General Chat

and the end is ,,the same when its a media broadcast news item,

they heard it,or have seen it,so that qualifies them to repeat,

dont we all use the expression,,,

just heard on the news the old grey goose is dead,


this is what I have heard,,,,,to me means,

hey ,this is what I have heard,,,shes all red hat and no drawers,,,,,as though its a bit of gossip.

I am sorry Kay if I misunderstood you.
I think it is wrong for people to say what they have "heard".
It is correct for people to say "this is what I have heard"
if you see the difference

I know you didnt,,,,,,,,,


but still listeners of a station be it radio or tv,,,,,,,can only say what they have heard,

:-D :-D :-D :-D

Indubitably Sylvia

Kay I don't believe that is what I said.

Errol


I agree


That poor Somali student for example, was identified on Twitter solely because he was "foreigner" and someone had taken a cell phone photo of a crowd scene that include him

That was posted on Twitter, got passed on and on, someone spotted him, said "there's the bomber" ......................... and CNN reported that as fact! "The suspect has been identified, and is being questioned"


wrong, wrong, and wrong!




ps ............. I liek to use long words sometimes :-D

Dont forget Errol,,,,,all the slueths in US that were clumping together to do their own E---FIT and got a name out on the WWW and to FBI agents that was an innocent person,,,,,,,,,,,,dont think John went that far.

What was being reported on here was only what was coming out of news channels....

Sylvia - I love the word extrapolate!
That aside, I agree wholeheartedly with you and it is people like John (I am not saying John himself but people LIKE John) that cause many problems and exacerbate the craving for sensationalistic reporting rather than genuine reporting.

John ..............

actually the very best coverage, IMHO, for the marathon AND for the explosion in West, Texas 2 nights later was ...................................


CBCNews!


I am not being nationalistic when I say that .................. because CBC usually is not.


But CNN was doing what it usually does not ................ making suggestions and extrapolating, not reporting the straight news "as known", getting information from eyewitnesses and giving that more credence than seemed warranted.


CBCNews just reported the facts, and stated "we do not know, but this is being reported by the AUTHORITIES .....", not Joe Blow on the street corner.


It is usually much better to use the major news agency of the country where the event is happening ................. they almost invariably have the largest number of reporters to send to the site, and to get the news.

But CNN became an "investigative agency" around the Boston Marathon.............. trying to dig out stuff before the police or FBI could get to it.

THEY are the ones who identified the poor Somali 18 year old as "THE bomber"


Fox ................. I don't even look at their station!

Fox is way over the top - the presenters are all wannabe actors and celebs - more interested in themselves than the actual news - I look on it as more of an entertainment channel with comedians

Sylvia. I have seen you mention about Fox being very poor before. I very rarely watch it. I find Mirror a bit irritating sometimes, and also like to read Telegraph or i to get more balance.

Burt when this terrible tragedy first occurred, I started channel hopping across all the news channels. Sky was ok, but thought Fox and CNN were much better, more informed, were working harder to find the news. And BBC was pretty awful - in fact, I soon stopped watching BBC News cos they seemed several hours behind. Still saying 2 dead and 12 injured (which was confirmed) when others were saying 3 dead and 28 injured (not confirmed) - but when eye witnesses were saying it was terrible and there were so many dead and very seriously injured it seemed a bit strange to play down how serious it was.

John ..............

Fox news is the pits, IMHO anyway!

It's an ultra right wing station, does not check its sources carefully, broadcasts conjecture as "true", and spins stories to fit what it thinks the truth should be.

Daily Mirror .............. not the best news source I think??? it wasn't in the days before I left the UK.


We (ie OH and myself) get most of what we consider to be reliable news reports from ...........

BBC World ............ usually seems extremely reliable, but does have a different spin sometimes on news from over here

CBC News ...... the all news channel of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

CNN ......... Anderson Cooper 360 is usually very reliable, although they got erroneous reports and publicised them while reporting on the Boston Marathon



I read the MailOnline 2 or 3 times a week .............. for fun and gossip :-D

:-) :-)

Quite :-|

Buffoon :-|

Quite John - just shut up! :-|

Sylvia. I am not conjecturing. Not sure how reputable my info is, but I am repeating what I have seen in the Daily Mirror and on Fox News mainly. For example, the headline in Mirror yesterday (Monday) was: "Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev 'shot himself in throat in botched suicide attempt during last stand with police'"

It said he had stuck the gun in his mouth and the bullet had taken out his voice box and exited through back of his neck. Not quite sure what you and Errol think I am conjecturing about, but agree that conjecturing is not helpful.

I think that boat may have gone up in value because of what happened in it

I agree Sylvia - sometimes when people post about things like this I find it a little irreponsible because of the possible ramifications

Errol ..................


from what we are being told on this side of the Atlantic ...................... a lot of what John has said, and is saying, is pure conjecture,

and should in my opinion NOT be posted on this or any other thread.

I'm not sure where John gets his information from.


I'm basing my information on actual police and RCMP statements, what is said in court, and what reputable news media are reporting.