Russia Today Reporter destroys CNN

[cheekybird]

Some Americans cannot be fooled.

No need for that,they're already fools

 

[graphican]

Yes.

Yes.

It is called 'critical thinking'. It means you put aside whatever emotionalism you have and examine the facts and arguments. If you jump to the conclusion that EVERYTHING the American media says are lies. Then you gave yourself plenty grounds to call anything we say as garbage.


When Al-Jazeera was created, did they consulted Pakistan, Russia, and China on how to run a news organization that will be accepted as credible by the rest of the world ?

Hell, no.

Not just no, but 'Hell, no.' If anything, Al-Jazeera took Pakistan, Russia, and China as how NOT to be a credible journalistic source.

Like it or not, the creators of Al-Jazeera looked to the West for journalistic standards to go by. Its format practically mirrored that of how Western media companies operate, and it did well enough that it offended many ME countries who felt AJ should have been more favorable to the ME. On the other hand, many in the West felt the opposite, that AJ was too favorable to the ME. In the end, AJ earned many journalistic awards precisely because enough people on both side felt AJ offended them.

The AJ example on global journalism and AJ's incursion into Western countries are perfect. If you demand a variety of opinions, then by default you just told others that the burden of discernment is upon YOUR intellectual shoulders and that you expect the availability of opinions that are factually true but contextually contestable, can be factually untrue and factually incomplete, and can even be outright lies, because everything I listed cannot exist unless the sources are unfettered from government control.

Americans, as a whole, may criticize news sources for many reasons, but also as a whole we DO NOT support censorship, as in government enforced censorship. We will take upon ourselves to discern. Some of us will fail. Some of us will succeed. But what make US and our method of journalism, including Fox News, superior and the standards to match, is the allowance of all degrees of fact reporting and biased opinions.

When you have to write a book to answer a simple question, it tells how essence-less your words are that they couldn't have meant your meaning unless there were a million of those.

There is no talk of Aljazeera or your nonsense vs some other nonsense. Can we keep discussion on american dogma if we may? What percentage of Americans even understand critical thinking let along employing it? As per your own words "It means you put aside whatever emotionalism you have and examine the facts and arguments" and you earlier accepted that projected "facts" may well be propaganda, lies and dis-information as it is permissible under the umbrella of "freedom", what does that leave for your "critical thinking" and examining facts and arguments? What will your critical thinking get you? Is it true that goes around comes around?

And you never touched holocaust? is that a no-go under "freedom of expression"? IF so it is not universal nor it is a principle.

 

[jarves]

No need for that,they're already fools

Americans are smart and intelligent people.Apparently what we South Asians call intellligent are average there.

 

[fallstuff]

And I have no problems with that. We ALL do, including you, sees things in black and white -- in principles.


At least CNN and others CHOSE to be biased. Much more than can be said for most of the world's media where they are government owned and MUST toe the party line. I guess that kind of freedom must be quite alien to you.

But here is odd part: If a US news company is constantly at odds with the US, about government, politics, ideology, and the American society in general, then that news company would be considered 'free'' and praised by those living in dictatorships, where the country have high illiteracy rate, the country hardly accomplished anything, and the people hardly been anywhere. Kinda like your Pakistan.

I would like to look at things rather objectively, binary reasoning won't get me too far these days.

Freedom runs supreme in your world. You eat, breath, and perhaps also bathe in it. This particular kind of freedom is indeed alien to me. This thread is not about freedom.

CNN is free to do anything including getting paid not to run stories. The topic is credibility of CNN, which they seriously lack. Media is supposed to be the Government watchdog, not its lapdog.

I don't care about how somebody takes pot shots at U.S media outlets. It bothers me when general public gets asymmetrical information or half the facts or sometimes no fact at all. I believe American people make sound decisions when they have access to relevant information.

 

[graphican]

I believe American people make sound decisions when they have access to relevant information.

American people could make sound decisions if they had access to relevant information. We may not disagree on this proposition but question under discussion is if they are getting accurate and relevant information and this is where "freedom is of speech" is harmful instead of helpful. "No rules" is never a rule.

There is no third dimension in truth vs lies and there is no truth like "half truth". Do we disagree?

 

[gambit]

When you have to write a book to answer a simple question, it tells how essence-less your words are that they couldn't have meant your meaning unless there were a million of those.

Did you asked a simple question ? Let me know when/where.

There is no talk of Aljazeera or your nonsense vs some other nonsense. Can we keep discussion on american dogma if we may?

I used AJ as an example of how foreign news can break into the American market and compete for the American public's attention -- just like everyone else. But the more important thing, which you refused to acknowledged, is that AJ used the Western standards for what constitute 'credible' journalism, not Pakistan's, not Russia's, and not China's, of which everyone seems to imply that they are somehow (laughably) superior.

What percentage of Americans even understand critical thinking let along employing it?

How the hell am I supposed to prove that ? Nevertheless, that is a lame attempt at insulting US anyway. The fact that we have a competitive news market is indicative of the desire for variety and critical analyses of what they see/hear.

As per your own words "It means you put aside whatever emotionalism you have and examine the facts and arguments" and you earlier accepted that projected "facts" may well be propaganda, lies and dis-information as it is permissible under the umbrella of "freedom", what does that leave for your "critical thinking" and examining facts and arguments? What will your critical thinking get you? Is it true that goes around comes around?

May be ? If you want to declare that ALL American news are distortions and outright lies, have the courage to say so, then you can criticize Americans for not exercising critical thinking. But it is funny that you would think that we do not given the overwhelming availability of opinions about the news we received.

And you never touched holocaust? is that a no-go under "freedom of expression"? IF so it is not universal nor it is a principle.

Why should I care about the Holocaust ? The US have no laws banning the discussion thereof.

American people could make sound decisions if they had access to relevant information. We may not disagree on this proposition but question under discussion is if they are getting accurate and relevant information and this is where "freedom is of speech" is harmful instead of helpful. "No rules" is never a rule.

There is no third dimension in truth vs lies and there is no truth like "half truth". Do we disagree?

You mean 'relevant' information approved by you ? Please spare US your pretensions.

 

[BDforever]

Did you asked a simple question ? Let me know when/where.


I used AJ as an example of how foreign news can break into the American market and compete for the American public's attention -- just like everyone else. But the more important thing, which you refused to acknowledged, is that AJ used the Western standards for what constitute 'credible' journalism, not Pakistan's, not Russia's, and not China's, of which everyone seems to imply that they are somehow (laughably) superior.


How the hell am I supposed to prove that ? Nevertheless, that is a lame attempt at insulting US anyway. The fact that we have a competitive news market is indicative of the desire for variety and critical analyses of what they see/hear.


May be ? If you want to declare that ALL American news are distortions and outright lies, have the courage to say so, then you can criticize Americans for not exercising critical thinking. But it is funny that you would think that we do not given the overwhelming availability of opinions about the news we received.


Why should I care about the Holocaust ? The US have no laws banning the discussion thereof.

 

[gambit]

I would like to look at things rather objectively, binary reasoning won't get me too far these days.

Then you missed the point. At the principle level, either a lie is wrong or it is right. There is no in-between. A lie may be EXCUSABLE in terms of retribution, but on the moral plane, a lie is still something we should not do.

Freedom runs supreme in your world. You eat, breath, and perhaps also bathe in it. This particular kind of freedom is indeed alien to me. This thread is not about freedom.

But it is. A free press is not possible unless it falls under the broad umbrella of basic rights and freedoms that we believe is unalienable by the government.

CNN is free to do anything including getting paid not to run stories. The topic is credibility of CNN, which they seriously lack. Media is supposed to be the Government watchdog, not its lapdog.

Go clean your own house about that before you criticize US. For all of its flaws, CNN or even Fox News are superior to anything you got.

I don't care about how somebody takes pot shots at U.S media outlets. It bothers me when general public gets asymmetrical information or half the facts or sometimes no fact at all. I believe American people make sound decisions when they have access to relevant information.

Right...But only when the US is involved.

 

[Beidou2020]

RT is my source for news. Best channel in the world. It's brilliant in exposing the US for its crimes.

 

[gambit]

RT is my source for news. Best channel in the world. It's brilliant in exposing the US for its crimes.

And American news are my sources for exposing China for its crimes.

 

[fallstuff]

American people could make sound decisions if they had access to relevant information. We may not disagree on this proposition but question under discussion is if they are getting accurate and relevant information and this is where "freedom is of speech" is harmful instead of helpful. "No rules" is never a rule.

There is no third dimension in truth vs lies and there is no truth like "half truth". Do we disagree?

People here naturally trust the news coming off different media, there is nothing unusual about it. Its just so that in many cases they were not informed about all the facts. When CNN claims in self advertising such as " Trust CNN" , it has a moral as well as fiduciary responsibility to provide news worthy of such trust.

People can get the full news if they just look for it below the surface, which unfortunately many don't.

 

[fallstuff]

Then you missed the point. At the principle level, either a lie is wrong or it is right. There is no in-between. A lie may be EXCUSABLE in terms of retribution, but on the moral plane, a lie is still something we should not do.


But it is. A free press is not possible unless it falls under the broad umbrella of basic rights and freedoms that we believe is unalienable by the government.


Go clean your own house about that before you criticize US. For all of its flaws, CNN or even Fox News are superior to anything you got.


Right...But only when the US is involved.

CNN is regurgitating the State Dept line and RT is reiterating the Russian line. Both are sorry excuses for journalism.

You are just repeating what the State Dept is saying. Critical thinking is not exactly your forte !!