|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: March 12, 2003 US public turns to Europe for news -- "We have noticed an upsurge in traffic from America, primarily because we are receiving more emails from US visitors thanking us for reporting on worldwide news in a way that is unavailable in the US media." (Comments: World events can change your base of users.)
Reader Comments...
Meanwhile, in the UK, the BBC and The Guardian are routinely criticised by right-wing politicians for being too left wing. In the case of the Guardian, they make no bones about their left-wing sympathies. But the BBC maintains that it is impartial. Who should Americans trust for fair news coverage? It's also interesting to note that the BBC is a non-commercial body, funded straight out of the pocket of UK citizens. Does this say anything about the nature of commercial news organisations? For example, Rupert Murdoch's News International is often criticised for reporting the news in a way which suits it's own commercial agenda (e.g. don't criticise the Chinese). Posted by: Alan Fisher on March 13, 2003 03:58 AM
Alan Fisher just summed up the pros and cons of the Web as a whole (and as often seen in Webword's blog):
I think what you don't find in a the major US news network his a proper coverage of both side. In Canada, we often see side by side interview with people for and against a position. It seams, in the case of the war on Irak, we see CNN almost completly ignoring the side against. It's more propagenda then bias. Posted by: Richard Lehoux on March 13, 2003 10:29 AM
Alan, They point out the blantant propaganda and self-censorship at work in the British media system, much the same way that FAIR and TakeBackTheMedia watchdog the corporate American media. A good primer on the role of the media is Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. If you haven't read it, or aren't familiar w/ the subject, please do so. Once you spend some time informing yourself w/ this type of knowledge, I guarantee you won't be making such naive posts... And I don't mean that disparagingly, so don't think this a flame Posted by: on March 13, 2003 10:45 AM
Ahh, it's the "you're too stupid to talk with us" WebWorder. I love you guys. Posted by: on March 13, 2003 10:49 AM
What is the difference between "left wing" and "right wing"? Posted by: Homo Sapien on March 13, 2003 01:40 PM
"The traditionalist, pro-monarchy deputies sat to the right of the throne, the opposition to the left. That said, the terms have accrued a secondary layer of meanings. 'Right' is seen (at least by its supporters) as indicative of normality and `right-ness' while 'left' (in the eyes of its opponents) conjures up the Latin term for left, 'sinister' and all that this implies in modern usage."
"Once you spend some time informing yourself w/ this type of knowledge, I guarantee you won't be making such naive posts... And I don't mean that disparagingly, so don't think this a flame" I don't know any other way you could take this. Can I speak down at someone as well please? Posted by: JB on March 13, 2003 04:29 PM
I don't need to do homework on The Guardian, I've been reading it for 30 years. It IS a left-wing newspaper, when compared to the other newspapers we have on offer here in the UK. But what do I know, even though I've read Chomsky et al as well? You missed the point anyway - what I was saying was that The Guardian is quoted in the article as one of the sources which Americans are turning to for balanced news coverage, but many British citizens would say that it is biased to the left. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. One man's balanced coverage is another man's propaganda. Who's to say who is right? Posted by: Alan Fisher on March 14, 2003 04:05 AM
Fact cited: traffic from US to European web news sites is up. Inference: movement away from US news sources, which are biased and bad sources of news. Quote from same article: "The American public is apparently turning away from the mostly US-centric American media in search of unbiased reporting and other points of views. Much of the US media's reaction to France and Germany's intransigence on the Iraqi war issue has verged on the xenophobic, even in the so-called 'respectable' press." How about some supporting evidence? Are hits to MSNBC, CNN, etc, going down? Another hypothesis: in times of crisis, people increase their consumption of news. Traffic to all news sites may be going up. It would be easy enough to check, instead of stopping short on research and reaching a conclusion. The cited article is more op/ed than it is objective research, and should be treated as such. Posted by: mcw on March 14, 2003 08:54 AM
Actually, mcw has made a very good point. Given the deep differences between most of Europe and the USA on Iraq, perhaps Americans are simply increasing their consumption of European news sources in an attempt to understand these differences, but not decreasing their consumption of US news sources? Posted by: Alan Fisher on March 14, 2003 10:08 AM
I don't have a position on this, but how would you know if they are actually leaving US news sites? CNN, MSNBC, etc. don't publish any traffic figures, and I'd imagine they'd be especially reluctant to publish anything indicating that their traffic was going down. :D Posted by: MadMan on March 15, 2003 05:41 AM
Maybe you could track the cost to advertisers somehow on those networks/websites? Advertisers usually follow eyeballs and if people aren't going to those networks/sites then the costs to advertisers would be decreasing. Wouldn't they? Anyway, a thought... Posted by: Tom on March 15, 2003 10:16 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |