Go to Why?
- Add a comment
- Go to No Peasant Revolt?
L.E. Grant
Thank you for the words! It is interesting that we have to resort to degrees when we explain the slanted reporting of "news" ("not exactly censorship, but"). We often hear the phrase "it is what it is", but it is better to be remided that it does not have to be!
posted by
Glennb
on February 11, 2005 at 1:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Well expressed!
One of the reasons we left North America was that we found the news (print, TV and radio) was, not exactly censored, but chosen by the media, very likley by the powers that be. It wasn't exactly false, or deliberately slanted to a specific viewpoint, back then, but there were few places one could go to get the other side of the story. Plus most of it was so structured that one got used to seeing it in that structure/sequence that few people ever read (or listened) to all of it - I've always had a habit of reading newspapers from one end to the other, and I'd put my own priorities on the stories, regardless of what page it was on. Most of the really interesting stuff was usually just past the middle, just behind where most people stopped paying attention, unless they were looking for something specific.
Over here, 20-odd years ago, stories tended to be in the order that I prefered. And the U.K. used to be the same way, which is why NZ, Aussie and UK papers were great places to get the news (I read your piece on the word, but didn't comment - too close to my own thoughts about how educators are training people to be good, obedient consumers).
But I'd sad to say that the American one-slant news reporting is now too common everywhere.
Thank you for an interesting article!
posted by
L.E.Gant
on February 10, 2005 at 10:43 PM
| link to this | reply