Rage Against The Donald

Is there a significant difference in the P.O.Vs put forth by these two different news sites? Do you think Trump's argument that he's an environmentalist who wants to help the local economy might be plagiarized from this?

Yes, there is a significant difference in point of views from both articles.

The article from ABC News was classified as international news. The tone of the ABC article painted Donald Trump as some savior entrepreneur coming to modernize this discarded area of Scotland. It described Trump’s attitude as “bullish”, battling against the pesky pinko environmentalists and indigenous commoners obstructing freedo…er… capitalism. The article is quite disparaging of Michael Forbes’s property by describing it as “run-down”. This observation was unnecessary for what should have been an informational piece and exposes ABC bias towards Trump. The article describes Trump’s plan for the area in concise details, but neglects to mention the environmental and ecological consequences of commercially developing that area and the concerns of the opposition.

Simon Jenkins’s article is an opinionated piece where he placed the public good above commercial gain. Trump is like a gorging, arrogant, pseudo intellectual, rich prick coming to ravage a pristine Scottish landscape. He hinted at Trump having ulterior motives of using this golf course idea to further expand his real estate empire. Although Jenkins’s article favored Michael Forbes’s and the environmentalists’ positions on the issue, he is allowed to take that stance since the article was written for the opinions section of The Guardian. The article was not classified under News, Business or Money sections.

I truly was not able to find much of a connection between Trump’s claims he’s an environmentalist and the clip from Wall Street. Both articles revealed he did not read his own commissioned environmental reports and how can he claim a concern for the environment when he wants to destroy it to build some mini Euro Vegas? The one connection I do see between Trump and Gordon’s speech from the clip is that they’ll both spew as much bullshit as it takes to justify their greedy agendas.

Me Gusta!!

Find 3 online news sites you personally find objective, honest and worth reading. Create a link to each along with a few sentences or paragraph on why you find the site valuable.

The Huffington Post

While far from objective, I value the information and opinions offered at the Huffington Post. The news blog was created by Arianna Huffington, former Republican commentator turned liberal democrat. Although the site has an overwhelming liberal bias, the day to day news is presented informationaly since its just a direct copy or slight re work of the what was reported by the AP or Rueters. I would admit that in some instances the editors of the site have given bias titles to certain headlines, but it depends on the story. It is usually employed for a sort of shock and sensational effect.

Readers of the Huffington Post represent all sides of the political specturm. The site attracts a small, but vocal conversative republican audience (probably just paid GOP propagandist anyways). Sometimes, the commenters provide that additional context that is missing from the informational pieces that'll enable you to better understand what's being reported on.

Aside from the news and reader comments I value the opinion pieces from other journalists, authors, activists and enterntainners. From the Huffington Post's Op-eds, I was exposed to the role market speculation may have played in the rising the cost of fuel this summer and the Chinese government's use of surveilance technology from American companies for the Summer Games and beyond. Issues that the mainstream media outlets won't touch or slow to examine.

McClatchy DC

McClatchy is what all American news outlets should strive to be. It is the paragon of fine journalism and news. McClatchy presents pure, unaduterated news. No entertainment, sports, lifestyle or bullshit fad news. Just the information you need to better the understand the world you are in. I became aware of McClatchy after watching Bill Moyers's PBS program in which he prasied them for there pre Iraq war coverage. Since then, I read them everyday.

One story that blew me away was that on crime and military vets. It was quite ballsy for an American press outlet to report on an issue that cast the military in a negative light. CNN, CBS, ABC and all others would never do such a story out of fear of boycotts from chickenhawks and arm chair generals.

IGN

As an avid gamer, IGN satifies my gaming news needs. The site is parititioned by gaming platform and includes coverage of movies and technological gadgets. The site has a simple yet effienct image viewer and media player where users can easily view meida for the products showcased.

I truly value the video games reviews the site offers. Their analyses are spot on and have saved me from wasting money on shit games.

Can't Truss It

"What are the differences between mainstream American media outlets such as Fox News and CNN compared to other international outlets such as the BBC or Corriere Della Sera in content, layout, political bias, etc.?"

In terms of layout, the differences between American and International mainstream media outlets are superficial. The companies’ logos were displayed at the top left corner of their home pages. Beneath the logos are navigation menus and search fields to explore different sections of the site. The news is categorized by geography (national, international) and interest (entertainment, sports, business, technology and politics). The sites use multiple content boxes to present information and maintain uniformity. They also offer multimedia services with quick accessibility for the home page. One distinction I did find on the BBC’s site was that they offered links to display the news in thirty two different languages. I was not able to find such a feature on CNN’s or Fox’s page.

One instance where Fox’s political bias was quite evident was the headline title regarding Obama’s VP pick. Fox’s title read “Obama-Biden Ticket Attacks McCain” while the headline titles regarding Obama and Bidden on the BBC’s and CNN’s sites were general and less partisan.

To be honest, it was quite difficult for me to find striking differences between the domestic and international news outlets. All sites had similar layouts, headlines and content. Even Fox News which has a right wing bias, it was not too evident aside from the one example I mentioned in my previous paragraph.

I guess it depends on the story. Take the media coverage of the Iraq war. American mainstream news media outlets were less critical of government and officials because they did not want to jeopardize their access to those officials, appear as anti American and compromise advertisement revenue. The International press pushed harder because they had nothing to lose.

I tuned out the American mainstream media after 9/11. When I kept hearing, reading and seeing “they hate us because of our freedom”, I knew they were full of shit and nothing more than the government's propaganda tool. They were cheerleaders for the Iraq war and late in refuting the Bush Administration lies regarding Iraqi WMDs. The American mainstream media never provides context for the issues we face today and reinforces the naive idea that the world is black and white.

The Sparkle Of Your China

"Considering its history of human rights violations, pollution and restrictions on the press/media should China be hosting the 2008 Olympics? What moral high ground , if any, do other nations have to criticize the Chinese Government?"

Seven years ago, the International Olympic Committee’s decision that designated China as the host of the 2008 Summer Games was met with both shock and astonishment across globe. How was it possible for the IOC to select an authoritarian nation with well documented human rights abuses, both domestically and abroad, as host of an event that encourages equality, international cooperation and peace? I believe it was China’s rapid economic and industrial growth and the prospect of China superseding the United States as a super power that affected the committee’s decision. In spite of China’s flaws, the nation has made significant progress by dumping its Maoist, communist roots for laissez faire capitalism on steroids, the wet dream of all western Free Marketeers.

For the United States to sling mud in the face of China over human rights abuses is extremely hypocritical. Have those blind Americans forgotten the various coups and ghost wars the United States government and its corporate partners in crime or the corportacracy, waged for its own self serving purposes? Does violent conflicts and the subversion of democracy in sovereign nations where scores were murdered in the name of selfish, elitist and racist agendas under the guise of “liberty” and “freedom” not count as human rights violations? Have they forgotten how we fucked up Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil and Greece in our short history as a nation. Hell, poor Iraq can’t catch a break. They weren’t fucked, more like gang raped with Katana blades. Of course, the United States government comes up with some bullshit rationale for their criminality and greed. The whole tripe of we do it for freedom, liberty, truth, justice and the American way mantra. The shit’s getting old and transparent. We do it for money, global hegemony, power and fear. While I abhor the United States past and continued international crimes against the downtrodden and powerless, I am no fan of China’s authoritarian / steroid capitalism political-economic system. If I lived in China and made such statements against the government, the agents would kick down door before finishing this statement and whisk me away to a reeducation(torture) camp. I just see China as following in the footsteps of the West on the road to neoimperialism. For China to truly surpass the United States, it must release its strangle hold on personal liberties.

The United States must accept some culpability for China’s pollution crisis. China is simply exploiting our unwavering addiction to consuming cheap, poisonous shit. Without our need for a cheap China shit fixes, China’s pollution output would probably drop significantly.

Although the United States claims to have a free press, the behavior of the mainstream press and its relationship with the Bush Administration proves otherwise. While China’s press is state controlled, at least their press lets it be known that they are in fact state controlled. The so called American free, liberal media echoed the lies and propaganda of the Bush Administration for the current Iraq War. The American mainstream media is nothing more than a quasi Ministry of Truth who would rather entertain than inform.

The United Stats has no moral high ground to criticize the Chinese government on anything it seems. as it continue it's drive for global hegemony. The Chinese hope to beat the USA at its own game and adorn the crown as the next great superpower.

Rant over. Don't narc me out to DHS.