BBC tows the "company line" when it comes to police harassment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Xmas Themes For Uploaded Photos
Next: Just out: 'Hot - Life in the Australian outback' - could use some help
From: Paul Heslop on 7 Dec 2009 04:53 Neil Harrington wrote: > > "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d1vnh5h29in9grt0tld1gvlse39329jsju(a)4ax.com... > > On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:59:41 GMT, Paul Heslop > > <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>Hell, I would be shocked if you did support him. the very fact that he > >>got in took me totally by surprise, but by heck I'd be more than > >>shocked if he does get back in. There's little point in discussing > >>this with you, you are coming across as one of my sadly prejudiced > >>view of WASPS, sad because I allow it to colour my judgement of a > >>country where doubtless there are millions of right minded and caring > >>people, where social justice doesn't have to mean flying the communist > >>flag. I wish you well and I hope you get the leader you really > >>deserve. > > > > > > Unfortunately, the leader Neil Harrington deserves is ... > > > > ... Sarah Palin. ;-) > > You have my permission to address me directly. > > Whatever Palin's (real or imagined) shortcomings, her qualifications for the > job so far exceed Obama's as to make comparison odious. and that about sums it up. do you actually work for Fox? -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: Peter Twydell on 7 Dec 2009 08:59 I propose a Law, similar to Godwin's Law, which says that anyone who mentions Barack Obama, George Bush, or anything else to do with domestic politics in the USA in an unrelated thread automatically loses. It's like listening to children arguing. You stink! No, you stink! You stink more! It's bad enough that Christmas is being forced down our throats again, without having to read all this boring stuff. -- Peter Ying tong iddle-i po!
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Dec 2009 11:29 "Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:4B1CD08F.353ACAA2(a)blueyonder.co.uk... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> >> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:d1vnh5h29in9grt0tld1gvlse39329jsju(a)4ax.com... >> > On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:59:41 GMT, Paul Heslop >> > <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> >>Hell, I would be shocked if you did support him. the very fact that he >> >>got in took me totally by surprise, but by heck I'd be more than >> >>shocked if he does get back in. There's little point in discussing >> >>this with you, you are coming across as one of my sadly prejudiced >> >>view of WASPS, sad because I allow it to colour my judgement of a >> >>country where doubtless there are millions of right minded and caring >> >>people, where social justice doesn't have to mean flying the communist >> >>flag. I wish you well and I hope you get the leader you really >> >>deserve. >> > >> > >> > Unfortunately, the leader Neil Harrington deserves is ... >> > >> > ... Sarah Palin. ;-) >> >> You have my permission to address me directly. >> >> Whatever Palin's (real or imagined) shortcomings, her qualifications for >> the >> job so far exceed Obama's as to make comparison odious. > > and that about sums it up. do you actually work for Fox? Hardly. I am happily retired, and have been for many years.
From: Chris Malcolm on 7 Dec 2009 11:30 In rec.photo.digital Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote: > Chris H wrote: >> In message <rP-dnScQDY9f4YfWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >> Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >>> Then who does own the BBC? >> >> No one as such... > Since it's a corporation it ought to be owned by *somebody*. >> it is funded by the License fee and governed by the >> BBC Trust. > Who are the people in the BBC Trust who govern it, and who selected them for > their jobs? >> >> It is not state owned nor is it a commercial organisation in the sense >> that it has no advertising or sponsorship. Hence it is completely >> independent. > Since it is funded by a license fee, as a practical matter that sounds > pretty much state owned to me. I am assuming that it is some sort of state > officials who also select the people who make up the BBC Trust. I don't > think it's possible to have *any* enterprise "completely independent" which > that much state involvement. Why on earth don't you google up BBC ownership, funding, independence, etc., and find out, instead of wittering on with this sort of stunningly ignorant speculation? The history and facts are very well known, very well published, and how it all works (or doesn't) much debated, including by the BBC and in the British Parliament. Note too that only the BBC's domestic broadcasting is funded by the licence fee, and that within carefully specified limits the BBC is also permitted to earn money. The funding arrangements and commercial operations have all been carefully designed to ensure that the primary guiding principle and raison d'etre of the BBC is preserved, which is complete independence of both political and commercial bias. There are plenty of dreadful examples around the world of what happens when media are controlled by governments or commercial companies! -- Chris Malcolm
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Dec 2009 12:03
"Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:7o4otkF3nr3fdU1(a)mid.individual.net... > In rec.photo.digital Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote: >> Chris H wrote: >>> In message <rP-dnScQDY9f4YfWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>> Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >>>> Then who does own the BBC? >>> >>> No one as such... > >> Since it's a corporation it ought to be owned by *somebody*. > >>> it is funded by the License fee and governed by the >>> BBC Trust. > >> Who are the people in the BBC Trust who govern it, and who selected them >> for >> their jobs? > >>> >>> It is not state owned nor is it a commercial organisation in the sense >>> that it has no advertising or sponsorship. Hence it is completely >>> independent. > >> Since it is funded by a license fee, as a practical matter that sounds >> pretty much state owned to me. I am assuming that it is some sort of >> state >> officials who also select the people who make up the BBC Trust. I don't >> think it's possible to have *any* enterprise "completely independent" >> which >> that much state involvement. > > Why on earth don't you google up BBC ownership, funding, independence, > etc., and find out, instead of wittering on with this sort of > stunningly ignorant speculation? The history and facts are very well > known, very well published, and how it all works (or doesn't) much > debated, including by the BBC and in the British Parliament. And that doesn't tell you something? > > Note too that only the BBC's domestic broadcasting is funded by the > licence fee, and that within carefully specified limits the BBC is > also permitted to earn money. The funding arrangements and commercial > operations have all been carefully designed to ensure that the primary > guiding principle and raison d'etre of the BBC is preserved, which is > complete independence of both political and commercial bias. I doubt such "complete independence" is possible in any one organization. Again: organizations are run by people, and people have opinions and biases. Those at the top will always have at least some tendency to hire and promote other people with opinions and biases that comport with their own. Thus for example the entire top level at the NYTimes has become leftist-"liberal" over the years even though the Times has some conservative reporters and commentators, and the result is that the Times is editorially leftist-"liberal." > > There are plenty of dreadful examples around the world of what happens > when media are controlled by governments or commercial companies! No doubt, but who other than "governments or commercial companies" would ever be in a position to control the media? The best you can do is have different news media organizations in competition with each other, which should result in offering the public opposing views and opinions. Obviously, that will never happen with government-controlled media. |