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

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



Message


Termyn8or -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 4:48:19 AM)

Zzactly my point. When they have a monopoly why advertise ? It makes about as much sense as advertising a highway or a bridge.

What they are doing is buying influence.

T




Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 8:21:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...well done, you managed to put the words 'BBC' and 'bias' into a search engine and got stuff that mentioned BBC bias.


Google returned far more than a mere mention of BBC bias, but one must have a mind which is open in order to properly realize it.

quote:


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".


Why attack FOX, when FOX isn't the subject? Do you feel you need a distraction? [:D]

And about that little, tiny problem with "single issue politics" that you mentioned - let's look into that. From your own link:


quote:


THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.


It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.


Singled out is the coverage of Bob Geldof’s Live 8 concert and the Make Poverty History campaign. The report says there was no rounded debate of the issues.


The report also raises serious concerns about accompanying programmes, including a drama by the writer Richard Curtis and the finale of his Vicar of Dibley where Dawn French shows a minute-long clip of the Make Poverty History video.


Hmm. The BBC admits to its bias - no small matter, that - regardless of how you try to spin it. "THE BBC is institutionally biased,..." (emphasis mine). Do you even know what it means, when the BBC itself acknowledges that it is institutionally biased... ?


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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.



Actually, I didn't prove nor disprove anything, and neither did you (as the links speak for themselves).


quote:

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.



I didn't do any research, I said "anyone doing the slightest bit of research..." will soon discover that the BBC is  hopelessly, shamelessly tilted towards the left... and then I provided a convenient link for a Google search for anyone who cared to have a go at it.







CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 8:28:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Zzactly my point. When they have a monopoly why advertise ? It makes about as much sense as advertising a highway or a bridge.

What they are doing is buying influence.

T


How does placing ads buy influence?

They place ads for public relations and information purposes.




Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 8:35:02 AM)


Say you buy a $250,000.00 ad with a newspaper, so that the newspaper's editor is more likely to do some heavy editing of any articles which may cast you in a bad light.

There's one example...

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual
How does placing ads buy influence?

They place ads for public relations and information purposes.




CruelNUnsual -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 8:36:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Say you buy a $250,000.00 ad with a newspaper, so that the newspaper's editor is more likely to do some heavy editing of any articles which may cast you in a bad light.

There's one example...

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual
How does placing ads buy influence?

They place ads for public relations and information purposes.



To use your own logic, why would they care if they are cast in a bad light by an editor if they have a monopoly?

Sorry, youre stretching with your public utilities example.




Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 8:48:23 AM)


Can't you think of any reasons why public utilities desire to have a good public image on your own? 

Put it this way - you don't want to spook the herd.




Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 10:00:42 AM)


Not directed at any one poster, but this thing with the BBC admitting to its own institutional bias raises a good point in the context of this thread, in the context of government getting in bed with the media...

The BBC is admittedly extremely biased, and yet its listeners are blissfully unaware of any bias at all.

That's a sobering reality, isn't it? Think about it...

Is that really the road we want to travel down here in the USA?





rulemylife -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 10:14:39 AM)

Admittedly biased?

What I saw was them conducting their own investigation to try to correct any problems and ensure objectivity.




Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 10:24:42 AM)

Sanity, the link Phil used refers to an article by the Times. All this is is the Times guessing what the report may say. The BBC refutes the claim it is biased, its own report doesnt say the BBC is biased either. You cant claim something is true, ie "The BBC admits bias" When there is no evidence they have said this themselves. If you have such a link, or can find one, I would welcome it and admit I am wrong.

Here is the actual report referred to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf




Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 10:28:17 AM)


I guess people see only what their filters allow...  myself included, of course.

But we can at least try to see a little further, there is always hope.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Admittedly biased?

What I saw was them conducting their own investigation to try to correct any problems and ensure objectivity.





Sanity -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 11:58:00 AM)


That internal report is just as damning, Politesub53.

