SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Apr 16 2008 05:53 am

Why is that Yahoo insists on putting a retarded FARK-like news section above the real news? Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that FBI RESISTS LEGISLATION TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON DOMESTIC SPYING is just a little bit more important than CAT MAKES DESPERATE ATTEMPT FOR CAKE.

Posted: Apr 16 2008 11:44 am

I noticed that too. What the fuck.

I have Yahoo set as my homepage but only because I'm too lazy to change it.

Posted: Apr 16 2008 01:11 pm

Personally, I care more about the cat/cake story. Everyone already knows how the FBI story is going to end:

Congress: "We want to limit the FBI's ability to spy domestically."
FBI: "You can't do that! It will lessen our power...er, ability to protect America!"
Congress: "That's ridiculous."
FBI: "...national security?"
(commence 2 months of arguing which ends when Bush gets involved, vetoes Congress, and then even if Congress overrides the veto the FBI will find a way around it.)

Fin.

Posted: Apr 16 2008 01:13 pm

Bullshit non-issues really dominate American media. As does political bias.

That's why I get my news from BBC Smile

Posted: Apr 16 2008 03:01 pm

i get my news from the BBC too.

either way, i think yahoo posts news by time instead of importance. at least thats how it is on my phone when i log on to yahoo.go! it lists news in order of last story reported. so if that kitty story was just reported 10 minutes ago, and the FBI story was reported 2 hours ago, it would show me the kitty story first instead of the FBI one.

Posted: Apr 16 2008 03:32 pm

I find the BBC to be just as biased as the American media, just in the opposite direction. I tend to read up on an important story from several different sources - the AP, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC, and then draw my own conclusions.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

That's the best strategy.

Joined: Aug 22 2005 Posts: 328

Chrisby wrote:

I noticed that too. What the fuck.

I have Yahoo set as my homepage but only because I'm too lazy to change it.

I agree completely with this thread, and I used to have Yahoo! Canada (of course) as my homepage, too. I changed it because, like you guys, I got to be hella annoyed with the vacuous-ness of the 'news' content.

After a while I realized that I needed to think of it from their point of view and realize that really, they're not interested in purveying news. They're interested in making money. That's why they put the stories up that people are going to click on, rather than the stories that actually matter.

And that's their prerogative. Just like it's my prerogative to now get my news elsewhere.

Posted: Apr 16 2008 05:22 pm

I get all my news from this website.

Posted: Apr 16 2008 06:21 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

I find the BBC to be just as biased as the American media, just in the opposite direction. I tend to read up on an important story from several different sources - the AP, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC, and then draw my own conclusions.

thats a good strategy that i tend to follow if im really serious about looking up a certain news article for differing opinions. my first choice of course is to look it up on the BBC. second is the nytimes. and 3rd choice is whatever floats my fancy.

most of the time i just look here too for my news outlet lol

Joined: May 23 2007 Location: CA Posts: 192

I can't find the "Man hacks video game to propose to girlfriend" article.

Posted: Apr 17 2008 03:15 am

I will say this much: Media bias is the ultimate cop out for anyone failing in a politics. When the Iraq war started, liberals claimed that they were the cheerleaders. As it went on, conservatives claimed that it had a bias against the war.

You see the same thing in this primary. Clinton supports have railed endlessly about how pro-Obama the media is, whilst Obama supporters have called it pro-Hillary in light of his recent controversies.

The bottom line is that, generally speaking, when the media beats something into the ground, there is a reason for it. Yes, there has been a lot of coverage on Hillary's poor chances in the primary; that's because she is realistically going to loose. They've been on Obama's shit because he's had some legitament controversies lately. As far as the war goes, virtually everyone in America was in favor of going in at the time, so the news reflected it. As time went on, and the violence got bad, they reported on that too. They make money spinning controversy, so naturally they try to swing the pendulum both ways.

I truly believe that the media tells us what we want to hear rather than the general assertion that they tell us what to think. They're gossipers, and like every gossiper you went to High School with, they get perks for kissing your ass and confirming everything that you're already thinking. If you want to look for the cause of all the bullshit in the media, look at the people who are buying into it rather than the ones selling it and you'll learn quickly that it's all about basic economics.

Posted: Apr 17 2008 09:39 am

Chunx wrote:

I can't find the "Man hacks video game to propose to girlfriend" article.

The game was Bejeweled.

Here's the story: http://www.geek.com/blogger-proposes-with-homebrew-ds-bejeweled/

Posted: Apr 17 2008 11:52 am

Quote:

I truly believe that the media tells us what we want to hear rather than the general assertion that they tell us what to think. They're gossipers, and like every gossiper you went to High School with, they get perks for kissing your ass and confirming everything that you're already thinking. If you want to look for the cause of all the bullshit in the media, look at the people who are buying into it rather than the ones selling it and you'll learn quickly that it's all about basic economics.

This is absolutely true. CSPAN covers congressional hearings and whatnot, and there is absolutely no bias there, just camera feeds. It's watched by no one, and admittedly pretty boring. Now, I realize that there is much more going on in the world than Bill Gates talking to the board of education for 3 hours, but my point is that the unbiased stuff is usually boring to us. Humans want something thats exciting. We either want affirmation of our opinions by somebody else, or want somebody that we can say "Fuck that guy, he's an idiot" to.

Posted: Apr 17 2008 12:11 pm

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Quote:

I truly believe that the media tells us what we want to hear rather than the general assertion that they tell us what to think. They're gossipers, and like every gossiper you went to High School with, they get perks for kissing your ass and confirming everything that you're already thinking. If you want to look for the cause of all the bullshit in the media, look at the people who are buying into it rather than the ones selling it and you'll learn quickly that it's all about basic economics.

This is absolutely true. CSPAN covers congressional hearings and whatnot, and there is absolutely no bias there, just camera feeds. It's watched by no one, and admittedly pretty boring. Now, I realize that there is much more going on in the world than Bill Gates talking to the board of education for 3 hours, but my point is that the unbiased stuff is usually boring to us. Humans want something thats exciting. We either want affirmation of our opinions by somebody else, or want somebody that we can say "Fuck that guy, he's an idiot" to.

or some small thing thats blown out of proportion just to scare us.

Posted: Apr 17 2008 11:35 pm

Damn...I was on some pretty hardcore drunk rants last night