Truth in Media Reporting

Errr, why would politicians pass laws demanding that people tell the truth all the time when they themselves don't? I mean, if such laws were enacted, wouldn't they be the first to be caught out by these laws?

Prices aren't facts!

Prices are opinions!!

A price is the point at which the opinion of the vendor equals the opinion of the purchaser, and a transaction takes place. They are best treated as such.

Yes I've have had the occasion not to be impressed with the news media coverage of an event, where I've had more informed information. And have not been impressed by some reporters stating that they are not there to just state facts, that I interpret as, its not there job to investigating into the back ground etc, but simple to report the news. I have a soft hearted side to this, as I believe that a news media cant be an expert on every thing, But there are world wide events that to me are only reported emotively, no history or back ground. And I don't like them useing adjectives to put across a point, I would like the back ground to make up my own mind up.

regards JD.

We get drivel from the periodicals published by our learned institutes, we need to get them in line too. But unfortunately one of the few real truths is that once something is in print it becomes 'fact', bovine excrement or not.

The title of this thread is virtually an oxymoron.

'News' these days should be re-titled supposition, or 'what we think may happen.'

In the UK the media assumed that Gordon Brown would call an election.... they whipped up a feeding frenzy...when their supposition failed to materialize they accused him of 'bottling out'. There was never at any point an actual 'news' story.... it was a case of reporting what they thought might happen and creating a story.

C'mon, we must remind ourselves that journalists are Very Important People.

Speshly if they are meeja celebrities, even more so if blonde..The lovely Emily Maitliss wreaked havoc by merely sitting with her legs crossed .... I never checked the youtube footage myself you understand .

I think our leaders like us to concentrate on such trash, inconveniences them if people want to know what they're doing and why. Did I hear on the news last night that some geek has signed up to this so-called European Treaty on our behalf again without a referendum.

You now what, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the country has gone to war one day, maybe even just because someone else's has!

"does any government in any country have a requirement that honesty in reporting in/on the media be truthful? If not, why not?"

In the US we have a "free" press. Some countries have government controlled press. You can find stellar examples in Asia and the Middle East. The government defines honesty so you can mindlessly listen without worry.

The problem with a free press is that people are much too lazy to challenge what they hear. If you don't like what you hear, turn it off!.

It just happens that almost all media is sponsored by advertisers. If nobody is listening the advertisers will pull their ads and the problem will be solved.

As for coal, he may be right! Sure it can be done, but it probably is cheaper to refine a gallon of gas from a $100 barrel of gas than coal at current market prices.

The problem (and this is similar whether in a democratic society or in a despotic one) is that people simply have no idea how to find and judge "truthful" material, nor do they care. We see it all the time on this forum where WIKI is quoted far more often than Machinery's Handbook. Much of the blame rests squarely on educational systems that do not teach critical thinking, but a lot of blame remains for all of us who settle for easy answers.

For example, we see this "over unity" nonsense every week or three and we tolerate it because "we never know when new physical laws may be found". Baloney! As Pogo once said "We has met the enemy and he is us!"

I suspect that you are correct that the public is too lazy or just doesnt care and that there is a lack of "critical thinking" because it is not well taught in educational institutions. That said, what can be done to enforce that such critical thinking skills be a requirement for graduation?

In the US we have a "free" press.

LOL

Yes.. same as the UK.. generally owned by the very wealthy right wing media moguls.

(Even the supposedly left wing rags are often not quite what they seem)..The BBC was bashed for so long for it's apparent left wing bias it is now a toothless dog...

Classic case the Journalist who blew the whistle on the sexed up WMD document get the boot whilst the odious Mr Alistair Campbell is still sliming aout.

Interesting. I find the BBC, which I once loved to listen to on short wave when I was a kid, is about as left leaning as they go.

Most of the media here in the states is left and many people are unaware of it.

My stand on the whole thing is that the buyer should be aware. If they choose to swallow everything they consume hook, line, and sinker, then they get what they deserve.

Many have proposed that there should be some overseeing agency (government or otherwise) to protect the public, but I think the responsibility ultimately falls on the people to look after their own self interests and quit expecting someone else to do it for them.

And yes, I agree, critical thinking is one of the most important things you can be taught!

Interesting. I live in the states and find most of the media, with the exceptions of the Pittsburgh Courier and the pre-Rupert Wall Street Journal, to be right leaning. I too am suspicious of BBC, partly because I can't sort out which is which; as an alternative, I listen to CBC sometimes. Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy) is fairly objective, but marginalized.

If American media was left leaning it would de-bunk the idea that it had any influence, since the USA (U S Administration) seems so right wing - and the country does operate on te best of democratic principles.

OK, I think the line starts here, so I'm not directly replying to you, Wrenched...

Anyway, ALL media is biased. That is a fact one has to accept whether one likes it or not. The major TV news agencies were covered quite nicely in a Frontline special on PBS. The entire show was based on who owns what TV network and how that ownership requires certain things from their news organizations. Surprisingly, PBS even blew the whistle on themselves in the show when they revealed several multinational companies that hold significant sway over PBS! Also, the media is slanted regarding nationalistic issues. I was surprised to find England is one of the worst culprits for slanting home news for national reasons. So how do I know this...

Do you remember these things called libraries? If you do, and if your town still has one, check out a collection called "A DAY IN HISTORY." These publications are bound, but they're about the size of a regular newspaper. Inside each, a single significant day in the 20th century is covered. For example, the British takeover of the Suez Canal. The publication consists of exact replicas of the several first pages of the most important newspapers from around the World - London Times, New York Times, Pravda, the paper in China, Germany, Brazil, etc.. Knowing what we know now about these historical events, it's intensely interesting to see what was in print in all of these papers on the day the event happened. It is fascinating to browse through all the slanted stories - and we're talking really slanted!!!

