h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, yeah. If terrorists/factionists/whackos have a mysterious "why would anyone DO such a thing" flavor to them, then they can by nature strike at any time, anywhere, without warning, needing billions upon billions of dollars to defend us decent, innocent folk; we who might just snap ourselves...

I read an excerpt (sp?) of the "Fortunate Son" biog - published in the Mail last weekend. Very worrying.
After reading all the backlog, I've forgotten my point. Oh I remember. I have yet to dig out my copy of the Rolling Stone interview Bush gave before he was "elected"...but once I do...Ooooooh. I will have quotes to play with.

I don't like any newspaper, even if I/it agree on some things. Because they should not be presenting opinion. (unless specifically stated and confined to an Opinion Column which is instantly and obviously recognisable as *not* fact.) Publications purporting to tell you things about what is going on should not take up irresponsible 'crusades' based on the same secondhand factoids they hand out to their readership.

Which bit of the Shrub thing was in't paper? there was something today about his family's long membership in some mysterious society...

The facade of 'why did they do it' is just as ineffective as 'they are evil'. Solves nothing except the problem of what to cry about.

It was the bit about his drunkenness...kinda like a quick overview of his background - alcoholism and stuff.

I prefer the Mail to most papers because *despite* the opinions presented by some of the writers, it's a well written good quality paper. Doesn't mean I agree with them (and I know certain folks may think differently about me) but it is a pretty impossible task to write something and be completely impartial.

I have found it to be sometimes very slapdash with the facts of a story, and not averse to making stuff up and wild skewing. And to give no thought to the consequences of irresponsible reporting. However that goes for all papers, IMHO. And how much of that is due simply to genuine lack of knowledge on part of the journalists, or wilful misrepresentation, who knows.
However, I think at the moment it's better-written than the 'Xpress, which is either froth or adverts and has some chronic lapses of knowledge. And the opinions therein are so uniform (at least the M. has *one* socialist opinion column, no?) and mostly presented by 'much-loved' tv 'personalities'.

Socialist? I try not to pay attention to the titles I'm afraid. I'm a *quick flick through and then read the articles that interest me*...the Mail is the only tabloid-sized paper that does book reviews and historical (well somewhat) pieces that interest me. I would buy broadsheets, but...um. They are too big. I can't cope with papers that size. I like the Mail. Lots of opinions (that differ), books, Snoopy and a askh2g2-style section near the crossword at the back. Can't complain. They *do* get a raw deal though. Papers aren't *that* important to cause such a fuss. How silly is it that people are defined by the papers they read. Magazines maybe, but not papers.

Well, opinion's the only thing that differs a lot of periodicals, aside from journalistic integrity. After all, all their motives are the same: It isn't about selling information to you (so don't get your hopes up about being objective ), it's about selling you to their advertisers. Your being informed is only a happy side-effect. All the more reason why I don't list bloggers and independent filmers under the 'media;' what are they selling?

GRRRR... lost post...

I have the same problem with broadsheets, I flap and I flap but they do not obey.
I don't think most people are defined by their newspapers, but if that's the only source of information for them their worldview will be extremely sparse. And all newspapers to some degree sell themselves as 'all you'll ever need to know'.
The opinions only rile me if they're daft, i.e. not just that I disagree but some are based on assumptions that are provably wrong. Also in several papers they go so far as to say 'all right-thinking people will agree' which is pretty shocking if you think about it. And a lot of 'news' seems to give no thought to the consequences of continually assuring the world that this n that are the cause of all their problems, without explaining further. For example, all this stuff about burglary- nowhere has explained (that I have found) why the laws are as they are, just that the newspaper thinks it's outrageous. That is not information. Hence, everyone who reads it will also think that's shocking and something must be done, because the underlying causes and possible reasons are never mentioned. (Not that everything is justifiable, but all you get is the reaction.)
What's worse is when the paper believes its readership is defined by its opinions. I was on a site today which presented a standard set of views and anyone who disagreed was a nong: no to the Euro, free Tony Martin, anti-smoking people are anti-freedom nutbars to boot, those who oppose military action are anti-war loons. It's reprehensible, not least because they assume everyone who shares *one* opinion will likewise have the same. Give them some credit. It's like, people will diss. me as a 'loony left bleeding-heart wishy-washy treehugging liberal do-gooder' (and WHAT THE F**K DOES THAT MEAN?! anyway) because of one opinion I may have which they disagree with. I would never do the same and call them a 'racist homo-xeno-phobic mysogynist rabidly conservative nutter' or similar, because they are not. And that shows you have no respect for any other opinion they might have, it's childish and removes possibility of intelligent debate. Trouble is, papers do it to their own readership and assure them they are 'right-thinking' for conforming. If they start a newspaper having no opinion on one issue, and come across another with which they agree, they might take the editorial lead and agree with them on everything else. If the opinion of the paper is misinformed, they will be worse off than when they were undecided.

