Comments on: Revisionista http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/ Monitoring the corporate media Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:53:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Hermann T. Meyer http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/comment-page-1/#comment-82 Hermann T. Meyer Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:11:48 +0000 http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/#comment-82 Could you check articles on alcohol? Many articles are influenced by the alcohol industry or the indiviual behaviour regarding alcohol of the journalists and editors. At least in Switzerland. Could you check articles on alcohol? Many articles are influenced by the alcohol industry or the indiviual behaviour regarding alcohol of the journalists and editors. At least in Switzerland.

]]> By: Thomas http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/comment-page-1/#comment-50 Thomas Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:20:58 +0000 http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/#comment-50 Re: Ahmed on Google: Point of order: my site has no ads of any kind, and it shows up in Google(.co.uk) just fine (it's not that high up in the results, but it's there). Same goes for lots of other sites - try keywords like "bbc", "xmplay", "yahoo". I can guarantee that the top result for each of those will have no Google ads on it. Do note that Google can only index sites that it knows about, either by linking to from an already-indexed site or by submitting the url manually. Re: Ahmed on Google:

Point of order: my site has no ads of any kind, and it shows up in Google(.co.uk) just fine (it’s not that high up in the results, but it’s there). Same goes for lots of other sites – try keywords like “bbc”, “xmplay”, “yahoo”. I can guarantee that the top result for each of those will have no Google ads on it.

Do note that Google can only index sites that it knows about, either by linking to from an already-indexed site or by submitting the url manually.

]]> By: paulyt http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/comment-page-1/#comment-49 paulyt Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:57:05 +0000 http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/#comment-49 Could you possibly montior news.com.au? Website for the publisher of various newspapers in Australia) RSS Link http://feeds.news.com.au/public/rss/2.0/news_national_breaking_news_39.xml Could you possibly montior news.com.au? Website for the publisher of various newspapers in Australia)

RSS Link http://feeds.news.com.au/public/rss/2.0/news_national_breaking_news_39.xml

]]> By: Ahmed http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/comment-page-1/#comment-48 Ahmed Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:36:36 +0000 http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/#comment-48 Kudos for putting your time and effort into this! Hope this goes to some good effect. It is quite obvious to see BBC manipulating its headlines -and its contents- to meet the expectations of where its people are reading from. And BBC's 'Have your Say' is the biggest joke that has come along the pike in a long time. I have tried wasting my time there a few times. None of my comments ever got published, perhaps because my favorite is to touch the spots which no one else likes to, or dares to. To one of my sendings to 'Have your Say', I actually received an e-mail response saying my comments could not be published because they were 'hateful' and 'inflammatory'. And what I had said was that in the Cricket Test match incident between Pakistan and Umpire Darrel Hair, it appeared there was collusion between the English team and the two umpires. Ball tampering would be called whenever England began to lose and it happened only in the Fourth test. My views came from some news reports which said that there had been backroom meetings between the umpires and the England Manager. So what was 'hateful' and 'inflammatory' about my view. BBC should change the name to 'Have your censored say'. The other biggest censor in the world is Google. Google's searches show you only the site listings which Google wants to see. You got it. Only those which are displaying Google Ads. Not sure how your site can monitor this mammoth censor. And if anyone cares. But thanks for the opportunity to vent.. Kudos for putting your time and effort into this! Hope this goes to some good effect.
It is quite obvious to see BBC manipulating its headlines -and its contents- to meet the expectations of where its people are reading from.
And BBC’s ‘Have your Say’ is the biggest joke that has come along the pike in a long time.
I have tried wasting my time there a few times. None of my comments ever got published, perhaps because my favorite is to touch the spots which no one else likes to, or dares to. To one of my sendings to ‘Have your Say’, I actually received an e-mail response saying my comments could not be published because they were ‘hateful’ and ‘inflammatory’. And what I had said was that in the Cricket Test match incident between Pakistan and Umpire Darrel Hair, it appeared there was collusion between the English team and the two umpires. Ball tampering would be called whenever England began to lose and it happened only in the Fourth test. My views came from some news reports which said that there had been backroom meetings between the umpires and the England Manager. So what was ‘hateful’ and ‘inflammatory’ about my view.
BBC should change the name to ‘Have your censored say’.
The other biggest censor in the world is Google. Google’s searches show you only the site listings which Google wants to see. You got it. Only those which are displaying Google Ads. Not sure how your site can monitor this mammoth censor. And if anyone cares.
But thanks for the opportunity to vent..

]]> By: Anna http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Anna Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:07:07 +0000 http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/#comment-4 CNN? But how could you tell what the original ever was without revisions... and revisions on revisions on revisions... CNN? But how could you tell what the original ever was without revisions… and revisions on revisions on revisions…

]]> By: Cassandra http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Cassandra Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:36:20 +0000 http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/blog/2006/09/12/revisionista/#comment-3 If you added the NY Times, there are a whole lot of people who would want to bear your love children. If you added the NY Times, there are a whole lot of people who would want to bear your love children.

]]>