Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-17 07:04:38)
Forget what the mother is saying about who is to blame in the wider scenario, that is only her opinion. What is of note here is that the little girl said the town they were in was shelled by Georgian[b] troops, she said the Russian troops were the only ones who helped the Ossetians in their town, the mother said over a thousand people were killed by the opening [b]Georgian attack on the town.Clark W Griswald wrote:
Let me get this straight. The girls mother starts spouting off about who started it when experts can't even come to a conclusion yet and this proves what? And the russians bomb a restaurant that this poor girl was in somehow helps your argument also? It would also appear that the interviewer did not want to get into the blame game, he just wanted to tell the story of the girl. There is plenty of time in a 24 hour news cycle to discuss who started it. I think you are way off base Braddock.
Is it just me or do FOX News have an advertisement break like every 50 seconds? Well the International version we get here in Ireland and the UK does anyway.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Looks like they were up against a hard-break, you can thank commercials for that.
True, he was generous enough to give her a whole 30 seconds (complete with reminders every ten seconds!) to finish her comments.FEOS wrote:
So he brings her back from the break and gives her additional time to say more. Clearly he's keeping her from speaking her mind.
The little girl is American actually, are you saying she was lying about the Georgian bombs falling on the cafe she was in?FEOS wrote:
She's S. Ossetian FFS. Did you really expect her to NOT lambast Georgia?
It's called making money.Braddock wrote:
Is it just me or do FOX News have an advertisement break like every 50 seconds? Well the International version we get here in Ireland and the UK does anyway.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Looks like they were up against a hard-break, you can thank commercials for that.
Reporters do that all the time, to try to help the guests wrap up their comments.Braddock wrote:
True, he was generous enough to give her a whole 30 seconds (complete with reminders every ten seconds!) to finish her comments.FEOS wrote:
So he brings her back from the break and gives her additional time to say more. Clearly he's keeping her from speaking her mind.
I was talking about the old lady, since you were claiming Smith cut off the person telling him "what Fox didn't want to hear". The only one talking at the cutoff was the aunt.Braddock wrote:
The little girl is American actually, are you saying she was lying about the Georgian bombs falling on the cafe she was in?FEOS wrote:
She's S. Ossetian FFS. Did you really expect her to NOT lambast Georgia?
In this case its called censorship.FEOS wrote:
It's called making money.Braddock wrote:
Is it just me or do FOX News have an advertisement break like every 50 seconds? Well the International version we get here in Ireland and the UK does anyway.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Looks like they were up against a hard-break, you can thank commercials for that.
Networks make money via selling advertising time.
I am quite aware of the mechanics of the advertising industry thank you very much, I have worked very closely with it in the past.FEOS wrote:
It's called making money.Braddock wrote:
Is it just me or do FOX News have an advertisement break like every 50 seconds? Well the International version we get here in Ireland and the UK does anyway.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Looks like they were up against a hard-break, you can thank commercials for that.
Networks make money via selling advertising time.
The most-watched networks sell the most advertising time.
If the number of advertising breaks annoy you, it should tell you something about the number of people who watch that network.
Oh come on, as if that mother was that neutral and unbiased. Besides, yes Georgia started it, but that doesn't mean Russia can do what ever they want there. Saakashvilli should be impeached though.Braddock wrote:
Forget what the mother is saying about who is to blame in the wider scenario, that is only her opinion. What is of note here is that the little girl said the town they were in was shelled by Georgian troops, she said the Russian troops were the only ones who helped the Ossetians in their town, the mother said over a thousand people were killed by the opening Georgian attack on the town.
I'm just sick and tired of everyone going on about "poor, innocent Georgia" and how we should be doing something to help them (possibly risking WW3). They are every bit to blame in this conflict.
You are biased, sorry.BALTINS wrote:
Oh come on, as if that mother was that neutral and unbiased. Besides, yes Georgia started it, but that doesn't mean Russia can do what ever they want there. Saakashvilli should be impeached though.Braddock wrote:
Forget what the mother is saying about who is to blame in the wider scenario, that is only her opinion. What is of note here is that the little girl said the town they were in was shelled by Georgian troops, she said the Russian troops were the only ones who helped the Ossetians in their town, the mother said over a thousand people were killed by the opening Georgian attack on the town.
I'm just sick and tired of everyone going on about "poor, innocent Georgia" and how we should be doing something to help them (possibly risking WW3). They are every bit to blame in this conflict.
Explain..Sup wrote:
You are biased, sorry.BALTINS wrote:
Oh come on, as if that mother was that neutral and unbiased. Besides, yes Georgia started it, but that doesn't mean Russia can do what ever they want there. Saakashvilli should be impeached though.Braddock wrote:
Forget what the mother is saying about who is to blame in the wider scenario, that is only her opinion. What is of note here is that the little girl said the town they were in was shelled by Georgian troops, she said the Russian troops were the only ones who helped the Ossetians in their town, the mother said over a thousand people were killed by the opening Georgian attack on the town.
I'm just sick and tired of everyone going on about "poor, innocent Georgia" and how we should be doing something to help them (possibly risking WW3). They are every bit to blame in this conflict.
And how's that?.Sup wrote:
In this case its called censorship.FEOS wrote:
It's called making money.Braddock wrote:
Is it just me or do FOX News have an advertisement break like every 50 seconds? Well the International version we get here in Ireland and the UK does anyway.
Networks make money via selling advertising time.
QFTFEOS wrote:
She's S. Ossetian FFS. Did you really expect her to NOT lambast Georgia?
