. Often, when he was in New York, his editors thought he was covering stories in remote locations. Blair frequently turned in receipts from New York restaurants and stores portrayed as receipts from traveling. Despite this, many Americans still consider the NY times to be a legitimate source of news. Sometimes I wonder what it will take for people to hold the media accountable for their actions.
    The BBC was the first ever official TV channel. So show it a bit more respect. We had a proper TV channel when you Americans were still living in caves and eating bananas and still trying to understand things like how not to kill each other because slavery is a bad thing (100 years later than any other industrial country).

    You don't seem to understand the David Kelly issue. He didn't kill himself because he had lied. The BBC journalist was later reproached for not ensuring David Kelly's anonymity when coming out with the news.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    The BBC was the first ever official TV channel. So show it a bit more respect. We had a proper TV channel when you Americans were still living in caves and eating bananas and still trying to understand things like how not to kill each other because slavery is a bad thing (100 years later than any other industrial country).
    Why resort to personal attacks? You're going to discredit your argument with that kind of behavior. Good thing I've been to the UK and know your behavior is not that of a typical UK citizen.

    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    You don't seem to understand the David Kelly issue. He didn't kill himself because he had lied. The BBC journalist was later reproached for not ensuring David Kelly's anonymity when coming out with the news.
    So having a long history means that the BBC isn't accountable for any inaccuracies in its coverage? New York Times was founded in 1851 and, last year, they had the biggest scandal in the history of paper. It doesn't matter to me that they are 150+ years old. I think they should still be held to the same standards as all other news sources. Ditto for the BBC
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i dnt hate americans to tell u da truth i think dey wiked ppl bt wat i really dnt agree wit is der so called government! i mean iraq wat the hell was dat about? am i da only one hu noticed dat operation iraq liberation spells oil wit the first letters of each word!!! dats sumthing to think about!
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.