dcampbell52 wrote:
Ahh, public radio is biased too. They tend to report the news with what ever slant THEY want to put on it or if it doesn't fit their agenda, they just don't report it. They are no better and no worse than any other news service.
I trust NPR more than I trust main stream news organizations. Show me a lie that they've told.
PS - I support NPR through my local public radio station. If NPR lies and I catch wind of it, they lose my support.
ole sarg wrote:
I wonder what crest toothpaste's agenda is or for that matter any advertiser?
All this nonsense about agendas is just that nonsense. Do you think an advertising salesperson for a network goes into a dark room and says to the client: "Just how do you want us to present a story on X?"
Be serious!
Are you serious? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Latent-Image wrote:
A main tool at the "Fox Noise" channel.
A main tool on ALL the channels, including tabloids like CNN and CBS who have been known to make up their own news.
Duckfart wrote:
A main tool on ALL the channels, including tabloids like CNN and CBS who have been known to make up their own news.
Maybe true to an extent; however, FOX remains far and away the leader of outright lying to its audience.
ole sarg wrote:
I wonder what crest toothpaste's agenda is or for that matter any advertiser?
All this nonsense about agendas is just that nonsense. Do you think an advertising salesperson for a network goes into a dark room and says to the client: "Just how do you want us to present a story on X?"
Be serious!
Sorry for the length. I was called away and this session timed out so here's the rest of it.
It is actually quite serious and very simple in this day of mass social media. A wacko is "offended" about something or another, notes what company's are sponsoring it and starts a movement to boycott that product. A Google search will get you the names,address's and sometimes phone numbers of the CEO and board directors that are then spread out to millions of equally motivated activists who email and write letters threatening not only to never use their product ever again but tell everyone they know to do the same. In some circumstances they call/wright their representatives in government who then lean on the companies and you have the EPA, Nader or whomever killing the Corvair. Gun control, save the whales, Peta ads, porpoise in tuna nets, ban cougar hunting in Ca, ban trapping, etc, etc. all run that way. Any company that feels a drop in sales or feels there might be bad advertising will drop sponsoring whatever "offended" the fruitcakes. Perception is reality for those with no critical thinking ability - human caused global warming being only the latest prime example.
Another example pursued on this site would be "drones". Not the real rootin tootin autonomous flying military kind but those toys the ignorant public was taught to believe by an equally ignorant media were actually "drones" and so now they are. The FAA decided over 8 million of the little beasties could be sold during the Christmas season and so they MUST pose a unimaginable hazard to manned aircraft. Something MUST be done! After all, those relatively cheep robots will replace lots and lots of high-paid helicopter pilots and the FAA always did want control of model airplanes anyway. That's why I paid money to be licensed as a genuine FAA approved toy aeroplane driver. Who would have thunk it! Notice now that the government (the FAA) got it's way all the hype suddenly evaporated, including all the "near misses". The old English aeromodler magazines used to have a term for the public at large that I always felt was so very appropriate; instead of "Homosapians" they called them "Homosaps".
denoferth wrote:
It is actually quite serious and very simple in this day of mass social media. A wacko is "offended" about something or another, notes what company's are sponsoring it and starts a movement to boycott that product. A Google search will get you the names,address's and sometimes phone numbers of the CEO and board directors that are then spread out to millions of equally motivated activists who email and write letters threatening not only to never use their product ever again but tell everyone they know to do the same. In some circumstances they call/wright their representatives in government who then lean on the companies and you have the EPA, Nader or whomever killing the Corvair. Gun control, save the whales, Peta ads, porpoise in tuna nets, ban cougar hunting in Ca, ban trapping, etc, etc. all run that way. Any company that feels a drop in sales or feels there might be bad advertising will drop sponsoring whatever "offended" the fruitcakes. Perception is reality for those with no critical thinking ability - human caused global warming being only the latest prime example.
It is actually quite serious and very simple in th... (
show quote)
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is an American non-profit corporation created by an act of the United States Congress and funded by the United States federal government to promote and help support public broadcasting. $26.67 M for PBS support. No private financing. Check Wikipedia.
ole sarg wrote:
You have conflated two different issues!
The disclaimers prior to the Congressional Act were a matter of advertising policy but not a matter of news policy!
If memory serves, there were many news reports regarding the ill effects and affects of smoking.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.fullin 1953 Life carried a long story on smoking and cancer and cigarette advertising was a major source of income for the mag at that time.
I realize that smoking is bad but then so is driving under the influence, working under the influence etc. All I was saying is that Congress would NOT have outlawed tobacco advertising if the public and doctors hadn't supported it. The Tobacco lobby was contributing heavily to almost everyone's election campaigns and it nearly took an act of God to get anything done. And, if you will remember, up until a few years ago, 1996 to be exact, liquor advertising had been banned on for 60 years on radio and 46 years on television. (NOTE: this does not include wine or beer).
ole sarg wrote:
So you are saying that their agenda is not to present the news in a certain manner!
You have just reinforced my point.
Well, say that one of Crest's products is found to be contaminated in some way or perhaps one of Crest's factories is found to have contaminated a water supply. If Crest has been donating to a network, that network might just decide that story is not news-worthy.
no, i was being sarcastic. i like fox news
Hardly, other stations would carry it. Ever notice how all the news stations carry the same stories. If a station decided not to cover the story it would become a story!
News is a competitive business. Nationally and Internationally it seems that the headlines are the same. Burssels was the lead story world wide.
There is a pretty solid wall between editorial and sales/advertising.
pecohen wrote:
Well, say that one of Crest's products is found to be contaminated in some way or perhaps one of Crest's factories is found to have contaminated a water supply. If Crest has been donating to a network, that network might just decide that story is not news-worthy.
waywest wrote:
yeah, it's fox news thats the problem - just ask brian williams
Only NBC ABS CBS are telling the all truth ....Yeah right !!
:lol: :lol:
Nelson.I wrote:
You're correct.
Back in the day when I represented the Trading Post at trade shows in Massachusetts we usually had the biggest display of firearms there. That being the case it wasn't too unusual for some cute young thing from the local TV station with her cameraman in tow to make a beeline to our booth. She would zero in on the bumpkin in the plaid shirt with the beard and you just knew her questions wouldn't be very firearm friendly. I always hoped for the opening where she would ask if we felt responsible for providing the means to kill so I could spring the old line about her having the equipment for prostitution but never got the chance. You are absolutely correct they cut and paste to suite their agenda. Anybody who feels otherwise is living in fairy-tale land.
dcampbell52 wrote:
Ahh, public radio is biased too. They tend to report the news with what ever slant THEY want to put on it or if it doesn't fit their agenda, they just don't report it. They are no better and no worse than any other news service.
Very biased as a matter of fact. If it has to do with politics in any way it will be very liberally slanted.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.