if your girlfriend/wife contacts her ex-boyfriends, and inverse

[Godobeyer]

No, I'm correcting your understanding of these English words.

Not all what in media is good or bad , but they for sure must have moral responsibilty .(not lieing in news , not provoke to make war or hate, no stealing, not decieving )

do you know there are channels deceive the people to take their money ?
CALL and WIN

I remember a TV show called testing fidality , they are really evil what they doing , they testing someone fidality by drop him in trap , so they sent to him a sexy girl to seduce him ,they record him by spycams all actions .

and they called for his wife(girlfriend ) to watch her husband, how he cheat on her .

 

[Godobeyer]

i am get bored
could we jump this because we seems never agree ?

 

[SomeRandom]

see ? so the media content had repsonsibility of speech of hate ?

WHY you think the media , it's not responsible for all it's messages especially "immoral"?

as i understand KKK speech was legal,recently it's classify illegal ?
So it's though changed and law of media changed .

Media is generally objective. It usually presents information in a way without much of an agenda. We require this of journalists because we consider it to be integrity.
Movies, TV, books whatever tells you a story and the audience has to decide what it's saying. Propaganda is obviously biased and considered misinformation. They are not the same thing.

The KKK can say whatever they want. That is perfectly legal. However if they gather a group of their supporters and they cause trouble and yell obscenities at black people then everyone involved will be charged with civil unrest and any crimes they do. The leader might be charged with inciting violence.

The media can give people ideas but it's often too middle ground to convince people much of anything. The audience are the ones who interpret the information given. Those interpretations often differs among people and can even be the total opposite of what was intended by the creator. For example someone can watch the movie Mulan and come away thinking that the movie is just a feel good kids film. Another can come away thinking that it was about girl power. Yet another person can watch it and think it promotes gender equality. Another person can come away thinking that it was insulting to Chinese culture. I'm sure Disney didn't set out to insult anyone, but their intention is often pushed aside in favour of the audience interpretation.
People causing trouble of their own choosing is generally not acceptable behaviour. That's why I blame the KKK but less likely to blame the media. It's just too vague most of the time.

 

[Godobeyer]

Media is generally objective. It usually presents information in a way without much of an agenda. We require this of journalists because we consider it to be integrity.
Movies, TV, books whatever tells you a story and the audience has to decide what it's saying. Propaganda is obviously biased and considered misinformation. They are not the same thing.

The KKK can say whatever they want. That is perfectly legal. However if they gather a group of their supporters and they cause trouble and yell obscenities at black people then everyone involved will be charged with civil unrest and any crimes they do. The leader might be charged with inciting violence.

The media can give people ideas but it's often too middle ground to convince people much of anything. The audience are the ones who interpret the information given. Those interpretations often differs among people and can even be the total opposite of what was intended by the creator. For example someone can watch the movie Mulan and come away thinking that the movie is just a feel good kids film. Another can come away thinking that it was about girl power. Yet another person can watch it and think it promotes gender equality. Another person can come away thinking that it was insulting to Chinese culture. I'm sure Disney didn't set out to insult anyone, but their intention is often pushed aside in favour of the audience interpretation
People causing trouble of their own choosing is generally not acceptable behaviour. That's why I blame the KKK but less likely to blame the media. It's just too vague most of the time.

the media could be oriented depend the state and opinion of the controller of these medias .

for exemple :
Disney or Hollywood show the opinion of Westerns ,I mean, so they maybe would make a movies show how the Japeness suffered from Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombardement , so they made film for pearl harbor , then stop .

they may would not show how the Bush laid about Iraq WMD in their movies .

 

[Shad]

the media could be oriented depend the state and opinion of the controller of these medias .

for exemple :
Disney or Hollywood show the opinion of Westerns ,I mean, so they maybe would make a movies show how the Japeness suffered from Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombardement , so they made film for pearl harbor , then stop .

they may would not show how the Bush laid about Iraq WMD in their movies .

The US film industry has major issues when it comes to certain historical events. Keep in mind many in the US have argued the bombing was justified. However the media did show that Bush used a source with no credibility and no direct evidence. Although I think you made a good point in regards to the American film industry's bias. Disney itself has long been a partner of US propaganda.

 

[Godobeyer]

The US film industry has major issues when it comes to certain historical events. Keep in mind many in the US have argued the bombing was justified. However the media did show that Bush used a source with no credibility and no direct evidence. Although I think you made a good point in regards to the American film industry's bias. Disney itself has long been a partner of US propaganda.

