Even trusted news media is going down the toilet

[Loren Pechtel]

Any evidence of this? I've heard this said before, I think it's bullshit. I think Al Jazeera is as good as it's ever been.

It's owned by Qatar. Terrorist sponsors.

While true, it's financed by an independent fund, set up specifically to ensure Al Jazeera's editorial independence and protection from influence. It was set up this way in order to kill any rumours that Al Jazeera might be used as a mouth piece for Islamists. Yet, the rumours persist.

Tell me, do you even care at what lengths they go to, to prove they're not morally corrupt?

Also... Qatar is a government in a politically volatile region undergoing great political upheaval. They'd be foolish not to position themselves in this. When it comes to Muslim groups the terrorist label is thrown about quite loosely. How could they not end up funding groups that are labelled terrorist groups?

I think you're holding them to impossible standards. Also, standards that don't matter since it won't influence Al Jazeera anyway

I don't think there's anything they can do that truly shields them from control. If they don't want to appear to be controlling it why did they buy it in the first place?

 

[Underseer]

This was a top news piece on BBC News

It's on the "debate" whether or not Bert and Ernie from Sesame street are gay. Newsflash, you can project whatever you want onto fictional characters. That's the beauty of fiction. If you think they're gay, they're gay. If you don't, they're not.

I think everybody understands this. The newspiece is pure clickbait garbage of the worst kind. A pseudo debate. It's stuff like this that undermines trust in news sources.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45566451

Thoughts?

What's making this a debate is the fact that one of the writers who wrote for Sesame Street says that he intended them as gay characters, while Sesame Street says otherwise.

Yes, with popular art, the audience decides what's what, but the intent of the creators matters.

My take is that the characters were around before that particular writer. The origin seems to me a parody of the Odd Couple, which was a popular play and TV show from way back when.

 

[DrZoidberg]

While true, it's financed by an independent fund, set up specifically to ensure Al Jazeera's editorial independence and protection from influence. It was set up this way in order to kill any rumours that Al Jazeera might be used as a mouth piece for Islamists. Yet, the rumours persist.

Tell me, do you even care at what lengths they go to, to prove they're not morally corrupt?

Also... Qatar is a government in a politically volatile region undergoing great political upheaval. They'd be foolish not to position themselves in this. When it comes to Muslim groups the terrorist label is thrown about quite loosely. How could they not end up funding groups that are labelled terrorist groups?

I think you're holding them to impossible standards. Also, standards that don't matter since it won't influence Al Jazeera anyway

I don't think there's anything they can do that truly shields them from control. If they don't want to appear to be controlling it why did they buy it in the first place?

It was first owned by the emir of Qatar as his personal play thing. So this is the dictator in an absolute monarchy. He decided to make it more independent from outside meddling and set it up with money so as to guarantee that money can't be used to sway the reporting.

So you were fine about it when it was the mouthpiece of a single individual who was also a dictator. But when moved to government control... then you get nervous?

The emir controls Qatar. Qatar didn't buy it from the emir. He owns the government of Qatar completely

 

[Speakpigeon]

This was a top news piece on BBC News

It's on the "debate" whether or not Bert and Ernie from Sesame street are gay. Newsflash, you can project whatever you want onto fictional characters. That's the beauty of fiction. If you think they're gay, they're gay. If you don't, they're not.

I think everybody understands this. The newspiece is pure clickbait garbage of the worst kind. A pseudo debate. It's stuff like this that undermines trust in news sources.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45566451

Thoughts?

That's not the worse. The worse is what you don't realise is a manipulation. Too subtle to detect but effective on the long run. I've been listening to the BBC for nearly thirty years and I definitely have a positive bias for the Brits even though I am fully aware of all the horrors they are guilty of as a country.

Concerning the particular bit on Bert and Ernie I think you're wrong. They have that sort of "news" just to entertain in between serious stuff. All media do it. People do it, too. You don't normally keep talking only about serious things. It would make you look like the North Korean television. You need to impart on your listeners that you are normal human beings amenable to trivia. You're reaction here seems to be saying more about you as an intemperate individual than it does about the BBC. The story about Bert and Ernie is also a useful indication of how mentalities evolve, even when it's a rather subtle one. I guess the idea here is that cartoon characters are now embroiled in our ideological wars. In a way, the story points to the new stupidity that has emerged in the West, particularly in America and to a lesser extent in Britain. This is just the usual enlightenment propaganda. I definitely support that although I doubt it works on Trump's supporters.
EB