Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: udet on June 23, 2003, 01:03:24 PM
-
"AP) - The government shut down the country's last large independent television station Sunday, forcing off the air a team of journalists at the center of a debate over Russian media freedom. TVS, created from the ashes of two other television stations that came into conflict with state-connected companies, was yanked off the air early Sunday. It was replaced with a new state-run sports channel. Some employees learned the station had been closed while listening to the radio on their way to work. "
-
We call that the "BBC" here in the states.
-
Sounds more like the BBC being replaced with Foxnews...
Tronsky
-
I still don't understand why they shut down TVC by force, it was about to go belly-up in a matter of days.
The whole NTV-TV6-TVC team was always pretending to be a "freedom of speech" fighters, at the same time belonging to olygarchyc groups, and changing their owners without any doubts.
I'll miss their programms, but there are dozens of journalists who are much more dangerous for the current regime, and not being hunted for. In fact Eugeniy Kiselev used "freedom of speech" as a marketing slogan. Majority of Russians are fed up by his fat face and constant whining. "Да заебал он всех, пристрелили его". Don't cry "Wolves!" - it's exactly about him.
All that "freedom of speech" whiners start to howl when the sold-out journalists are being "shut down", but noone cares for independant media, both right or left-wing.
For me the worst "freedom of speech" abuse was a sentence to Edward Limonov, he got 4 years for "firearms posession" and merely escaped accusation in "armed uprising against political authority", mostly because our brass hats don't like his leftist activities and his newspaper Limonka.
His ideas are extremistic and doubtfull, but he got style and his paper is extremely funny, and he's definetly one of the best contemporary writeres...
-
but there are dozens of journalists who are much more dangerous for the current regime, and not being hunted for.
does this statement send shivers up everyone elses spines?
cripes... 'dangerous for the current regine'
-
hes using non bush speak. the words aren't alarming at all.
-
freedom is in no way a threat to russia, it's simply redicules
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
does this statement send shivers up everyone elses spines?
cripes... 'dangerous for the current regine'
Any state is an instrument of opression of personality.
:p
-
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 :)
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Sounds more like the BBC being replaced with Foxnews...
Tronsky
Not sure how you deducted that...
BBC=Gov't owned news service
Fox=Private company.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Not sure how you deducted that...
BBC=Gov't owned news service
Fox=Private company.
BBC= mandated to be independent. Given that both major UK parties have already complained of BBC bias against them this year I think they are manageing that.
Also
BBC= most widely respected news organization in the world.
Foxnews=source of opinions of US conservatives: short on facts and long on interpretation.
I don't always agree with what the BBC says but then that's what I look for in a news service: the facts plus ciritcal, independant opinion.
If I was a US conservative who only ever wanted my opinions confirmed as right I'd watch Fox.
I'm sure you'll disagree with me but then hey, that's makes life fun.
-
I've watched Fox news once our twice, most of it was editorial, not news. Any highschool journalism student knows the difference . The BBC on the other hand is much more news, and certainly more cosmopolitan .
You have to remember that Fox news' purpose is to be profitable .
-
Originally posted by Pei
BBC= mandated to be independent. Given that both major UK parties have already complained of BBC bias against them this year I think they are manageing that.
Also
BBC= most widely respected news organization in the world.
Foxnews=source of opinions of US conservatives: short on facts and long on interpretation.
I don't always agree with what the BBC says but then that's what I look for in a news service: the facts plus ciritcal, independant opinion.
If I was a US conservative who only ever wanted my opinions confirmed as right I'd watch Fox.
I'm sure you'll disagree with me but then hey, that's makes life fun.
Far better explained than I....
That was about the gist, the BBC maybe govt. owned but is far more able to be unbiased than a private company like Fox.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
but I still can't drink wine at work so I guess maybe I'll move to siberia :)
You can do that here in Germany! no need to go to that frozen commie hell.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
:D
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!)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Pei
BBC= most widely respected news organization in the world.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
Originally posted by Pei
BBC= most widely respected news organization in the world.
Not by their own navy however.
-
The BBC has a navy?
Now that's news!
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The BBC has a navy?
Now that's news!
Very funny!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!Good one!
The British Navy flagship turned off the BBC due to what they believed was biased reporting.
Angry Sailers (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768569.html?menu=news.wariniraq)
I guess they're respected by everybody but their OWN COUNTRY'S NAVY.(Caps to avoid more confusion or rapier wit)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
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.
Lol ripsnort, where did all these horses come from?
The BBC is not in any way whatsoever owned by the government. Never has been.
Grey is a colour, Gray is a name.
The government would very much like to own it, but they have been refused on many occasions, even Churchill was rebuffed.
As for the Ark Royal, the BBC was outputting news, not the propaganda dictated by government - how much more independent of government can you get? That the governments own forces reject the coverage as too critical? But I would reject news 24 (a *tiny* part of BBC output) as dumbed down predigested news for the politically illterate, as any roling news channel needs to be.
Left and Right are irrelvant terms here. That whole political spectrum is utterly defunct now.
-
Originally posted by straffo
BBC is certainly biased but not as any Murdoch owned news service.
Thank you.
There are many examples of their bias.
http://www.netanyahu.org/bbcbias.html
I could pull up hundreds...they're out there.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
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. ;)
Or that the Iraqi chemical weapons factories were bought from Germany (and built by german contractors) as pesticide factories.
Afterwards small changes were done to produce WMD.
