BBC in trouble

[Damien]

Originally Posted by downquark1

my view:

If you buy a TV you have to pay for the BBC, if there is no BBC there's no point buying aTV.

I'll drink to that sir!

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I completely agree with you. That is not fair. They are stealing money from you and others are benefitting from it. I would must rather pay for my own service than to utilize a service that was funded my stolen money.

If you bothered to check the facts, you would see that the BBC online output costs each person 20p *per year*, if you are going to get worried about that paltry sum then perhaps you should re-examine your priorities.

With regard specifically to the BBC new output on the web, it is essentially just a repackaging of material that has already been produced for other means of broadcast. The BBC have simply provided us with another means to access that information on demand.

As for restricting it to only being accessible from the UK, since I've paid my licence fee, should I then be prevented from accessing those services just because I happen to be out of the country?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

As for restricting it to only being accessible from the UK, since I've paid my licence fee, should I then be prevented from accessing those services just because I happen to be out of the country?

I wouldn't mind a username and password linked to a TV license type of system, maybe they could then afford to stream the programs.

Originally Posted by downquark1

my view:

If you buy a TV you have to pay for the BBC, if there is no BBC there's no point buying aTV.

Bravo.

I have spent periods of the time in the USA with work, so I've had my fair share of evenings spent in hotel rooms with little to do but watch television. I was one of those people that thought it wrong to pay a compulsory licence fee, until I got a good look at what happens to the television landscape when you only have commercial broadcasters. The best you can say is that the lowest common denominator is certainly well catered for.

Sure, there are the few US television shows that I enjoy, and they aren`t examples of high culture, but 99.9% of US television is so low brow that you could lick your eyes clean. By having the BBC it encourages other broadcasters to raise the bar somewhat. Without them I fear that the every other channel would just output nothing but mindless drivel.

[TheBlueRaja]

I still think that the BBC is one of the best Broadcasting / Media corporations in the world.

I have no doubt about that - and i would argue that their website is quite possibly one off if not the best in the world.

Its one of the very few that i visit evey day and there is an untold weath of loverrly stuff on their if you know where to look.

For this - i really do not mind paying the licence fee. Besides, if they didnt charge you a licence fee for the BBC they would charge you a licence fee (or tax as some people call it) just for having a telly.

At least we dont get any annoying ads on the Beeb.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I have provided numerous reasons as to why I believe that BBC is biased. Feel free to read through them. That said, this is not a factual piece of information. Neither side can claim that BBC or Fox is biased or not biased: it is an opinion, and there are supportive arguments that can be made for it. Hence, I can point you in the direction of why I believe BBC is biased: nothing more.

Jerrk, you can only ever prove its biased when you know the real truth about stories and then see how those stories are reported. Seeing them reported by someone else and comparing the two doesnt prove anything.

[Damien]

I dont think the BBC is biased they dont have any reason to be. Fox is controlled by murdoch who clearly enforces his will on his companys

On another note BBC won a award for its NEWS 24 service

Do not forget they have been praised for their content just asked to close some sites not relating to news and are actually still in a very strong position and still far ahead of the other news companies around

Lets all bask in the glory that is the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

I have spent periods of the time in the USA with work, so I've had my fair share of evenings spent in hotel rooms with little to do but watch television. I was one of those people that thought it wrong to pay a compulsory licence fee, until I got a good look at what happens to the television landscape when you only have commercial broadcasters. The best you can say is that the lowest common denominator is certainly well catered for.

Sure, there are the few US television shows that I enjoy, and they aren`t examples of high culture, but 99.9% of US television is so low brow that you could lick your eyes clean. By having the BBC it encourages other broadcasters to raise the bar somewhat. Without them I fear that the every other channel would just output nothing but mindless drivel.

Too true, Too true i hope the UK never ends up like that

Its news service are so short and offer no depth what so ever it is extraordinary! What do they do when they want to know a story in depth and hear both sides of the story?

But 50 years of this great service has been reached! Here is some nice comments from people

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3859861.stm

A lot of them are not from the UK, Now can you say that the BBC should withdrawn from the other parts of the world? It has enriched peoples life's and provides trusted analysis.

Learn more about the history here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/default.stm

Good old BBC, Providing us with quality tv news for the first time 50 years ago and despite all the competition there remain the fairest and best news company around. If only other news companies followed their example a little more closely.

People in the UK should release what a wonderful organization the BBC is and yet you get the feeling they dont. More often or not it is those such as dr ward here who have been out the uk who see what a credit the BBC is to the people of Britain!



Happy Birthday!


and to another 50 years

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by gary_580

Jerrk, you can only ever prove its biased when you know the real truth about stories and then see how those stories are reported. Seeing them reported by someone else and comparing the two doesnt prove anything.

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Proof done. QED.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Proof done. QED.

