Oil Well Could Be Stopped But BP Refuses

[Neil D]

I do agree with you there. I'm not perfectly happy with any news channel, and like you say, the news media in general leaves much to be desired. Even many of the news people themselves, and especially some of those on FoxNews, talk about that deplorable condition.

So, you agree that FoxNews is inaccurate, recognises the inaccuracy, but does nothing to correct it.....

It's been my experience that if you can quanify the problem, you CAN correct it.....But if you fail to correct something that you recognise IS the problem, you are only compounding the problem...

If the news casting is inaccurate in it's reporting, then it doesn't matter how "fair and balanced" it is....it is still inaccurate news....

And FoxNews is still FauxNews...

[Woody]

I find that inflammatory.

[Dr. Shane]

So, you agree that FoxNews is inaccurate, recognises the inaccuracy, but does nothing to correct it.....

I think that it is impossible for any organization to report the news perfectly without any errors of bias. FoxNews attempts to do that as well as any other news organization. Insomuch as FOXNews fails to achieve perfection in what it does, other news organizations do not do any better.

I agree that all news organizations are inaccurate. All news organizations try to sensationalize the news. I have no way to determine how much effort various news organizations put into trying to correct inaccuracies. The best way to get the news is from various sources with various views on it.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D:

So, you agree that FoxNews is inaccurate, recognises the inaccuracy, but does nothing to correct it.....

I don't think the main problem is inaccuracy, Neal. I see the main problem as bias. Maybe you see those issues as one and the same. I don't. What I'm talking about is the fact that most of the news outlets don't seem to make any real attempt to report the news objectively.

It's admittedly harder to do that because of the nature of the news programs nowadays. News has become just another part of the entertainment industry. It's been changing in that way for a long time, so it's much different than it was before. I can recall as a kid when the TV news was only in b & w and showed a man sitting at a desk reading the news in almost a monotone, without any change in the camera angle. No one today, of course, would watch it if it were like that now, but I'm just making a comparison of the objective news reporting of the past with the entertainment news of today.

One big criticism even many of the reporters have is that almost all of the news media are more like "fans" of those they're supposed to be reporting on. They should be asking tough questions and reporting everything they discover that Americans have a right to know and should know. But they're not doing that. Instead, they often give politicians a "pass," unless they're conservative Republicans. That's the way I see it, and other reporters have made the same obvservation.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Neil D:

So, you agree that FoxNews is inaccurate, recognises the inaccuracy, but does nothing to correct it.....

I don't think the main problem is inaccuracy, Neal. I see the main problem as bias. Maybe you see those issues as one and the same. I don't. What I'm talking about is the fact that most of the news outlets don't seem to make any real attempt to report the news objectively.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D:

So, you agree that FoxNews is inaccurate, recognises the inaccuracy, but does nothing to correct it.....

John3:17: I don't think the main problem is inaccuracy, Neal. I see the main problem as bias. Maybe you see those issues as one and the same. I don't. What I'm talking about is the fact that most of the news outlets don't seem to make any real attempt to report the news objectively.

Quote:

Neil D: I am about to kill two birds with one stone here....

So, you don't think it's accuracy, but rather bias, eh? You don't see the fact that my name is nEIl and not nEAL...Why is it that you continually misspell my name? Is it because you are inaccurate in your reply or that you have a bias in that your brother is named Neal? You may have a bias toward your brother's spelling, but you are still inaccurate in your replying. And if you are doing the misspelling deliberately, you are misleading the public in the correct spelling.

You just failed to kill any bird with your stone. Both birds are not only alive, but they've hatched several chicks. You're going to need a handful of rocks at this rate.

You claim that I "continually misspell" your name. Is that your idea of accuracy?

Show one other place where I misspelled your name.

Give the post# and the name of the thread.

When you show the post, then I will consider that you've killed a bird. If you can't show one, guess who the dead bird is.

[John317]

D: And if you are doing the misspelling deliberately, you are misleading the public in the correct spelling.

The same is true of FauxNew. If they are inaccurate in thier reporting, it is because they can not get the facts straight. If they can not get thier facts straight, then they mislead the public. If they are misleading the public, they are out to shape your thinking. If they are out to shape your thinking, they are out to manipulate you....

Speaking of deliberately being inaccurate and manipulating-- did you deliberately tell an untruth when you said that I "continually misspell your name"? Or was it an unintentional error?

