Hi all,
I try to follow world news. One of the sources is CNN. You'd think what they air is factual, at least for the simple details, not the opinions which are subjective by definition. Just a few minutes they mentioned on CNN that America delivers 1/3rd of the worlds GDP. I though it was impossible. Checked the CIA factbook like all reporters and experts can do and found these numbers:
World $ 51,410,000,000,000 2003 est.
United States $ 10,980,000,000,000 2003 est.
That's very close to 1/5th.
I they can't get the flippin' details right, what can you believe???
How do you guys make sure the news you receive is even moderately correct?
I try to follow world news. One of the sources is CNN. You'd think what they air is factual, at least for the simple details, not the opinions which are subjective by definition. Just a few minutes they mentioned on CNN that America delivers 1/3rd of the worlds GDP. I though it was impossible. Checked the CIA factbook like all reporters and experts can do and found these numbers:
World $ 51,410,000,000,000 2003 est.
United States $ 10,980,000,000,000 2003 est.
That's very close to 1/5th.
I they can't get the flippin' details right, what can you believe???
How do you guys make sure the news you receive is even moderately correct?
According to the World Bank:
http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GDP.pdf
the estimated GDP for 2003 (in US$) was:
World $36,356,240,000,000
US $10,881,609,000,000
That's very close to one third.
I think the numbers you're looking at to get 1/5th are the "PPP GDPs", which use a different method for converting national wealth to US dollars:
http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GDP_PPP.pdf
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Purchasing_power_parity
Since I don't know what point CNN was trying to make, I don't know which figure is more appropriate. But my guess is that it wouldn't matter much, one way or the other.
As for finding reliable news sources, just read as many different sources as you can, filter what you read through your common sense, and check primary sources whenever possible, and especially when you see dubious details presented as facts. Which sounds like pretty much what you're doing.
http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GDP.pdf
the estimated GDP for 2003 (in US$) was:
World $36,356,240,000,000
US $10,881,609,000,000
That's very close to one third.
I think the numbers you're looking at to get 1/5th are the "PPP GDPs", which use a different method for converting national wealth to US dollars:
http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GDP_PPP.pdf
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Purchasing_power_parity
Since I don't know what point CNN was trying to make, I don't know which figure is more appropriate. But my guess is that it wouldn't matter much, one way or the other.
As for finding reliable news sources, just read as many different sources as you can, filter what you read through your common sense, and check primary sources whenever possible, and especially when you see dubious details presented as facts. Which sounds like pretty much what you're doing.
That figures.....Rob M said:
It wasn't of any importance at all, I was just surprised by the numbers. This is a fine example of a piece of information that seems to be a fact beyond doubt. It shows that even figures are open to debat if the origin isn't explained.
I try as much as possible. I was wondering how many do the same, or at least are conscious of the volatile nature of facts.
Hans L said:
I for one have not ever turned to CNN for factual reporting. Visual coverage of certain events is terrific...with the sound off. The level of American chauvinism tends to cloud the issues in my eyes, and the bias is dreadful.
Living close to the American border, we get a lot of channels from the States. The difference in the way the USA and say, the Canadian Broacasting Corporation deliver the news is remarkable.
The Americans tend to have high profile, pretty looking people delivering the news with big white smiles and an air of excitement. ie: the bubble-headed bleach blonde, who tells you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye. (excuse the Don Henley paraphrasing)
The Canadians are somewhat paled by our southern counterparts. We have a bald, uninteresting sounding guy heading up our national news. He gives you the news and little more. There's no sideshow act.
The same story covered by CNN and the CBC can be quite different. As far as accuracy goes, I think I'll stick with the bald, uninteresting guy, he seems so much more trustworthy than does the Barnum and Bailey, I mean CNN service.
My thoughts on the news
Cal
Re: Re: Reliable news sources
Well, it's about to get worse. Due to the ratings success of Fox News, CNN and others are hatching plans to come up with more "personality driven" methods of delivering the news. In other words, even more glitz.
I must be an exception down here, because I have never understood this loyalty toward individual newspeople that people have. They discuss how much they like or they trust one newsperson or another, without realizing the obvious fact that the person they are talking about is just someone in the studio who reads reports others have written. They don't get those reports, or have any greater understanding of those reports, than the viewer. The "anchor" person is just one small part of an entire organization. Yet people develop relatoinships with them, both on the local and the national level.
Cal Weldon said:
Well, it's about to get worse. Due to the ratings success of Fox News, CNN and others are hatching plans to come up with more "personality driven" methods of delivering the news. In other words, even more glitz.
I must be an exception down here, because I have never understood this loyalty toward individual newspeople that people have. They discuss how much they like or they trust one newsperson or another, without realizing the obvious fact that the person they are talking about is just someone in the studio who reads reports others have written. They don't get those reports, or have any greater understanding of those reports, than the viewer. The "anchor" person is just one small part of an entire organization. Yet people develop relatoinships with them, both on the local and the national level.