I think everyone had the free to make up his history .
so that's what make the media oriented some times .

i don't know if Japan made a film about that . (but i don't think so )

some people argue too (especially news channels), if the media deliver the truth or or truth covered by opinion , or opinions ?

 

[SomeRandom]

the media could be oriented depend the state and opinion of the controller of these medias .

for exemple :
Disney or Hollywood show the opinion of Westerns ,I mean, so they maybe would make a movies show how the Japeness suffered from Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombardement , so they made film for pearl harbor , then stop .

they may would not show how the Bush laid about Iraq WMD in their movies .

Disney wouldn't do that it's Disney. Just doesn't fit with their identity. Dr Sues might have, though. I mean Disney did make American propaganda during WWII. But they also haven't done that again since the 40s. They seem much too image conscious to do what you propose anyway.
Hollywood has made a film about Pearl Harbour and it bombed (no pun intended.)
Historical accuracy was also questioned.

I'm not sure how a movie about Hirashima would go down. But there's all sorts of documentaries about it. Those are factual movies so....

Oh bush lying about WMD is basically a meme. Practically everyone seems to laugh about that. Well in Australia we do at least.
We as the audience member don't have to see the things as the creator sees them. In Japan the Grave of the Fireflies is usually interpreted as a movie showing the consequences of not listening/respecting elders and the director has said he wanted to show kids what their parents went through due to the younger generation apparently losing respect. The English dub is usually seen as a harrowing tale examining the collateral damage of war, or just a straight up anti war piece.

So that could happen. But we also aren't North Korea. And have ready access to all different types of media. Plus audience interpretation will not always agree with the creator.

 

[SomeRandom]

The US film industry has major issues when it comes to certain historical events. Keep in mind many in the US have argued the bombing was justified. However the media did show that Bush used a source with no credibility and no direct evidence. Although I think you made a good point in regards to the American film industry's bias. Disney itself has long been a partner of US propaganda.

I personally like the one with Donald in Swastika land.

 

[Shad]

I think everyone had the free to make up his history .

Sorry I do not understand what you mean exactly. Please clarify.

If you are saying everyone is free to make up their own history frankly this position is untenable.

so that's what make the media oriented some times .

There is more than just state but yes the media can be influenced

i don't know if Japan made a film about that . (but i don't think so )

Japan has as well as Canada. Not the pop-culture America films but films that showed the reality faced by it's victims.

some people argue too (especially news channels), if the media deliver the truth or or truth covered by opinion , or opinions ?

Claims of presenting truth gets viewers. Look at Fox News and MSNBC, both claim to publish the "truth" yet both hold competing ideologies which tainted their reports. If both were dogs they would be fighting over a bone to the death. Some reports are opinions, some are well documented. It depends on the sources used and the writer, at times other people as well. The major issue is a great number of media reports do not state their sources. However it is the fault of the consumer if they take all media sources at their word.

 

[Godobeyer]

Disney wouldn't do that it's Disney. Just doesn't fit with their identity.
Hollywood has made a film about Pearl Harbour and it bombed (no pun intended.)
Historical accuracy was also questioned.

I'm not sure how a movie about Hirashima would go down. But there's all sorts of documentaries about it. Those are factual movies so....

Oh bush lying about WMD is basically a meme. Practically everyone seems to laugh about that. Well in Australia we do at least.
So while that could happen we also have access to media that does the opposite. So what's your point?

my point the media(TV,Sites,Movies,News) is oriented sometimes by it's controllers and owners .

i remember channel called Al-hurra , it's American , i remember an American sentor critic this channel , and warning to closed it , becuase they uncut an important live event of Hezboallah .




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhurra


Alhurra has also faced criticism from American conservative pundits who claimed that the organization had been broadcasting "anti-American" content. In 2007, conservative columnist Joel Mowbray wrote a series of harshly critical op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, claiming that Alhurra had become a "platform for terrorists." Mowbray noted that Alhurra had broadcast live, unedited speeches by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, an interview with an alleged al-Qaeda operative who expressed joy at the 9/11 attacks, and a panel whose members offered conspiracy theories about alleged Israeli plans to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.[30]

 

[Godobeyer]

Sorry I do not understand what you mean exactly. Please clarify.

If you are saying everyone is free to make up their own history frankly this position is untenable.

that's what i meant , for my opinion , but what the garanty that history is frankly in movies (not edited).

