Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Kanth on April 08, 2003, 09:05:45 PM
-
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768569.html?menu=news.wariniraq
'Angry' Ark Royal crew switch off BBC
The BBC has been axed from the nation's flagship naval vessel following claims of pro-Iraqi bias.
The Navy says it has switched off News 24 aboard HMS Ark Royal after complaints by the crew.
It is one of a handful of task force ships which receives live TV direct from Britain.
Rolling news plus two entertainment channels are beamed into the warship.
A BBC correspondent has been on board but the crew say they have no gripe with his reports.
However they were annoyed by the comments of presenters and commentators reporting on the carrier's Sea King tragedy a fortnight ago.
The BBC suggested poor levels of maintenance played a hand in the deaths of seven fliers.
Sailors also believe the news organisation places more faith in Iraqi reports than information coming from British or Allied sources.
One senior rating said: "The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side. It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy."
Ark has replaced the BBC with rival broadcaster Sky News.
-
Wow, shame on the BBC.
-
Hmmm... any objective report will appear biased to someone that is biased. Don't you think?
-
This must be why I feel such self loathing when I watch Baghdad Bob's reports.
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... any objective report will appear biased to someone that is biased. Don't you think?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... maybe it's just me, but any objective report will appear biased to someone that is biased.
Are you assuming that the crew were biased or are you just making a general statement?
Which report are you citing; the report regarding the ship's crew reaction or the BBS reports that the crew reacted to?
To say that a biased person regards an unbiased report as biased is just stating the obvious and has little to do with this story in my humble opinion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Are you assuming that the crew were biased or are you just making a general statement?
The crew is biased. They have to be. It comes with the job.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The crew is biased. They have to be. It comes with the job.
OK, that narrows it down . You seem to be saying that the crew is biased and that the BBC reports are unbiased based on zero knowledge of the specific facts of the matter.
Thanks, now I get it. Media= unbiased. Military men and women= biased.
-
The crew is biased. They have to be. It comes with the job.
The myth of journalistic impartiality is very strong. Perhaps the crew knows what's going on better than some lefty snob newsanchor in London.
I'm surprised no one is calling this censorship yet.
ra
-
Not what I said... From what I gather, the reports were not biased in favor of the UK military.
That's it.
-
If the news would stick to reporting known facts we wouldn't have to worry about bias.
It's when they start weaving their crap into it trying for sensationalism, and screwing their viewers out of the truth that there's a problem.
Think it's the military listeners causing that?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Not what I said... From what I gather, the reports were not biased in favor of the UK military.
That's it.
Wow, you were able to glean that the reports were not biased in favor of the military? I thought the thread's first post covered that part already.
-
Like I was trying to say... One cannot assume that the reports were pro-Iraq simply because the reports were not pro-UK. Because soldiers are inherently biased and incapable of objectivity any objective report will be perceived as pro-Iraqi.
Maybe the reports are pro-Iraqi. I think that reports from soldiers aren't enough to make that decision.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Like I was trying to say... One cannot assume that the reports were pro-Iraq simply because the reports were not pro-UK.
Another brilliant observation of the obvious......
Why don't you just say what you are trying to say in the first place and then stand behind it?
You said the UK crew was biased and that the BBC report was not. That was what I feel you were trying to say.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Another brilliant observation of the obvious......
Why don't you just say what you are trying to say in the first place and then stand behind it?
You said the UK crew was biased and that the BBC report was not. That was what I feel you were trying to say.
Feel what you like. It's not what I said nor is it what I meant.
Apparently it's not obvious:
Originally posted by funkedup
Wow, shame on the BBC.
-
Hmmm... maybe it's just me, but any objective report will appear biased to someone that is biased.
The crew is biased. They have to be. It comes with the job
Like I was trying to say... One cannot assume that the reports were pro-Iraq simply because the reports were not pro-UK.
