The British Media

Falstaff

I listen to public radio in the evenings and about two in the morning here, I get the BBC world news, lately they have been interviewing Americans regarding Kerry and the Democratic Convention, and I was totally surprised to listen to "americans" offering opinions that are based purely on speculation and not fact, in fact, the thrust of most of the statements were very anti Bush. Now that wouldnt bother me too much, opinions are like rectums, everyone has one. But the BBC reporters are asking leading questions that are biased against Pres. Bush. To put a fine point on it, the BBC routinely gets most of the information wrong, and speculate beyond the realm of common sense. One BBC reporter even speculated that Bush never served in any capacity in the military. And that Kerry actually exchanged fire with N. Vietnamese during his riverboat experiences, though he sustained shrapnel wounds, his crew actually bore the brunt of fighting. Kerry was attempting to get a chest full of medals before he turned his back on the military during the seventies, Kerry is a traitor and a liar, and that is based on the testimony of the crew that served with him as well. I dont here that in any BBC report. No, the BBC is worse than the American media, they make up the truth as they go along, in an inflammatory manner that asks for a good sock in the nose or a good rap with a bottle of Guinness across the chops. If I have learned anything, its that the English media is as bad if not worse than the US.

mike2h

do not think it is limited to just the british media.

Falstaff

yes...but Idont count the French...lol, even Pravda is better

Logla

The BBC is only part of the British media.

All sections of the media have their own rectums (sorry opinions) just like the rest of us.

The BBC reporters (like all reporters) base their reports on the evidence they recieve and then use that to their advantage.

Remember that the reports that you see from the BBC are only a fraction that we in the UK do. The same that the reports that we see from the States is only a fraction of that you see.

We all believe what we want to believe and we are only influenced by what we choose to digest.

If you think that something is a load of crap, you wont listen and end up making statements like the one above.

I agree that the British media has a lot to answer for on many fronts but believe me, the BBC is more impartial than you think. I base that last statement on the recent allegations against the England Footbal Association and the way the BBC covered it compared to the tabloid newspapers today.
Two top people in the FA have resigned, more than likely due to the actions of one of the top Sunday newspapers in this country.

Jeff, If you want to make accusations about the BBCs coverage of whatever Kerry did or is supposed to have (have not) done, please provide some links to back up your personal views.

Falstaff

Yes, that is easy actually by just pasting the URLs for the BBC on the web, I was referring to the news we get on our public radio stations here in Colorado Springs. I litsten to the BBC because I want to hear what people in other countries are hearing as well, the BBC is very popular, having lived in Europe as a boy, I often heard it every night, rarely hearing any American news. But the rhetoric is so inflammatory, just recently people in Pakistan and India were interviewed about their opinions regarding Bush and Kerry. They spoke to Muslims, but no Hindu people, I often wonder if the BBC is interested in both sides of the story. It seems that the reporting is totally biased against Bush. I have seen and heard Al Jezeera reports, and they are are more balanced than the BBC...LOL.
BBC radio player
What sickens me is that both Blair and Bush are criticized to the extent that I wonder if it is just pure sensationalism and not real news.

Logla

Have to admit, there definately is a feeling of anti-bush in this country.

Falstaff

I often forget tha both British and American media are largely financed by advertising and corporate sponsership, they will say whatever is popular to secure the continued subscription of its customers and clients, but it is better than state run media. The best news I have seen is the german news, I get the english translations when I can, good and balanced too

Logla

The BBC is financed by the British public though. We pay a licence fee - about 100 quid a year. This allows us to watch TV but the money goes to the BBC (and the government I think). The BBC doesn't have comercial advertising although the other 3 terrestrial channels do. All the other channels we get are nearly all comercial and therefore funded by comercial adverts and subscriptions (satelite and cable).

The beeb's money all comes outa the british public's pockets though. That includes the TV, news, Radio and internet - everything the beeb produces is publicly funded.

Thats why I was quite suprised to see your initial post.

News in its basic form is gossip, wether it be accurate or sensationalised but the radio the beeb produces is first class. I listen to Radio 1 all day in my van and it is fantastic. It fits my age group perfectly with a mix of British and American music, comedy and news that keeps people of my age interested in whats going on in the world.

I'll be the first to admit that the more "tabloid" press in this country are more prone to jumping onto a story - ITV being one of the channels to dive on the recent Manhunt scandal. When after a week it turns out that the kid who was murdered was the owner of the game, not the murderer as the press had us first believe.

I'm with you Jeff, that the UK has some of the worst press in the world, but it does have some of the best as well.

pr0digal jenius

then there's the most capitalistic news endeavor known to man:

Fox News....lol

BMG_Cya=-

Good points Jeff...

I hope I put this correctly...

The media, meaning reporters, news anchorman, columnists,
and hack book authors, are comprised mostly of wannabe
artists and critics.

Also, you can't discount the fact that alot of people, right or wrong,
have to...they have to, go against the grain, so to speak.
Whether they hate the country they live in, or the spouse
they are married to. It's in their mental makeup to cause dissention...
....for in the end, no logical reasons beyond
their need to soothe, heal and justify their own egos and
needs to set themselves apart.

Of course it's their right, at least a right in a free speech
society, to form and express any opinions they wish.

But...

