Who needs an impartial national broadcaster anyways?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

5eleven

I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain
Mar 23, 2003
787
0
0
Ohio
Visit site
That's really unfortunate........remember, I'm just an American, in my sheltered little world. BUT, not only am I disappointed that the government would try to break up the BBC, I'm just as disappointed that the BBC world radio service has all but disbanded, at least the North American target broadcasts. I love listening to my shortwave, and I miss listening to BBC World Service. What the hell happened? The only thing BBC here is BBCA, which is only available AFAIK on satellite here.

Just my two cents, for me to enter a UK debate would be pointless. I am not versed enough in much of anything in the UK to have much of a valid point.

Guess I'm just an English fanboy! LMFAO! :lol:
 

jaunty

Active Member
Apr 30, 2000
2,506
0
36
We had a similar problem with the ABC here. It's still a 100% publicly owned channel, and all of their money comes from the government. The government is also usually amongst the first group to call them biased.

Our since-retired (thank Christ) communications minister actually produced a 100+ page document listing all the things he thought the ABC said in a biased fashion. This included things like the use of "alleged" when describing WMD in Iraq before the war. The saga between governments and the ABC has raged longer than anything the BBC can boast. Governments who feel that the ABC has wronged them usually do something like cut its funding in half. The ABC simply responds by diverting a larger percentage of its budget to news services. The last time their funding was cut, http://abc.net.au/news/ was born.

Don't worry. No government in their right mind, British or Australian, will ever be able to tear down a public institution like the BBC or ABC. The best they'll manage is to sell off 49% of it to private holdings.
 
Last edited:

masamax

Spoon
Apr 10, 2001
395
0
0
37
Edmonton, Canada
www.rifts.cjb.net
jaunty said:
We had a similar problem with the ABC here. It's still a 100% publicly owned channel, and all of their money comes from the government. The government is also usually amongst the first group to call them biased.

Our since-retired (thank Christ) communications minister actually produced a 100+ page document listing all the things he thought the ABC said in a biased fashion. This included things like the use of "alleged" when describing WMD in Iraq before the war. The saga between governments and the ABC has raged longer than anything the BBC can boast. Governments who feel that the ABC has wronged them usually do something like cut its funding in half. The ABC simply responds by diverting a larger percentage of its budget to news services. The last time their funding was cut, http://abc.net.au/news/ was born.

Don't worry. No government in their right mind, British or Australian, will ever be able to tear down a public institution like the BBC or ABC. The best they'll manage is to sell off 49% of it to private holdings.

We have had similar experiences in Canada with the CBC. CBC is not so much unbiased as it is liberal. It not only provides some of the best coverage in the world IMO, but also has maintained it's seperation from the government. Unlike the BBC, the CBC has no special license for television to provide money. The CBC gets money directly from the government, and from advertising revenue. One has to understand something about the competetiveness of the Canadian market. The CBC is almost entirely canadian content, meaning it must compete against the best american shows in the same timeslot (since we get lots of American channels in the GWN too.) The government and the CBC got into a kerfuful a few years back over a story about the RCMP spreaying protesters who were peacefully protesting becase the PM didn't want to make himself look bad. it blew over but it was the CBC that broke the story.

The age old public broadcaster/government relationship goes on.
 

Nightmare

Only human
Sep 23, 2001
446
0
0
50
Finland
Visit site
Well, we are all being awfully friendly with Russia's Putin. Perhaps the UK government is trying to imitate him in order to make him feel good? He's closed down all independent media and is effectively a dictator. It was even rumored that the Kreml had to persuade people to stand up as candidates in the next presidential election, just so there's some competition to make it seem legit. Putin is expected to win, but there should be others running.

But they're our friends now, aren't they? Fighting for freedom against teh evul Izlamist terrorristats or whatever it is they're killing down there, somewhere, Chechnya? So doing like they do is just a friendly gesture, you see. It's all about freedom.
 

MadWoffen

Soon! ©
May 27, 2001
2,593
2
38
53
Belgium
www.bifff.net
5eleven said:
That's really unfortunate........remember, I'm just an American, in my sheltered little world. BUT, not only am I disappointed that the government would try to break up the BBC, I'm just as disappointed that the BBC world radio service has all but disbanded, at least the North American target broadcasts. I love listening to my shortwave, and I miss listening to BBC World Service.


www.bbc.com

Left column, news in 43 languages...

BBC World TV also available.


This is wrong, terribly wrong. I don't think it will happen but if they really go through this, I'm confident the British people will do everything to save the old lady from the hypocrit and SOB Bliar.

I don't understand how this guy is still in power with all his lies. He was filmed saying to UK troops in Iraq that WMD have been found and they are in the good way. This interview was reported to the US administrator (without naming Bliar as the source) and journalists asked for a comment on this.