Like I was trying to say... One cannot assume that the reports were pro-Iraq simply because the reports were not pro-UK. Because soldiers are inherently biased and incapable of objectivity any objective report will be perceived as pro-Iraqi.
Feel what you like. It's not what I said nor is it what I meant.
After all that, how can anyone tell what you ment?
-
Which part do you not understand?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Which part do you not understand?
All of it mostly
-
Originally posted by NUKE
All of it mostly
None of it some? :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
None of it some? :D
lol, you steal my jokes
only I don't feel the need to put a smiley next to it to label it has as humor.
-
It's their frikking nationalized news outlet. If you're out there risking your bellybutton in battle, and you can't get backup from your own government, you have a right to be pissed.
-
Is the BBC owned by the government?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
lol, you steal my jokes
only I don't feel the need to put a smiley next to it to label it has as humor.
Just making sure you knew what I meant.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Is the BBC owned by the government?
I thought so?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I thought so?
I thought so too.
-
I'm looking at the 2002 Annual Report... apparently, the BBC is not solely funded by the government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2002/index.shtml
Haven't dug out the actual figures yet...
-
is sandman owned by the government?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
is sandman owned by the government?
I'm not solely funded by the government either. :)
-
I looked into it to check it out. They are controlled by government appointees and funded mostly by taxes (aka license fees). They are a state run monopoly.
-
License fees are taxes?
-
Yeah the poor limeys have to pay annually for every TV set they own.
But I'm sure that won't stop you from finding some Clintonesque semantic angle to make them not look like a state run monopoly. :)
-
So... if I'm reading this report correctly... 2533 million for license fees and an additional 130 million for commercial earnings.
-
Sandman is owned but not by the governement. He's out to prove to the world he has the answer. To discover the mystery, the politcal angle, the conspiracy. To show the world the error of its ways!
When all it really boils down is the crew thought BBC reporting sucked eggs, got up (or used the clicker) and changed the channel to another program. And ya know what? the British public will catch wind of this and probably do the same. And the BBC? it will, like any other media outlet bend which ever way the wind blows to keep the ratings.
-
I was too lazy to read the report, but that sounds right. I know they have some commercial arms and overseas stuff.
We should start another thread. IIRC Brits love to squeak about the BBC and the license fees. Could be festive.
-
Watching the BBC, I've found it quite neutral on the issue.
-
Originally posted by Rockstar
And the BBC? it will, like any other media outlet bend which ever way the wind blows to keep the ratings.
They don't have commercials, so they don't need ratings. If you want to have a TV in the UK, you either pay the BBC or you break the law.
-
Watching the BBC, I've found it quite neutral on the issue.
Well good for you. But apparently the crew of the Ark Royal didn't and changed the channel. I'll also bet they don't a rats arse who owns it either.
-
Originally posted by Rockstar
Sandman is owned but not by the governement. He's out to prove to the world he has the answer. To discover the mystery, the politcal angle, the conspiracy. To show the world the error of its ways!
Not only that, I'm giving great thought to starting my own cult.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by NUKE
OK, that narrows it down . You seem to be saying that the crew is biased and that the BBC reports are unbiased based on zero knowledge of the specific facts of the matter.
Thanks, now I get it. Media= unbiased. Military men and women= biased.
Most importantly you forgot:
conservative=biased
liberal=unbiased
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Most importantly you forgot:
conservative=biased
liberal=unbiased
:rolleyes:
This is not true.
-
Because soldiers are inherently biased and incapable of objectivity any objective report will be perceived as pro-Iraqi.
This quote speaks for itself. Your statements inherently evidence your lack of objectivity and inability/unwillingness to engage in any kind of rational discourse.
SSGT USAF 1975-1982
-
Originally posted by llyr69
This quote speaks for itself. Your statements inherently evidence your lack of objectivity and inability/unwillingness to engage in any kind of rational discourse.
SSGT USAF 1975-1982
Rational discourse of what?
OS1 USN 1982-1992
-
By your own "logic", you are incapable of rendering an objective judgement having been a soldier.....errr squid.
Grow up, go back to school, and stay sober this time around. Maybe you'll learn something.
-
I take it by "rational discourse" you really meant personal attack.
Thanks for playing.
-
Everyone is biased. It's natural.
Everyone also likes to be agreed with. That's natural too.
That's why most peoples main news source is from an agreeable medium. Sure, we all listen/watch what the other side thinks, but we much prefer the one that's in our corner.
This is compoundedly true of soldiers in war. Their lives, and the lives of their comrades depend on their skill, enthusiasm, and morale. It doesn't do a unit good to watch how evil the war is, how the coalition is being slaughtered at every turn.
-
Are you guys intentionally trying to misunderstand Sandman? It sure seems so as you keep saying he said things that he never even mentioned.
Or is this more of the typical Conservative tactic of inferring a desired message from what somebody didn't say?
-
what do you mean?
Are you trying to say that if people don't agree with Sandman they are worthless scumbags?
Originally posted by Karnak
Are you guys intentionally trying to misunderstand Sandman? It sure seems so as you keep saying he said things that he never even mentioned.
Or is this more of the typical Conservative tactic of inferring a desired message from what somebody didn't say?
-
the typical Conservative tactic of inferring a desired message from what somebody didn't say
LMAO
-
Originally posted by Kanth
what do you mean?
Are you trying to say that if people don't agree with Sandman they are worthless scumbags?
IMHO, as attractive as that sounds... no. :D
-
Funked - you're a little off about the BBC. Yes, it is one of those Nationalised entities, receiving government funding as it needed to in the days before TV when the BBC broadcast only radio. No, it is not a state monopoly as such. There are independent channels as well. First there was ITV (Independent TV) which has been running as long as I can remember. In 1982, we got Channel 4 - quite a good channel, shows some controversial stuff and doesn't hold back, and Channel 5 - old movies, some current American stuff like the Crime and Punishment series. These are the terrestrial channels. Only BBC1 and BBC2 do not have commercials. They are funded by the licence fee which, for colour sets is about £112 I believe. There's also cable and satellite stations of course, so a true TV nut can get about 100 channels or more.
I explained all the above in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69551), along with reasons why I prefer the current system of paying a licence fee - beats the hell out of wall-to-wall commercials.
As to news coverage, I think it's a case of the BBC appearing to be biased in their attempts to remain neutral. We want them to report on how well our guys are doing. That's what we want to hear. The BBC has long had a policy of neutrality/perceived bias. In the 1982 Falklands war, Thatcher got upset with them for reporting things like "We were told by senior members of the British Armed Forces..... and if they are to be believed..." - that sort of thing. The opposite of this is the Iraqi Minister of Information saying that there is no fighting in Baghdad - to the sound of gunfire outside...
Anyway, the BBC has come a long way. 30-40 years ago, they believed that only THEY had the right to broadcast radio. In 1964, Radio Caroline (http://www.radiocaroline.co.uk/index.htm) was launched, breaking that BBC monopoly. (The Caroline website has a history section) The BBC didn't like that, and for a time they jammed Caroline's transmissions with a continuous "parp-parp-parp" sound that made it basically inaudible. Those days are gone.
-
You did have the govt censor out CNBC though Beetle, which is quite troublesome for a free society.
WSJ editorial board was banned throughot Europe, because that was the only way to stop broadcast to Britain, which had rule the editorial program an advertisement since the Wall Street Journal was not primarily a broadcast company. Under threat of losing their European licensing, CNBC Europe eventually pulled the program rather than fighting with higher loss potential.
With "state sponsored" programming, the above whether true censorship or not bears the uncomfortable appearance of the government eliminating its competition.
On the BBC in general they have a tendency to editorialize but I have no problem with em.
-
Heh funked; I pary around $180 a year for 'TV license'. That's more than I pay for cable.
