Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
RumPuncher

News Readers... Dont Sleep!

Recommended Posts

on.... The Economist

 

seriously... it's my new magazine of choice for all types of news.

It's a British (read: not so damn corrupt) ant it's been around since 1845.

And get this... the writers dont get a name credit to keep it impartial.

Really insightfull stuff!

 

It deserves a bookmark and the ocassional reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

yeah.. i went through this dillemma awhile back (dont have time to read through 3 sites a day for the true story)... i ended up w/ the bbc. i thought about the economist.. but from the couple articles i've read, it seemed to have a bit of a democratic bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Originally posted by Vanity

but from the couple articles i've read, it seemed to have a bit of a democratic bias.

 

you mean as oppsed to a tyranical bias?

I though democracy was a good thing?

 

(you know I'm just playing)

and it's made in England so 'democratic' might not be as correct as simply 'left'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the link. looks promising. I've re-lapsed into being a news junkie again as work slows down more and more. I've spent more time reading the online version of the ny times today than I have working.

 

It seems like for cold hard facts about world politics/news/events, the best place to go can be business papers. I think chomsky said somthing about it being due to the fact that most investors could give a shit about how the news is presented to the public, they just need to know whats REALLY happening so they can invest properly. (horribly paraphrased, and refering mostly to the wall street journal if I remember correctly)

He's been right for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ese

He's been right for the most part.

 

i thought he fell more on the left end of the spectrum.

:D

couldn't resist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilo7-

on.... The Economist

 

seriously... it's my new magazine of choice for all types of news.

It's a British (read: not so damn corrupt) ant it's been around since 1845.

And get this... the writers dont get a name credit to keep it impartial.

Really insightfull stuff!

 

It deserves a bookmark and the ocassional reading.

 

Been reading the Economist for three years now. It’s not bad; usually I just read the big cover story, and another essay, and that’s it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Parmalat thing outta be great. Cant wait for all the layers of dirt to be slowly revealed. 4 billion of non-existant money...executives embezzeling hundreds of millions in cash. The Italian Enron almost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

some of the things I read in the last issue alone....

 

How to Give Saddam a fair trial

What that means to Bush and Dean

Coffehouses: the internet of the 18th century

The human idea of body hair

Gardening: Good for the soul

Mary: Revered in Christianity and Islam

Arak: The traditional Arab alcohol

 

I found it at my barbershop and figured I'd buy a copy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Vanity

i've read, it seemed to have a bit of a democratic bias.

 

everything is biased. The way around being hornswoggled by the bias is to be aware that its there and ask why the authors/ publishers decided to say what they say. Reading the news from a few sources is fine but it should be done only whne you have a really clear picture of the history and prespectives of its creators.

 

 

Economist + coffee + bath room eqauls good reading and terrible hemroids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's the thing about The Economist that has pulled me in....

it touched on almost ever facet of science to explain why things are

the way they are but never puts one above another. Very simple but giving

a backstory and history from various field helps you put it all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't reall yby that 'everything is biased' argument. yes, it's true.... but that doesn't mean that the reporter is excused from the responsibilty of objectivity, so i try to seek out responsible reporting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BROWNer

by responsible, does that invoke fisk, hersh and palast typesz?;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the few english reads i read whilst living oseas.

that parmalat thing is hilarious, homeboy will do like 2 years house arrest, in his gigantic mansion that has everything he needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coffehouses: the internet of the 18th century

 

good article.

 

yeah i've been reading the economist lately too. written overseas on america and the rest of the world and theres some good articles.

 

as far as a democratic / left bias, well, i'm leftist and can't stand some of the right wing idealogy, so all the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ese

I think chomsky said somthing about it being due to the fact that most investors could give a shit about how the news is presented to the public, they just need to know whats REALLY happening so they can invest properly.

 

i was thinking about this.. and it doesn't seem to make much sense... don't they need to know how the public is viewing the world in order to invest based on their reaction to the percieved events? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BROWNer

ese, did you read that chomsky thing somewhere where

there was some elaboration or

is this a reference to his comments that "the financial

times is the only paper that tells the truth"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by BROWNer

ese, did you read that chomsky thing somewhere where

there was some elaboration or

is this a reference to his comments that "the financial

times is the only paper that tells the truth"?

 

he elaborates. gimmie a minute and I'll dig it up from the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is from "understanding power" page 28. taken from a talk he gave in Rowe, Mass in 89, questions about filters on reporting and whatnot.

 

"...

Plus, you know, there also just is a need in the media to present a tolerably accurate picture of the world-and that also creates openings. So for example, take the Wall Street Journal, the prototypical business press: the editorial pages are just comical tantrums, but the news coverage is often quite intresting and well done, they have some of the best reporting in the country, in fact. And I think the reason for that is pretty clear. On the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, the editors can scream and yell and foam at the mouth and nobody cares very much, but people in the business world have to have a realistic picture of what's happening in the world if they're going to make sane decisions about their money. Well, that also creates openings, and those openings can often be capitalized on.

..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Vanity

i was thinking about this.. and it doesn't seem to make much sense... don't they need to know how the public is viewing the world in order to invest based on their reaction to the percieved events? :confused:

 

Absolutely not, most business takes place between businesses... even though it seems like everything is funneled towards the consumer market, there are SO many steps (and business opportunities) between raw materials and finished product... the 'consumer' market is a tiny fraction of worldwide business...

 

The public doesn't know or care if 'part A' can't be imported anymore becaue of some political imbalance in 'country 1'; the public just wan't their Barbie doll, or rat trap or whatever...

 

The business world, however, realizes that if 'company @' can't get 'part A' from 'country 1'; there may be an opportunity to become an alternate supplier of 'part A' or that 'company #' might be a better investment, or any number of things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Vanity

i was thinking about this.. and it doesn't seem to make much sense... don't they need to know how the public is viewing the world in order to invest based on their reaction to the percieved events? :confused:

 

see expanded quote above, for clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...