BBC could fall apart

[Giancarlo]

Break up is being considered

LONDON (AFP) - Britain's government is considering a plan to break up the BBC and remove its independent status in the wake of a bitter row with the state-funded broadcaster over the Iraq (news - web sites) war, a report said.

Government papers detailing possible changes to the BBC's structure proposed breaking it into separate regional entities for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Sunday Times said.

The documents, which the newspaper said had been drawn up by "senior civil servants", also suggested that the job of ensuring the BBC's impartiality could be taken away from the corporation's board of governors.

The BBC, which is independently run despite being financed by public money through a compulsory television licence, is currently facing perhaps the worst breakdown in relations with the government in its 82-year history.

****

This may be the end for the Baghdad, I mean British Broadcasting Corporation.

[Shi Huangdi]

Blair couldn't possibly be that dumb.

[Patroklos]

I havven't been a fan recently, but overall I still think they are a ggreat network and their loss would be regretable.

[Giancarlo]

I never trusted them with a grain of salt. The Sky News was the British station I usually turned to (while in Europe).

[Bereta_Eder]

Let's hope not. I couldn't imagine a state run channel doing active opposition ot the government. That's independence.

[*End Is Forever*]

It won't happen.

[Odin]

Fez in his fascist fantasy world again. The BBC and NPR are the only news I trust.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Odin
Fez in his fascist fantasy world again. The BBC and NPR are the only news I trust.

I'm not fascist, you nescient little boy.

And the BBC and the NPR are the only news you trust? No wonder why you are so full of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is trusting NPR any better than Fez trusting Fox News?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How is trusting NPR any better than Fez trusting Fox News?

because NPR = the best news in terms of as little bias as possible...

see... the thing is... all the right-wing dipshits can't tell NPR is good news because they are so used to hearing their propaganda from right-wing biased sources! So when a relatively unbiased news outlet comes to their attention, they think it must be some left wing pinko news outlet because it doesn't sound like rank and file RNC propaganda.

The BBC is a good news source. I'd say, in general, it is a little bit more biased than NPR. But it's still more objective than any of the American media... especially the cable channels.

To find a news outlet with a "left wing" or "liberal" bias equal to those of Fox and company... you need to visit the DNC's website or the Democratic Underground.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, only Sava would consider NPR 'balanced'. Go take some more drugs, Sava .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah, only Sava would consider NPR 'balanced'. Go take some more drugs, Sava .

"balanced" implies there is a sharing of views from both sides... opinionated... since NPR is just straight news, for the most part, objective... it is not balanced because there is no opinion to balance in the stories.

Plus Imran, I don't expect you to agree with me. I already explained the phenomenon that affects right-wingers' ability to notice objective news.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sava
because NPR = the best news in terms of as little bias as possible...

see... the thing is... all the right-wing dipshits can't tell NPR is good news because they are so used to hearing their propaganda from right-wing biased sources! So when a relatively unbiased news outlet comes to their attention, they think it must be some left wing pinko news outlet because it doesn't sound like rank and file RNC propaganda.

The BBC is a good news source. I'd say, in general, it is a little bit more biased than NPR. But it's still more objective than any of the American media... especially the cable channels.

To find a news outlet with a "left wing" or "liberal" bias equal to those of Fox and company... you need to visit the DNC's website or the Democratic Underground.

Sava are you drunk or have you been drinking? If so, what?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't worry left wingers, such as yourself, think anything that isn't leftist propaganda is all lies as well .

And saying news can't be 'balanced' is an idiotic statement. Balance in the news means presenting more than one side to a story or event.

[Sava]

And saying news can't be 'balanced' is an idiotic statement. Balance in the news means presenting more than one side to a story or event.

I suppose... but NPR doesn't present "angles" or "opinions" or "points of view"... they just tell it like it is! They also present the news in a more intellectual form (which might be confused as left-wing) than the sensationalist crap everywhere else.

