RE: Should Government Subsidize The News?

RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 9:12:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The BBC is a perfect example of government preaching propaganda to the masses in order to justify itself and the things it does in the name of its citizens. Pure bullshit.

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 9:45:05 AM)
Maybe I am missing your point... You mean pressure before the tax exemption is passed?.. If so can you image the uproar if Obama tried to put direct pressure on an editor... The Republicans would have a new platform to run on... Like I said before political pressure would stop any coercion dead in its tracks. Butch

Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 9:50:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Anyone doing the slightest bit of casual research will soon discover that the BBC is hopelessly, shamelessly tilted towards the left, biased blatantly towards whatever agenda the government-paid charlatans who control it desire. The BBC is a perfect example of government preaching propaganda to the masses in order to justify itself and the things it does in the name of its citizens. Maybe you should stop the casual research and do some proper research. Your own links show the BBC gets accused of being biased, nothing more, nothing less. Its ironic there is even a link to a report which doesnt show any evidence to back you up. Mind you a web site called bbcbias.co.uk is just the place for an impartial view, isnt it. [8\|]

Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 9:55:18 AM)
You only say that because your own partisanship so closely matches theirs. In your own eyes they are above it all, and beyond criticism... But, to anyone who can see things objectively, the BBC is a hopelessly lost cause. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Pure bullshit.

TheHeretic -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 10:33:27 AM)
Fast reply to the OP; Interesting bit about this in the Christian Science Monitor Of all the industries I would be opposed to bailing out when their business model fails, news would be at the top of the list. There will always be a market for their product, and the ultimate failure of even the grandest outlets will open new opportunities for those with a better product. It even strikes me that having the gov't meddle in the economics of the industry would be a violation of the Fisrt Amendment, but I'm just not up for making that case today.

ienigma777 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 10:52:11 AM)
Yes, most certainly...Remember the war, before Iraq, the Asian thingie; Tailand, Cambodia, stuff. Well, I was on photo assignment...on the docks of San Pedro, CA. off to one side, A flat bed semi truck was parked to one side of a warehouse, from a distance, I could barely see, it was loaded with these oblong metal containers....so I go and investigate, out of simple curisoity. And this is what these trucks were loaded with....Green, olive drab, metal coffins. Thereon were printed a big black mark, and the words, 'Align Mark with Mark On Body' for ease of handling'....also 'Handle with Care, Reusable Container.' Yes, I kid you not. So I'm engrossed with my photography, backing up, focusing all that sort of thing.....and I back up, and bump into some object. I look around, as I'm on an empty dock, with only the truck and the warehouse; or so I thought,......LAPD car; the two officers approach, hand on holster snap button, and motion me to hand over my camera. So, dumb me, I agressively oppose them, "not my camera"....they..."give up the camera"...the holster snap is unsnapped....me...I look at the Pacific ,dirty, Pacific water, and negotiate, ...."how about the film"...they...."okay"....by the way..."you are in a restricted area." There were no restricted Area signs anywhere. Imagine that...I could have been out one hell of an expensive camera. Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' was premature....he should have anounced it after his bailout give away of the 700 billion. "Mission Accomplished; I just fucked you and your Children and their children, America." AND then added....."guess what, I signed into Law, that we are un-accountible." And, these people who debate the nit-picky, rules, and lieing President Obama (who has been in office 6 months)......they are joking, right.

slvemike4u -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 10:52:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You only say that because your own partisanship so closely matches theirs. In your own eyes they are above it all, and beyond criticism... But, to anyone who can see things objectively, the BBC is a hopelessly lost cause. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Pure bullshit. Am I to understand that you are claiming to be objective.

Raechard -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 11:23:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Anyone doing the slightest bit of casual research will soon discover that the BBC is hopelessly, shamelessly tilted towards the left, biased blatantly towards whatever agenda the government-paid charlatans who control it desire. The BBC is a perfect example of government preaching propaganda to the masses in order to justify itself and the things it does in the name of its citizens. Anyone who remembers the coverage of the Falkland’s war or the Dr Kelly WMD coverage would understand how the BBC isn't influenced by the government. So your intimation is that the BBC swaps from left to right depending on who is in government? Seems based on the omission of easily obtained historical references. The BBC does lie to its people though for other reasons: I remember the 7/7 attacks and what the BBC said it thought those were. As I remember from their reporting at the time it was hard for them to explain how an electrical substation had caused a bus to explode. Someone thought we were morons at the time obviously.