Answer of Bremer: this guy is a liar, we didn't find anything yet. He has no evidence I know that would allow this person to say that...

Journalist: the person who said that is the UK prime sinister: Bliar

Bremer (very unease): (silence) well...I think he is a bit too much enthusiastic...errr...we found some little things but we can't really say yet they are WMD, you know...


Was this interview censored in the anglo-saxon countries or what ? It was a big laugh here...
 

SaraP

New Member
Feb 12, 2002
935
0
0
The Land of the Governator
Things like this are only the beginning of a long slide into complete tyranny. The English effectively gave up all their rights they let the government disarm them; without armed citizens as the last resort defense of freedom, the powers that be over there can do whatever they please and there's not a thing anyone can do about it.
 
Last edited:

Gaia

New Member
Nov 8, 2002
56
0
0
43
nottingham, england
Visit site
Ignoring SaraP in the hope her minders find her soon and cart her back off to the loony bin.

This news about the BBC makes me pretty angry, but I doubt they'll get away with it - there would be a huge public outcry if they tried to touch the BBC, even from those who protest against the licence fees I suspect. Now the Tories have new leadership, maybe there is decent opposition at last, as he certainly seemed to make Blair a little uncomfortable with some of his questions, and got straight in there on the attack. Next elections should be interesting...
 

Olethros

Functional alcoholic
...And there goes the very last shred of belief that SaraP is in any way connected to, or even aware of, this cute little concept the majority of us like to call 'reality.' I'll leave the large letters and namecalling to others less painfully civil than me, but make no mistake: My "yeah, me too"-posts will be there in spirit. Just not in writing.
 

5eleven

I don't give a f**k, call the Chaplain
Mar 23, 2003
787
0
0
Ohio
Visit site
MadWoffen, I know that they broadcast via internet......I just enjoyed breaking out my shortwave occasionally and tuning in to all kinds of shortwave broadcasts, especially BBC.

I did not hear of or see the interview with Bremer that you are speaking of. Not sure if it aired, I just never saw it.

Nightmare, I think you are definitely on to something regarding Putin:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040213/1/3i07u.html
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7265-10.cfm

Hmmmmmmm. :)
 

SaraP

New Member
Feb 12, 2002
935
0
0
The Land of the Governator
Olethros said:
...And there goes the very last shred of belief that SaraP is in any way connected to, or even aware of, this cute little concept the majority of us like to call 'reality.'

A right that is not defended by armed force (or rather, *potential* use of armed force) exists only as long as the government isn't bothered by it. A disarmed populace cannot stop the government from doing as it pleases, and so should not be surprised when the government stops maintaining even the pretense that it's doing what the people want it to do.
 

Olethros

Functional alcoholic
SaraP said:
A disarmed populace cannot stop the government from doing as it pleases, and so should not be surprised when the government stops maintaining even the pretense that it's doing what the people want it to do.
While I entertain no delusions about the imperfections of a democratic electoral process of the kind we have in most western countries, I would still maintain my position that something as banal as voting for someone else is by far the preferred method of deposing a government. Particularly if the alternative is an armed revolt performed by disorganised, ill-equipped - albeit no doubt enthusiastic (at least when not facing anything more dangerous than a cardboard target) - vigilantes going up against a trained military and police force.
 

SaraP

New Member
Feb 12, 2002
935
0
0
The Land of the Governator
Olethros said:
While I entertain no delusions about the imperfections of a democratic electoral process of the kind we have in most western countries, I would still maintain my position that something as banal as voting for someone else is by far the preferred method of deposing a government. Particularly if the alternative is an armed revolt performed by disorganised, ill-equipped - albeit no doubt enthusiastic (at least when not facing anything more dangerous than a cardboard target) - vigilantes going up against a trained military and police force.

I meant that I believe that the option of armed revolt has to be maintained as a last resort, not that it's the best way to settle all matters political. Voting for someone else is always a better option, but it's not always possible.

Think of it this way: armed revolt is the 800-pound gorilla that keeps the government in line -- you don't let the gorilla out of its cage very much because it always makes a big mess, but you need to keep it around because if you don't then you'll be in a world of hurt when things get bad enough that you actually need it.
 
Last edited:

Zundfolge

New Member
Dec 13, 1999
5,703
0
0
54
USA
Whats wrong with dismantling the BBC? If there is a market for their style of broadcasting then someone will come in to fill the void (thats what a free market is all about).

EDIT: I realise this article isn't about actually dismantling the BBC but just shuffling it around to where different government bureaucrats run it instead of the ones that do now ... I think it would be better to just scrap the whole thing and let private broadcasters compete in a truely free market.

I love how you guys love to attack FoxNews as some sort of evil right wing kabal, but at least they aren't supported with money the government takes from you at gunpoint*, so if you disagree with them you just don't watch them ... and if enough people disagree with them and don't watch them then they go out of business (rather democratic if you ask me) unlike government run media which can have almost no viewers and put out programming that either nobody wants to see or is so biased as to be obviously rediculous (or both) ... you know, like PBS here in the States.