 

[SomeRandom]

my point the media(TV,Sites,Movies,News) is oriented sometimes by it's controllers and owners .

i remember channel called Al-hurra , it's American , i remember an American sentor critic this channel , and warning to closed it , becuase they uncut an important live event of Hezboallah .




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhurra


Alhurra has also faced criticism from American conservative pundits who claimed that the organization had been broadcasting "anti-American" content. In 2007, conservative columnist Joel Mowbray wrote a series of harshly critical op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, claiming that Alhurra had become a "platform for terrorists." Mowbray noted that Alhurra had broadcast live, unedited speeches by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, an interview with an alleged al-Qaeda operative who expressed joy at the 9/11 attacks, and a panel whose members offered conspiracy theories about alleged Israeli plans to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.[30]

Yes but you don't have to believe or even have the same interpretation as those "controllers."

It's still the fault of the consumer at the end of the day. We live in the age of information and can fact check our sources quite easily.

I honestly don't know that much about American news channels they seem far more interested in politics than our ones over here.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes but you don't have to believe or even have the same interpretation as those "controllers."

It's still the fault of the consumer at the end of the day. We live in the age of information and can fact check our sources quite easily.

I honestly don't know that much about American news channels they seem far more interested in politics than our ones over here.

what source of News Channel is trusted and tells always the truth , NOT owners opinions ?

IF your sources are comoflit the news by their opinion , how you discover that, ? how its your fault that you oriented by false infomation ?

If you are in site full of Ads website is fault of posters ?

If consumer fooled by false information or bad commodity publication , why not fault of Media ?

 

[dawny0826]

indeed ,it's up to you , because the marriage is partnership , so it's about previsous agreement and contract .

- everyone had red lines (own conditions) , so the other had the right to demand the divorce .

I don't believe it my place to determine what's right and wrong for other couples. That's what I meant.

Only a couple can decide what crosses lines and betrays trust within the parameters of their relationship.

 

[Shad]

that's what i meant , for my opinion , but what the garanty that history is frankly in movies (not edited).

There is none. Most movies make no claims to accuracy nor does the media guarantee what they say is 100% fact. If they did most media companies would be out of business due to lawsuits.

 

[SomeRandom]

what source of News Channel is trusted and tells always the truth , NOT owners opinions ?

IF your sources are comoflit the news by their opinion , how you discover that, ? how its your fault that you oriented by false infomation ?

If you are in site full of Ads website is fault of posters ?

If consumer fooled by false information or bad commodity publication , why not fault of Media ?

Umm have you ever heard of doing your own research? We have Encyclopaedias, the library or Google at one's fingertips 24/7. We have access to the worlds information literally anytime you want. If one is so inclined one can fact check sources. Though not as sophisticated as the scientists researching we can dig up information if we want.

 

[hannah969]

Hi all

I discuss this subject with RF member in other thread , she told me that she is on contact with her ex-boyfriends , and her husband knows that .

so do you agree that your girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife stay on contact with her/his EX ?

I mean she/he get in privet together or visit each other in privet....etc

It usually means they're sleeping together.

 

[Godobeyer]

Umm have you ever heard of doing your own research? We have Encyclopaedias, the library or Google at one's fingertips 24/7. We have access to the worlds information literally anytime you want. If one is so inclined one can fact check sources. Though not as sophisticated as the scientists researching we can dig up information if we want.

do you forget National Geographic Channel ?

You must be kiding, right ?

 

[SomeRandom]

do you forget National Geographic Channel ?

You must be kiding, right ?

I don't actually have the national geographic channel, I assume it has documentaries focused on geography or whatever. What's your point exactly? That scientists and researchers making documentaries aren't doing proper research or are imbuing their own biases into them (possible, sure) but I don't know if I'd say that about all of them. Unlike other cheap propaganda like those videos shown to the kids in the doco Jesus Camp. Now those were biased as **** and woefully inaccurate. Good doco though. Sorry just viewed it recently so it's still kind of on my mind.
Besides if you're too lazy to oh I don't know do some investigating on your own then I don't see how the media is to blame for your laziness. I mean I'm lazy as hell and even I don't take information thrown at me at face value.

 

[illykitty]

I think this thread will still go on for a long time, because of language barrier and cultural differences.

But I'd hope at least there would be some understanding from both sides, I mean, I can somewhat get where you're coming from @Godobeyer even though I don't always agree.

And I hope you also understand that people in the "West" don't just have one same opinion. We each have different ideas and thoughts about this subject (and many more).

I hope at least a little good has come out of answering to this thread.