Obamacare ruled unconstitutional

[2NaFish]

but on other things america is blamed. its reasonable for the media to be angry when we piss off their countries, but allowing it to create a bias is stupid. and it happens....alot.

i dont think so. Sure there are ridiculous stereotypes, but that occurs between every nation on earth. There also exists a spectrum of opinion and some does include a degree of anti-american reporting but it equally includes a great deal of pro-american stuff. Unless you can provide examples of systematic bias against america i can't really see you having much of a case.

[aintitfun22]

i dont think so. Sure there are ridiculous stereotypes, but that occurs between every nation on earth. There also exists a spectrum of opinion and some does include a degree of anti-american reporting but it equally includes a great deal of pro-american stuff. Unless you can provide examples of systematic bias against america i can't really see you having much of a case.

i would say its a bias created out of how liberal europe has become. america is way more conservative than europe so there is a bias versus them, even when we do liberal things. which is silly.

[aintitfun22]

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/
this website documents it pretty well. some of the stuff is stupid there and it is way too conservatively biased, but a good amount of it is accurate.

[2NaFish]

i would say its a bias created out of how liberal europe has become. america is way more conservative than europe so there is a bias versus them, even when we do liberal things. which is silly.

Is this based on anything you've actually seen or heard or just an impression of how the situation must be?

[aintitfun22]

Is this based on anything you've actually seen or heard or just an impression of how the situation must be?

first thing. and i read european papers online sometimes and thats what i see. and in the posts of many forum members here.

[2NaFish]

tbf, the forum members here arent big movers and shakers in the media game. which papers do you read?

[mooney]

our poor foreign policy is largely interpreted as poor because we do things like go to war without the approval of the UN. and this is just an example, but why should we need France's approval to go to war?

Maybe you're just understating here, but your foreign policy (and ours in the UK) is interpreted as "poor" (your word) because it mostly consists of committing terrorist atrocities - through direct aggression (Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more), through installing(via military coup)/backing of brutal dictators and regimes and their atrocities (Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, Nicaragua and again, many more) or through harsh - at times genocidal - sanctions (Iraq, Cuba....).

You shouldn't need France's approval (and you don't). You need the US public's approval. Or Uk's or whoever...

Doing shit like that won't make friends, but I dont think its wrong that we dont spend all the time playing the politics game. Stuff has to get done sometimes, and being a good leader means you have to piss people off sometimes. America does that while many other countries don't.  So its poor foreign policy in the minds of many european media members, but at least in my mind it isnt.

Who do you have in mind as these "good leaders" who have to "piss people off" (presumably you mean kill and destroy their country and also go against reasoned opinions - even if the overwhelming majority are opposed)? can you name some? Bush? Blair, Clinton, Reagan? Pinochet?

As far as European Media... Obviously i can only comment on UK media, seeing as my Polish isn't what it should be - (which makes getting a taxi a bitch!!), but the media here isn't especially anti-american at all, seeing as its function is to divert attention from real issues and generally report the official party line. The party line which, with regards to foreign policy, has been basically to go along with the US. The BBC are just as bad. See Andrew Marr interviewing Blair recently - no challenges to anything Blair said including a pro-Iran military action blurb - right up Washington's street....

and in your mind, which foreign policy of the US isn't "poor" then? Can you give some examples to clarify what you are saying?

EDIT: forgot this:

And the fact that we don't spend all of our time appeasing the interests of other countries has led to anti-american sentiments which have made your media biased even when we are not doing things contrary to their beliefs. not saying our media is fair and objective by the way, far from it.

The reason for any anti-american sentiments isn't because you "dont spend all of your time appeasing the interests of other countries" but because you spend "all" of your time serving your own (mostly corporate) interests AT THE EXPENSE of others' countries. Ya know, it's a pretty simple priniciple to grasp, Eisenhower and co. knew about it about 60 years ago with the "there's a campaign of hatred against us" quote. It's been long established that the source of that "hatred" - which exists - is because there was a perception (an accurate perception then, and still accurate now) that the US are an anti-democratic, terrorist state concerned with securing a monopoly/controlling the world's resources at the expense of, more often that not, poor impoverished people's countries. Control being the operative word. It's why people fly planes into buildings or blow up the tubes...

[L!VE FREE!]

America, or at least what it's become, sucks.

[aintitfun22]

Maybe you're just understating here, but your foreign policy (and ours in the UK) is interpreted as "poor" (your word) because it mostly consists of committing terrorist atrocities - through direct aggression (Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and many more), through installing(via military coup)/backing of brutal dictators and regimes and their atrocities (Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, Nicaragua and again, many more) or through harsh - at times genocidal - sanctions (Iraq, Cuba....).

You shouldn't need France's approval (and you don't). You need the US public's approval. Or Uk's or whoever...

Who do you have in mind as these "good leaders" who have to "piss people off" (presumably you mean kill and destroy their country and also go against reasoned opinions - even if the overwhelming majority are opposed)? can you name some? Bush? Blair, Clinton, Reagan? Pinochet?

As far as European Media... Obviously i can only comment on UK media, seeing as my Polish isn't what it should be - (which makes getting a taxi a bitch!!), but the media here isn't especially anti-american at all, seeing as its function is to divert attention from real issues and generally report the official party line. The party line which, with regards to foreign policy, has been basically to go along with the US. The BBC are just as bad. See Andrew Marr interviewing Blair recently - no challenges to anything Blair said including a pro-Iran military action blurb - right up Washington's street....

and in your mind, which foreign policy of the US isn't "poor" then? Can you give some examples to clarify what you are saying?

EDIT: forgot this:
The reason for any anti-american sentiments isn't because you "dont spend all of your time appeasing the interests of other countries" but because you spend "all" of your time serving your own (mostly corporate) interests AT THE EXPENSE of others' countries. Ya know, it's a pretty simple priniciple to grasp, Eisenhower and co. knew about it about 60 years ago with the "there's a campaign of hatred against us" quote. It's been long established that the source of that "hatred" - which exists - is because there was a perception (an accurate perception then, and still accurate now) that the US are an anti-democratic, terrorist state concerned with securing a monopoly/controlling the world's resources at the expense of, more often that not, poor impoverished people's countries. Control being the operative word. It's why people fly planes into buildings or blow up the tubes...

after reading the first part of your post i can honestly say i am way too lazy to take the time to respond to something this stupid. you can say im lazy and i have no evidence(which isnt true i just cant be bothered), but it'll take alot of prodding for a response here. the fact that you say the us has no good foreign policies, that all we do is go put dictators in power and support terrorists, corruption, and exploit everybody, shows how biased and quite frankly how little knowledge you have. keep reading conspiracy theory websites and radical media mooney. i cant respond to something like this. if you werent so obviously unknowledgable and obviously anti-american I would. which is why im gonna respond to 2na's comment. this one isnt worth getting into.

[aintitfun22]

America, or at least what it's become, sucks.

classic insight keep it up dude

[aintitfun22]

tbf, the forum members here arent big movers and shakers in the media game. which papers do you read?

i wouldn't say i read any particular paper specifically, just alot of articles from european websites which tend to be online newspapers. I dont read any paper all the way through, but a couple of websites I am on alot are bbcnews, the guardian, thelocal(german paper which has an english translated version), and AFP(the french paper).

[aintitfun22]

and mooney america's foreign policy does not consist of appeasing corporations. im sure they have influence, but no more in america than any other place. you way overstate everything and fail to realize america is no less or more corrupt than most nations in the world. not saying its a shining city on a hill for others to take example from, just saying that neither is any country in europe and we are no different. just happen to be bigger and have a larger economy/more powerful military so people like to spend way too much time hating on us and accusing us of ridiculous shit like you did in your post. there, i responded somewhat to your post even if I didn't go into too much detail with the questions you asked me. Still too lazy to do that, especially because with what your saying if you cant realize that the stuff your saying is ridiculous now then your probably way too far gone on the craziness scale for me to change much so its honestly not worth it.

[dman1991]

Aintit fun, . Why do you keep saying you dont read anything all the way through yet comment on the things you half ass read? America is appeasing corporations as we speak. I just read an article about how someone who stole from banks got 10 years in jail where as a congressman who stole from the public got half of that. Right there will tell you that the law favors the corporate interests.

[mooney]

after reading the first part of your post i can honestly say i am way too lazy to take the time to respond to something this stupid. you can say im lazy and i have no evidence(which isnt true i just cant be bothered), but it'll take alot of prodding for a response here. the fact that you say the us has no good foreign policies, that all we do is go put dictators in power and support terrorists, corruption, and exploit everybody, shows how biased and quite frankly how little knowledge you have. keep reading conspiracy theory websites and radical media mooney. i cant respond to something like this. if you werent so obviously unknowledgable and obviously anti-american I would. which is why im gonna respond to 2na's comment. this one isnt worth getting into.

quote me where i said "US has no good foreign policy". you can't. I never took that position. I dont read radical media either, nor do i keep up with any conspiracy theories.

and mooney america's foreign policy does not consist of appeasing corporations. im sure they have influence, but no more in america than any other place. you way overstate everything and fail to realize america is no less or more corrupt than most nations in the world. not saying its a shining city on a hill for others to take example from, just saying that neither is any country in europe and we are no different. just happen to be bigger and have a larger economy/more powerful military so people like to spend way too much time hating on us and accusing us of ridiculous shit like you did in your post. there, i responded somewhat to your post even if I didn't go into too much detail with the questions you asked me. Still too lazy to do that, especially because with what your saying if you cant realize that the stuff your saying is ridiculous now then your probably way too far gone on the craziness scale for me to change much so its honestly not worth it.

everything i mentioned is true - we can go into details if you like? and i think you'll find i quite explicitly implicated the UK as well, so forget any illusions of bias please. moreover, what do you think i gain from saying what i just said there? what motive do you think i, or others, have for criticising foreign policy? they aint opinions, there facts that you can check if you care. rather than calling me crazy, educate yourself.