This according to a french (partly at least) produced documentary.
Was a little surprised no more attention was payed to those pesiticide drums.
-
The irony. Ripsnort quotes a website devoted to the promotion and hero-worship of Benjamin Netanyahu, a man prominent in the most intractable and polarized conflict in the world, for an example of BBC bias.
Talk about scoring an own goal...
-
I was just citing a single example from both right and left wing oriented news networks. They both suck and are biased.
My point was that if you trust ANY news network to give you completely truthful and unbiased information, you're going to be sadly disappointed.
They always taint the story this way or that to suit their own political interests. Even more sad is how many people take what they hear to be the gospel.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Even more sad is how many people take what they hear to be the gospel.
Sadder still....these people are allowed to breed and indoctrenate their young to their skewed view of how things should be.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
... I mean, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch. The BBC isn't perfect, but at least isn't owned by the Dirty Digger.
Dirty Digger..............an insult to anyone who actually earned the 'title' by donning an Australian millitary uniform.
For those who don't know, a 'Digger' is an Aussie infantryman, a nickname they gave themselves at Gallipolli in 1915, a refferance to how much time they spent with a shovel as opposed to time with a rifle.
The name stuck, and Aussie infantry have been widely known as 'Diggers' ever since, wearing the name as a badge of honour, in much the same way as the 'Rats of Tobruk'.
Rupert Murdoch certainly never earned the right to be called a Digger, a lot of other things, maybe, but not a Digger.
The 'Dirty Digger' is merely refferance to Murdoch being an Australian.........call him an ******* Aussie or something.
Consider how the Brits would feel if we Aussies reffered to every dodgey pommy conman (and there's plenty of 'em out here) as 'Freaky Fusiliers', or 'bastard Black Watchmen' or some such thing, basically, reffering to disreputable bussinessmen with a name that usually conveys respect for the millitary actions of your veterans.
It may seem trivial to some, but to those of us with relatives who earned the 'Digger' title/nickname, to have them , and thier deeds and accomplishments mentioned in the same breath as a crook like Murdoch is bordering on blasphomy.
Of course, I cant change a nickname given to a bloke by the press , all I am trying to do is explain that to some of us, it's disgusting, I can't begin to imagine how the real Diggers feel about it.
Just my opinion.
Blue
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The irony. Ripsnort quotes a website devoted to the promotion and hero-worship of Benjamin Netanyahu, a man prominent in the most intractable and polarized conflict in the world, for an example of BBC bias.
Talk about scoring an own goal...
There were just too many, I grabbed the first one on the list.
-
Bluedog, don't take Dowding seriously, he's young, dumb, full of ....well, no one else takes him seriously here ;) The brits I've met over my lifetime (and had as room mates) are pretty cool, but if you had to look up "Pompous Brit" in the dictionary...well...you know where I'm going, don't you? :)
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Dirty Digger..............an insult to anyone who actually earned the 'title' by donning an Australian millitary uniform.
For those who don't know, a 'Digger' is an Aussie infantryman, a nickname they gave themselves at Gallipolli in 1915, a refferance to how much time they spent with a shovel as opposed to time with a rifle.
The name stuck, and Aussie infantry have been widely known as 'Diggers' ever since, wearing the name as a badge of honour, in much the same way as the 'Rats of Tobruk'.
Rupert Murdoch certainly never earned the right to be called a Digger, a lot of other things, maybe, but not a Digger.
The 'Dirty Digger' is merely refferance to Murdoch being an Australian.........call him an ******* Aussie or something.
Consider how the Brits would feel if we Aussies reffered to every dodgey pommy conman (and there's plenty of 'em out here) as 'Freaky Fusiliers', or 'bastard Black Watchmen' or some such thing, basically, reffering to disreputable bussinessmen with a name that usually conveys respect for the millitary actions of your veterans.
It may seem trivial to some, but to those of us with relatives who earned the 'Digger' title/nickname, to have them , and thier deeds and accomplishments mentioned in the same breath as a crook like Murdoch is bordering on blasphomy.
Of course, I cant change a nickname given to a bloke by the press , all I am trying to do is explain that to some of us, it's disgusting, I can't begin to imagine how the real Diggers feel about it.
Just my opinion.
Blue
I think your getting the wrong end of the stick....
I understood it meant' a "dirt digger", similar in vein to his sleazy tabloid papers.
I find it hard to believe Dowding was useing it to make a reference to the same diggers your referring to mate.
Tronsky
-
Thanks Tronski. I was actually referring to his journalistic pedigree - I didn't realise it had other connotations Bluedog, and hence I plead ignorance on that one. At least we agree Murdoch is a crook.
Ripsnort, don't pretend to be the objective adjudicator in some popularity contest; I've seen you make a fool of yourself more times than your advanced years can account for. You shoot yourself in the foot with a quote that degrades your argument while insisting there are 'loads more where that came from'...
-
My apologies in that case Dowding, it seems I missunderstood entirely.
-
Why is murdcok a crook....just curious
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Bluedog, don't take Dowding seriously, he's young, dumb, full of ....well, no one else takes him seriously here ;) The brits I've met over my lifetime (and had as room mates) are pretty cool, but if you had to look up "Pompous Brit" in the dictionary...well...you know where I'm going, don't you? :)
Not unlike yourself...Kettleman. ;)
-
Hey, i'm sure Boroda could always set up a ..............dare I say it...............a PIRATE station ;)