Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

I've not been well and have missed a few weeks, so, yes, numbers have dropped. It's my primary ticket! There have been no cut-backs in Traffic staff in GMP in that time, other than natural wastage through retirements and officers moving on to other roles.

It's a nationwide campaign Bigape.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

My unpopular view is that you should treat everyone who drives through a junction at 45 in a thirty while using their mobile phone exactly the same.I think Blue Pete alluded to this in that it is the act of behaving like that which is the crime and not the fact that a cyclist chose that moment to jump a red light.The consequences of these crimes are fairly random,and the cyclist might just as easily have been killed by a car going 30 and not on the phone.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

Glad i got a couple of people who like George Galloway and what he satnds for. :D

I kinda see where you're comming from here mate but we really musn't knock the guy for being "passionate" when all other politicians are so cold and calcualted in front of the cameras (repeating from pre prepared speaches and soundbites that their personal media advisor went thru with them all day before they went on air). At least Galloway says what he means and gets emotional about a subject he feels strongly about.
I wish we had more real politicians like him in the mainstream parties.

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

OMG awesome.
I'd love to see Galloway vs Paxman

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

forget Paxman...have you not seen him take on the American Senate????
They accused him of making a profit from the Iragi Food For Oil program..... and he tore them a new one, lol.
He's the man.

EVERYONE should see this regardless of your political views
http://www.georgegalloway.com/page.p...how.html&vid=9

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

Oh no, of course not, I'm not surprised in the least. This story just jumped out at me as particularly one-sided and I thought I'd offer that as a starting point for people's opinions.

What do you think it will take for us to have a balanced, unbiased news service? Will this ever happen? Is the 'dumbing' down of news, by this I refer to the dramatic reenactments, the overly sincere reporters, the spinning from one camera to another, the reporters walking towards the camera cos it's the in thing to do...is all this going to get worse?

Fair enough, and I think I'd agree with you on the balance of punishment, but do you feel enough comment was made on the cyclist's actions, perhaps to reinforce the point that both drivers AND cyclists should obey the law? Personally that seemed very glossed over and I feel an important point that could've been made was avoided for the sake of demonising a group already under fire.

The one point I was going to make in the OP, though I'm sure it may raise some hackles, was the case of the young female cyclist killed by a cement mixer in London, can't remember when. But a follow-up story was on recently, with her mother at the scene of the accident. Now the driver was punished for not checking his mirrors, which were also shown to be inadequate on those vehicles so they've introduced new ones. But amid all the heart-rending coverage of a 'tragic waste of young life' I couldn't help but wonder why the hell a cyclist would thing it a clever idea to go up the inside of a huge lorry close to a left turn. Do they not make that point because I am, in fact, in the wrong, or simply because it wouldn't be popular?

Interesting to note, in general, that other people reacted similarly to me though, thought I'd be flamed!

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

Personaly i dont think we will ever have anything better on mainstream TV & radio than we do at the moment. Its just another form of social control to deny us the FULL story from both side.
It doesnt suit the warmongers of this world for us to kow the full story...just what they want us to know in order to support their wars and invasions of other countries and turn a blind eye to real attrocities going on every day.

Dont forget the yanks DELIBERATELY targeted the Al Jazeera network right at the begining of the Iraq invasion. A war crime in itself to attack journalists but they said it was a neccesary thing to do. Never did they claim it to be a ligitamate military target...just that it was something they needed to do. (mainly so that their "embedded reporters" stories could be edited and sanitized by them before distribution to news networks)

But thank god for the internet! there are a number of good impartial media sites out there. Most of them have constant campaigns of misinformation varried out against them in an attempt to discredit their reports but they are still real news without the filters.

try these 2 short clips.. they show real news being torn apart with propaganda instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=user

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4es-JcAVPjkr

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

The first one, they seem annoyed that there is nothing being done "no recomendation was given to address the main motive for the 9/11 attacks" There never will be, there are far more Jews in the USA than there are Palestinians, where else is the bias going to go?

Re: Impartial media coverage?
 

You're right of course. The pro-israel lobby in the US, groups such as AIPAC etc are very powerfull and rich. Also a lot of the mainstream media outlets are owned by pro-israeli people, Rupert Murdoch has been publicaly quoted as being such and has made the comment of "Israel 1st, right or wrong" so you can pretty much see how any news channel directly controlled by 1 person is bound to be biased in some way or other.

If i owned a news channel i admit that it would also be biased...pro bike of course!!!! lol.
Its human nature to be biased but i think as a news organisation they should strive to not be...but i can also see why they are