Our previous governments in their infinite wisdom thought it easier to simply bill everyone that has the possibility of watching the state run TV channel, rather than installing a filter that ensures only paying viewers can see it.
I don't have a TV anymore because I cannot and will not afford $180 a year to pay for 'cultural programming'.
-
Commercials suck ass.
I happily pay the license fee.
-
fees are taxes.
Was watching a Brit news guy on Fox and he said that the staff at bbc is so insular that they don't even know how left wing they are. They just wallow in it.
I have never seen a "public" radio or TV station in the U.S. that wasn't to the left of weazel. It is the nature of the beast.... when they are on the dole they have a strange view of the world.
lazs
-
Because soldiers are inherently biased and incapable of objectivity any objective report will be perceived as pro-Iraqi.
OK Sand, you explain to me exactly what this is supposed to mean, if it's not an ad hominem attack on my rationality.
-
The UK has one of the lowest unemployment, benefit seeking rates in the Western world - lower than the US.
I wouldn't believe what someone from Fox says. He probably has an axe to grind for some reason or another. Anyone from the Dirty Digger's empire usually has.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Commercials suck ass.
I happily pay the license fee.
Yeah, competition sucks, can't we all just support and nurture one another?
-
What makes you think there isn't competition between British terrestrial TV channels?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
What makes you think there isn't competition between British terrestrial TV channels?
I'll admit that I don't know how your television networks acquire funding. It seemed that if you are "taxed" for them and there are no commercials then the money would have to be meted out equally among them.
Please describe how they compete for funding and I'll shut up on the subject.
-
There are 3 commecial channels aside from the two BBC channels. It works quite well. You takes your pick, and I watch stuff off all of them.
-
I'm still not clear on how they are funded? Do the commercial channels show commercials?
-
Yes. And the BBC channels do not. The latter method works far better, IMO. Fims aren't interupted and you can watch a whole football knowing there won't be crappy adverts at half time for ten minutes. It's good to watch a whole episode of 24 and not have it interrupted. You have to see it for yourself to appreciate how big a difference it makes.
Like I said, it's personal preference.
-
lol sorry I was just messing with Karnak :D
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IMHO, as attractive as that sounds... no. :D
-
If they offered commercial-less TV out here for an extra fee I would gladly pay that.
I would never want it as a mandatory tax though.
-
Ah, was under the false impression then that all your televison was government operated. Free enterprise and competition are not yet dead there afterall.
I bet you might not feel so fond of the BBC if those in charge decided that coverage of your beloved soccer (sorry, can't bring myself to call it football) was not in the best interest of the country and stopped showing it.
BTW, we have pay for TV here as well, very popular and competitive.
-
You've got it the wrong way around - the BBC came first, then commercial TV. Competition was the later development.
If football (sorry I can't bring myself to call it soccer ;)) was 'banned' from the BBC, then ITV or SKY would buy it up (football TV rights are very expensive and the BBC shows a lot less than it used to due to losing out in the bidding wars).
-
dowding... if you were talking to me... I meant that the bbc was on the "dole"... they are being funded...
As for the unemployument benifiets... are you saying that British pay out less money in unemployment benifiets or that there are less people on unemployment compensation.... a very large difference. I believe that the U.S. weekly benifiet is allmost $400 these days.
lazs
-
No, I'm saying that the proportion of the population unemployed is lower.
Who funds the commercial news stations? Is the Dirty Digger going to have no say in the running of his station(s)? If the BBC is biased by the people who fund it, shouldn't you be claiming that it had a pro-war bias?
-
what is the rate over the past few years for both countries?
What I am saying is that once funded by tax money, any entity is unaccountable.. ask anyone in the U.S. about which way tax funded, public radio and tv lean ihere and they will tell you that U.S. ones are to the left of weasel.. Commercial stations have to please the people who fund them not tax supported ones... If you don't have to compete you become a haven for lefties.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Commercials suck ass.