I don't think FoxNews is any more inaccurate than any other news station, but if you believe it is, post the proof of it.

What specific "facts" are you referring to in relation to FoxNews?

[Bravus]

We seem to have drifted far afield of the oil spill issue.

I was reasonably optimistic - at least as much as the BP guys who said 60-70% - that the 'top kill' approach to plugging the leak might work: but it appears to have failed.

As far as I know at this point, that was the last trick in the bag, and we may be doomed to have the well keep flowing at something like its current rate until either it starts to run low, or (in 6-7 months) relief wells can be drilled into the same oil basin to reduce the pressure. This is huge. There's an excellent chance that oil is coming, not just to Louisiana and Florida, but to most of the eastern seaboard, due to ocean currents and the sheer amount. To use a crude but apposite phrase, this is going to make the Exxon Valdez disaster look like a fart in a bath.

(and no, that's not glee you're hearing in my voice, it's resignation and despair)

[John317]

Quote:

John317: It's admittedly harder to do that because of the nature of the news programs nowadays. News has become just another part of the entertainment industry. It's been changing in that way for a long time, so it's much different than it was before. I can recall as a kid when the TV news was only in b & w and showed a man sitting at a desk reading the news in almost a monotone, without any change in the camera angle. No one today, of course, would watch it if it were like that now, but I'm just making a comparison of the objective news reporting of the past with the entertainment news of today.

Quote:

Neil D: Oooh, so commentators were not giving thier opinions, but reading some mondane monologue of words....I have only one retort to this...This is BS...

What in the world is "mondane monologue of words," Neil D?

Have you seen the old news broadcasts between 1938 and 1951?

Quote:

Neil D: You don't remember the reporting of the fire of the Hindenburg, do you? You don't remember the what was said? It's in the newspaper archives...go on, listen to it...and given accurately without bias...

I've seen the film that was recorded of the incident and also heard the radio broadcast.

But I'm talking about TV news, and the Hindenburg catastrophe was not seen by TV viewers but on newsreel and heard over live radio.

In any case, though, I didn't say the news has never been given accurately and without bias.

I'm saying there has indeed been news reported accurately and without bias. However, the news programs have become part of the entertainment industry and no longer broadcast just straight news.

Quote:

Neil D: Huntley and Brinkley and Cronkite all concentrated on accuracy in thier reporting because if they were wrong, they were only spreading gossip at worst, and opinion at best.

Yes, I remember all three of them very well. I especially liked Huntley, although Brinkley was good, too. I used to enjoy watching all of them at the conventions.

Quote:

Neil D: They wanted to be as accurate in thier reporting and reporting accurately is possible...even without bias.

They did a pretty good job of it, better than any of the news broadcasters today, I think. However, you could tell from watching Cronkite's news reports that he favored Johnson in 1964 and opposed Goldwater. Then later it became obvious that Cronkite opposed the Vietnam war, so that was about the time when the news broadcasters began to take sides in elections and on issues in the news. George Putnam was another who was very obviously on various sides of things he was reported. Putnam showed that he favored the Vietnam war and that he didn't like hippies and war protesters, etc. I was a war protester, but I still enjoyed watching Putnam sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Putnam_(newsman)

Hal Fishman did better giving straight news and without bias. I remember his first broadcast when he was introduced by George Putnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Fishman

Huntley and Brinkley were the best team, and Huntely was my favorite of all time because he appeared to be all professional about the news.

Quote:

Neil D: To shape the news is to shape the public conscious...and when I mention "public conscious", I am talking about YOURS....

Do you mean "the public conscious" or "the public conscience" or the "public consciousness"?

If you can't spell it, Neil, chances are pretty good you can't understand it.

Do you think the news programs didn't try hard to shape the news during the last election?

I remember well all of the elections going back to 1960, and I never saw the news media so obviously back a candidate as they did Obama in 2008. It looked like the news reporters forgot what their job is.

Quote:

JOHN 3:17: One big criticism even many of the reporters have is that almost all of the news media are more like "fans" of those they're supposed to be reporting on. They should be asking tough questions and reporting everything they discover that Americans have a right to know and should know. But they're not doing that. Instead, they often give politicians a "pass," unless they're conservative Republicans. That's the way I see it, and other reporters have made the same obvservation.

