BBC? Biased? No Way!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
I assume in the Nedaverse there are private, ad-financed channels that produce quality programming.

Why of course. Haven't you ever heard of CBS and their editorial leader, the impeccable, unbaised and always accurate, Dan Rather.

[Ned]

We also have ABC, NBC and FOX as major networks that have their own news organizations. Then there is CNN, which more of a worldwide network.

What are you Brits afraid of? That CNN and FOX will replace the BBC?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
I assume in the Nedaverse there are private, ad-financed channels that produce quality programming.

I can name several non-state funded channels of the top of my head that fit that bill.

[Buck Birdseed]

Ad-financed ones, please. No HBO or PBS.

[Buck Birdseed]

BTW, the BBC isn't state-funded - it's directly linked to a separate tax system.

[Moral Hazard]

Ned:
They should sell the BBC news portion to Rupert right

BBC is the best source for international news (only real english source on Africa), selling it could jeapordize this.

[FrustratedPoet]

I'm in favour of turning the BBC into a commercial channel. Their programming is just as terrible as everybody else's right now. I fail to see why they continue to deserve this special treatment.

[FrustratedPoet]

But Buck is right, the BBC is not state-funded. You don't have to pay a penny if you don't own a TV capable of receiving their channels. It's not as if they receive a percentage of the income tax revenue or anything.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Ad-financed ones, please. No HBO or PBS.

I wasn't going to mention PBS anyway but I don't see why we should limit our consideration of private channels to only one form. Perhaps you could explain that view since it seems curious especially when we have a private american channel functioning quite well on the same system FP describes without goivernment support.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
I assume in the Nedaverse there are private, ad-financed channels that produce quality programming.

I don't know about the Nedaverse, but here in the US there are.

[Moral Hazard]

Oh I didn't really like BBC's regular content, Coupling was ok but that was about it.

[FrustratedPoet]

Despite my general dislike of the way the BBC is funded, I must admit that it's great to be able to watch the weekly football highlights (the only thing I watch on non-cable TV these days) without advert breaks.

Still, I'd rather have ads during Match of the Day and an extra 100 quid a year in my pocket than the other way around.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I wasn't going to mention PBS anyway but I don't see why we should limit our consideration of private channels to only one form. Perhaps you could explain that view since it seems curious especially when we have a private american channel functioning quite well on the same system FP describes without goivernment support.

Certainly don't dispute that. The minute you bring in ad revenue, though, the quality runs downhill. And since all large-scale broadcasters are necessarily free-to-air... Do you really think it's a realistic alternative, from a potential investor's point of view, to turn two of the country's most-watched channels into voluntary subscription services?

[Sirotnikov]

Actually it's cause I couldn't think of any other synonym for "true". I've done way too much philosophy at university.

there there.

I also taken intro to philosophy and such (though in highschool).

I can still talk normally, though.


In any case - your argument is not supported and is unfounded.

Let me reassure you that we get plenty of coverage of suicide bomb attacks on Israeli civilians on the BBC. No attempt is made to cover that up or make heroes of the bomber.

Really?

Cause I remember I saw a program a year and a half ago, with Hamas and Fateh bomb-makers and it sure made them look heroic. It was on and on about how tough is their job, and what great evil IDF actions are, when they are simply trying to go on a peaceful daily life of blowing up Israelis.

Azazel saw that one too, I remember we commented about it in a thread.

Whereas you yourself are possessed with the 100% insight of omnipresence coupled with a natural ability to discern "The Truth!" from your own crusading and unbiased media sources?

My media sources do much more to present the Palestinian point of view, than the BBC ever did to present the Israeli point of view.

And as of late, I do posses some form of omni-presence

I get my news from many sources, and I don't think the BBC is on any sort of anti-Israel crusade.

While it is usually much more yellow and cheap, Sky news is usually much more fair, and attempts to present all sides, instead of singlehandedly passing judgement on Israeli actions.

The cultural divide may account for much- in Britain right now the words "Arab militant" or "Arab fanatic" probably arouse far more fear and loathing than "terrorist".

The use of the word militant is not completely correct, as militants are those who take part in military action. Shooting at soldiers would be "militant". Bombing civilians is "terrorist".

And the fact that the brits are oh-so-clever and cynical to put the word "terrorism" to laughter does not say good things about them.

Through watching the BBC, I think my nation's public are quite satisfied that among Hamas are wings that make the IRA look like Carmelite nuns.

Yes.
But through watching the BBC alot of your nation's public find it very easy to identify with Hamas "militants" and legitimize / condone their actions.

[Ned]

I can hardly understand why you believe BBC progamming has "quality." To the extent we see the programming here (and we get it on cable) it is the most boring, putrid programming one could have the misfortune of finding. It's news might be better, as good as CBS, for example. But surely all this crap about "accuracy" and "bias" is just a bit much. Here in the US, we have openly partisan hacks as news anchors (Dan Rather) and we seem to survive.