Fox Reporting On The Bbc


Being a patriot is loving your country, not it's choices, government, Or some of the people.

I'm a patriot, but I hate how the country is going down the crapper these days. And we have an ENORMOUSLY biggoted idiot as a president.

To Extremegamer:

You can hate people for telling the truth all you want :rolleyes: The country is going downhill, the war is a sham, Our president is a moron, and you know it.
 
starwarsnerd posted on Feb 7 2004 at 03:55 PM said:
and lack of patriotism that is felt over here.

Wait a second. No. No that doesn't make any sense. Patriotism is a feeling from a citizen to his country not from someone of another country to it.
I was referring to the anti war protesters against our government and the like.

It feels to me like many Americans are patriots in the way they support the government even when they do questionable things, whereas the British are a lot less likely to do this.

And I looked up the term Patriot for you

patriot

\Pa"tri*ot\, n. [F. patriote; cf. Sp. patriota, It. patriotto; all fr. Gr. ? a fellow-countryman, fr. ? established by forefathers, fr. ? father. See Father.] One who loves his country, and zealously supports its authority and interests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What the hell? Is it totally unfeasible to have some neutral news stations in America, instead of either left or right extremes? Can't I watch something impartial without having an arrogant and inaccurate 'My View' shoved down My Throat every couple of hours?

This guy has nothing important or worthwhile to say, and news stations are a large platform with a large audience - replace him with something worthwhile. The jab at the end towards 'Brits who think they are better than Americans': unneeded. Shit-stirring. Irresponsible. The general coverage: he sounds like a smarmy, sarcastic 15-year old who just got a one-up on his long-time rival. Definite glee in the way he announced BBC resignations and Kelly's suicide. Disturbing that he has jumped onto this story as a means to 'prove to the world' that the British all suck, and FOX is of course always right.

'Journalism' like this should be relegated to a small-time political show where it more accurately reflects its worthiness. Tabloids aren't relied upon by anyone for completely factual and impartial news, so why do some people (on this thread no less) look to FOX for balanced and accurate reporting? Oh yeah, because its owned by Rupert Murdoch, he's insanely rich, and FOX News goes hand in hand with the other FOX programs so it's forced onto television.
 
I'm a patriot, but I hate how the country is going down the crapper these days. And we have an ENORMOUSLY biggoted idiot as a president.

I admit, George Bush is not the solution to our countries rapid decline. He's raises the budget like if he does it fast enough, he's going to win a prize and he really should look into taking a night class for grammar. But, there is no proof that he is a biggot. And seriously. I mentioned this in an earlier thread; a good reporter tells what is happening without putting thier spin on it (unless it's a debate show or something of the sort). So, why does is every news station filled with stories from the reporters standpoint on the issue, whether the standpoint be Liberal or Conservative (the former more so than the latter considering that Fox is the only Conservatively biast network).
 
My GOD, that link is hilarious!!! :lol:

A true example of fine, unbiased, Amurkhan journalism!

Thank you, but I'll stick to watching my "leftist" CBC, rather than your fair American stations that "only report what their government tells them to because they can't ignore it" (generalnmx). Or in OTHER WORDS, act as propaganda stations that broadcast every single white lie that the government tells them to broadcast, without showing the other side of the story (I'm talking about then, not now; now is election time, and they have to try to be nice to both parties because they don't know which one will stay in power). I mean, really, they never questioned ANYTHING that their government told them. You may call it patriotism, but I call it stupidity.

At least here in Canada we have "the passionate eye" on CBC, which from time to time shows something important about how people in other places live. All that USA stations showed during the war were endless reruns of the same pictures, with NO INFO on how this was affecting Iraqis, and almost no good shots of anything in Iraq or Afghanistan other than tanks and planes (one CNN Presents special was quite good, though; about a battle in Afghanistan in a fort).

We met someone, for example, who was sent to Afghanistan by an American news station, and told to photograph those "caves" which we were told all the terrorists were hiding in. After he spent a long time looking for caves, he finally contacted them and told them that there WERE no caves, that they hid in buildings and what few caves there were left over from the Russian occupation. The news station, obviously, was not very pleased. They would have preffered to have something which corresponded with the government's statement that terrorists hid in caves.
Eventually, sometime later, somebody on CNN finally managed to find a cave and shoot a few seconds of footage inside it. They then replayed that same footage over and over again for more than a month, of the same cave.
Obviously, this cave was far more interesting than shots of what the country was actually like, and how the people were affected by the war, what they thought, etc.
 
Under UK law no broadcaster (be it tv or radio) is allowed to demonstrate or show any political affilliation - this law was brought about due to television and radios ability to reach mass audiences - in other words, TV and Radio is an "in your face" media...

Privately owned newspapers are allowed to affiliate - their audience is less, and you buy into it out of choice.

In the states the opposite is the case. Broadcasters can be openly affiliated to a party - which causes problems with mass indoctrination - look at Hitler, and Stalin... Furthermore, America, being supposedly the land of the free - marries free marketerring to its broadcasts - basically anything goes that makes money and standards drop... lowest common denominator applies (yet the got very het up about the stupid super bowl stunt..) and sadly we export our cheap trash TV formats to them...

There is mass doubt over the 45 min claim - the government led ppl to believe that Iraq could be ready to attack cyprus in 45 mins - when in fact the 45 mins was more likely to be about how quickly Iraq could enable ground troops and tanks in the event of an invasion.... Lord Hutton was Blair's puppet - hence the chairman of the BBC saying "In life you cant choose your referee".. It has a bad smell about it.

There is some scray stuff going on in the world right now - anyone read the freely available report "America's 21st centuary" written by Bush's closest advisors... its like something out of 1984 - so surreal that you dont think it could possibly be true - but alas it is. He has a very weird twisted view of the future.. It amazes me how people have a rose tinted view of the past - for example: Britain got China hooked on Opium - the chinese government passed a law making it illegal to sell opium - (for the same reason that we made it illegal to sell crack) so what do we do? we go in with the gun boats "You will buy our DRUGS"...

Now imagine if it was the west hooked on opium, and was being sold it by a foreign country... whilst I dont believe anyone should live and die for the sins of their fathers - history tells us that you reap what you sow. Going round the world rideing rough shot over international law - banning relegious articles from schools - taking a mass authoritarian approach to everything, taking/STEALING things for you believe you have a divine right to them.. this has been done before and lead to all manner of shit!

And the same will happen again! Something has to give! It really is a mad world - noone is free.
 
starwarsnerd posted on Feb 7 2004 at 02:43 AM said:
But at what cost? In the early years of Clintons presidency, he cut the CIA's budget and ever since, they have had to gather intelligence with poor equipment.
Such poor equipment? Did God not give their brains sufficient processing power? ;)

The CIA if they wanted, could read my screen right now as I type this. Point a satterlight at me, and know what colour shirt im wearing as well as my bodies core temperature. I dare say that they even have a method for reading my thoughts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Daz_Genetic posted on Feb 6 2004 at 06:58 PM said:
I come from england, so this comes as no surprise to me. Please don't think that the BBC expresses the opinion of the brits in general. Because they don't.

Since the take off of cable and satellite, noone even watches BBC, and yet they still TAX us for haven't equipment capable of recieving their broadcast.

British people *HAVE* to pay about $150 a year to BBC even if we don't watch their programs, and last I know, they were trying to increase that for people with digital equipement capable of recieving their digital-only channels.

I hate the BBC, and I'm sure most british people have similar opinions.
Not true - the BBC still has the biggest overal market share - which is why the commercial sector winges. If anything the market share has increased under Greg Dyke - who used to head LWT a very, very commercial organisation. I for one think he did some good - but at the same time dont like the amount of cheap make over shows which have become abundant. The BBC is not in the buisness for buisness :) - so rather than trying to compete with the commerical sector it should go back to raising the tone. If the BBC went self funding it would have a problem though - for it opperates completely different to commerical outfits. For example as a BBC camera man I would be kitted out with Digi Beta - where as ITV camera men as a rule tend to have Beta SP or if they are "lucky" - (and I use that term lucky with an air of sarcasm) DVCAM..


Of the Televison licence fee - I have forgotten off the top of my head the exact percentage of what goes to whom. But the government take a cut - then the BBC get a bit, then minority programming gets a bit - for example S4C in wales gets a cut for welsh language programming - and in Scotland (weird situation up there - Scotland only had two independent companies - but they have now merged - but have to operate as two seperate entities) a cut is given for Gaelic language programming. IIRC 10% of their programming has to be in their native tongue.

