Why Call It News Any More?

[FloridaDragon]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I'm not going to watch corp. news any longer... I feel that is doing something about it.
I may write CNN if I find they were doing this.

I agree and that was part of the point I was trying to make to tw but he never got it. The news sources we have all present the truth, some conjecture and falsehoods/inaccuracies. It is the proportions of each that are hard to know and to put your FAITH in any of them as pure truth is just plain crazy. Everyone out there has a slant and until you take that into consideration then you might believe everything on CNN, or FOX or [pick one]. Personally I don't trust any of them. Get my general news from CNN, watch FOX once a month just to laugh usually.... (but I laugh at CNN too, so I guess that is only fair). I freely admit to not being as knowledgeable about US and World events as I should. (but we only have so much time in a day and that is not how I choose to spend it!)

Originally Posted by dar512

Along those lines.

Nice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by FloridaDragon

I agree and that was part of the point I was trying to make to tw but he never got it. ... Everyone out there has a slant and until you take that into consideration then you might believe everything on CNN, or FOX or [pick one]. Personally I don't trust any of them. Get my general news from CNN, watch FOX once a month just to laugh usually....

Because the local gossip (ie Ten O clock news that hypes a latest murder or reports on car crashes without ever saying why it happened or how to avoid the same mistake) perverts perspective, then all news services pervert perspective? That is what you said then and that is what you are saying now.

CNN mostly reports only that a news story exists; woefully insufficient as a primary news source. If CNN is considered a primary news source, then a consumer has, essentially, no news - insufficient knowledge of the world. Meanwhile, Fox News is news only sufficient to report propaganda. Fox News has same purpose as 1965 Radio Moscow.

Cartoon describes news best described as 'local gossip'. 'Local gossip' reports hype. For example, they ask, "How do you feel". Is that news? Obviously not. When one's primary news source is only CNN, and if one assumes is a typical news source, then one has a distorted grasp of reality.

Responsible news reporters such as Peter Jennings were even blunt with fluff news types. I suspect Barbara Walters was describing a confrontation because Barbara confused fluff - ie Hollywood interviews - with news. According to logic by FloridaDragon, if Barbara Walters did news badly, then all news sources do news badly.

For example, FloridaDragon, tell us about the Sprately Islands. Did CNN report on that military confrontation? Where was your news source when this battle was fought? Were reasons for that battle reported? Responsible news sources, if using them, means a larger significance behind Sprately Islands is common knowledge.

Meanwhile the local gossip shows a car crash. Did they report how that crash happened, why it happened, and how you can avoid making the same mistake? No. They simply report hype - a smashed car and the number of victims. That's not news. That's hype: an emotion that is too often confused as fact. Same confusion causes so many to consider Fox News - propaganda - as news.

I have always listened to NPR, but found them to be pretty biased (you will NEVER hear them criticize Israel or their army no matter what the action, that is just one example, there are many), but for the most part I am happy.
Air America, biased again, but good info and most hosts do give both perspectives, regardless of their editorial slant.
Started getting the NY Times on-line e-mail daily updates and check the website as often as feasible and am much happier.
I'm sorry.... I just cannot watch Fox... too much wasted time.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I'm sorry.... I just cannot watch Fox... too much wasted time.

I was raised on propaganda; advertisements that lie by telling half truths. That was my father. Before toothpaste had flouride, back then, all toothpastes and mouthwashes did nothing. Classic suckers for propaganda are easily identified. They even buy Listerene and believe it actually does something.

Do you really believe Pond's Institute makes age defying creams? Sales say so many women do when not one fact is ever provided. Not one fact. Classic worshippers of propaganda.

In another example more based in science: from The Economist of 29 Apr 2006 entitled 'Filtering the evidence':

Judged by their waistbands, Europeans are much healthier than Americans. More than 30% of American are obese, compared with 13% of Germeans and under 10% of the French. But judged by their lungs, Americans are fitter than their peers across the Atlantic. Only 19% of adult Americans smoke, against 34% of Germans and 27% of Britons. Why do Europeans light up so much more?

... Since they are both economists, the first thing they look at is price. ... Perhaps smoking is more expensive in America? Not so. ... cigarettes are 37% cheaper in America ...

The second explanation an economist will look for is income. Smoking rises then falls with with affluence. ... The rich ... don't like to smoke as much as they could, because they put a higher value on a long and healthy life. This might explain why so many more Turks than Americans smoke, but it can cover only about a quarter of the gap between Americans and western Europeans.

In fact, the gap is best explained by neither prices nor incomes, but by ignorance. Europeans are less likely than Americans to believe that smoking is harmful. Only 73% of Germans, for example, believe smoking is dangerous, against 91% of Americans.

The two authors conjecture that beliefs are the result of smokers' habits, not the cause of them. ... even non-smokers in Europe are less likely than their American counterparts to beleive the weed is dangerous. These differences in beliefs may account for 20-40% of the trans-atlantic gaps, the two authors argue.

In America, cigarette dangers were well published and broadcast since 1964. Not so in Europe. However if knowledge was so available, then why do 40% of youngest Americans smoke? Have we raised a generation that is manipulated by spin rather than by facts? Whose beliefs 'don't need no stinkin science' to somehow know? At least Europeans have an excuse. Dangers of smoking were not promoted aggressively and continously since 1964 in Europe.

Why, a) with a sudden upsurge in extremist politial views, b) with people actually saying, "Rush says what has to be said", c) with massive attraction to extremist religious beliefs, d) with a generation less technically educated, and e) with people so even inspired by lies of pre-emption; why is this same generation also so easy to addict to cigarettes? This is the first generations fully cognizant of the dangers. Why is this generation, instead, so easily attracted to the 'dark side'? Why are so many younger Americans so easily perverted by propaganda - have so much difficulty cutting through myths and half truths? Notice how many actually believe those 'power drinks' provide more healthy energy? Coca Cola once promoted that myth - by including drugs. Caffine can make anyone feel 'healthier'. He did not say "I feel; therefore I am". And yet 'feeling' somehow becomes how facts are 'proven'.

It's called propaganda. It works when a victim is that naive. So naive as to not see a difference between real news and "Hard Copy".

[tw]

They are called Video News Release or VNR. To promote spin, make a video, release to the press, and some 'local gossip' stations will air it as news. BTW, my favorite example of a 'local gossip' is one of 77 stations listed.

The study by Center for Media and Democracy is read located at:
Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed

The list of stations cited for airing VNRs without noting the source is:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/stationlist

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

In America, cigarette dangers were well published and broadcast since 1964. Not so in Europe. However if knowledge was so available, then why do 40% of youngest Americans smoke? Have we raised a generation that is manipulated by spin rather than by facts?

...Why are so many younger Americans so easily perverted by propaganda - have so much difficulty cutting through myths and half truths? Notice how many actually believe those 'power drinks' provide more healthy energy?

TW, you obviously have no teenaged children and haven't been one yourself for a long time (maybe never? ) Youths who smoke absolutely do not believe that it isn't harmful. They are taking pride in not caring that it is harmful. Being self-destructive is what teenagers are all about. They do not believe that energy drinks give them "healthy energy." They believe that they are tastier and more conspicious to consume than speed.

Originally Posted by tw

I was raised on propaganda; advertisements that lie by telling half truths. That was my father. Before toothpaste had flouride, back then, all toothpastes and mouthwashes did nothing. Classic suckers for propaganda are easily identified. They even buy Listerene and believe it actually does something.

Do you really believe Pond's Institute makes age defying creams? Sales say so many women do when not one fact is ever provided. Not one fact. Classic worshippers of propaganda.

