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

I think the phrase refers less to the ownership of the media and more about the reporting style and the standards of journalism.

Frankly, I miss the likes of Jeremy Paxman who, when he was harsh, was at least harsh to anyone and everyone who deserved it.

>>I think the phrase refers less to the ownership of the media and more about the reporting style and the standards of journalism<<

I took the term 'liberal media' to mean that it had a left wing bias in what it chose to report and how it reported it.

I think you can still have journalism of a high standard even if it is left or right. eg a magazine about socialism is going to present a left wing view, but it can still have good reporting in it. Ditto for the right.

I think the problems are when the bias is not acknowledged (not one of Moore's problems obviously).



And now who owns the media influences it hugely


I don't know who Jeremy Paxman is - is he an Ameican TV person?

Interviewer on BBC2 Newsnight
Famous for asking an evasive Michael Howard, then Conservative Home Secretary, the same question about 20 times in 1 interview.

Thanks BC. And did Michael Howard eventually answer?

If I remember correctly he didn't but at least Paxman didn't allow him to wriggle off the hook. When the Tories were finally chucked out oh happy day he proved just as determined when interviewing Labour ministers who sadly frequently now just decline to appear on Newsnight. Paxman was often criticised for being overaggressive in his style.

I'm just looking at the BBC World website to see if Newsnight is on there, and I see that it's still called the BBC World _Service_.

Isn't that nice

The infamous episode where Paxo griled Howard asking the same question 20 times was because he had run out of questions and there was a delay with the video tape for the next item.

I strongly recommend that y'all take a look at http://www.dhmo.org . This is a site which is 100% factually accurate, and which uses dispassionate language to report issues with a particular chemical. The clever / shocking thing is that the chemical concerned is water. The site shows, better than any other I know, how easy it is to use scientific language and genuine facts to scare people. The california legislation took the warnings so seriously they were considering banning the substance.

B

The BBC may well be resting on its laurels, but I still think it is well and away far better than anything else being offered worldwide.

It's only disappointing when you know how much better the BBC used to be and how incredibly good it could still be.


az

That website is brilliant .

Isn't it!

B

Ahem. Yes, I'm a big fan of that site. It's expanded enormously since it started. Back to the topic (although I must say in a way that site is as much on topic as anything else said here...).
I saw the film and like the dreaded DHMO the worries expressed may be partly as inflated. I tend not to think so, even with my liberal bias. The only big concern I had with it was the over dramatisation of some of the scenes. Over to the point of pushing the entire length to the point of squirming in the seats. I saw the Moore technique more than once, but as I said before this is an entertaining documentary, not an entirely fact-based one. Lots of stuff I hadn't seen on various websites, especially the Saudi embassy scene. Brilliant!

IMHO, anyway,

Which 'Moore technique' zoomer?

That would be the technique that people are so irritable about.

Using those 'unguarded moments' in films. Annoying people to the point where they say something they shouldn't. Sneaking the truth out of people. That sort of thing.

MM is often misrepresented to people as a Journalist. He's not, he's a film maker.
People therefore forget that he's not bound by rules concerning methods and integrity.

But then neither are journalists, until someone gets all crabby about their methods. MM is much more honest about what he does and how he does it.

kea, I meant his habit of going to a location to shoot the reaction to his being there and his way of tying everything to Flint, Michigan.
That and a few others like chasing after those who are not used to being on camera in a work and/or casual environment. Nothing wrong with his techniques, they're very effective, it's just that it's not a documentary in the classic sense. Nothing wrong with that either, actually. I enjoyed the film quite a bit, other than some bits I would cut (personally) to make it more compact and impactful. (Is that a word?)

it should be-

as far as the movie, i think to cut and shorten it would make it easier to watch, but that to me is nowhere near the point of the work.

i'm sure MM could have cut much out to preserve movieness, but this is the point. though it has a soundtrack, and some bits that could be funny, i think this is done to soften the blow of the truth that is shown. Moore has done his homework, now the rest of us should be asking questions. Question yourself. is there anything you would never give up? what if the world depended on it?

Question Authority. (just do it nicely, they still have the power.)

don't give up

*just do it nicely, they still have the power*

That may be another thing he's saying as well. They do have the power, true but don't we as well because of democracy? Are they representing the majority of the people? From the very beginning with the references to the *stolen* election I think he's saying that the agenda isn't democratic but personal and financial. As a non USAian I found I would rather have the brutal facts (or suppositions) mixed with the humour and no *softening of the blow*. Just my opionion, anyway.

They have power because we give it to them and let them keep it.

MM is also suggesting that by holding them accountable in the way that he does, by being annoying and inconvienient and irritating, he takes some of that back AND demonstrates that we still have power of our own.

Please now go read "V for Vendetta" by Alan Moore. It's a bit simplistic, but there's a point being made.

Please also examine the work of Christopher Morris for more proding and poking of issues. I'll pit "Pedogeddon" against anything MM has done.

yes, we the people do still have the power to vote. that is what makes democracy great. it is shocking how low the percentage of people actually do vote, who are able. it is also true that USA's last election was riddled with fraud and error. the suprime court made a decision, and it is therefore final. i believe their decision was based, at least in part, by the desire to maintain faith in the election process, and in short democracy.

we need to keep our democracy safe from any threat, we need to vote, for the right reasons, and using our conscience. We must remember that we live in the land of the free and home of the brave.

(shameless plug - Vote Kerry Edwards)

I'M voting for ABB...











(wait for it)








(here it comes)






Anybody But Bush.



SC