A few excerpts:

quote:

Suddenly the liberal consensus has discovered there’s a bit of a problem about this cultural diversity business. So these people who think that they are the truthful middle ground, actually a lot of the time they’re all rushing one way on the ship, then they’re all rushing the other way on the ship. They think that other people are the people with different views, and they’re the ones that have always got it right.
Dorothy Byrne, Head of News and Current Affairs, Channel 4


quote:

‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society’, said The Daily Telegraph’s Jeff Randall about his time as Business Editor of the BBC. ‘As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.’



quote:

Janet Daley, also of The Daily Telegraph, said it was not a systematic political conspiracy to impose party political bias, but ‘something more insidious: a kind of corporate conformity – the uncritical acceptance of smug, consensual, received opinion accompanied by a journalistic credulousness’.



quote:

Georgina Born (Cambridge University), whose in-depth study of the BBC was published under the title Uncertain Vision, said it was ‘a highly self-critical organisation’ with ongoing editorial debates that she had witnessed. ‘On the other hand, it has an extraordinary defensiveness, extraordinary arrogance and a great deal of complacency.’ What worried her was that ‘banging on about enlightenment values can become a cloak for an intellectual mono- culture within the BBC’.



quote:

Justin Webb, the BBC’s Washington correspondent, said the BBC and other broadcasters failed to ask serious questions about why the USA is ‘as successful as it is, why the system it invented works. And, in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride. We don’t give America any kind of moral weight in our broadcasts.’ When Webb was asked about ‘a casual anti-Americanism’, he said he consciously tried to redress it.



quote:

Andrew Marr, former Political Editor, said that the BBC is ‘a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people’ compared with the population at large.’ All this, he said, ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.



quote:

Michael Buerk said he believed the problem lay with an insufficiently diverse employment policy. ‘Most of the people working for the BBC are middle-class, well-educated, young metropolitan people.’ He said that, although the BBC had made great efforts to widen ethnic and gender diversity, ‘the actual intake of those people has narrowed quite appreciably in terms of age, social category, and education’.
Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, thought that ‘the BBC has in the past been too closed to a wide range of views and we’ve had too narrow an agenda. And I have some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda at times.’



And isn't asking the admittedly Liberal BBC to police itself a lot like asking, say,  Rush Limbaugh to police his own radio show for bias?  Having government pay all of Rush Limbaugh's expenses on top of that, while granting him almost a monopoly over the airwaves...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Sanity, the link Phil used refers to an article by the Times. All this is is the Times guessing what the report may say. The BBC refutes the claim it is biased, its own report doesnt say the BBC is biased either. You cant claim something is true, ie "The BBC admits bias" When there is no evidence they have said this themselves. If you have such a link, or can find one, I would welcome it and admit I am wrong.

Here is the actual report referred to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf




Politesub53 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 4:02:18 PM)

Thats just it, the BBC doesnt police itself. The BBC trust is independent, as is OFCOM the independent regulator for all broadcasting services.

You are correct though, some of the individuals you quoted work for the BBC and feel there is some degree of bias. If you think about it, if the organisation was biased, and didnt want to admit it, would they include adverse comments from others in the report ? All i can say is watching the news channel, day in day out, I truly dont see it. And for the record, I am not left wing, I am more center to right but also have socialist principals.




Jack45 -> RE: Should Government Subsidize The News? (5/10/2009 4:46:59 PM)

This is the LEFT subsidizing its own.
They really have nothing to stop them either.
Just as they did with the Banksters

Fed Refuses to Release Bank Data,
Insists on Secrecy
March 5, 2009 (Bloomberg) – The Federal Reserve Board of Governors receives daily reports on bailout loans to financial institutions and won’t make the information public, the central bank said in a reply in a Bloomberg News lawsuit. The Fed refused yesterday to disclose the names of the borrowers and the loans, alleging that it would cast “a stigma on recipients of more than $1.9 trillion of emergency credit from US taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125