Quality of media

[cianosheehan]

It'd be nice to get an international debate going here on the condition and quality of the worlds media. The thought came to me when thinking that the best poker programme I PERSONALLY have seen is Late Night Poker on Channel 4, an English station. Even though I havent seen heard or read a lot of American based media, my impression is that it is very shallow, very uninformative, and very biased. Certainly when compared to British and European media content which seems to be more liberal and objective.

Thoughts?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though I havent seen heard or read a lot of American based media, my impression is that it is very shallow, very uninformative, and very biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's going to be hard to convince you of anything either way, if the above is the case. This seems more appropriate for the politics forum, or OOT as well.

[cianosheehan]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems more appropriate for the politics forum, or OOT as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is probably true actually...

[Ianco15]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though I havent seen heard or read a lot of American based media, my impression is that it is very shallow, very uninformative, and very biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though you haven't seen or heard a lot of American based media, you feel qualified to make a very generalized, and somewhat ridiculous statement about it?


[ QUOTE ]
Certainly when compared to British and European media content which seems to be more liberal and objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're certain? Even though you admit your experience with American based media is very limited, you are sure that British and European media is more liberal and objective? I agree with you about one part of this statement; British media, in particular the BBC, is extremely liberal. That's not a good thing. If a station is "liberal" that means it adopts a liberal point of view and therefore cannot be "objective." You're statement is contradictory.

[cianosheehan]

Ianco, you are very quickly jumping to conclusions and taking words out of my mouth. My sentence clearly places me at a non-qualified position, but more an opinionated position. In fact, both sentences you have quoted are not taking any firm stand point, but only what I have gathered as a personal perspective. I have not claimed qualification in either statement.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
the BBC, is extremely liberal. That's not a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's bad about being liberal?

[Ianco15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the BBC, is extremely liberal. That's not a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's bad about being liberal?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it was bad for people to be liberal. The media should try to be objective.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
the best poker programme I PERSONALLY have seen is Late Night Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

This really screws up a lot of it - I've seen Late Night Poker and found it dry and not entertaining in the least...maybe it was just me though...

[cianosheehan]

[ QUOTE ]
dry and not entertaining in the least...maybe it was just me though...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats part of my point. It seems any other poker programme I have seen is too hyped up and takes away from the game. Even the ESPN coverage of the world series, the commentary trys to make gripping something that isnt VISUALLY gripping. Poker is not a visually entertaining game, thats why it seems their commentators try and fill in the gaps, whereas Late Night Poker does not try to dumb down the game, and the commentary is more in tune with the game IMO.

[blaze666]

i like american poker media myself over british, even though i am british. it's the same with everything. we have humble trisha, and the americans go way over the top with jerry springer.we have humble cricket, and the americans have baseball. the americans love going over the top, and you gotta love the americans commentators going crazy, and screamin. that's why i find british poker slightly more boring than american. the americans have a skill for hyping something up, and turning into something really exiting.