I just get a chuckle over how many of you guys don't trust private enterprise, yet you trust a government run media outlet like the BBC to tell you the truth.

On a side note; as much as the pacifists love to think otherwise, all power flows form the barrel of a gun ... or at least the threat of its use. So SaraP is correct that a disarmed populace is easier to rule with an iron fist, and an armed populace who maintains the spirit of resistance (as Thomas Jefferson called it) can be a deterent to tyranny. But honestly I don't know how that applies to this discussion about the changes to the BBC.

Of course if they just got rid of the BBC all together (or sell it to private investors) it would increase the freedom of British subjects because it removes the government from the dissemination of information (and maybe they can cut the rediculous taxes the British have to pay just to own a TV).


*If you don't think your taxes are collected at gunpoint, try not paying them and see who shows up at your door ... armed
 
Last edited:

MadWoffen

Soon! ©
May 27, 2001
2,593
2
38
53
Belgium
www.bifff.net
Found on another forum but it seems at least the BBC spoke about it, it was back in december of 2003:

Bremer 'rejects' Blair WMD claims (from BBC)

The US official running Iraq appears to have contradicted Tony Blair's claim Saddam Hussein had laboratories for developing weapons of mass destruction.
The prime minister said in a Christmas message to UK troops that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had unearthed "massive evidence" of clandestine labs.

The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority said it was not true.

Paul Bremer said it sounded like a "red herring" made up by someone to upset the rebuilding effort.

But Mr Bremer seems to have been unaware that the quotes had come from Mr Blair when they were put to him in an interview on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme.

"I don't know where those words come from but that is not what (ISG chief) David Kay has said," he said.

"I have read his reports so I don't know who said that.

"It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."

However when it was pointed out the remarks had come from the leader of the US's closest ally, Mr Bremer seemed to pull back from his original remarks.


"There is actually a lot of evidence that had been made public," he said

Doubts


Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has also cast doubt on Mr Blair's assertion.

Dr Blix said it was "innuendo" to suggest laboratories were used for WMD.

However on Sunday, Downing Street was standing by the prime minister's comments.

A spokeswoman insisted he was referring to "already published material" in the interim report by the ISG.

In the interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service, Mr Blair had said: "The Iraq Survey Group has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles.

Now, frankly, these things weren't being developed unless they were developed for a purpose."

Echoing what Mr Bremer said, Dr Blix said that the ISG had failed to produce any concrete evidence that the laboratories they had found were working on WMD.

However, Mr Bremer rejected Dr Blix's claim that there were no WMD left for Saddam to give up. "You might conclude that Dr Blix is out of touch," he said.

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said that he would be pressing ministers on the state of the government's knowledge about Iraqi WMD when Parliament returns in the New Year.

"It is high time the prime minister cleared this matter up once and for all," he said.

"Just exactly what was the British Government's state of knowledge at the time of military action about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the facilities for manufacturing them; and what do they know now?"


@Zund: I don't want to trust a private media that is runned by a tycoon close (too close) to some politicians and not others. The group of Rupert Murdoch showed more than once during this whole year they are probably one of the most biased news group in the world.

As for state run media news, I agree they may not seem independant, but in a lot of cases, they are. Believe me. BBC was and Belgian television is.

An example of the Belgian television some years ago: they showed a news report proving the implication of the Belgian government (the catholic party that was in power) and the French government (the socialist gvt that was in power) in the Rwanda genocide. Later on, both countries settled an "independant" comission that cleared them out (just like Blair and the Hutton report vs BBC)...but the Belgian TV once again proved that the head of this independant Belgian comission was himself heavely implicated in the Rwanda genocide...this and another scandal made the catholic party to lose its leadership in power and they were rejected in the opposition since...

Biased ? This was from Belgian state runned but independant TV...(we also have private runned TVs and frankly, the news from these are often crappy, outdated or just looking for "sensionalism" at all cost without checking their news... just to make an audience).

I think you underestimate too much the links that exist between politicians and media news, either private or state runned. The example of France is flagrant, the biggest private runned TV is close to all politicians and ask permission to those before airing some too much sensitive news...(it was the case for the Rwanda genocide but also other matters).

Only experience and a close watch to different channels may give you an hint on who is the closest to independance...and given the fact I live on a crossroad of Europe and the world, I can tell you BBC, "despite" being state runned, is probably the best news channel in the world.
 

MadWoffen

Soon! ©
May 27, 2001
2,593
2
38
53
Belgium
www.bifff.net
Forgot to add something to those who advocate civil war: I think you know next to nothing on civil war and that you are naive on the issue by forgetting 2 key words: desinformation & manipulation.


(And before you ask, yes, I lived one).