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 12:45:17 PM)
I do believe the BBC tries to be independent…but… they always reflect the thinking of most citizens of the UK… and there is nothing wrong with that. BUT, and I am not a supporter of any media, it seems most of you European posters think Fox is owned by the Republican Party. Conservatives do not own it anymore than the BBC is owned by its government. Fox reflects the thinking of a good half the citizens in America. You must understand from a conservative’s viewpoint the BBC is not even handed… it has a definite liberal bent. So it goes in a divided world…at least we are mostly free to express those differences. Butch

Raechard -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 1:02:12 PM)
The contrast I have pointed out a number of times between the style of reporting adopted by the BBC and that of Fox and maybe others on the opposite side of the political spectrum is simple: The BBC tends to report the issues and doesn't overly try to analyses what a politician means when they say something. The words of a politicians should speak for themselves they need no further analysis. Where Fox and others tend to deviate from that is they tend to give an opinion as to what someone saying something means by it. I'd say Sheppard Smith is quite fair in that same respect but others within the organisation will give their own interpretation of some politician speaking almost as if they were politicians themselves i.e. the opposition to that politician. In the UK the government has an official opposition as I guess it does there, therefore Fox only has to do one thing and that is give the official opposing politician/speaker the time to dispute something rather than disputing it themselves with pundits. In any analysis conducted with the BBC you’ll not often see a member from only one party. It’s a member from each or no analysis at all and moving on to something else.

kdsub -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 1:20:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raechard The contrast I have pointed out a number of times between the style of reporting adopted by the BBC and that of Fox and maybe others on the opposite side of the political spectrum is simple: The BBC tends to report the issues and doesn't overly try to analyses what a politician means when they say something. The words of a politicians should speak for themselves they need no further analysis. Where Fox and others tend to deviate from that is they tend to give an opinion as to what someone saying something means by it. I'd say Sheppard Smith is quite fair in that same respect but others within the organisation will give their own interpretation of some politician speaking almost as if they were politicians themselves i.e. the opposition to that politician. In the UK the government has an official opposition as I guess it does there, therefore Fox only has to do one thing and that is give the official opposing politician/speaker the time to dispute something rather than disputing it themselves with pundits. In any analysis conducted with the BBC you’ll not often see a member from only one party. It’s a member from each or no analysis at all and moving on to something else. As I've said before it is a difference in style not content. I often listen to the BBC on PBS and the same news reported on Fox... To you the BBC does not editorialize but to many here in America it does. Not in direct words but in the delivery style. When I watch Fox I see the same news with the same facts but presented in a way conservatives would look at the information. It is all in the political bent of the viewer. Now I would agree with you If I saw Fox deliberately leave out details or outright change the story… I don’t see that. I do like the BBC because it covers a much wider spectrum of stories thought out the world. Fox and the rest of American media do not report them because they don’t see them as affecting America directly. Personally I like the BBC better but as a more complete news source not because I think American news outlets are compromised. Butch

Crush -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 1:47:47 PM)
The printing press eventually replaced the Town Crier. It has a good run. And the 'Net is replacing the printing press. Journalists were once minstrels...then "professionals" and now "everyone" is a journalist, if they want to be one. Does that mean a blogger should now get a bailout/financial assistance from the government? Or do we decide that the 'Net, still in its heyday of "journalism" (See moveon.org and infowars.com) and has yet to shake out accountability for publications. We are in the midst of change for "journalism" from what it was to what it is to what it will become.

Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 4:31:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I do believe the BBC tries to be independent…but… they always reflect the thinking of most citizens of the UK… and there is nothing wrong with that. BUT, and I am not a supporter of any media, it seems most of you European posters think Fox is owned by the Republican Party. Conservatives do not own it anymore than the BBC is owned by its government. Fox reflects the thinking of a good half the citizens in America. You must understand from a conservative’s viewpoint the BBC is not even handed… it has a definite liberal bent. So it goes in a divided world…at least we are mostly free to express those differences. Butch Good post Butch. I agree the BBC sometimes seem left leaning and the reason for that is, i think due to its staff. The BBC has a policy of including minorities, rightly so, so sometimes news stories reflect that. Thats totally different from the suggestion that the Labour party influence it. Infact I think it was Labour who brought in the rule that whatever the political view of the BBC Chairman is, the vice Chairman should be politically opposed.

Crush -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 5:05:59 PM)
Naw, the news organizations could never be subverted: Правда

philosophy -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 6:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janiebelle Politically independent is a neat trick not often accomplished in a situation of economic dependency. j ...agreed, but we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard...........hmm, may have heard that line somewhere else before......[:D]

philosophy -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 6:29:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Anyone doing the slightest bit of casual research will soon discover that the BBC is hopelessly, shamelessly tilted towards the left, biased blatantly towards whatever agenda the government-paid charlatans who control it desire. The BBC is a perfect example of government preaching propaganda to the masses in order to justify itself and the things it does in the name of its citizens. ...well done, you managed to put the words 'BBC' and 'bias' into a search engine and got stuff that mentioned BBC bias. However, one link on the page did leap out at me..... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece .....The Times reports how the BBC commissioned a report into its own bias. Now, imagine the likelihood that Fox would commission then publish a report that accused it of bias. What are the odds? Also, that report pointed to bias in BBC reporting of single issue politics. It also said that "its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial". All you've really managed to do is prove that the BBC actually tries to be unbiased, willingly and continually tries to avoid it and doesn't duck when it gets caught being biased. Oh, and next time you want to try and do a 'slightest bit of research', you may want to contrast and compare a google search of BBC bias with one of BBC impartiality.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 6:41:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Now, imagine the likelihood that Fox would commission then publish a report that accused it of bias. What are the odds? Actually the odds arent that bad , since they would fare very well against at least NBC and MSNBC (not to mention Err America) and a lot of the print media.

Owner59 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 8:18:20 PM)
The BBC is most times spot on and not for nothing,are on the world scene and reporting it. The conservative`s problem or should I say their dilemma is that the news/reality gets reported ,period.And we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias.[8D] If the conservatives/neo-conservatives had it there way,bush would be known as a heroic fighter for freedom and democracy who brought justice to the terrorist`s doorstep.Instead of the reality or actual situation,a swaggering bumbler who borders on criminally negligent.A failure who let bin-laden get away. We wouldn`t hear about torture or if we did,it would only be the upside or something else made up from air to excuse it. If they had their way,bad economic news wouldn`t exist if a con was in office.If a dem was in office,the bad news would be blamed on them, as has already happened with Obama for example. The press has been more than generous with bush.He`s gotten a lot of passes.It`s just that he`s such a monumental fuck up,bush can`t not look bad.I`ll never forgive the MSM for not hammering bush while good men and women were dying,but had no problem hammering Clinton over a blowjob. To have a MSM with a rightist`s agenda,we would have a mainstream media that resembled Fox News or TASS where the news is suborned to politics. .

Termyn8or -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 11:06:51 PM)
It is too late at night for me to write my whole opinion on this, but...... Media is going to operate in the best interests of the PTB because the PTB licenses them. It can only get worse if they fund them. However, years ago the electric company here screwed up and someone got killed. It got minimal coverage, but there were alot of ads for the electric company right afterward. Now why does a public utility company have to advertise ? If you live in the area they service they have a monopoly. What does this tell you ? T

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/9/2009 11:26:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or It is too late at night for me to write my whole opinion on this, but...... Media is going to operate in the best interests of the PTB because the PTB licenses them. It can only get worse if they fund them. However, years ago the electric company here screwed up and someone got killed. It got minimal coverage, but there were alot of ads for the electric company right afterward. Now why does a public utility company have to advertise ? If you live in the area they service they have a monopoly. What does this tell you ? T I dont know what your point is. Public utilities advertise all the time.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875