People will never be taught (at least as a national priority) to think critically. As Nome Chomsky pointed out, in a democracy you have two groups to control: the rank-and-file and the intelligentsia. You handle the rank-and-file with easy answers and spectacles, like pro sports. The intelligentsia, on the other hand have to be feed tainted facts to keep them away from getting to the truth and taking action.

So where does all this lead? In my view, it leads to a government that is deeply in bed with the oil companies, that without having to answer to anyone are turning supply on and off at the refineries to suit their own purposes. Several years after this eight year nightmare is over, I bet we will ultimately find out about some of the most dirty dealing and worst betrayal of the American public that has ever occurred. And the media of today will simply shrug their shoulders and say, "Hey! We didn't know anymore than you did!"

Is the truth really out there? Beats me, but I do know this - you are not going to get to the truth by devoting a half hour of your time each night to find it. You're in for a struggle and a dirty digging job. Better bring a big shovel!

My stand on the whole thing is that the buyer should be aware. If they choose to swallow everything they consume hook, line, and sinker, then they get what they deserve.

While I agree with your above statement, the problem is that mass media can/does "infect" the masses with their particular read on a situation. In a democratic society full of non-critical thinkers the garbage they spew becomes fact and politicians anxious to get re-elected pass laws that impact the lives and liberties of all constituents. This situation did not exist to the same degree prior to WWII and into the 1060's, which may also bear on why most political candidates (of the past say 40 some yrs) are selected more for their photogenic properties than for there ability to think and lead.

Well, everyone had a hard time with TV reception in 1060!

Seriously, it is a well known fact that an American has absolutely no sense of the history of his/her own country until they get into college... And this applies only to the historian!!! Just after WWII, there was all kinds of slant in the media. These were the McCarthy years. These were the times when people like Walter Cronkite caved and Edward R. Mural had his hands full!

Way before WWII, the American media was filled with bias of one type or another. You need to go back and read about William Randolph Hearst and James Dupont. Hearst used his newspaper syndicate like broadsword to get his way.

Even the likes of Andrew Jackson were smeared in the papers of the time for political reasons. No. This is nothing new. We just have this nostalgic, reactionary, bias about them "good old days!" Guess what, they weren't!!!

If you would like a longer list of historic abuses of the media, we can fill up a couple of pages here if we really put our minds to it.

<it is a well known fact that an American has absolutely no sense of the history of his/her own country until they get into college>

Can the same be said about Geography?

At least regarding the history of how geographic boarders got they way they are!

"In the US we have a "free" press."

One can also look at it is that you get what you pay for.

The CEO probably has no back ground in any tech field just a people person. Good a selling himself and things people don't want. It isn't a lie if he don't know about it. Just because there is the technology in South Africa. He said it was not practical alternative. Whats practical to you may not be practical to Exxon-Mobil because their in the oil business. That is what he as CEO is paid to look after.

Good luck in holding anyone accountable for a lie. Since we do not have the technology to read minds we can not know what was in ones mind at the time of the statement.

What may be the truth in one persons perspective may seem a lie to another. The imposing of such a law goes against our rights of freedom of speech. If you feel that you have been harmed by some ones lie then you have the right to sue for damages. Have fun with proving that.

Any time the media is interviewing a person you are getting thats persons opinion. You should learn to take it as that.

The one down side to the liquid coal fuel technology is in the end it's carbon dixoide load is twice that of conventional fuels. Too bad.

Please tell me where did you come across this fact?

They were talking about it a couple of nights ago on NPR (National Public Radio). The point was made that China is already using this technology and is planning to increase its use. The stuff works, but it's fairly messy for the environment. China is going to pay the price in terms of pollution - then we'll be paying because of greenhouse gasses.

I would be interested in the source of your information. Synthetic coal gasoline is made by the Fischer-Tropsch process building the molecular structure from syngas (basically CO and H2 in proper combination). Adjustment of the CO2 load (equates to the C content of the syngas). I find it hard to believe that such a tuned chemical process develops a higher CO2 load than petroleum processing.

This is just a thought, but in light, sweet crude, the gas is already in there. It's just a matter of distilling it out within a closed system. I'm not too familiar on how coal is turned to gasoline (petrol), but I'm assuming it may be harder to build the molecule - by harder, I mean there may be additional release of CO₂.

I remember as a child in the 1950's using Coal Oil to run our tractors on the farm.

Farmall tractors, start on gasoline and switch to coal oil when the motor got warm.

Remember CEO's are the Dick Chaney's of business.

Whoops! Dick Chaney was a CEO! Silly me.

Media is bias, but as far as the oil companies are concerned, to me they are just playing a game.

Making an large statement of $100.00 which they probably know is overkill. and when the oil price hits $90.00 / barrel. people are relieved and think they are getting a deal or feel fortunate.

Look at the gas prices the way they are in the U.S. Price will shoot up to a peak with an increase per gallon of say $0.30/ gal . and stay there for a while, before its questioned it will drop say $0.10 per gallon.

Whats the public reaction then. Wow, gas sure came down, better fill up when it's still a good deal. would they say that if the increase went up only $0.20/gallon more or would the public still grumble and the oil companies get investigated.

I realize our Europeans colleagues may feel slighted because our prices are lower then theirs and why are we complaining. but thats not the point I trying to get across.

Getting back to the media debate, I still think we are extremely fortunate to have the BBC in Britain, I've no problem shelling out the price of 3 tanks of juice a year on the licence fee. I get TV free of disgusting, insulting or laughable but unfunny commercials and a decent degree of independence. Well historically that has been the case, it's being interfered with now along with things like the Post Office, even the constitution for goodness sake.