Public news is by far the best news because they don't manipulate the stories for their owners' agendas, and they don't sensationalize the news. News from private sources is generally not as good as public news because they are bound by the dollar to sell commercial time.

[Giancarlo]

NPR is as liberal as it comes.. and yes they do present views. They most certainly do. Come on sava, you are not that blind are you? Have you ever even listened to NPR?

[Imran Siddiqui]

they just tell it like it is!

And Fox just tells it like it is . You're better than that, Sava! EVERY news report has bias, even if they 'tell it like it is', it depends on their views on what 'it' is.

Public news is by far the best news because they don't manipulate the stories for their owners' agendas, and they don't sensationalize the news.

I still prefer CNN.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Fez
NPR is as liberal as it comes.. and yes they do present views. They most certainly do. Come on sava, you are not that blind are you? Have you ever even listened to NPR?

when I'm in the car during mornings or evenings... it's number two on my list right after sports radio 670AM the score

Sava! EVERY news report has bias, even if they 'tell it like it is', it depends on their views on what 'it' is.

duh... perhaps you should reread my initial post... NPR has LESS bias than the "mainstream".

I still prefer CNN.

they are probably the best cable news... but they have their own problems. They get sucked into the whole sensationalist crapfest, and they also tend to go with the preverbial flow. In the days leading up to the Iraq pre-emptive invasion, they were beating the war drums and cheering on like a bunch of drunken prom-dates wanting to **** the football team. And now, they're all about the WMD and AWOL issue. While I like to see them critical of Bush on some things, they are just going with the national flow of news.

the best thing about NPR is I didn't have to hear about janet's ****ing *** 8 million times a day...

[Imran Siddiqui]

NPR has LESS bias than the "mainstream".

I disagree. They have plenty of bias themselves.

they are just going with the national flow of news.

Seeing as it is the 'national flow' EVERYONE is going with it . And actually, I'd say they are very powerful in MAKING the national flow.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I havven't been a fan recently, but overall I still think they are a ggreat network and their loss would be regretable.

They cover a massive amount of news for various regions of the globe. They are a valuable source of information, if simply as a check on what is being reported locally.

Did some of their people go overboard on Iraq? I think so.

Does the organisation perform a good service? I think so.

And I agree with Shi that Blair would not be so stupid, and Iain probably is closer to the reality of what could happen than anyone else who has posted here yet.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I disagree. They have plenty of bias themselves.

could you elaborate? I mean, it's easy to see Fox's bias. Every time I turn it on it's some jackass complaining about liberals, gays, and anything not America... or worse, it's just flag-waving RNC bs...

perhaps NPR is sooooo clever (because they are dirty little liberal elitists) that they EMBED their bias so people don't realize it's terribly biased?!@

(did the sarcasm translate well?)

Seeing as it is the 'national flow' EVERYONE is going with it . And actually, I'd say they are very powerful in MAKING the national flow.

well I don't think the media should be making the news... they should be reporting it...

but then again, you like to see corporate interests controlling this country...

[Giancarlo]

Sava you never cease to amaze me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

could you elaborate?

Well say when they bring their field reporters. They offer their opinions on a variety of things. Such as today in 'All Things Considered' talking about what the reporter thought about meetings Bremer had with Sistani and how she thought they'd have to postpone meetings because of attacks. Total speculation on her part (she even said "I think"). But the anchor nodded along, saying yep they have to because of how horrible it was there, etc.

And how many times have they had Howard Zinn on the network? Where are the right-leaning authors?

How about (from a biased source, yes):

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/nra-npr.html

In December of 1989 NPR conducted an editorial essay, masked as a "news feature," in support of gun control. In one broadcast NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said "(t)here may be a lively debate about whether the Constitution confers on individuals the right to bear arms, but that debate is not going on in America's courts, its law schools, or its scholarly legal journals. Indeed, even the National Rifle Association could not recommend for this broadcast a single constitutional law professor who would defend the Second Amendment as conferring on individuals the right to bear arms."

No debate in America's scholarly legal journals? An informal survey of the literature suggests that no less than 28 law journal articles supporting the thesis that the Second Amendment protects an individual right appeared between 1960 and 1989; this includes the American Bar Association Journal. No Constitutional law professors who support this view? Hardly. In December 1989, the very month in which Miss Totenberg made this broadcast, University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional scholar, had published an article in the Yale Law Review entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." In the article, Professor Levinson says that the right protected (not "conferred", as she would have it), is an individual right. So on these counts, at least, she was demonstrably, flat out, wrong. Give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe America's premier legal reporter just hadn't visited a reasonably well equipped law library to review the Periodical Guide to Legal Literature, or had not seen the Yale Law Review when she made the broadcast.

What about the National Rifle Association and the names of the legal scholars? This is a different story. When asked for the names of scholars, NRA spokeswoman Debbie Nauser gave Miss Totenberg the names of three (3) -- count them -- scholars. There is no room for doubt here. In the words of Josiah Royce, the reporter had "willfully misplaced her ontological predicates."

More recently, the CrimeStrike Division of NRA, following the murders of several Korean-American merchants in the District of Columbia, met with a group of these merchants to discuss some legislation which we had proposed for D.C. Following this meeting, during an NPR news magazine and documentary broadcast, an NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, gave a harangue against the NRA for having attended the meeting. She said that we had gone there to tell Korean merchants that blacks are criminals. She said that our initials should stand for the "Negro Removal Association." She said that we wanted sixteen year old boys to carry Uzis because the gun would probably be used to kill a black person.

This is not responsible editorializing, let alone news; it is vicious libel. The NRA had been formed in 1871 by former officers in the Union Army, men who had fought to end slavery. The first signature on our charter, and the first president of NRA, was Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who had been forced to stand by and watch the men of his division slaughtered during the battle of Sharpsburg, the battle which induced Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Gen. Ulysses Grant and Gen. Phil Sheridan also served as presidents of the NRA. Unlike any other social organization in the country in 1871, African Americans were never excluded from membership in the NRA. An African American member of our Board of Directors, after this broadcast, came to me and told me that as a young boy growing up in the District of Columbia, the only place he could go, where he was always welcomed regardless of his race, was a rifle club run by the NRA. Civil rights leader Roy Innis is also on our Board of Directors. In fact, the meeting with Korean American merchants had been arranged by black NRA members in the District of Columbia, and one black NRA member participated in the presentation.

We have asked every one of the hundreds of NPR member stations for an opportunity to give an adequate response to this scurrilous attack. One, and only one, gave us this right.

Striking

perhaps NPR is sooooo clever (because they are dirty little liberal elitists) that they EMBED their bias so people don't realize it's terribly biased

I guess CNN is clever as well because most people don't think it is biased at all.

well I don't think the media should be making the news... they should be reporting it...

Deciding on WHAT to report is making the news. This is basic stuff, but heaven forbid if you got anything 'basic' .

[Sava]

Sava you never cease to amaze me.

good, I'd hate to be boring you

I guess CNN is clever as well because most people don't think it is biased at all.

most people are morons

Deciding on WHAT to report is making the news. This is basic stuff, but heaven forbid if you got anything 'basic'

your posts would be much more efficient if you didn't make all these DUH statements

[Imran Siddiqui]

I put this in my prior post, but you posted before I edited it in:

How about (from a biased source, yes):

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/nra-npr.html

In December of 1989 NPR conducted an editorial essay, masked as a "news feature," in support of gun control. In one broadcast NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said "(t)here may be a lively debate about whether the Constitution confers on individuals the right to bear arms, but that debate is not going on in America's courts, its law schools, or its scholarly legal journals. Indeed, even the National Rifle Association could not recommend for this broadcast a single constitutional law professor who would defend the Second Amendment as conferring on individuals the right to bear arms."

