Frazzin Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Trip_to_the_Moon

A Trip to the Moon is one of my favourite films, Circa 1902.

I was reading about it today, and caught this…

Méliès had intended to release the film in the United States to profit from it. Thomas Edison’s film technicians, however, secretly made copies of it and distributed it throughout the country. While the film was still hugely successful, Méliès eventually went bankrupt.[1] This was due in part to the eventual view which was held towards his films that the special effects were overshadowing the plot.[8]

In an interview of Martin Scorsese by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, Scorsese said, “He [Georges Méliès] lost basically most of his financing when the bigger companies came in. What happened here. . . at that time there was a lot going on with copyright and not copyright and that sort of thing.” Stewart said, “There is a story that Edison had taken one of his [Georges Méliès] films, brought it to America and showed it and it became enormously popular in America. But Edison decided not to pay I guess what we would call royalties.” Scorsese replied: “That’s right. So what happened, the film was I think the famous one, ‘A Trip to the Moon.’ They [Thomas Edison and his associates] were just taking the films and making dupes of them. So that was one of the reasons why he [Georges Méliès] was finished financially, ultimately.”[9]

Who knew, it was Thomas Edison who was the first movie pirate! lol.

Napster, pfftp.

@Ender:

I know that journalists are trained to be objective, but I can recognize when one is being biased, I think. It’s easier to detect bias when it is in tension with your own, but I can also tell sometime that a reporter has a political agenda similar to mine. However, it doesn’t bother me, so I don’t notice it as much as a journalist who is pushing some contrary agenda.

But if a journalist reports a story neutrally, and you yourself are not neutral, I can see how you would see that journalist as being “against” you. It’s that “you’re either with us or against us” mindset that you see both on the right and the left.

Or think of it this way: your friend/girlfriend/wife) has had a fight with someone, and they want you to take their side. Instead, you take the middle ground, and suggest that maybe there is fault on both sides. Your friend feels betrayed because you are not backing them fully, you are pointing out their faults (the other side’s fault goes without saying, of course!), etc.

People do have a tendency to focus on their differences, rather than their common ground.

I’d have to agree with what Fr…Ender said. I am a reporter working at a small town newspaper. When I was in school - last year - we had discussions about this sort of thing a lot of the time.  Usually, if you know what sort of side/slant the medium is taking (ie: left or right) then you will have the mindset of, ‘well, this guy’s a right-wing nut job, and even though he makes a good point about X, and enlightened me on a topic, he’s still a right-wing nut job, sooooo I think I’m just going to disagree with him anyway.’  That is how some people think. They taught us to NOT think like that.  That’s how you become a cynic and life then turns blah because of our attitude.

@balungaloaf:

the democratic party and the media ARE linked.  Did everyone forget about how the journalists who are supposed to be “unbiased” met with some democratic office people and leaders on how to portray media events in the favor of democrats. IT was held behind closed doors with no mention of what was said inside.  The republicans knew this was bullcrap, but if ONLY fox news talks about it, many others are in the dark.  Then the people attending the meeting go and tell all their other liberal journalist and news friends, editors etc. on how to properly spin news coverage when wanted by the democrats.  Take that one liberal media, how many liberals know that their news is COMPLETELY BIASED.  cnn, abc, nbc, cbs, msnbc, bbc, all sorts of papers and magazines, time, nytimes, usa today, washington post, newsweek.  Weekend shows, night shows, morning shows, specials like 20/20 or 60 minutes, news on tv guide, mtv,  its terrible.  At least i got fox news.

Loaf, you do know that all the sources you just listed regurgitate, almost word for word, the AP press releases, right?  I bet, if someone hacked the AP and sent a news release that stated all the Iraqi’s died today from a horrible plague created in American biological weapons labs it would run night and day for months.  Then, when it turns out they were hacked, it would quietly die and no retraction would ever be made.

Wait… how do you know each other?

As long as FOX News doesn’t get “liberalized” it’s all kosher… :wink:

Sure, I’ll try and find the stats

@Xi:

Peter Arnett was seen by some as sympathetic to the Iraqi regime in both this war and the 1991 Gulf War, when he reported from Baghdad for CNN….

"…I think American policy and strategy is the weakest when it comes to the Iraqi people. The U.S. administration is concerned with the possibility of killing civilians, because the international community is very concerned about the Iraqi people. President Bush says he is concerned about the Iraqi people, but if Iraqi people are dying in numbers, then American policy will be challenged very strongly…

"…For that reason, the Pentagon keeps saying that the civilian casualties, particularly in Baghdad in the last three or four days, at the market places – the Pentagon says – well they are Iraqi missiles that land amongst the people. They keep saying that, but of course the Iraqi government says they are clearly cruise missiles that hit the population…

Ok, so what is wrong about the statements?
The first includes an “i think” at the beginning and an “if-then with present and future” combination at the end? ANything wrong with it?
The second… well, the Pentagon also says that the shrapnels of US missiles found there were brought there by Iraqi officials… and he gives both sides version: is that bad journalism?

ah