Quote:
Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
What! Um, that must be a different American media than the one I'm familiar with. Maybe you don't quite get the concept of left wing? As for reporting facts, that's a tricky one. I've been a writer all my life, and I've studied both the language of politics and the language of media. Not to mention my own experience as a journalist, and a copywriter. I can tell you this much, there is no such thing as pure reportage of facts. By the very nature of reporting, some is included, some left out. And then you have the politics of the paper owner, which has an impact on what is and is not reported, you have the fact that the paper has to sell, that will also have an impact on what is reported, and then you have the fact that each individual journalist also has their own bias. Language is subjective. An objective view is impossible. Words, especially adjectives, have negative and positive connotations. Some words are very emotive.
|
No, he's right, in America, the media are normally left winged (and I understand the difference between left and right in politics... as I'm a right wingist public relations practitionner with international relations, political science and history background). Mind you up here, the coverage as been mostly divided: left winged on the attack on the WTC and fully right winged on the retaliation on American networks (centered in Canada).
On another note, I'm glad to see that from both side of the media spectrum, we can agree that there's no such thing as an unbiased report.
------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?