In another example more based in science: from The Economist of 29 Apr 2006 entitled 'Filtering the evidence': In America, cigarette dangers were well published and broadcast since 1964. Not so in Europe. However if knowledge was so available, then why do 40% of youngest Americans smoke? Have we raised a generation that is manipulated by spin rather than by facts? Whose beliefs 'don't need no stinkin science' to somehow know? At least Europeans have an excuse. Dangers of smoking were not promoted aggressively and continously since 1964 in Europe.

Why, a) with a sudden upsurge in extremist politial views, b) with people actually saying, "Rush says what has to be said", c) with massive attraction to extremist religious beliefs, d) with a generation less technically educated, and e) with people so even inspired by lies of pre-emption; why is this same generation also so easy to addict to cigarettes? This is the first generations fully cognizant of the dangers. Why is this generation, instead, so easily attracted to the 'dark side'? Why are so many younger Americans so easily perverted by propaganda - have so much difficulty cutting through myths and half truths? Notice how many actually believe those 'power drinks' provide more healthy energy? Coca Cola once promoted that myth - by including drugs. Caffine can make anyone feel 'healthier'. He did not say "I feel; therefore I am". And yet 'feeling' somehow becomes how facts are 'proven'.

It's called propaganda. It works when a victim is that naive. So naive as to not see a difference between real news and "Hard Copy".

There is a lot of popaganda out there, one that kills me is that shampoo and conditioners can heal or fix hair... hair is dead. Can't be done.

Your smoking example is another, there are no facts to back-up the American Lung and Cancer Associations claims, in fact OSHA and the department in charge of measuring how dangerous second hand smoke is in the workplace for the AMA (I think it was the SEC) got called on the carpet in front of congress for lying about their numbers.
In fact the restarunts were perfectly safe and met OSHA standardards.
There has never been a link between second hand smoke or smoking and cancer in any clinical trials... NEVER. It has never been shown or provenpropagandarestraintsstandards in any way. We are being lied to.

information from:www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm
Clrd stats on page 72,smoke % on page 64:
"In the real world of real numbers, realpeople, and real deaths;this is
what the 2005 report by the National Center for Health Statistics has to
say. From 1965 -2002,the % of smokers is down by 47%. From 1980-2002
the death rate from chronic lower repiratory diseases (bronchitis,
emphysema, asthma, etc) is up 54%. The cardiovascular death rate for men
and women from 1979-2002 is down by a whole 3%. From 1979-2002,asthma
alone death rates are up 1.5%. Lung cancer death rates from 1973-2002
are up 27%. From 1979-2002 the Asthma rates for children is up 56%."

You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**
When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!
James P. Siepmann, MD

An ironic thing is that smoking may contribute to cancer... sure but hell, many things do... one thing we do know is that cooking fumes are far more toxic than second hand smoke and much that we do is far more toxic than smoking.
The black lung used by the American Lung Association's and the Cancer Association's fear posters on smoking is not just a smoker's lung but one from a miner who smoked who had black lung and rampant lung cancer.
A normal smokers lung cannot be told by a mortician from a non-smokers lung.
A lot of this is on junkscience.com, but I have been reading about it for a while.
Personally I think asphalt and atmospheric nukes have a lot to do with it... funny Japan and France have low lung cancer rates. Think about it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Your smoking example is another, there are no facts to back-up the American Lung and Cancer Associations claims, in fact OSHA and the department in charge of measuring how dangerous second hand smoke is in the workplace for the AMA (I think it was the SEC) got called on the carpet in front of congress for lying about their numbers.

Stop right there. Smoking has clearly been proven to cause lung cancer and other killing diseases such as heart attacks. So what would a scum news service like Fox do? Do exactly what you have done here. Where do references to sceond hand smoke come from? It is a classic Rush Limbuagh and Radio Moscow trick. Nobody, for one minute, at any time, said anything about second hand smoke. You have thrown in second hand smoke to outrightly decieve.

