The bias of the state funded and supposedly impartial BBC. Long but good: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gross200406181018.asp While the National Review is hardly non-partisan at least it makes no pretence of being impartial and isn't funded by taxation, thus there is no cause for complaint. The BBC however is biased and state funded, it either needs to be privatised or to become impartial which I doubt it can do as it seems to be this way more by nature than design.
I'm not surprised that there is an anti-Israel bias at the BBC, but I didn't realize just how pervasive it is.
Talk to me about privatisation when the free market produces just one decent broadcast news organization. In the meantime, bash away at the BBC for its anti-Israel bias.
You're assuming that today's media/entertainment industry operates anywhere remotely like a free market. But I guess that's really your point. Carry on then.
The only time Fox News mentioned Sudan was when they trotted out Mansoor Ijaz. But Fox sure did a great job finding all those WMD.
Oh i get it. So because they see through the Israeli/Oval Office propaganda that the Zionist Statelet is Democratic Blah Blah and goes into the belly of the Sharon beast the BBc is anti-Israeli? Keep the good work up BBC i say....
Surely one of the best reasons to give the BBC £1.6bn of British taxpayer's money is that it annoys right-wing Yanks and their fawning acolytes across the globe. Money well spent right there, to be honest. The fact that we also get the finest broadcasting organisation on the planet thrown in for free is just ultimate proof that this country has a lot going for it.
with the Big Problem being that it is very hard to blackmail a state funded news broadcast in order to make them say what some ppl want them to say. The say what they think. And we are talking about the best news tv in the world. There is no lobby who can threat the big politicians to make so that they won't be re-elected. There is very little (probably zero) threat that consumers will start an effective boycott. No way. BBC will go on with its free press. Free from any lobby. You can like it or not, you can agree with the opinions of that precise reporter or not. Still you can't censore them. It must piss off when you can't manage to succesfully use your usual tactics. Ah these commie state funded broadcasting organizations...
The BBC is a fine news organisation, if they are in direct opposition to this rag then that's OK by me. Take a look around the site, the bit about The Inquisition "the Inquisition was not so bad after all" is hilarious.
It appears you have limited knowledge of the National Review thus your opinion is almost worthless. FYI, It's pretty much become the mouthpiece of the Neo-cons who have hijacked US foreign policy, William Buckley being a kind of messiah in such circles. It does however deliver indepth and intelligent analysis amongst it's propoganda. I disagree with much of what they say, but they are right in this instance, the BBC has a Anti-Israel bias. Conversely I believe much of the Right leaning US media has a Pro-Israel bias. Once again, for the stoopid, the problem is that people are forced to subsidize either biases.
Yes I think everyone is aware of what you think. Once again and almost certainly not for the last time, the problem is - no media is impartial and thus people who are antipathetical to biased views of a state funded media organization should not be forced to subsidize it. Am I correct in believing Berlusconi has somewhat of a stranglehold on Italian state media? If so, his being right-wing is presumably contrary to what you would desire? Well if so, this is also wrong and my eruditeness and piety is what directs me to support the only solution for your nation and everyone elses of having a totally freemarket media. Not at all, it's a pleasure.
Why on earth would yanks enter the equation? Surely, UK taxpayers + UK news organization = UK issue? Why are the left and those who hold an affinity to the left, so obssesed with the USA? Bizzare, you'd think the EU would be a more appropriate benchmark. If the BBC was a kind of 'Fox News UK' I would still in principle object to it's state funded status. Of course in this scenario I may take great delight at reading Matthew Clark and his less coherent lackeys objections on BigSoccer, but still I would support its privatisation. The BBC is free? Well as I do not feel the return from my appropriated money has been worthwhile, in that I do not partake in leftist schadenfreude resulting from US "Right-Wing" indignation at the BBC, do you have a rebate address for the BBC licensing department? Finally, if the BBC is the "finest broadcasting organisation on the planet" then I am reassured that my scarce TV viewing has not resulted in my missing much. But if you enjoy the drivel that is "Airport" with the fat gay no-mark then fine, your life.
And one has to balance that problem against the tremendous educational value of the BBC. Both you and Sardinia have a two-dimensional outlook.
I live in the UK, I know what's on, Channel 4 has FAR better pound for pound (to use a boxing term) intellectual/educational programming than the dumbed down populist BBC. Documentarys, science, news etc. It's really quite good. I believe it was/is partially state funded as well. Getting educational content of the BBC? Mwahahaha.
Just an added bonus. It's just more proof of the utter deliciousness of the BBC. Hmm. Difference being, of course, that Fox News is just a bag of cack for extremely unintelligent people. And would be even if it hailed from the opposite end of the political spectrum too. There's just nothing the Yanks can do about the quality of their TV these days, it's shot in the head for good. Which, of course, serves to illustrate with admirable, if apparently not entirely palatable clarity the point about handing broadcasting over in its entirety to the private sector. There is no rebate. That's the whole point. You have to pay anyway. Tee hee hee! Seriously ... I know it's purile. But I genuinely enjoy the fact that people who object to the BBC's funding structure have to pay for the fvcker anyway. We all have little things in our lives that, on balance and if cast in a more dispassionate light, one has to admit are a little bit silly. Like yours, for instance, appears to be the enactment of a hammy ... sorry - acidically ironic - portrayal of a right-wing visionary "individualist" lost in a sea of conformist non-combatants on the great ideological battlefield of the internet message board strata. But these things give us succour of some sort and, as such, are no bad thing.
I do have a very limited knowledge of The National Review, that's why I had a quick nose around the site. If you admit that there is propoganda on the site, then how are we meant to know what is propoganda and what is "intelligent analysis"? It's a question of your viewpoint, I found pretty much all of what I saw on the site to fall into the category of right wing propoganda and very little that was decent analysis of anything, much less intelligent.
