Spring RTS Engine

yiiiha, lets bash bush, just because he is retirded, does not mean he gets away, he was such a beautifull idiot.

echoone wrote:I don't know if FOX created this lie or not - they frequently do lie about stuff like this because it helps their ratings and stirs people into a lather.

I don't think lather is the word you want.

leather?

BTW, last night I saw it was confirmed FOX News is the source of such accusations. The Daily Show had a nice segment on it. Turns out, FOX News and Rupert Murdoch are actually Muslim terrorists, according to FOX News.

Get 'em!

echoone wrote:BTW, last night I saw it was confirmed FOX News is the source of such accusations. The Daily Show had a nice segment on it. Turns out, FOX News and Rupert Murdoch are actually Muslim terrorists, according to FOX News.

Get 'em!

i want to say that,its true that fox news are completely ridiculous and sometimes cant even be called a news agency, but unfortunately the other news networks in the US have also gone in the same direction.
None of them even try to be objective anymore.
They all present explicitly subjective opinions and their coverage is strongly biased towards, whatever it is that they are promoting, and sometimes it even becomes comical .

Maybe i am ignorant on the subject but to me,it seems more and more that the only way to ensure news agencies strive to present objective information is to make them completely independent of the government and of private citizens...
It must not be about profit and must not depend on what people want to hear or what certain individuals want them to hear.
News agencies need to report facts and need to strive to balance all sides when a topic is discussed.
I think journalistic integrity is being thrown out of the window lately or maybe it just lately that people started to realize(I in the age of the internet and quick world wide communication) how biased news have truly been in the past several decades.

Before there was media to the masses and there was a big variety in terms of the presentation of news it wasn't as easy to lock people into a certain single mindset.
In a way the internet liberates us again but if we don't take care of this freedom it will again be taken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement

Das Bruce wrote:

echoone wrote:I don't know if FOX created this lie or not - they frequently do lie about stuff like this because it helps their ratings and stirs people into a lather.

I don't think lather is the word you want.

Why?

lath┬Àer (lr)
n.
1. A foam formed by soap or detergent agitated in water, as in washing or shaving.
2. Froth formed by profuse sweating, as on a horse.
3. Informal A condition of anxious or heated discomposure; agitation: The students were in a lather over the proposed restrictions.
v. lath┬Àered, lath┬Àer┬Àing, lath┬Àers
v.tr.
1. To spread with or as if with lather.
2. Informal To give a beating to; whip.
v.intr.
1. To produce lather; foam.
2. To become coated with lather.

Gota wrote: I think journalistic integrity is being thrown out of the window

Unfortunately, in the US, laws were changed which had a profound affect on news. Laws, I might add, which were specifically in place to prevent this type of corruption and to encourage journalistic integrity and a spectrum of view points. One change was that news segments can be used for ratings which means news now directly affects the bottom line for media companies. The second change is laws which prevented a person or legal entity from owning more than a tiny slice of news outlets were thrown out. For example, you couldn't own a TV station and a news paper in the same town.

In the past, new agencies were owned by a huge cross section and reported on a variety of angles and subjects. This in turn created competition and fairness because no one wanted to be left out. The fact that news reporting didn't directly affect their revenue model encouraged fair, accurate reporting.

These days, a powerful, tiny minority own almost all of the non-Internet media in the US. Now we have "news" which focuses on editorials and narratives, pointed by the parent company's political and financial agendas. Add to this environment, the financial pressures imposed by the Internet on news agencies, and now you have a jungle where fairness, accuracy, and integrity are all but extinct.

To rely on a single source for news these days means you're begging to be made into dupe.

The Iraq war is a great example. In the early days, all the US media was fairly pro-war while attempting to appear unbiased. They could see the ratings on the wall. Once the war started, ratings sky rocketed and everyone was pretty much, openly pro-war. Once reporters started dying and they could no longer be "safely" embedded (its an f-n war zone idiots) and ratings dropped, suddenly "everyone" turned. Suddenly they were hating Bush and all anti-war. Suddenly they constantly took Bush comments out of context and completely mislead the masses. Bush said the war would be at least a ten year commitment and likely be a war for our children to fight. The media reported the "Mission Accomplished" and implied the war was always to be over the day before it started.

Bluntly, US news lies and purposely misleads the masses on a daily basis. If you want to know whats really going on, you have to work at it. And best of all, completely ignore everyone's editorial and narrative segments. They are almost all garbage, serving only their own interests.

echoone wrote:

Das Bruce wrote:

echoone wrote:I don't know if FOX created this lie or not - they frequently do lie about stuff like this because it helps their ratings and stirs people into a lather.

I don't think lather is the word you want.

Why?

I've never before heard it used in that manner, froth is probably the closest thing I can think of, but it's usually used with another word to indicate anger. Lather implies things like soap and shaving.

"Whip people into a frenzy" maybe.

Das Bruce wrote:I've never before heard it used in that manner, froth is probably the closest thing I can think of, but it's usually used with another word to indicate anger. Lather implies things like soap and shaving.

"Whip people into a frenzy" maybe.

Like this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYfcF4oztsw

Das Bruce wrote: "Whip people into a frenzy" maybe.

Or I'll just stand on the original statement. Same but different.

3. Informal A condition of anxious or heated discomposure; agitation: The students were in a lather over the proposed restrictions.

It does accurately represent the emotional context as the range is more than just anger.

echoone wrote:Or I'll just stand on the original statement. Same but different.

Standy 'by'.