If the BBC continues on a more commerical route - I feel it will have to go self funded. But - I fear when that happends. So many programs simply would not have been made if it were not for the licence fee - we would be in commercial tabloid TV hell. Also the BBC is the backbone of the industry - most independent TV folk have at some time passed through the BBC's hands - learnt the trade - the craft. BBC Worldwide is a fantastic service - but do not threat for this relies on advertising to fund itself - but it could not exists without BBC programs to feed it.

As for Digital TV - this is the government pushing it! In the UK the government - or I should say HM treasuary automatically owns the airwaves. If people wish to broadcast they have to buy a licence. Remeber the 3G auctions in which the government hyped the prices up? Its a nice little earner to own the air which you send information through...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're making a lot of sense there, Bobsonsirjonny. A load of Beeb top brass resigning as a result of the Hutton report is actually excellent evidence of the generally high quality of the BBC. One reporter does a dodgy report and when the Government attacks him the BBC bosses stand by their man (rather than taking the easy route of sacking him). Then when an 'independant' report says the original story was rubbish the same bosses resign because the buck stopped with them. Hands up who thinks Rupert Murdoch would resign if Fox ran an inaccurate story...

J(ohn)
 
Murdoch is entrenched.. he has his daughter in a hi profile role, as well as his son James... who is known as a 1st class drop out - yet through some strange twist of events was appointed as the new chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting, (which is chaired by his father Rupert) when logically on paper he would be your last choice! Apparently the desition to appoint him was unanimous...

Rupert Murdoch will stop at nothing to make money - he pressuerd the UK government to bend the rules so he could own more than his legally allowed share of the media - he is a multi multiple national in order to further his interests - and he will never leave - for even if he did - he would still, and be perfectly able to influence desitions through his children. He is quite a ruthless character as well - if anyone can remember the Whapping dispute... (I cant really - I would have been about 5 when it happened)
 
Bobsonsirjonny posted on Feb 11 2004 at 09:50 AM said:
There is some scray stuff going on in the world right now - anyone read the freely available report "America's 21st centuary" written by Bush's closest advisors...
Interesting...where can I find this report?
good thread btw
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol - Im sounding like a monster raving leftie! which im not...

To clarify - I see nothing wrong with making money. I feel you have a duty to make it, so you can look after yourself and your family. Nor do I see anything wrong with inheritance, - for it is only right that you do the best by, and for your chilldren.

But I believe in an honest days pay for an honest days work - neither party should be ripped off. I also think that capitalism is like a fire: A great way to provide you with warmth, light and a means to cook your food - but without a fireguard/controls it can burn your house down....

Also the unfairness of the world gripes me - this cold, uncaring basically nastiness: If an Alien was to land on this planet he would think we are barking mad! For example: You have an AIDS epidemic sweeping the world (which could be sorted if ppl practised safe sex... but that is another topic ;) ) killing thousands - especially in Africa.. Western drugs are too expensive for them to buy- so the third world makes there own Clones of the drugs for half the price.. what do western pharmisutical companies do? Try and get the drugs baned... their argument being that it has cost them loads in R&D - which is true. But I dare say that they have re-couped the cost - so ultimately its putting money above human life..

Also - once you've got 50million in the bank - do you really need to be paid any more? should you not work for society for free? People are forever moaning about Prince Charles yet I have some respect for the man. He doesn't draw any tax payers money - he has his own means of generating income - he set up a new infrastructure for the tullip growers in his dutchy - thus saving them from ruin - he flies out to all over helping here and there... Bill Gates on the other hand... Why does windows still cost £150+ why do they plan to try and start a charging for email? M$ are so wealthy they could halve the price of windows and it would not hurt them one bit. (Note I am not advocating that they give it away for free here - for the too have R&D and 200 devs on the core team to support - again an honest days pay for an honest days work).
 
khephren posted on Feb 11 2004 at 01:45 PM said:
Bobsonsirjonny posted on Feb 11 2004 at 09:50 AM said:
There is some scray stuff going on in the world right now - anyone read the freely available report "America's 21st centuary" written by Bush's closest advisors...
Interesting...where can I find this report?
good thread btw
I have a copy at home - I had to write to some US department for it. However it is also availble IIRC on the web - though the URL escapes me. I will try and find it - if not I will PM you the address.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top