SCREEN-L Archives

March 1993


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
"Michael K. Kuentz" <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 1 Mar 1993 11:37:09 EST
Message of Mon, 1 Mar 1993 10:50:48 +0100 from <[log in to unmask]>
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (22 lines)
So, let me get this straight now.
  No matter how we judge ourselves, our news, our styles, or our abilities,
we will none-the-less always be in the persuasion mode?
  Then this is almost a rhetorical - paradoxical situation.
  No matter how much we try to avoid the objective persuasion factor, we come
full circle and there we are.
  As for the BBC, it's news reporting services are seen as the best and most
objective in the world. The most slanted, according to some magazines which
I have read, is out own United States Information Agency's Voice Of America.
The next most subjective is the former Radio Moscow.
  Now, even though the BBC has a great almost non-subjective non-persuasive
style down, they too have problems. Whenever a bomb goes off in the UK,
99 percent of the time it will be labeled as one from the IRA. With or
without evidential proof, I've heard the BBC say it has to be an IRA
  So where does this debate lead us?  If we want to show the public something
such as a news story or a documentary, it will always be slanted and we will
only show that which we want to in order to illustrate the situation, thus
we are persuading the audience into seeing only what we want them to.
  So, no matter how you slice it, it always comes up subjective. Ofcourse,
we are always trying to get away from that... aren't we?