Furthermore, no doubt that smoking kills people - as the Surgeon General accurately reported in 1964. The Surgeon General is a responsible source of facts not to be confused with propaganda from a shampoo commerical.

Yes hair is dead. Why do you assocate outright and intentional propaganda with science fact? Smoking kills. That from those who report facts. 'Curing dead hair' commercial proves the Surgeon General is wrong?

Demonstrated is my point. All news sources lie because Fox News lies? Bull. Because propaganda lies about 'curing hair' then smoking really does not kill? Bull. Not only did you use classic distortion techniques by adding second hand smoke. You have also associated science on smoking with claims of 'dead hair cures'. One is science. The other says a TV viewer is that science ignorant.

rkzenrage - your two paragraphs suggest how one cannot see a difference between propaganda and accurate facts - why a president could lie about WMDs and so many believed his outright and now known to be intentional lies. Why Rush Limbaugh - arrested again this weekend for drug violations - is respected. You are an American? You cannot tell the diference between a responsible Surgeon General's report verses propaganda about curing dead hair? No wonder the 'local gossip' is watched by 77% of TV viewers. I get this sinking feeling that most Americans have become that dumber.

Please tell me you did not use a 'dead hair cure' commerical to disparge well proven science - that smoking kills. Please tell me you made that association - and another reference to second hand smoke - all in error.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker.

He made that distinction but that's yesterdays news.
Today, and for awhile now, it's all about secondhand smoke. That's the justification for all the smoking bans going on today, both indoors and outdoors. Shit like you can't smoke in your own house if you have an employee (maid, housekeeper, etc) or the Maytag Repairman coming in.

Originally Posted by tw

Stop right there. Smoking has clearly been proven to cause lung cancer and other killing diseases such as heart attacks. So what would a scum news service like Fox do? Do exactly what you have done here. Where do references to sceond hand smoke come from? It is a classic Rush Limbuagh and Radio Moscow trick. Nobody, for one minute, at any time, said anything about second hand smoke. You have thrown in second hand smoke to outrightly decieve.

Furthermore, no doubt that smoking kills people - as the Surgeon General accurately reported in 1964. The Surgeon General is a responsible source of facts not to be confused with propaganda from a shampoo commerical.

Yes hair is dead. Why do you assocate outright and intentional propaganda with science fact? Smoking kills. That from those who report facts. 'Curing dead hair' commercial proves the Surgeon General is wrong?

Demonstrated is my point. All news sources lie because Fox News lies? Bull. Because propaganda lies about 'curing hair' then smoking really does not kill? Bull. Not only did you use classic distortion techniques by adding second hand smoke. You have also associated science on smoking with claims of 'dead hair cures'. One is science. The other says a TV viewer is that science ignorant.

rkzenrage - your two paragraphs suggest how one cannot see a difference between propaganda and accurate facts - why a president could lie about WMDs and so many believed his outright and now known to be intentional lies. Why Rush Limbaugh - arrested again this weekend for drug violations - is respected. You are an American? You cannot tell the diference between a responsible Surgeon General's report verses propaganda about curing dead hair? No wonder the 'local gossip' is watched by 77% of TV viewers. I get this sinking feeling that most Americans have become that dumber.

Please tell me you did not use a 'dead hair cure' commerical to disparge well proven science - that smoking kills. Please tell me you made that association - and another reference to second hand smoke - all in error.

Please show me the study that has shown that smoking, or any carcinogen, causes cancer.
It has not happened... I can tell you that.
Carcinogens increase your risk of cancer, they do not cause it, at least no study has shown that to date. Smoking is no different.

Common knowledge = superstition, people have a hard time with that, I understand.
Having well respected groups like the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association lie about it does not help.

The hair commercial example was just of propaganda, it was not tied to the smoking example.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Carcinogens increase your risk of cancer, they do not cause it, at least no study has shown that to date. Smoking is no different.

A distinction without a difference. If you gamble with weighted dice, those dice are a cause of your winnings, even though all they did was increase your chances.