One example of the effect of news personalities goes all the way back to the seventies. At one time, Barbara Walters was all over the front pages and newspaper columns because she had switched networks for some record amount of money. During this period, she had an interview with Anwar Sadat, the head of Egypt. Midway through this interview, Sadat congratulated Walters for her much publicized new network job. True, it was only a sentence or two, but still. It's not like he started off with a perfunctory congratulations before getting into the heart of the interview. He dropped it in the middle, when the big issues were being discussed.
Here's a world leader in a tinderbox area, and he's taking time to congratulate American newspeople for their network career moves. Astonishing.
By the way, I really have a whole problem with the concept of getting news from the TV instead of a print medium. TV news is like a cassette tape-you have to sit and watch the entire program unfold before you, with little chance to pick and choose individual stories for further examination. A good newspaper like the New York Times is like a CD-you can easily skip stories of no interest to you, and focus just on the ones you want.
Here's a world leader in a tinderbox area, and he's taking time to congratulate American newspeople for their network career moves. Astonishing.
By the way, I really have a whole problem with the concept of getting news from the TV instead of a print medium. TV news is like a cassette tape-you have to sit and watch the entire program unfold before you, with little chance to pick and choose individual stories for further examination. A good newspaper like the New York Times is like a CD-you can easily skip stories of no interest to you, and focus just on the ones you want.
Baba Wawa
When it comes to understanding the issues that she interviews people about, she's as dumb as a box of rocks.
Remember when she was a big promoter of Uri Geller? She would talk about how he completely changed her life. She was QUITE silent about those life-changes after his exposure as a fraud.
When it comes to understanding the issues that she interviews people about, she's as dumb as a box of rocks.
Remember when she was a big promoter of Uri Geller? She would talk about how he completely changed her life. She was QUITE silent about those life-changes after his exposure as a fraud.
Re: Baba Wawa
I agree, but as with most/all news media (Paper, TV, and Radio), the outright bias of just about all of them, has made it hard to take any of them seriously.
Having worked in the Industry, I can tell you that the anchors ("Talent") are, to a man/woman, some of the dumbest, most shallow people I've ever met. I am so glad to be out of that field!
Tall Shadow
kelticwizard said:
I agree, but as with most/all news media (Paper, TV, and Radio), the outright bias of just about all of them, has made it hard to take any of them seriously.
SY said:
Having worked in the Industry, I can tell you that the anchors ("Talent") are, to a man/woman, some of the dumbest, most shallow people I've ever met. I am so glad to be out of that field!
Tall Shadow
Re: Re: Reliable news sources
Saw a broadcast of local news from the New York/New Jersey area, channel 9 or 11, I forget which .
There were three people. In the center was a gray-haired sixtyish, distinguished fellow.
On either side were two very attractive women in their twenties. The one on the right was good looking, but looked like she might be fairly intellectual in her approach. The one on the left was the Party Girl. She read the news straight enough, but they advertised her upcoming segment-some lighthearted trifle. When the segment came up several minutes later, she ran over to the set where it was set up, and of course smiled and laughed her way through it.
She was very good at getting you to like her, I must admit.
But this is news?
It was obvious this was meant to be an entertainment show with just enough reporting to qualify as a news show.
And the New York/New Jersey area is supposed to be a sophisticated market. Egad.
Cal Weldon said:
Saw a broadcast of local news from the New York/New Jersey area, channel 9 or 11, I forget which .
There were three people. In the center was a gray-haired sixtyish, distinguished fellow.
On either side were two very attractive women in their twenties. The one on the right was good looking, but looked like she might be fairly intellectual in her approach. The one on the left was the Party Girl. She read the news straight enough, but they advertised her upcoming segment-some lighthearted trifle. When the segment came up several minutes later, she ran over to the set where it was set up, and of course smiled and laughed her way through it.
She was very good at getting you to like her, I must admit.
But this is news?
It was obvious this was meant to be an entertainment show with just enough reporting to qualify as a news show.
And the New York/New Jersey area is supposed to be a sophisticated market. Egad.
Re: Re: Re: Reliable news sources
Channel 9 and 11 are not the big networks, so they need to do something different to attract viewers. The "serious" news is on channel 2, 4, and 7.
Even in the Netherlands, where the real news shows seem to go out of their way to find dour, ugly presenters, there are other channels which focus mainly on cleavage and car chases.
kelticwizard said:
Channel 9 and 11 are not the big networks, so they need to do something different to attract viewers. The "serious" news is on channel 2, 4, and 7.
Even in the Netherlands, where the real news shows seem to go out of their way to find dour, ugly presenters, there are other channels which focus mainly on cleavage and car chases.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.