How on earth is that proof the whole thing stinks of lies and misquoting

Look how it claims that article on moores film is a typical bias of from the BBC. But it forgets to mention the article has the other side of the story!

Mr Medina was joined by other military family members who shared his outrage.

Until recently, voices such as these - not typical die-hard liberals - have been less than conspicuous in challenging the government.





Anything that moves votes is significant, especially in an election like this where margins are not great




Henry Sheinkopf,
Campaign strategist


Fahrenheit 9/11 has occasioned a robust political debate. It is a piece of agitprop which its supporters hope will translate into a definitive defeat for President Bush in November.

But could it really have an impact?

"It will have a political effect," says Henry Sheinkopf, a veteran campaign strategist who advised Democratic political campaigns including the Clinton-Gore run in 1996.

"The film itself is effectively one long television commercial which uses propaganda to make its point. So, anything that moves votes is significant, especially in an election like this, where margins are not great," Mr Sheinkopf says.

Negative campaign advertisements tend to have more impact than positive ones, he adds.

And given the massive amount of hype the film has received, not to mention the record box-office take, it does seem possible that a film on this scale might reach undecided voters.

So how is this biased then Jerrek? The BBC shows both sides of the story! That blog you linked only quoted the first part of the article and forgot to mention the rest

[Jerrek]

One can easily show both sides of the story and still be biased... Fox shows both sides of a story but is clearly biased. Bias isn't dependent on your coverage of both sides, it is how well you represent all sides of the argument. BBC has a clear liberal slant in everything it does; Fox has a more conservative slant.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

One can easily show both sides of the story and still be biased... Fox shows both sides of a story but is clearly biased. Bias isn't dependent on your coverage of both sides, it is how well you represent all sides of the argument. BBC has a clear liberal slant in everything it does; Fox has a more conservative slant.

I would like proof though.....

[Jerrek]

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ --Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[downquark1]

Ken Livingstone has admitted that he feels safer in New York than in London, the city of which he is the elected mayor. This BBC 24 story rightly points out that New York's murder (though not robbery) rate is in fact higher than London's.* The paragraph saying this is headed "Gun crime." It concludes thus:

Guns and gun crime are also much less common in London than they are in New York.

The story as it stands will most certainly confirm the belief held by the average British reader that the higher murder rate in New York is because New Yorkers are allowed to own guns.

Only they're not. Until the most recent British Firearms Act there were probably more legally owned pistols in London than New York. The 1911 Sullivan Act that effectively banned pistols in New York is unknown among the public here in Britain, but is the subject of continuing and passionate debate in the US. Even anti-gun organizations acknowledge the fact that New York with its decades of tight gun control has a very high murder rate is something that their side must explain not ignore. The prestigious BBC that boasts of its many researchers and its 'mission to explain' ought to know and ought to tell this highly relevant fact.

How is that the BBC's fault?

You might be interested in the BBC's profile of the USA: link.

quote:

"Ethnic and racial diversity - the "melting pot" - is celebrated as a core element of the American ideology. In practice, racial violence, discrimination and segregation have been and continue to be a feature of American life"

and

"Without the levels of social welfare enjoyed, for example, in western Europe, this wealth gap could translate into a potential for social unrest and become a real test of traditional American optimism for the future."

But read it - the article is written by a lefty Euro from a socialist perspective. It stinks. And I'm not American (Brit living in France).

Regards

Monica Law

I can't find those quotes

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless you are, like the Beeb, willfully ignorant. Why else would Jonathan Marcus or Jon Leyne consider that the 9/ll Commission has weakened Bush's case for going to war? Reporting on this story has been very selective. The 9/11 Commission has found circumstantial links to Saddam and al Qaida. What they have not been able to discover is a hand-in-glove linkage. To say "Probe Rules Out 9/11 Links" is to mislead.

Links of communications were found - little else. If I talk to a murderer on a street does that mean I have links to murders




I find that these sites can point out some genuine areas of concern, but alot of the stuff is merely nit picked and playing to emotions

"His killers shouted "Allah is great" before holding what appeared to be a head up to the camera."

What's wrong with this - I do it all the time

"In fact many in Britain are convinced that the regime of Saddam Hussein, brutal as it was, had little to do with terrorism per se. …."

I would suggest that those who are of Gardner's view read former Clinton advisor and anti-terror expert Laurie Mylroie's article as well as new documentary evidence showing a definite link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

He said many Britains are convinced, i.e. providing the opinions not presenting facts

They also get some quotes from some 'smaller' 'news organisations' but I can't be bothered to check there validity.

[Damien]

That not proof, they claimed that the BBC article was biased in favor of moore but the bbc article clearly shows the oppositions side and even shows the counter film they made.

The blog doesnt make a good case at all!

[Jerrek]

Did you notice all the links on the right side?