Absolutely Mike -- you can't escape from looking at the world from a particular point of view.  One way of getting round that is to get political (and other) information by using a variety of news sources, even some that challenge your own prejudices.  As to the BBC, it does a fantastic job, although I am sure there will be times when it falls short.  It is interesting if it has a pronounced slant for US coverage -- I have seen/heard a little of its election coverage.  Would you recommend an online source to ‘balance' that out?

I am not sure how to respond to a statement like "The BBC news has zero credibility", because that just begs a question -- with whom?  It can't be with ‘everyone', as there are hundreds of millions around the world who depend upon it for accurate and professional reporting.  If the answer is that it lacks credibility with some amateur bloggers -- well, that is not really a surprise, there are bloggers with all sorts of views.  Personally, I listen to the BBC and Channel 4 news, skim/read the FT, the Guardian and (sometimes) the Telegraph, and read a range of online sources.  I also get a daily clipping service for my work.

red_bus wrote:Absolutely Mike -- you can't escape from looking at the world from a particular point of view.  One way of getting round that is to get political (and other) information by using a variety of news sources, even some that challenge your own prejudices.  As to the BBC, it does a fantastic job, although I am sure there will be times when it falls short.  It is interesting if it has a pronounced slant for US coverage -- I have seen/heard a little of its election coverage.  Would you recommend an online source to ‘balance' that out?

The slant isn't hopeless...for example what I've seen of the election coverage it's pretty middle of the road, unlike a lot of the US coverage.  Not that I have a lot of sympathy for the Clintons, I lean conservative, but man the US media hammered her like a rusty nail during her run against Obama.  I actually saw a national news broadcast where the anchor, a well respected figure, was gleefully extolling a Obama primary victory like he had won money on the deal!  In contrast I thought the BBC coverage (which I catch on PBS) was pretty even-handed during the entire Democratic race, but then again they really didn't have a horse in that race.  It will be interesting how they handle the upcoming Obama/McCain run for the presidency.  Where I have to roll my eyes is, of course, war coverage, or any coverage of a violent event in the US involving guns, or any sort of religious coverage (those barbaric Americans...a lot of them still go to church!!!). But then again maybe it's just my own prejudices.

For what I consider pretty good coverage, like you say, I try to mix and match my sources. Typically if someone is intelligent you can filter out the extreme broadcasting on both sides and come up with a happy medium. I have feeds to Reuters and AP that I check all during the day. Hell I've even been known to hop over to Daily Kos sometimes just to get the far, far left wing side of an issue (although I probably find their viewpoint useful maybe 10% of the time, it does give a different perspective). Public Broadcasting, both on the radio and on tv, can be quite informative in it's own way; likewise I can watch FOX, CNN, and the national news (ABC, NBC, CBS) with no problem as long as the bullshit filter is on and operating!

For print,  I really love the Wall Street Journal.  If you go in knowing they are now owned by Rupurt Murdoch, lean slightly right, and have incredible blind spots on a couple of issues (they are not for ANY sort of immigration control because that would deprive large corporations of cheap slave labor, they are against any sort of restrictions on most free enterprise even if it would benefit the average consumer, etc), then they are a fantastic resource. The New York Times is great if you stay completely away from the editorial page (which IMO usually reflects the beliefs of approximately 25% of the people living on the East Coast and 1% of the people elsewhere in the US!!!).  The large national news magazines like Time and Newsweek are really close to worthless; they are bought and paid for and reflect that in their reporting.  If you ever spot a USA Today immediately ignore anything of consequence, they are worthless (basically they are the fast food McDonalds of print media). The local paper, the Dallas Morning News, used to be a fantastic resource as they would manage to come up with some incredible investigative features smoking out the corrupt creatures that inhabit the upper echelons of Dallas; nowadays, they are a pale imitation of their glory days as they attempt to "USA Today" their reporting into short, concise, silly little blurbs.  I just cancelled my suscription after about 20 years since they raised their price and it's only been taking me five minutes to read the entire thing lately, front to back!

Mike B.

jasonw1239 wrote:One last thing on yesterdays topic. There was a comment from Mark about not listening to the biased news media.The implication of that is that I am a gullible foreigner that buys into everything he watches on TV.

In fact I am a bit of a political junkie and information that I use comes from a variety of sources such as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States more commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission Report. (Whatever could be in the 28 redacted pages about Saudi Arabia and why were they blocked from the public?).

Just saying, don't generalize about where people get their information.

Actually, no implication at all, Jason.  

Just a flat statement:  Don't draw too many impressions about America from what our jounalists say because they are not neutral, they are not our smartest people and their connection to the heart of America is often tenuous at best.

Remember what a great job they did reporting about D&D in the 80's.  

Just wondering if anybody here has tried out Canada Post's flat-rate boxes.



(  
** expired/removed eBay auction **
)



Looking at them, I'm thinking that they might be a touch too small for books, which is why I'm curious if anyone has tried them yet.

jasonw1239 wrote:What my main concern is the measurements. Are they the internal or external?

That's my main concern as well.  If it's internal then it would be a tight fit, but it might work.  External then it's "forget about it".

I may pick a pack up just because they're really not that expensive so as to take a look...

GreyM wrote:Off topic....but thats why this thread is here

http://www.noisebot.com/i_battle_the_ro ... -shirt.htm


A new shirt for someone we all know?

Yeh I'm going to buy one!!! Nice find man!!!!  

Mike B.

Blackmoor wrote:Just ordered some, may have to re-open my ebay store if they are OK!

As did I.  It's a pity they don't do outside Canada & the US though.

Let me know how long yours take to arrive, as I'm curious as to where they're shipping them from.

Kingofpain89 wrote:Robot Girlfriend:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25209226//w ... ?GT1=40006

(Off-color humor)

Remember the old joke about the perfect girlfriend?  Waist-high, flat head upon which to rest a beer, able to suck a golf ball through 20 feet of garden hose?  If she's a robot, then she can keep the beer cold!

On the downside, you could find yourself in a situation like Don Johnson in A Boy and His Dog.  

Kingofpain89 wrote:Robot Girlfriend:........15 inches tall???  What the heck were they thinking?  I have never dated a woman shorter than 4'9" and I'm not about to start now.....

They ARE Japanese.
You ARE about 6'4" Tall.
They aint...........