![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusI turned on the TV for about five minutes tonight. Watched Channel 4 news talking about the protests. They mentioned that "over 400" people were at pro-war rallies in the Bay Area. Then they mentioned that "almost a thousand" people had turned up to protest the war in San Francisco, trying to give equal time to both. Now, officially, 1300 people have been arrested in San Francisco, and I still saw huge crowds. So, I'm not sure where Channel 4 gets their "almost 1000" number.
Their slant while they talk about the protestors is incredibly obvious. They interview two people who say they've heard that the protestors have broken windows of stores, but don't show any broken windows, or any violence on the part of the protestors. If the protestors had actually been breaking windows, the news should have either reported it directly, or actually shown it happening. I know that there were TV cameras and video cameras all over at that protest. Instead, all we get is insinuation via hearsay.
Wired had an article about how readership at UK and Australia web sites have increased dramatically, and theorized that it may be due to the US media's obvious pro-government bias, in reporting the news the way the whitehouse wants it reported, and lack of critically looking at the information. After what I saw tonight, I can see why. (Amusing bit of that story, though: unique hits to bbc.co.uk and guardian.co.uk are both up dramatically. While speculating that this may just be due to more people interested in news recently, they pointed out that msnbc.com has gone up a very slight among, and cnn.com has gone down. No word on page hits on fox news, the official mouthpiece of the religiocorporate faction of the republican party.
Their slant while they talk about the protestors is incredibly obvious. They interview two people who say they've heard that the protestors have broken windows of stores, but don't show any broken windows, or any violence on the part of the protestors. If the protestors had actually been breaking windows, the news should have either reported it directly, or actually shown it happening. I know that there were TV cameras and video cameras all over at that protest. Instead, all we get is insinuation via hearsay.
Wired had an article about how readership at UK and Australia web sites have increased dramatically, and theorized that it may be due to the US media's obvious pro-government bias, in reporting the news the way the whitehouse wants it reported, and lack of critically looking at the information. After what I saw tonight, I can see why. (Amusing bit of that story, though: unique hits to bbc.co.uk and guardian.co.uk are both up dramatically. While speculating that this may just be due to more people interested in news recently, they pointed out that msnbc.com has gone up a very slight among, and cnn.com has gone down. No word on page hits on fox news, the official mouthpiece of the religiocorporate faction of the republican party.