Quote:

Neil D: Nah, "those people" are pandering to the public fears of the failure of the reporter to accurately tell the news as it happens. The criticism is that reporters have it too easy and have gotten lax in thier reporting.

Yes, they certainly have gotten lax in their reporting all right. It's a well known fact that most of the reporters of TV news consider themselves liberal Democrats.

Quote:

Neil D: The journalist was not asking the tough questions in that the reporters sensed a move to the conservative way of thinking and were afraid of losing thier jobs if they went after the public's favorite politician.

Are you talking about the election of 2008? There was no move to the conservative way of thinking in 2008.

What journalists were afraid of losing their jobs? Where do you get this information? Any references for this?

Did journalists ever question, or investigate, Obama as they should any candidate before he steps into the highest office? I saw very few do this.

[John317]

Quote:

Bravus:I was reasonably optimistic - at least as much as the BP guys who said 60-70% - that the 'top kill' approach to plugging the leak might work: but it appears to have failed.

As far as I know at this point, that was the last trick in the bag, and we may be doomed to have the well keep flowing at something like its current rate until either it starts to run low, or (in 6-7 months) relief wells can be drilled into the same oil basin to reduce the pressure. This is huge.

Oh no-- this is really tragic. I didn't know it had failed. I'm so sorry to hear about it. I was hoping it would work. I don't think at this point anyone can imagine how bad it will get before it's finally stopped.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Neil D: I am about to kill two birds with one stone here....

So, you don't think it's accuracy, but rather bias, eh? You don't see the fact that my name is nEIl and not nEAL...Why is it that you continually misspell my name? Is it because you are inaccurate in your reply or that you have a bias in that your brother is named Neal? You may have a bias toward your brother's spelling, but you are still inaccurate in your replying. And if you are doing the misspelling deliberately, you are misleading the public in the correct spelling.

You just failed to kill any bird with your stone. Both birds are not only alive, but they've hatched several chicks. You're going to need a handful of rocks at this rate.

You claim that I "continually misspell" your name. Is that your idea of accuracy?

Show one other place where I misspelled your name.

Give the post# and the name of the thread.

When you show the post, then I will consider that you've killed a bird. If you can't show one, guess who the dead bird is.

I agree...I mispoke on the "continually misspell"...but I did note that there was a time that that you were having problems with even pasting my name. Concider carefully-

Doug Batchelor preaches against women-post #351202 - Fri Apr 09 2010 09:53 PM

Among many quotes of mine, you obviously were playing around with my name from a pasting, and misspelled it...

In the same thread, you quoted me, and played around with my name and did not capitalize the first letter of my last name.

#351470 - Sat Apr 10 2010 10:52 AM

Same thread- In the midst of all the quoting of me, this shows that you have again play with my name by capitalizing all of it, rather than let the software just paste my name...

#351760 - Sun Apr 11 2010 02:35 PM

Ok, I have shown several places where my name, that should have been just pasted, was deliberately manipulated from you....

You asked for "Just one"....I gave you three.

If you are like FauxNews, then you are diliberately manipulating the news, like you are deliberately manipulating my name....Trouble is, John, I know who I am....I know the truth regarding my name...apparently, FauxNews doesn't know the truth....and can't get it right...

I am done with this...but before I go, I again notice that the amount of posts that come from you when you have made a inadvertant mistake in the discussion and could easily reply with one....It is a pattern with you...isn't it....

Ok, folks, back to the topic of the oil spill...

[phkrause]

We seem to have drifted far afield of the oil spill issue.

I was reasonably optimistic - at least as much as the BP guys who said 60-70% - that the 'top kill' approach to plugging the leak might work: but it appears to have failed.

As far as I know at this point, that was the last trick in the bag, and we may be doomed to have the well keep flowing at something like its current rate until either it starts to run low, or (in 6-7 months) relief wells can be drilled into the same oil basin to reduce the pressure. This is huge. There's an excellent chance that oil is coming, not just to Louisiana and Florida, but to most of the eastern seaboard, due to ocean currents and the sheer amount. To use a crude but apposite phrase, this is going to make the Exxon Valdez disaster look like a fart in a bath.

(and no, that's not glee you're hearing in my voice, it's resignation and despair)

I heard from someone today that other places that have had this problem have used big oil tankers to circle the spill and pump the oil into the tankers. Gulf Oil I understand had asked BP if they could help but BP said they had it under control.

pk