meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
Not quite. I'm saying that there are very stringent guidelines on political balance there. I doubt Fox have controls as tough.
Must be a British thing. We have no real "stringent guidelines on political balance" here.
You have no guidelines which is why it is so easy for the monied people who own the media to brainwash the poor and weak and tell them it is all their fault they are poor, their fault they have no health cover and despite the shitty lives they have, they are still living in the best country in the world and they too can be rich, powerful (and corrupt) if they try hard enough.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
You yourself state that some of their broadcasting is biased,
All people, and all organizations and all media outlets have bias. What is more important to me, is whether or not they acknowledge that bias, rather than pretending (lying) and saying they are "unbiased".
There are many ways to complain or get redress from the BBC should you think they are biased or dishonest. The there are internal bodies and external bodies dedicated to the checks and balances of bias. It isn't perfect as some editorial freedom and initiative has to be given to the BBC's journalists but the fact that the BBC is complained about from right, left and centre politicians and has a international reputation, it says to me it is doing something right.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
I haven't watched Fox in some time - not since they realised that they can sell more subscriptions by offering "feelgood TV" to people haunted by the calamity of Iraq.
Again ... must be a Brit thing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
We could argue the semantics of that term "liberal" for some time, even allowing for the cultural differences. Let's not. I'll just say that the notion that the BBC slants its reporting in favour of al Qaeda or the Taliban - if that's what you imagine - is a total flight of fancy.
Again ... you didn't peruse the articles much, I can tell. Specific biases were mentioned. In particular:
1. Anti-Americanism
2. Anti-Christian
3. Pro-Islamic
4. Pro- multiculturalism
I am pissing myself. I've got my criticisms of the BBC but being anti-American or anti-Christian is not one of them. The amount of positive reporting of America on the BBC is far too much in my book. In most European countries America is no more on TV than any other country, in Britain, TV makes me think it is the 51st state. I would welcoime more critical analysis of America on the BBC.
Britain has large sections of its society that are muslim and from many parts of the world, it is not for the BBC to make political decisions as to whether multi-culturalism or a particular religion is a good or bad thing and bias its editorial accordingly, it is for the BBC to make programmes for ALL the country, not just particular sections.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
It is an extremely conservative organisation. The BBC does not challenge the status quo one iota unless it has incontrivertible evidence. If anything, it pulls its punches and was slammed for the inefficacy of the embedded reporters during the invasion of Iraq. They simply accepted military intelligence.
I see no conflict with a news organization which is biased in espousing a particular world view, yet walking softly around it's source of funding.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
Have you considered that what you see as a "liberal bias" that the entire world media shares might more correctly be termed a consensus , one which is broadly - and there will always be slip-ups - unbiased? Especially as you have stated that Fox has abandoned that same impartiality? I'm not a cheerleader for Auntie by any stretch. I'd say to you what I'd say to anyone: use more than one source and remain sceptical.
During the 30s, the Germans pretty much had the "consensus" that all Jews should be removed from German civil society.
Actually they didn't
At one time, it was the "consensus" that kings ruled by divine right.
No, there was never a consensus.
At one time, it was the "consensus" that the earth was flat.
Not true.
At one time, it was the "consensus" that negroes were perfectly suited to slavery.
Not true.
"Consensus", is rarely one of the yardsticks with which I use to measure reality, or common morality.
Consensus is used as a convenient term for the prevailing view but there is rarely ever consensus, just someone with the power to call a situation a consensus.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RealityLicks
So, anyway. The BBC far from "supports my world view" - come on! - but it is a generally neutral news outlet and much closer to Fox's stance than the R L BroadcastingCorporation would be! Not that I'd consider myself particularly extreme, just that politics in the UK - even in this post New Labour era - is a significantly broader church than it is in the US.
If you consider it "neutral", then by definition it supports your world view. That's why conservatives consider Fox over here "Fair and Balanced" ... because to them, especially in comparison to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, et al ... it is.
Having watched rather a lot of American TV when I was over there, I know which I would rather have. But what makes me trust the BBC, is not my world view but the international reputation it has. The fact that many countries buy their documentries, that many of their journalists have international repuutations and that I hear people from other countries make positive comments about the BBC. Certainly in Europe the BBC is seen as the gold standard in TV.
< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 2/7/2008 5:31:50 AM >
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|
RE: The BBC, it's role in society? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread