BBC bias
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, November 4, 2006 05:17
VIEWED: 5882
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:Come on, it's obvious.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Oh, and what had Bush done that you consider liberal? You don't like him so you'd rather put him in the political spectrum you like to hate, but other than making government bigger(which has nothing to do with liberal agenda but may be a liberal side-effect), what else can you possibly site that qualifies him?
He doesn't like George Bush, he has to be one of...
THEM...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dreamtrove,
There are times when I have a hard time taking you seriously. This is one of those times. The main reason is because you make these blanket statements that have absolutely no basis in reality. Now I realize that you're a conservative. And that one of the hallmarks of modern American movement conservatism is that conservatives are not wrong, therefore anyone who makes a statement they disagree with must not be conservative. I see this time and again when someone that movement conservatives have supported makes a statement that challenges one of the core beliefs of modern American conservatism. All of a sudden, they're now liberals. When conservative policies fail, as they have throughout this Presidency, conservatives never admit that the policy itself (and the underlying theory behind it) may have been in error. It's always the fault of those who implemented the policy because they weren't conservative enough. Modern American conservatism has been remarkably consistent over the past many years concerning one bedrock belief: what is good for the corporation is good for the country.
With that in mind, let's look at one of your more outrageous claims:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The problem, imho, with your position, is that you're calculating everything in dollar terms. This isn't how the world works. Those thinktanks didn't come into existance because someone had a bunch of dollars and said "hey, lets create a think tank." They came into being because a bunch of academics said "let become a think tank" and then they went around and cut deals with people until they found someone to fund them.
This couldn't be further from the truth. If you look at the top twenty think tanks in the country, they are all advocates for conservative policies. And most of them got their start after the Vietnam war. In fact, you can trace the genesis of the modern conservative think tank movement to the 1970 Lewis Powell memo to the National Chamber of Commerce. The call to action outlined in that memo was for conservatives with money to fund professorships, campus institutes and think tanks that would spread a business friendly conservative message.
The call to action was put out. And the business community answered. The Heritage Foundation, probably the most important and influential think tank in the country, started in 1973 with money from Joseph Coors. Seven years later they plunked a book down on Reagan's desk telling him what they wanted him to do. He implemented almost three-quarters of their recommendations early on in his Presidency. More than fifty conservative think tanks were started after the Lewis Powell memo funded by prominent businesses and foundations (Richard Scaife and the Olin Foundation are just two that come immediately to mind).
None of this is a secret. There's no conspiracy to hide how these think tanks got started. And why they were started. And who the driving players were in their formation and where the money came from. None of this is in doubt. It's been well documented. So for you to say that it was all a case of academics getting together and running around looking for money is just plain wrong.
Maybe the best argument I can think of is to ask you to remember your time in college. Have you ever known academics to organize anything that had an immediate impact? I say this as someone with more than a passing familiarity with academe, there's no way in hell an organization founded by academics goes from nothing to having huge influence on Presidential policy in seven years. It just doesn't happen. There are however, scores of examples of businesses starting from scratch and having a profound impact in seven years. Which is more likely in your opinion, that a group of wealthy businesses and conservative idealogues created organizations with the sole purpose of influencing policy and shaping thought and that these organizations have become tremendously influential in just a few decades (something supported by all the evidence) or that a g
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, what happened to "is the BBC biased?"
Based on the responses so far, we have these options.
1. Yes
2. I don't trust the source of the allegations, so I won't believe them.
3. Maybe, but that's all right 'cause other media is more biased.
4. Let's change the subject to Republican vs. Democratic levels of media influence. It has nothing to do with the BBC, but then we don't have to consider the question of BBC bias anymore.
Haven't seen anyone state the opinion that they are entirely free of bias.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
Put me down for:
5. All of the above
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Is it that the offended Muslims are considered more likely to cause trouble?
My guess, that's where the smart money is. And everyone is biased. Including the BBC.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course they are. Everyone is. They're still just about the best single source out there.
Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Yes
A more pertinent question (and one you continue to ignore I might add) is why you give other sources (NBC, ABC, FOX et al) a free pass despite being worse and despite not caring whether they are biased or not (which by virtue of saying nothing on them and making out this to be such a big deal is exactly what you are doing).
Remember that this is the BBC expressing concerns about the BBC about their PROGRAMMING not their news service.
Why are you implying that BBC News is biased? Why are you giving free passes to the biases you agree with?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Of course they are. Everyone is. They're still just about the best single source out there.
Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Yes
A more pertinent question (and one you continue to ignore I might add) is why you give other sources (NBC, ABC, FOX et al) a free pass despite being worse and despite not caring whether they are biased or not (which by virtue of saying nothing on them and making out this to be such a big deal is exactly what you are doing).
From my first post above (emphasis added, so you don't miss it this time)
"Still seems that they are admitting to bias. In this, they are admitting that they're like every other news outlet in the world. I stll enjoy the BBC website, I just know I have to accept that they have a viewpoint they're supporting."
I don't say anything about Fox, ABC, NBC, etc. Because I don't watch their news. I do listen to BBC World News and frequent their website, so I have more interest in them.
"Of course they are. Everyone is." Interesting rationale. So if, say, the US were torturing a few prisoners(But not to death or permanent physical injury, mostly), and many other countries routinely tortured and killed many prisoners, it would be OK for the US to continue it's lesser torture program?
Maybe, as you so often do for the US, the BBC should be held to a higher standard, since it is one of the oldest and most respected news organizations in the world. Guess it just depends on whose ox is gored.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
A more pertinent question (and one you continue to ignore I might add) is why you give other sources (NBC, ABC, FOX et al) a free pass despite being worse and despite not caring whether they are biased or not (which by virtue of saying nothing on them and making out this to be such a big deal is exactly what you are doing).
Could it be that, for the most part, American broadcasters are biased towards money and that is acceptable, even encouraged, over here.
Where as the BBC is much like PBS, right? Some kinda' hybrid, semi-public, semi-state owned corporation?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You obviously missed it first time round so I'll restate it:
Nothing here is talking about the BBC's news coverage. That is this bias is about the BBC television programming, with specifically room 101 as a comedy show, not a news program, that's the bias they're talking about. Nothing to do with their journalism, so why, despite me pointing it out twice before and a third time here do you continue to say otherwise?
Quote:Interesting, though psychotic, rationale. Please tell me that you don't equate having a point of view with torturing another human being? I believe I would be giving this statement more credence than it deserves to actually answer it. Please retry this with something a little less ridiculous.
"Of course they are. Everyone is." Interesting rationale. So if, say, the US were torturing a few prisoners(But not to death or permanent physical injury, mostly), and many other countries routinely tortured and killed many prisoners, it would be OK for the US to continue it's lesser torture program?
Quote:Back to equating having a point of view with torture. Everyone has a point of view, most people don't torture, these statements seem to insinuate that you think everyone does torture, which would imply that torture is an everyday activity for you. So is torture an everyday activity for you or was yours a rather poorly thought out analogy?
Maybe, as you so often do for the US, the BBC should be held to a higher standard, since it is one of the oldest and most respected news organizations in the world.
But before we let you get away with any more ridiculous silliness lets just restate something: I do hold the BBC to a higher standard. Their news reporting is still uncoloured by political and economic pressures, unlike their contemporaries. They still report what is happening, rather than reporting what they want us to think about what is happening, unlike nearly all their contemporaries.
Quote:Careful, I'm not the one twisting evidence into something it isn't, i.e. I'm not the one equating the content of a comedy program with the content of a news service.
Guess it just depends on whose ox is gored.
Really, although you are attempting to discredit me with an under the table accusation of anti-Americanism you're apparent position of "If it's okay for the BBC to be Human rather than Super-Human then it's okay for the US to torture people" is not only ridiculous but also speaks more about you than I.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME