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: Wilba on 5 Dec 2009 18:25 Paul Heslop wrote: > Wilba wrote: > >>> I just look at it as pure entertainment nowadays, like a bunch of kids >>> playing with their toys. >> >> Exactly, and that's refreshing. :- ) >> >> You know they did a local version here in Australia? Hideous! > > I think they said on this week's show the only country where it isn't > a big thing is america. but essentially it really does need the > presenters it has to be what it is. the old top gear was way more > serious. We've only seen the shows from the new era, '02 onwards. We started in the middle, and when it took off they went back to the beginning. I fear I'm going to miss it from now on, since it has moved to another network that doesn't broadcast in my area.
From: Bruce on 5 Dec 2009 18:33 On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:41:59 GMT, Paul Heslop <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >Fox 'news' the single worst offender. Yes, it's atrocious. An insult to anyone with intelligence, but popular in the USA. Go figure, as they say. ;-) >Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff about us >'socialists' Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff. Period.
From: Chris H on 5 Dec 2009 19:23 In message <Xr2dnbGbMrDAXYfWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >> >> For all its flaws, and for all the pressure placed on it, the BBC is >> still much nearer to the ideal of impartiality than any US TV news >> channel. > >That would be much closer to being believable if the BBC had any >competitors. It does ITN, C4 FIVE, CNN, Sky and all the news papers. +all the local independent news stations. >When a single corporation has a national monopoly on TV news >coverage it is pretty naive to imagine they are going to be a model of >impartiality. I agree and the BBC has no monopoly. >Organizations are run by people, and people have politics. In >the U.S. at least we can get both sides. No evidence of that so far. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Dec 2009 20:46 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5cnlh5lh59gp3msgpqmfdos6eppvulavir(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:19:38 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >>Bruce wrote: >>> For all its flaws, and for all the pressure placed on it, the BBC is >>> still much nearer to the ideal of impartiality than any US TV news >>> channel. >> >>That would be much closer to being believable if the BBC had any >>competitors. When a single corporation has a national monopoly on TV news >>coverage it is pretty naive to imagine they are going to be a model of >>impartiality. Organizations are run by people, and people have politics. >>In >>the U.S. at least we can get both sides. > > > You really know *nothing* about the BBC, nor about UK television news Right. Here's a fellow who does though -- lives there, evidently: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/ > in general. Even the commercial TV stations strive for impartial, "impartial" is itself a matter of opinion. If your views are the same as the reporter's, you regard him as "impartial." If you have been thoroughly indoctrinated by a news service with one point of view, you naturally see that news service as "impartial." No doubt most Soviet citizens in the Stalinist days believed Pravda was perfectly impartial too. The fact that you apparently don't even begin to comprehend how this works only illustrates how well it works. > objective reporting. For many years, BBC News and Independent > Television News (ITN) competed, not on the basis of differing points > of view, but rather on the basis of which would be more impartial and > objective. <guffaw!> So you believe impartiality and objectivity are entirely relative things. One may be impartial, and another may be *even more* impartial. Terrific! > Standards of journalism were very high, and they remain > high, but with pressure being brought to bear by government there is > no longer complete confidence in objectivity. > > Of course the UK does have its fair share of partial and opinionated > journalists, but they are mostly to be found writing in newspapers and > online, with very little evidence of them on television. In other words, your TV news people march obediently in lockstep, while your newspaper people think for themselves and are allowed to have differing opinions. I can accept this: I have no experience of British TV but have read some of your newspapers' online editions, and am well aware that they have different points of view. I find this a good thing; I suppose to you it's just confusing and annoying. > > As for the difference between UK and US television news, we can see > several US news channels on satellite TV and those we don't get on > satellite are usually available online. After a lifetime (I'm 55) of > watching balanced, responsible, objective reporting on British I find > the biased and opinionated reporting on US TV News quite offensive. I find *bias* offensive when it distorts or misrepresents the facts. I have no problem with *opinionated* reporting since I do not expect reporters' brains to be made out of pablum. I have opinions and am not surprised when others have them too, and not necessarily the same as mine. > > The idea seems to be to tell viewers what to think, and how to think, > rather than giving them an impartial report and letting them make up > their own mind, which is what British TV viewers expect - indeed > demand. How would they know? British TV viewers are not the ones collecting the facts, or they would not need news services in the first place. > The amount of shouting on so much of US TV news, You seem to be talking about commentary programs rather than news programs. Perhaps you don't have both types on your TV and so don't realize there's a difference. What "shouting" programs are you talking about, exactly? I understand your members of Parliament regularly do quite a bit of shouting at each other in those hallowed halls. To me that seems like not a bad thing at all and I wish our congresscritters could do the same thing. Recently one of our representatives called out "You lie!" while the president was addressing the joint Congress (Obama was in fact lying at the time) and was severely scolded for it afterward, by both parties, as it was a severe breach of protocol. He had to apologize. Members of Congress just aren't allowed to do that sort of thing: there are rules. Our straight news programs don't contain shouting either. News reporters may, however, raise their voices and even show emotion when they are on commentary programs. Even *British* reporters do that when on American programs. <gasp!> > and the > extremely low standard of debate, combine to give the impression of an > attempt to appeal to the worst in people. Presumably, those low > standards are a result of aiming both the bulletins *and* the adverts > mainly at people of lower intelligence. That would not be acceptable > here. Aren't you afraid of walking into things, with your head held in that position?
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Dec 2009 20:50
"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:U65jIDfrlvGLFAGQ(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <Xr2dnbGbMrDAXYfWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil > Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >>> >>> For all its flaws, and for all the pressure placed on it, the BBC is >>> still much nearer to the ideal of impartiality than any US TV news >>> channel. >> >>That would be much closer to being believable if the BBC had any >>competitors. > > It does ITN, C4 FIVE, CNN, Sky and all the news papers. +all the local > independent news stations. > >>When a single corporation has a national monopoly on TV news >>coverage it is pretty naive to imagine they are going to be a model of >>impartiality. > > I agree and the BBC has no monopoly. It is, however, a government-funded corporation, eh? Supported by taxes and/or license fees, rather than competition in a free market. > >>Organizations are run by people, and people have politics. In >>the U.S. at least we can get both sides. > > No evidence of that so far. Then you just haven't been paying attention. |