No debate in America's scholarly legal journals? An informal survey of the literature suggests that no less than 28 law journal articles supporting the thesis that the Second Amendment protects an individual right appeared between 1960 and 1989; this includes the American Bar Association Journal. No Constitutional law professors who support this view? Hardly. In December 1989, the very month in which Miss Totenberg made this broadcast, University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional scholar, had published an article in the Yale Law Review entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." In the article, Professor Levinson says that the right protected (not "conferred", as she would have it), is an individual right. So on these counts, at least, she was demonstrably, flat out, wrong. Give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe America's premier legal reporter just hadn't visited a reasonably well equipped law library to review the Periodical Guide to Legal Literature, or had not seen the Yale Law Review when she made the broadcast.

What about the National Rifle Association and the names of the legal scholars? This is a different story. When asked for the names of scholars, NRA spokeswoman Debbie Nauser gave Miss Totenberg the names of three (3) -- count them -- scholars. There is no room for doubt here. In the words of Josiah Royce, the reporter had "willfully misplaced her ontological predicates."

More recently, the CrimeStrike Division of NRA, following the murders of several Korean-American merchants in the District of Columbia, met with a group of these merchants to discuss some legislation which we had proposed for D.C. Following this meeting, during an NPR news magazine and documentary broadcast, an NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, gave a harangue against the NRA for having attended the meeting. She said that we had gone there to tell Korean merchants that blacks are criminals. She said that our initials should stand for the "Negro Removal Association." She said that we wanted sixteen year old boys to carry Uzis because the gun would probably be used to kill a black person.

This is not responsible editorializing, let alone news; it is vicious libel. The NRA had been formed in 1871 by former officers in the Union Army, men who had fought to end slavery. The first signature on our charter, and the first president of NRA, was Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who had been forced to stand by and watch the men of his division slaughtered during the battle of Sharpsburg, the battle which induced Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Gen. Ulysses Grant and Gen. Phil Sheridan also served as presidents of the NRA. Unlike any other social organization in the country in 1871, African Americans were never excluded from membership in the NRA. An African American member of our Board of Directors, after this broadcast, came to me and told me that as a young boy growing up in the District of Columbia, the only place he could go, where he was always welcomed regardless of his race, was a rifle club run by the NRA. Civil rights leader Roy Innis is also on our Board of Directors. In fact, the meeting with Korean American merchants had been arranged by black NRA members in the District of Columbia, and one black NRA member participated in the presentation.

We have asked every one of the hundreds of NPR member stations for an opportunity to give an adequate response to this scurrilous attack. One, and only one, gave us this right.

Striking

[Sava]

wow 1989... the repuke admin was still helping saddam hussein, I was 9, the oilers were winning cups still... got anything current? or is this the best u got. to reach the level of bias at "mainstream" or even the likes of FOX, NPR would have to do that kind of stuff 24/7... and they don't... it's very rare.

[Imran Siddiqui]

More current? Sure (once again, media source, so it's biased):

http://www.aim.org/publications/medi...003/07/18.html

In a recent column blasting the new media ownership rules issued by the FCC, Tom Shales of the Washington Post quoted extensively from Bob Edwards of National Public Radio. He said, "Edwards used the example of the Dixie Chicks to show how monolithic media can manipulate public opinion." Edwards claimed that Clear Channel Radio, owner of 1,250 stations, "spearheaded" a campaign against the Dixie Chicks because its lead singer had said in London, on the eve of the war, that she was ashamed of President Bush.

Here is what Edwards said in his speech: "Is Clear Channel’s move on those Dixie Chicks an expression of patriotism or a business decision? Should Clear Channel have the right to ban the Chicks from its 1,250 stations? I think what individuals do is fine—burn the CDs if you want. What industry does is another matter. Clear Channel can say the Dixie Chicks are tools of Saddam if it wants to, but it should not be allowed to kill the livelihood of any recording artist based on politics."