I happily pay the license fee.
Socialism sucks ass.
I happily fast forward through commercials. :)
-
4.2% versus 6% is a recent comparison.
There's plenty of accountability. To the licence fee payer, like the share holder in a commercial company.
happily fast forward through commercials. :)
While you're watching 24? Or watching a live football game? ;)
-
Dowding, so the football licensing issues are why sometimes when I watch Sky Sports News they don't show EPL highlights, they just show the after match interviews? Basically the BBC doesn't release the footage of the games to Sky until later in the week?
I watched a whole hour of Sky Sports News once, and saw every frickin' goal from the 1st - 3rd divisions from that day, but only two match highlights from the EPL (I was ticked, that was the day that McBride scored 2 for Everton and I wanted to see the goals!) Speaking of EPL, Newcastle v Man Utd this Saturday! wooo!
Also, no commercials during 24?? When do you refresh your drink and take a leak??? ;) No advertisements during football halftimes? Wow, in the US, 75% of the conversations after the Super Bowl are solely about the commercials! :D
-
It's a bit complicated Nifty. The BBC used to own the rights to the saturday highlights and all the games. That was a long time ago, and the rights to the games themselves were sold to Sky (satellite channel), but the BBC highlights show still had first dibs on showing those highlights. Sky would generally just show the odd Sunday and mid-week games.
Now, the EPL (geez, that sounds so weird ;)) asked for more money, and the BBC refused to pay and the rights went to ITV, which is a commercial terrestrial channel. It lost a lot of viewers though - the BBC show was much better. Sky still holds the rights to show games not played on the saturday.
That's how I understand the chain of events, but I might be wrong. :) If you can watch the Newcastle game live, the agreements must just cover the UK.
A certain proportion of England internationals have to be shown on terrestrial television - as opposed to subscriber services like Sky. This means 15 million people can watch us play like lame donkeys compared to just 2 million. :D
As for taking a leak - I've not had a problem. Although, I avoid drinking too much beer when watching England play because I become a little too loud and loutish if they do badly. ;)
I suppose the half-time commentary would not be missed a lot of the time - although the BBC tends to be entertaining. They have Alan Hanson (Scottish hard nosed defender), Ian Wright and Gary Linekar as anchorman. Ian Wright is the most passionate England supporter you could think of - very funny.
BTW, did you see the England v Turkey qualifier? If not, you missed a good 'un! :)
-
I believe 6% is a yeartime high for the U.S. while 4.2% is about your lowest? average... not much to choose between the two.
Who pays the benifiets in england? Here it is payed by the employer as an "insurance".
lazs
-
*hijacked!*
nope, the qualifier wasn't on here that I think. I could have probably PPV'ed it, but I'm not paying $20 for one game unless the boys are wearing the patch you see to the left. ;) They very rarely will show an international qualifier. We will get to see some of the finals in Euro 2004. Not sure how much group play, but quite a bit of the knockout stages are shown here.
Who has the rights to the early Saturday matches, ITV? Whenever you guys have a Saturday match played at 12:30pm your time, we get to see that one live on Fox Sports World (who also shows the Sky Sports News program here.) Otherwise, we get a match or two delayed (and our Sunday match is never live, but always delayed a couple of hours.)
Our Bundesliga matches we get to see are usually live on FSW. The Brazilian, Argentinan and Spanish matches are not live though. I miss the Eiredivisie and Serie A matches though. Wish those were on instead of the South American domestic leagues. :(
I wonder how much FSW pays to show that Saturday match live? I personally won't watch the live broadcast because it's at 6:30 am my time, and they are replaying it at 11am my time, which is far easier for me! ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Commercials suck ass.
I happily pay the license fee.
This makes you a consumer.
WRT standard broadcast television in the United States, the attention of the viewers is the product that is being bought and sold. We aren't consumers. We're product.