One can certainly argue that...but even news organizations that supposedly receive little to no advertising funding (PBS news in the US) clearly have agenda-drive biases. You simply can't get away from it.Braddock wrote:
I am quite aware of the mechanics of the advertising industry thank you very much, I have worked very closely with it in the past.FEOS wrote:
It's called making money.Braddock wrote:
Is it just me or do FOX News have an advertisement break like every 50 seconds? Well the International version we get here in Ireland and the UK does anyway.
Networks make money via selling advertising time.
The most-watched networks sell the most advertising time.
If the number of advertising breaks annoy you, it should tell you something about the number of people who watch that network.
One can also argue that the more a station or network is funded from advertising the less objective it is when it comes to reporting news i.e. it has more people that it can't afford to piss off or offend in its reporting.
A bit like counting down the seconds to put someone off their concentration when answering a question in a quiz for example.FEOS wrote:
Reporters do that all the time, to try to help the guests wrap up their comments.Braddock wrote:
True, he was generous enough to give her a whole 30 seconds (complete with reminders every ten seconds!) to finish her comments.FEOS wrote:
So he brings her back from the break and gives her additional time to say more. Clearly he's keeping her from speaking her mind.
It's fair enough to follow the point of view that it was just unfortunately time for an ad break right at that moment, I didn't see the program when it went out live so I don't know if it was a scheduled break or not...I understand US shows do sometimes break for an ad right before the end of a show so it's entirely possible. You never answered my question though - are you claiming these interviewees were making up the fact that the Georgian army were shelling Ossetian villages and killing inhabitants with their opening asault on the region?FEOS wrote:
I was talking about the old lady, since you were claiming Smith cut off the person telling him "what Fox didn't want to hear". The only one talking at the cutoff was the aunt.Braddock wrote:
The little girl is American actually, are you saying she was lying about the Georgian bombs falling on the cafe she was in?FEOS wrote:
She's S. Ossetian FFS. Did you really expect her to NOT lambast Georgia?
Sorry for being detail-oriented and paying attention. I'll try to curtail that next time.
Well wasn't Latvia repressed by Russia? By repressed I mean invaded.BALTINS wrote:
Explain..Sup wrote:
You are biased, sorry.BALTINS wrote:
Oh come on, as if that mother was that neutral and unbiased. Besides, yes Georgia started it, but that doesn't mean Russia can do what ever they want there. Saakashvilli should be impeached though.Braddock wrote:
Forget what the mother is saying about who is to blame in the wider scenario, that is only her opinion. What is of note here is that the little girl said the town they were in was shelled by Georgian troops, she said the Russian troops were the only ones who helped the Ossetians in their town, the mother said over a thousand people were killed by the opening Georgian attack on the town.
I'm just sick and tired of everyone going on about "poor, innocent Georgia" and how we should be doing something to help them (possibly risking WW3). They are every bit to blame in this conflict.
I believe if that woman and the girl were praising the Georgians that "commercial" would not had happened.FEOS wrote:
And how's that?.Sup wrote:
In this case its called censorship.FEOS wrote:
It's called making money.
Networks make money via selling advertising time.
Are you speculating that if they had been saying something else, that there wouldn't have been a hard stop time?
If so, you're (respectfully) full of shit.
That would be an example of something, but not an example of what I was talking about.Braddock wrote:
A bit like counting down the seconds to put someone off their concentration when answering a question in a quiz for example.FEOS wrote:
Reporters do that all the time, to try to help the guests wrap up their comments.Braddock wrote:
True, he was generous enough to give her a whole 30 seconds (complete with reminders every ten seconds!) to finish her comments.
No I'm not claiming that they're making anything up. Hence, no claims in my post of that. Not sure why you would ask it, if I didn't even imply it.Braddock wrote:
It's fair enough to follow the point of view that it was just unfortunately time for an ad break right at that moment, I didn't see the program when it went out live so I don't know if it was a scheduled break or not...I understand US shows do sometimes break for an ad right before the end of a show so it's entirely possible. You never answered my question though - are you claiming these interviewees were making up the fact that the Georgian army were shelling Ossetian villages and killing inhabitants with their opening asault on the region?FEOS wrote:
I was talking about the old lady, since you were claiming Smith cut off the person telling him "what Fox didn't want to hear". The only one talking at the cutoff was the aunt.Braddock wrote:
The little girl is American actually, are you saying she was lying about the Georgian bombs falling on the cafe she was in?
Sorry for being detail-oriented and paying attention. I'll try to curtail that next time.
It doesn't have to be as black and white as that, I'm not claiming there is some sort of strange company out there that simply hates Russia and advertises this fact on FOX. As an example imagine a large oil company advertises on a news station and the oil company has ties to a lobby group pushing for conflict in a region that will result in oil prices being driven up, this alone could provide reason enough for the station to favour news stories that lean towards and advocate conflict in this region (possibly painting one side out to be the bad guys on a continual basis).FEOS wrote:
I don't recall seeing any pro-Georgia or anti-Russia advertisements on Fox lately...
Yes it was and yes I am, Russia hasn't been very friendly for the past 70 years so what to wonder..Sup wrote:
Well wasn't Latvia repressed by Russia? By repressed I mean invaded.BALTINS wrote:
Explain..Sup wrote:
You are biased, sorry.
And you would be wrong..Sup wrote:
I believe if that woman and the girl were praising the Georgians that "commercial" would not had happened.
They didn't have to put her on the air in the first place. Not censorship. Besides, only goverments censor. Companies "prioritize content.".Sup wrote:
In this case its called censorship.FEOS wrote:
It's called making money.Braddock wrote:
Is it just me or do FOX News have an advertisement break like every 50 seconds? Well the International version we get here in Ireland and the UK does anyway.
Networks make money via selling advertising time.