BBC could fall apart

[Giancarlo]

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

I'll grant you one thing. You'll admit your ignorance. And boy oh boy, is it huge.

[Imran Siddiqui]

npr = less biased news

I think I've shown that ain't true. Just as biased as anything else.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think I've shown that ain't true. Just as biased as anything else.

yes, one incident from 1989... CASE CLOSED!



I can turn on my tv and watch 5 minutes of fox, msnbc, and cnn and see more bias than NPR... you're wrong and that's that.

enjoy the rest of the discussion

[Imran Siddiqui]

one incident from 1989

I see three linked articles here... two of them are from 2002. How many more do you want?

I can turn on my tv and watch 5 minutes of fox, msnbc, and cnn and see more bias than NPR... you're wrong and that's that.

NPR agrees with you so you see less bias. You're wrong and that's that.

[monolith94]

The Macneil-Lehrer news hour was the most unbiased hour of news in the united states. Because of this, it was also the driest. So I stopped watching it.

[Dauphin]

I can't stand the BBC, not because of political bias, but because of arrogant up their own arses reporting.

[lightblue]

Fox = Sky because Murdoch tells them what to say. So if you want to be goosestepping behind some australian billionaire feel free.

The BBC news is a bit dumbed down for me, I personally like Channel 4 here, which is probably significantly more left wing than the BBC but whose standards of reporting are significantly higher.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Here's one point that puzzles me-

The mantra I hear on Apolyton goes "The BBC is biased against the USA! The BBC is biased against the USA!". Repeat until true.

Now I supported the invasion of Iraq, and I still do. I watched the BBC news coverage constantly throughout the war and the aftermath, and I still do.

I never once got the impression that the BBC was biased against the military action.

Sure- they broadcast statements from pro-Iraqi sources which were anti-invasion. They also broadcast opposing viewpoints. That's what the BBC does- it often doesn't give a unified corporate line as "THE TRUTH!", but gives reportage and comments from both sides. I realise that may be a difficult concet to grasp for those used to having their opinions spoon-fed to them by anchormen, but if you're one of those people that likes to have a lot of info from both sides of the debate and make your own mind up, it's a joy, I can assure you.

Now I can understand that anyone just tuning in for 2-minute soundbites might end up apopleptic with rage after hearing a viewpoint that disagrees with their own, but I didn't get that impression. I'd also remind all participants that every British government I can recall has moaned about the BBC being biased against them- and I think that's a good sign. People like Fez might like to question their received wisdom on the subject.

I doubt the BBC will be broken up- it'll be suicide for the government doing so because the BBC is held in far greater affection than any government.

[Frozzy]

[Hueij]

Laz, you just killed this thread...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by lightblue
Fox = Sky because Murdoch tells them what to say. So if you want to be goosestepping behind some australian billionaire feel free.

I've watched Fox, and I watch Sky. The two stations are definitely not alike.

[Provost Harrison]

It's true though, if Blair tried to break up the BBC, in combination with recent events which are reflecting on him, he will have handed the next election to the opposition on a platter. The only reason he hasn't already is because people are wary of the conservatives.

[CerberusIV]

Will the BBC devolve more programming decisions to regional level to keep the Scottish and Welsh MP's and Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly happy - possibly.

Will there be an independent regulator separate from the BBC board of governors- very probably. What worries the rest of the UK media is that once there is some sort of independent regulator they will inevitably be subject to similar controls, hence their "support" for the BBC.

Will anything else be changed - very unlikely. Government consultation nowadays almost always proposes more drastic changes than actually happen so that the Government can say they dropped proposals after listening to public views.

You read it here first.

[Odin]

I say I like NPR and then Fez and Sava make the whole thread explode. Fez is still Murdoch's spambot, as usual.

[*End Is Forever*]

Well said, Laz.

[notyoueither]

The only question I would have then, is why is the term 'Baghdad Broadcasting Corp.' widespread?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The only question I would have then, is why is the term 'Baghdad Broadcasting Corp.' widespread?

Pro-Saddam reporting mostly...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I can't stand the BBC, not because of political bias, but because of arrogant up their own arses reporting.

Yes, for the most part I agree. We started to receive BBC broadcasts on our public television stations a few years ago and I was excited about the prospect. Pretty quickly I realized that their news stories about the U.S. (for which I had a large number of alternative sources for news) were extremely biased. I was also turned off by the style of the BBC reporting which resembled British tabloid reporting, with wild lead ins to the reports (which are like headlines in a newspaper) followed by reportage which usually completely belied the lead in. Also BBC reporters are extremely combative in exactly the same way that Bill O'Reilly is combative, ie they interrupt and don't let the important person with inside information who is a guest on their program say their piece. Apparantly they already know better. There are plenty of venues in American television for the chattering classes to opine away, but I prefer my news shows to simply ask questions and moderate debates rather than take sides in them.

I saw Kathy Kay (Washington bureau chief for the Beeb) explain how she was going to spin the news of a future event (the primaries in Iowa) to the viewers back home. Now that's preperation!

The only thing I like about the BBC is the fact that they actually have a story about Africa from time to time. I have to assume that their bias also permeates this reportage, but as there is no real alternative in the U.S. to the BBC here, something is better than nothing.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lightblue
Fox = Sky because Murdoch tells them what to say. So if you want to be goosestepping behind some australian billionaire feel free.

The BBC news is a bit dumbed down for me, I personally like Channel 4 here, which is probably significantly more left wing than the BBC but whose standards of reporting are significantly higher.

Mr. Murdoch had to take out American citizenship in order to hold the variety of media outlets that he does in the United States.

The BBC is highly regarded in Third World countries, as being one of the few media networks that actually bothers to broadcast to them and report on events in those countries, and not just when there's a picturesque natural disaster or a bloody interminable civil war. In other countries its seen as the network that will actually report on what their governments are up to- rather than promoting the latest company nepotized and corrupted to the nth degree by the sons, daughters and assorted relatives of the Great Leader, Glorious Conducator or Leaderette for life.

Fez's view of the BBC is his own, and none the less inaccurate for that. Full marks to Fez for keeping us all entertained with the view from the pampas, however dimly perceived.

I'm still male and gay, by the way Fez, and still not interested in you, with or without shirt on.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm still male and gay, by the way Fez, and still not interested in you, with or without shirt on.

First off I never said I was interested in you. The problem I had was I always thought you were female. But I don't care. You definitely display an attitude that is not worth my time.

[monkspider]

Sorry, but I am not interested in you Fez.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider
Sorry, but I am not interested in you Fez.

The first day I'd be interested in anybody on apolyton would be the day pigs fly.

[DanS]

I agree with Sikander. A lot of the stuff is presented in a tabloid, breathless manner. But the reporters' biases and opinions also come in more than they should, and it seems like there are few editorial checks, especially on the radio programs. It doesn't surprise me that this is where the BBC got burned.

Quite frequently, I've read a good objective article or listened to a good objective radio piece. It's going fine -- just the facts -- until the last two or three short paragraphs where the reporters feel free to take pot shots at people or causes they don't like or editorialize to their heart's content. That really grates on my nerves, and it makes me wonder whether their reporters don't get a little somethin-somethin on the side for their views.

The strength of the BBC is its breadth of coverage. Personally, I don't find much value to the BBC beyond that. Further, even if I did find value beyond that, I would object to so much of my tax money being spent on it. Why is the BBC being paid to compete against established, respected news source like the FT, for instance?

Lastly, NPR often puts out good work, but it's incredibly left wing for the US. If my tax money were to go for that (I don't think it does, to any substantial degree), I would object. On the other hand, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS is the least biased news show available. This seems evident, because the show is respected across the political spectrum. I would object to my tax money being spent on this, but not as much as it being spent on NPR. This is so, even though I happily give to WETA, which produces the Newshour.

[monkspider]

You are wrong, you are interested in many people on Apolyton.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider
You are wrong, you are interested in many people on Apolyton.

You'd wish. Go get a bloke 'cause I'm not interested. And where the heck is red-fern? Okay I'll admit it.. I am interested in one person, but it is not you. Where is my gay buddy redfern?

[monkspider]

You are living in a fascist dream world. You are attracted to every last poster here.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider
You are living in a fascist dream world. You are attracted to every last poster here.

You wish.

So where is my buddy redfern anyways?

[monkspider]

Redfern is just one one of the hundreds of men you are attracted to on Apolyton, and I willl drive a tank in the street to prove it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, where is Redfern anyway?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Fez


Pro-Saddam reporting mostly...

Just because it said of the european dissent? Good news is SUPPOSED to give both sides, dimwit. Then again, fascists don't believe in a free media.