"Yahoo News"

News for yahoos. None of it is true. Half of the stories they put up is "Sponsored Content", which is clickbait. A way to advertise the life out of you, and contaminate your device with viruses.

Wiki terms it as: News Aggregator
from, Associated Press, Reuters ...

Yahoo USP is: it trawls through Yahoo mails
Trawling as we know is nothing new, even Google admits to having done that
but this made it a popular rag and revived it's failing finances

What escaped notice is when it began to form opinion collector in India, China
and this began during the campaign when China Trade (& IP) became Trump's issue
it began to tilt reader's perspectives

After all tilted reports would find preferences when at the core:
Yahoo's founder is Asian born or,
Google's CEO is now an Indian origin American
(there's this tendency for people including CEO's to look the other way)

Yet, Yahoo or Google cannot be singled out for playing in the shadows
when US media follows the lead set by The Guardian / BBC

Why news headlines are same was explained by a senior newspaper man (retired from Times of India) during a conversation in 2013
it's a tacit understanding for survival and a shield from court cases

So if the UK Guardian takes the lead with a certain headline
similar headline has to ensue from the US network (affiliated or not)
The problem is UK time is 5 hours earlier to US
So the Guardian works harder to get it's headline right
In other words, US media had it made for them from WWII

WE really don't have good news media. That's why I get MY news from Aljazeera and The Guardian. Also the Western Journal out of Arizona.

Used to scan the BBC & Guardian, still do, but with reservations.
BBC we know was the bulwark against Nazi propaganda
VoA against Russian Pravda

The Guardian is a recent phenomenon,
it became a world media after Wiki Leaks.
That was then.

Now, once the shareholders began to clamor for returns which advertisements could deluge them with, (in India, front page headlines are now the second page with fill page ads taking over the front page) integrity of the content became secondary.

After Wiki Leaks (including declassified materials going back to Nixon days)
Guardian faced possible charges from the US Government and so by UK
and started back footing.

Now whether it is the Washington Post or NYT,
if we want to source the headlines it is the UK Guardian

- and that's disturbing - UK meddling into US politics.

R2D2, I hope you are reading this!

I am. The BBC is not impartial, which it should be, by law.
If not we can lawfully not pay for our T.V. licence, though it does cause a bit of aggravation.
Some of this thread has gone over my head.
I don't really care for the guardian. I hear the independent is good
Though personally I like the Sun. But it is a complete and utter rag. But the football is excellent. I just don't want to read a long article about how some politician has screwed somebody. Or has promised they won't screw somebody. We've often longed for a good news channel, as the news is just so depressing.
I haven't read a paper in awhile, but if I do, I like to read it in around 20 minutes after my lunch
In Your country sir, I read the Navhind times. Largely because they had it, where I ate lunch, but it did often have some interesting articles, at least I thought so.
What paper would you recommend in your country.

I apologize if I've gone a little of thread. Trump trying to bend things to his favor.. Lol..no..really..mind you, don't they all, or at least a lot of them. And i am not sure if Trump could bowl a googly even if he tried. And that's sort of the point, politicians shouldn't be bowling googlys, but in my opinion, it's ultimately, what they do. Which is, as I've said before, really the only good thing I can say about Trump

Honestly please watch a bit of the comedy program yes minister. It's superb and so true

https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M

https://youtu.be/TwFDvMiBKeM

Aha, an agreement!
was expecting fireworks in defense of the Guardian / BBC

W.r.t. your points:

1. Yes Sir, been watching Yes Minister for a long time - same situ here in India.
will check out the links you've given.

2. Leading newspapers in India - all leaning left.
Economic Times (India) gives close to neutral info.

As a socialist democracy we had 70 years of almost uninterrupted Leftist party in government. They left us with an oligarchy where the son of a PM or CM became the next PM / CM. Then there was unchecked increase in corruption. In spite, we survived.
Animal Farm - George Orwell

As an outsider I always look for intentions - not words. Hillary for instance, after 8 years in White House and 4 years as Secy of State; why can't she let go?
--xx--

Makes me wonder who XX is and if they know the average term for a congress person(mostly males) is 10 years, if they understand that their bio of her is wrong(she was a wife and did not SERVE in the white house, but she did have a few years as SENATOR before Sec of STATE, which together still dont add up to 8 years in a political career)

I wonder if they ask why male politicians dont just 'let go'?

True Ms Harmony, but as i recall, you mentioned 'naked greed' in an earlier post.

Without getting distracted by technicalities, any kin of former president, not only wife, but even son, brother; smacks of monarchy. Does it or not?

Sure, I understand the importance of having a woman president in society; Margaret Thatcher did a world of good not only for UK; but as an icon. And the reason was she came through on her own power, not on family brand name. That's what I meant; you see once a person needs a crutch; it becomes part of the image & actions are defined by it. Obama is a towering example. He was cautious and did a great job; but there were some omissions in world affairs, or came late.

The 8 year term limit is what differentiates US democracy from rest of world. Our PMs in India could continue for life, if elected. Astonishing.


One valuable point you mentioned is Senate Term Limits:


The 'unlimited' is true in India; we have seen many a son / daughter fill the vacancy (win on sympathy factor). High time, Cinderella was banned in schools.

It is no issue to me that people in the same family may have more than one interested in public service or politics, anymore than if more than one is interested in law or medicine. All that matters is if they are qualified for the positions they seek.

Especially if one stops to the couples who may MEET in college having similar studies and interests, pursuing similar careers.

Frankly, I don't give a damn.
The American people reap what they sow.
No offense to all the 'other American" people on this hemisphere.

When you make poor decisions because you based them on the wrong criteria, you will always have problems.

All you people that vote "in the know", ya don't know shait.
Obviously.

LOL, y'all make me laugh.