Quote:
Originally Posted by noodle
Oh really? You believe that Reuters present EVERY bit of news they have? Are you kidding me? Are you trying to tell me that Agencies buy useless news, THEN filter them and aprove them? The fact is; Reuters filter a lot of Crap that they know wouldn't sell. If you don't agree with this, just take some work experience in a news channel, or question someone that has worked for a news channel before.
|
The way I understand it is they choose who to sell what but as far as news goes. It's all on the market and depending on what issue an agency is interested in, that's what they'll sell to them. Also you're forgetting that while Reuters is big and the main source to many smaller networks as well as a reliable source to the bigger ones it's not the only source. Many of the bigger networks have their own teams not to mention the print media which has a lot of investigative reporting.
The rest of your post is somewhat irrelevant. Good for you that you watch all those channels to make up your mind. And since you believe you have proof (of a Western media agenda concerning Tibet or otherwise) please front with it. Because frankly I'm beginning to get bored with this conversation. Your going round in circles and I'm finding I have to repeat myself.
And yes I acknowledged your (that) point (that it is much better to get both sides of the story) and I agree with that point.
What I'm saying is that a) I did b) I reasoned that the Western side was telling the truth for the reasons I've stated earlier.