The problem with Edwards is that he cites absolutely no evidence for anything he said. He cited no evidence of a corporate mandate to discontinue playing any records. Clear Channel says no such mandate was ever issued. Did Clear Channel destroy Dixie Chicks’ CDs? There’s no evidence of that at all. Instead, consumers did so, and that’s their right. In fact, Clear Channel says that, according to the Mediabase Airplay Monitor Service, Clear Channel played the Dixie Chicks songs more often—a full 10,069 times—than any other major broadcaster in the two weeks following the controversial statements made by the group’s lead singer. So Edwards’ charge is demonstrably false.

[Imran Siddiqui]

More from same source:

http://www.aim.org/publications/brie...19feb2002.html

On January 22 [2002], NPR aired a story on its Morning Edition show that declared the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) a likely suspect in the ongoing anthrax investigation.

After noting that Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, both Democrats, had each received anthrax letters, reporter David Kestenbaum stated, "One group who had a gripe with Daschle and Leahy is the Traditional Values Coalition, which, before the attacks, had issued a press release criticizing the Senators for trying to remove the phrase 'so help me God' from the oath."

Kestenbaum acknowledged that the TVC told him that the FBI, which is conducting the anthrax investigation, had not contacted them. "But," Kestenbaum continued, "investigators are thinking along these lines. FBI agents won't discuss the case, but the people they have spoken with will."

Throughout the rest of the broadcast, there was no more mention of the TVC. No evidence was presented that would in any way indicate it might be behind the anthrax attacks. Neither were there any statements from anyone supporting Kestenbaum's assertion that a group like the TVC could be responsible. In fact, Kestenbaum included quotes from a bio-terrorism expert that indicated the likely perpetrator is actually a member of the scientific community.

"I can speculate that a scientist working in the bio-defense program, as this perpetrator must be, would want to frighten people about biological weapons because that would make his program and his work more important," Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, of the Federation of American Scientists, was quoted as saying. "So this might be a rather warped way of bringing the threat to public attention."

The NPR story was met with outrage by the TVC, which issued two press releases decrying the NPR's "smear attempt" and criticizing what it felt was "a serious leap in logic and unprofessional journalism to assume that a Christian group critical of two Senators over an oath would establish an anthrax laboratory and hire biochemical experts to develop weaponized anthrax."

In response to mounting criticism over the story, the NPR issued a statement January 29 acknowledging that it was "inappropriate" to name a group on the air when there was no evidence that they were or should be investigated.

The carefully worded statement, however, left many unsatisfied.

"This is an outrageous, vicious and baseless smear by a reporter, partially paid by American taxpayers, against an organization with no links to any crime, much less this fall's anthrax attacks on members of our government," L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, stated. "Nothing less than an apology is owed, and nothing less will do."

The Reverend Lou Sheldon, chairman of the TVC, intends to pursue a lawsuit against the NPR, CSN News reported last week.

"They have not apologized, neither have they retracted, neither have they said they were sorry," Sheldon said. "In saying that they shouldn't have had to refer to us, may mean in their minds that we were guilty and they were messing up the FBI's investigation of us. They haven't really said anything."'

NPR has bias and opinions, Sava. Just admit it before you end up making yourself look siller than you already do. I mean you've had a number of Congressional resolutions telling NPR to be more objective.

[Giancarlo]

Hey Imran... Sava said this to me:

I also acknowledge that I'm an ignorant moron - Sava

So you must hand it to him.. he will ignore your sources.

[Sava]

NPR has bias and opinions, Sava. Just admit it before you end up making yourself look siller than you already do.

I already did, mr. illiterate. go reread my posts cuz I'm sick and tired of spelling everything out for you... npr = less biased news... not no bias news.

I also acknowledge that I'm an ignorant moron - Sava

big deal, I say that to everyone... you should read more socrates to find out what wisdom is... admitting your own ignorance.