Let me be more specific, I do not agree with smoking anything other than pure tobacco. That leaves out most commercial cigs. They contain things that no sane person wants in their lungs, formaldehyde, bleach and worst of all for many reasons ammonia.
The AMA's last study showed that people like myself, who smoke as a hobby or casually, actually live longer on average than non smokers. No shit.
Think about this, what I mentioned earlier, the nations with the highest, per capita, percentage of smokers also have some of the lowest numbers of lung cancer instances.
Now that smoking is down over seventy percent in the US and Europe lung cancer is up...
Lung cancer is an old person's disease, it is a symptom of asphalt, of car exhaust, of nuclear testing in the atmosphere and our "fabulous" chemical living... not natural tobacco used sensibly. People are living longer, particularly Northern European people, who get lung cancer when they get older. It has nothing to do with smoking.
I believe, and science backs me, that a nice cigar, organic non-additive cig or pipe is no worse for me than a nice grilled steak or salmon fillet from time to time... & that is common sense.
But, we/I am OT.. the point was that the two organizations, American Lung Association and American Cancer Society, have been knowingly lying to America as propaganda for many years... that is all.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Lung cancer is an old person's disease, it is a symptom of asphalt, of car exhaust, of nuclear testing in the atmosphere and our "fabulous" chemical living... not natural tobacco used sensibly.

Why did you put "not" in there? It ought to be "and".

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Please show me the study that has shown that smoking, or any carcinogen, causes cancer.

Surgeon General's report in 1964. Many studies even before WWII demonstrated a connection between cigarettes and cancer - and to other diseases. From papers obtained by a multi-state lawsuit against the tobacco industry, first they tried to make a healthy cigarette only to discover cigarettes destroy health even worse than expected. So the industry stopped trying the impossible - to make a safe cigarette - and started protecting their turf. Having learned from science how at risk their entire industry was, the cigarette industry quickly learned Rush Limbaugh tactics.

Where is this study that claims no relationship between smoking and lung cancer? Where is this study that claims no relationship between smoking and heart complications? Where is this study that so contradicts the Surgeon General after so many generations of science repeatedly confirmed that 1964 report? Where is this study that proves both the AMA and ACS have been lying for two generations? Those are really bold accusations with no supporting evidence. Accusations currently done in Rush Limbaugh style - without supporting facts. Show me.

Meanwhile cigarettes are not the topic. The topic is about responsible news sources; which somehow are confused with shampoo (that will somehow cure dead hair like Sadam's WMDs). You got the example correct. But why then associate a shampoo commerical as an example of news? And why did you do what Rush Limbaugh types do - confuse all lurkers here with irrelevant nonsense about second hand smoke? People who believe Fox News is news and believe Rush Limbaugh is honest - they would do that spinning for confusion.

(Honest? The professional propagandist Limbaugh just got arrested again on drug charges. Something expected of professional liars.)

So you actually believe that cigarettes are not deadly? Show us what responsible news sources somehow forgot to show us. Show us how 40 years of undisputed Surgeon General research got it all wrong. Show us this conspiracy to destroy a patriotic American tobacco industry - that conspired even to addict 14 year olds to nicotine. Oh. Honest tobacco executives would not do that? Clearly 40 years of news sources are lying - just like the Pond's Institute and shampoo companies. Clearly we should instead trust the tobacco industry - not the Surgeon General?

Are you saying responsible news services lie - conspire with the AMA and ACS to pervert truth? Someone tried that previously - claimed that all news sources lie - and only ended up getting angry when he could not defend himself. But lets see these studies - kept from us by responsible news services - that prove no relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer. Show us how the news services conspired with the AMA and ACS to deny us truth - because that is what you appear to claim? Show us where causal smoking increased health - as only those 1960s advertisements from the tobacco industry claimed.

Maybe tobacco can also cure dead hair? I know I put that study somewhere.