I *hate* the "any right thinking individual will agree" phrase. I've seen it too many times for my liking.

Natural suspicion of the press makes me think it's really fascist... implying there is a Right way and no argument.

Is this suspicion getting on top of me? I find the following excerpt a little disturbing: some selection of overpriced underwear in the Excess magazine, including 'What could be more alluring than this [daft, flimsy, unnecessarily expensive piece of frilly pink frippery] against pale English rose skin?'

Well, Mediterranean skin, or Asian, or black, or otherwise healthily tanned.

Coming to this thread a bit late, I need to applogize as this may sound like I'm trying to divert the thread.

Seeing the movie some months ago, the thing that caused me concern is that Moore failed to highlight in his statistics the difference in gun deaths due to murder and that of suicide. Also, try to normalize the statistics based on population.


That being said, I have to commend him on making a rather popular documentary on an unpopular topic (in the US at least, and I'm referring to his implications of US foreign policy in world terrorism). His achievement has to be considered against a backdrop of "accepted" practice in the US of popular media. One example is of recent *last minute* changes in programming on some US television stations that pulled paid anti-war commercials from the time slots before and after Bush's recent State of the Nation speech.

no, feel free to put the thread back on topic.

I was not shocked by Moor's writings but then I think that here, that's more or less our accepted view of the USA anyway. What shocks me more is how shocking it is to his compatriots.
What is the media like there? I have been told there is no real opposition to the accepted Washington-led media (just like there is no real political alternative to the Right).

"What is the media like there? I have been told there is no real opposition to the accepted Washington-led media (just like there is no real political alternative to the Right)."


If you listen to NPR (national public radio) and whatch PBS (public bradcasting service) then it's pretty good. Very good some may say. And, BTW, you can listen to NPR via the internet anywhere and in Australia see some PBS programs on SBS. Not sure about Europe or Asia.

However, very, very few people as a percentage listen and whatch the above in the US. The rest of the networked stations (CNN, NBC etc.) I find to be increadibly poor in terms of presenting a *balanced* view. But that's my personal opinion.

I can watch CNN if I like on cable.
I don't like.

I was wondering if there was a balanced printed media in the US, instead of just underground 'zines as some have said.

There's no real opposition to the Republicans because the Democrats act like them, too. Moore mentions the bombing campaign in Kosovo and Clinton's mistake in Sudan - two typically hawkish Republican things to do. Even after Bush-the-senior's one term where we realized that war isn't good for the economy, Clinton goes and does the same thing...

"I can watch CNN if I like on cable.
I don't like.

I was wondering if there was a balanced printed media in the US, instead of just underground 'zines as some have said. "


The CNN programming outside the US is different to that inside.


For printed, it all depend on what you call "balanced". You can get the Guardian (in digest form), the Nation (http://www.thenation.com/), and local rags like the Advocate (http://www.newmassmedia.com/). All combined, they have a fraction of the circulation of any one major newspaper.

The papers I've mentioned is also not what I'd call balanced. In the end (and I get my news from the Internet), I try to read the major papers in different countries (www.smh.com.au, www.nzherald.co.nz, www.nytimes.com, etc.) and find a balance myself.

"Even after Bush-the-senior's one term where we realized that war isn't good for the economy, Clinton goes and does the same thing..."

I've heard Clinton being described as a 'European American' which means that he would do the same thing in a given situation as Bush, but more politely. And thus getting more slack from the international community. I don't know if this is true though. At least in home affairs I think there are plenty of differences.

I hate the Daily Mail with a passion. I always feel that they have an agenda.

Like when they were reporting about that Abu Hamza guy they slipped the phrase "backed by the BBC" into the piece with no further explanation.

With the US media I liked the comparisons they made to the Canadian.

In Canada the news seems to be full of positive stories whereas the US media is always reporting some new threat like killer "africanized" bees or rattlesnakes.

sadly they do have an agenda... don't know any UK newspaper that doesn't. That is, they have an editorial opinion to push.