Boroda, u happy about this?

[Trikky]

Guess I'm being naive but since when has the BBC been government owned? Certainly not before the 80's or Thatcher (the milk snatcher) would have sold it.

[bounder]

The BBC is an independent corporation (it used to be the British Broadcasting Company) that derives some of it's income through central government endorsed licencing (taxation).

The TV licence pays for (although is not exclusively ringfenced for) development of terrestrial broadcasting and programming, including radio and BBC education.

BBC Enterprises is the worldwide business of the BBC that sells programs, controls licencing of material and merchandising also - it is hugely profitable.

The BBC world service is unparalleled in its depth and breadth, broadcasting everything from Pashtun agricultural soap opera (think 'The Archers in Afghanistan') to News for Zulus.

It broadcasts in over 42 languages, programmes for the people of other countries that simply may not have an objective, fact based, news media.

It is by far and away the most widely and deeply respected broadcasting institution in the world, by the world.

It even has a peacenik commie pinko subversive motto:

"and nation shall speak peace unto nation"

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dowding
I'm still laughing at the way Ripsnort holds Fox to be some sort of centre of journalistic excellence... I mean, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch. The BBC isn't perfect, but at least isn't owned by the Dirty Digger.

Where did I hold Fox to be journalistic excellence? Please show me the post.

BBC is Gov't owned.  Personally, I get uncomfortable whenever any Gov't is in the media business.

As far as Fox goes...they do the same thing that CNN does, add their little bit of subliminal view of the situation when reporting the news...nothing new, CNN has been doing it for years.  It just makes the left very uncomfortable that now they have to listen to what the right has listened to for years in CNN, subliminal slants on the news.  I'm speaking of the news reporting, not the shows like Hannity and Combs, or Larry King.

[_Schadenfreude_]

Originally posted by Wlfgng
I don't see things the same way

and in my 'state' (sorry , couldn't resist) they condone rock and roll... my 'personality' is free to express itself as it sees fit

I can even run around the country (USA) speaking badly about the president of my country...
I can certainly speak my views and not worry about what the 'current regime' might think

but I still can't drink wine at work so I guess maybe I'll move to siberia

yep the Dixie Chicks did REAL well when they expressed their personal opinions

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Suave
You have to remember that Fox news' purpose is to be profitable .

Yes, and they are very profitable. They've also displaced all the "CNN" type cable news networks as number 1 as well. That should tell you something about its popularity.


Personally, I get my news from about 12 sources in one day, be it internet, television or radio.  I filter the slant from both sides of the fence (and mention it to my wife who HATES it when I point out the conservative slant, now SHE is a hard core conservative!)

[Pooh21]

Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
yep the Dixie Chicks did REAL well when they expressed their personal opinions

Its not the fact the expressed their opinions its where. Toadying up to eurotrash liberals.

edit: I dont listen to country music for socialist commentary. If I wanted witty comments about the current situations I d listen to that April Lasagne crap.

[GrimCO]

ALL news stations and newspapers serve their own adgendas rather than report pure fact. Facts are presented, then skewed to the left or right depending on the station's political foundations.

Two examples:

During the beginning of the Iraq war, a convoy was ambushed and American soldiers were taken prisoner. This was fact.

Then the news adds that our supply lines are stretched to the limit and we have become bogged down and unable to protect them. This was not fact. Three weeks later, we captured Baghdad. No more mention of bogged down supply lines made by CNN. This was the liberal media's version.

Barrels of unknown chemicals found which give positive initial test results for nerve gas. This was fact.

Then the news adds that Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found. This was not fact. One week later, it was determined to be pesticide. No mention made of it on Fox. This was the conservative media's version.

They both do it.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by GrimCO

Barrels of unknown chemicals found which give positive initial test results for nerve gas. This was fact.

Then the news adds that Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found. This was not fact. One week later, it was determined to be pesticide. No mention made of it on Fox. This was the conservative media's version.

They both do it.

I might add, only 1 news service provided information that Pesticides, with the change of one or two ingrediants, can BECOME a WMD..and the fact that an agricultural factory can transform into a weapons factory with the import of addition chemicals.  

[Wlfgng]

yep the Dixie Chicks did REAL well when they expressed their personal opinions

I didn't say there were no consequences, I said I could do it.
the dixie hicks didn't get prosecuted, the fans simply stopped listening to them.

[bounder]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
BBC is Gov't owned.  Personally, I get uncomfortable whenever any Gov't is in the media business.

No, you are completely wrong.

The BBC is a public corporation. It is owned by the Public and run by board of governors in trust who are appointed by the Queen. It is funded (originally and in part) by the everyone in the UK who owns a TV. It is not, nor has it ever been a government owned organisation.

The one thing about the BBC is that their news output is constantly derided from all 4 quarters of the political spectrum for its bias. And of course, newsgathering is only one (albeit major) function of the BBC.

The only part of the BBC that could be construed as being part of the Government is the BBC world Service, which receives an additional grant from the Foreign & Commonwealth office to carry out its duties.

This grant is entirely non-conditional, and the FCO have no representation on the Board or elsewhere in the BBC World Service Programming/Scheduling/Commissioning Structure.

It is truly an independent media conglomerate with no shareholders, no overlords, and a worldwide reach that is the envy of other, lesser organisations.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Pei
BBC= most widely respected news organization in the world.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Sox62]

Originally posted by Pei
BBC= most widely respected news organization in the world.

Not by their own navy however.

[Dowding]

The BBC has a navy?

Now that's news!

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by bounder
No, you are completely wrong.

The BBC is a public corporation. It is owned by the Public and run by board of governors in trust who are appointed by the Queen. It is funded (originally and in part) by the everyone in the UK who owns a TV. It is not, nor has it ever been a government owned organisation.

The one thing about the BBC is that their news output is constantly derided from all 4 quarters of the political spectrum for its bias. And of course, newsgathering is only one (albeit major) function of the BBC.

The only part of the BBC that could be construed as being part of the Government is the BBC world Service, which receives an additional grant from the Foreign & Commonwealth office to carry out its duties.

This grant is entirely non-conditional, and the FCO have no representation on the Board or elsewhere in the BBC World Service Programming/Scheduling/Commissioning Structure.

It is truly an independent media conglomerate with no shareholders, no overlords, and a worldwide reach that is the envy of other, lesser organisations.

You call it a grey horse, I call it a gray horse. Whatever..its still a horse of a different color. And its as bias towards the left as Fox is to the right.

[straffo]

BBC is certainly biased but not as any Murdoch owned news service.

I'll try to get his citation about how any news service should represent the opinion of the owner and nothing else ...