Curious about the news you get... (1 Viewer)

slisk250

slisk250

Straight Flush
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
9,579
Reaction score
21,689
Location
Rocky Mountain High
There have been escalating bombings and attempts in Dammam and Qatif in the last few days. Does any of that news filter into the West? The last couple have happened at Shia mosques with suicide bombers wearing abayas and posing as ladies. For the first time in a long while expats over here are actually concerned about the situation. It's been about 10 years since the Oasis terror and the last mass exodus.
 
yes the news I usually get daily has a non filter on it so I keep up to date with what is going on around the world. (ie. news not controlled by the handful of media families)
 
Interesting...I go to CNN and I see a link for ISIS claims mosque bombings in Dammam and Qatif. It's a fun place right now. Everyone is waiting to go home after school is out, it about 110 outside, & too dangerous to go shopping in town.
 
BBC, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera have coverage available here.

Even Wikipedia gets updated before we get mainstream US coverage.
 
This story is on major news websites.
 
pltrgyst said:
BBC, the Guardian, and Al Jazeera have coverage available here.
Click to expand...

these are the only outlets worthwhile for world news imo. i get secondhand coverage (i.e., analyses on podcasts, opinion pieces, etc.) before items of this kind get even to page 2 of most outlets.

probably the best that one can do in terms of american mainstream news sources would be the financial news outlets (WSJ, financial times, etc.). their editorial pages and opinion pieces are garbage, but they are forced to be more honest in their reporting because their audiences are more sophisticated and need to have a realistic grasp of the world whereas most of the other outlets placate their audiences who use the news as entertainment rather than information on which they have to base decisions.

i just did a quick glance at cnn, foxnews, and msnbc front pages and none of them had a link a story on damman or qatif. but not to worry - if you want to read about kim kardashian's ass, how the american military hates christianity, and bad fifa puns, they've got you covered and then some.
 
Mental Nomad said:
Just not a very good one.
Click to expand...
all it really does is filter interesting stories from many different mainstream sites. Not sure how that can be considered not good. :cool:

and to be really honest I dont care for the news that much at all. So its a bit of a lie that I go there to get my news. I only really am interested in local news and if something big comes down internationally I have facebook feeds that give me unfiltered access to intel on it.
last... last place I would go is somewhere like CNN or FOX etc
 
spikeithard said:
all it really does is filter interesting stories from many different mainstream sites. Not sure how that can be considered not good. :cool:
Click to expand...

yeah how could a site have an impact merely by controlling what you read?

spikeithard said:
last... last place I would go is somewhere like CNN or FOX etc
Click to expand...

i guess by "last" you mean second - after you're linked to cnn and fox via drudge.
 
The way I see it, news stations just control every bit of information that we get. They decide what is news, then decide how they are going to deliver it. Our information superhighway has a few toll booths along the way. It's our job to try and figure out what is bullshit and what is complete bullshit.
 
I like news.google.com, which aggregates the other news sources without someone skewing my view by filtering for me.

I can see what's trending for others, I can see topics relevant to different subject areas, and I can set my own topic filters for what I'm interested in following.
 
It really depends what type of news interests you to where you go for it.
If social justice and political justice etc is your target then you will go somewhere specific. If you want feel good stories only then you have to go to this certain site. Local news only.. then this site. etc etc
I would much rather go through local stories and feel good stories then anything.

But I also like stories that could affect me down the road like a shortage of something in a certain area that could raise food costs for me or so on.
Again, I tend to get all the info on certain FB feeds I follow.
 
Sometimes I want to see the trainwreck. I like a feelgood story too but a nice natural disaster or two makes for some interesting reading.
 
slisk250 said:
Sometimes I want to see the trainwreck. I like a feelgood story too but a nice natural disaster or two makes for some interesting reading.
Click to expand...
Its human morbid curiosity perhaps. Its in a way desensitizing us? I know I have been.
I would rather not be overwhelmed with the crap that is going on these days. Only take a bit of disaster in at a time
 
just in case anyone was wondering, CNN is really, really good at creating graphs for its stories.

ZaFsw2B.jpg
 
And in about 15 years, when the percentage of people 65+ who've tried weed goes up to, like, 40 %, they'll act like the prevalence among older people is twice as much as before... when what really happened is that the same people who are now 50-64 years old, 44% of whom have smoked pot, will simply have aged into the 65+ bracket...
 
Yes, I recall reading this week that a larger tragedy was prevented by a college student who was volunteer security at a mosque. He delayed the bomber and lost his life, but saved many others. (I believe two were killed along with the bomber, who was dressed as a woman or may have been a woman.)

I always thought the term "homicide bomber" was more appropriate when others are also targeted.
 
Yup, that was one of the stories. There have been attacks on expats as well. Some Canadian was hacked by a nut who went after him with a meat cleaver in a shopping mall a couple months ago. We aren't there yet but if things keep escalating between the Shia and Sunni here the Saudis will respond for sure.
 
I think it's probably accurate. Certainly not accurate for 65-75 range, but if you include all of the 75+ population (many/most of which are at 0%), it's probably right. Wouldn't surprise me to find that 15% of that 17% is all in the 65-70 range - which is likely in the 40%+ range all by itself.
 
I think you also have to factor in the increasing number of past smokers in the older age groups. I suspect that the percentage of those who have tried grass is _at least_ 15% among each existing age group over 60, and raised considerably overall by those 60-75, who probably reach 90%.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

greenchip
Quitting Engineering: ISO of someone I can get advice for low cost (less than $70/h)
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Bill_Man618
Bill_Man618
Wifey
All the Gear news that's fit to print.
Replies
6
Views
1K
Wifey
Wifey
pltrgyst
The Future
Replies
28
Views
3K
Budha
Budha
J
How did you almost die?
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
bergs
bergs
Back
Top Bottom