Ask yourself how many of these types of people actually
fought...or hell...even thought, of what losses and costs
were realized for that right. The numbers are small...almost
trivial...infintecimal.

Maybe I should just put it in these terms.

Quote from a decent movie I watched once.

Appropriate metaphor...

"Critics... even when they are right they are stupid.
They don't realize that after a concert, there is blood on the
piano keys."

Like minds seek the same kind of solice...is what that is getting
at.

Journalists...media in general...etc. They seek to uncover a
wrong or transgression...and their job...and actually their
complete mental makeup, sense of well being, and ideological
"place in the world" depends on this.



Everyone...in the world is guilty of these things. The difference
is...major media influence others. Especially people without the
ability to hold and form their own unique views.

Falstaff

I remember Geraldo Rivera getting kicked out of IRAQ, now that was a small victory...lol

GutterPunk

the media goes w/ what the companies politcal stand point is... i wonder if any money causes this leeway... also, most media is democratic

the media is so biased it almost forces their views on you through editing and showing only what they want you to see

Falstaff

it is the the most insidious form of propoganda, and what the british media is famous for, like the yellow journalism of the depression in America, it serves the peoples interest in some respects, but is so emotionally driven and innacurate it makes you wonder what the british news is really composed of, much like our National Inquirer, all useless gossip and utter fecal matter....is there any unbiased news in England...I think not...it isnt popular...but then, neither is english politics...

raid517

Lol, what I think this is is a case of Jeff smoking a new kind of weed. Baically in an atmosphere that lacks any objectivity - Jeff has taken on board the most sickeningly propogandist elements of the American media and political system and adopted them for what he now wishes to believe is fact - so that when he does hear real objectivity, he is no longer able to recognise it for what it is any more.

The BBC in this country is regulated under both public licence and law to report only what can by most reasonable minds be descibed as the 'facts'. Failure to do so can (unlike in America) lead to severe legal penalties for BBC directors and employees - including but not limited to fines, sacking and lengthy periods of imprisionment. A lack of 'objectivity' is possibly the most serious accusation you can make against a BBC journalist, just as it is with a senior lawyer, or a judge or a doctor.

The BBC is still despite your 'preference' for digging around in the sewers of American society, still viewed internationally as one of the most objective and impartial news gathering agencies in the world. BBC news is heard regularly by over 4 and a half billion people around the world. In many instances it is broadcast and seen as the only truly reliable voice of the free world in countries few of us could even pronounce - and in places where sources of reliable information are sparse in the extreme. Many people in prisions and seemilly hopeless conditions around the world owe their sanity and what little hope they have to their exposure to BBC radio. For 27 years of solitary confinement Nelson Mandela (and many other world dissidents) kept himself abreast and educated in world events though his exposure to BBC radio - so that upon his release he was aready accutely informed of the events and history of the world and of his own country. In his own words, 'the BBC helped prepare him for leadership.'

So while you prefer to swallow the crap you are fed from what is not even regarded as a relaible news source, or any kind of news source at all and call this 'fact' I politiely request that you leave the reputation of the BBC out of your figuring.

They may not be prefect - they may indeed sometimes get some things wrong, but they are generally quick to correct this - and if they do not, there are several mechanisms in place that are intended to ensure they are made to.

This is the problem with limitless, unrestricted, unregulated free speech of the kind you have in America, because this implies a right to lie and misinform too. Too bad I think that this is the track that too much of the American media appears to prefer to take.

All the better in this instance though when it is a lie that you and people like you are only too happy to swallow.

That is entirely your choice.

I think however that perhaps one day, the real truth may choke you.

GJ

Nacht

All a bunch of irrelevant crap. We know about Kerry's war record from his fellow combatants and his superior officers. We know that Bush served as well. What Jeff heard was direct mis-information about the events of the past.

Questioning if Bush even served? That is a retarded mistake.

Why dont we talk about what Kerry did after he came back? How about his book with the Iwo Jima flag raising on the front? (Oh, and the flag is upside down mind you).

raid517

I am not interested in Kerry. I simply think attacking his war record is a mistake. The so called testemonies of people he served that have been gathered by the right wing pro Bush propganda groups (again not what can even be described as the 'media') have largely been discredited and have not been supported by those who did serve directly with him.

Maybe they do hand out purple hearts to cowards in the American military - I do not know. I do know however that on the whole it is not regarded as a general practice.

In any case, as I said, it is the purest example of bottom feeding American dirty propogandist politics it is possible to find. Kerry certainly served - and if that chest full of medals has any value at all, he served with some distinction too. It may not be enough on it's own to qualify him for the presidency, but if you cared about dignity, about loyalty, or about any unspoken code of honour, why not leave him with at least this? Why dig around in faeces, wallow in it and then tell the rest of us that we just have to get used to the stink. Not here, and not me!

Just leave my national institutions out of it and I won't insult yours, or get tied up in your sickening little debates.

The rest of the arguments, like I said, I don't care that much about.

American politics is too much of a filthy business for my tastes anyway.

GJ

Esaz666

why is it bush allways has a grin on his face no matter what he is saying?
what does he know that we dont?
....................
i think that all the media lie's anyway,i am surprised when they speak the truth about something.but id trust the bbc more than most news channels.
i dont really care who gets in the white house but maybe a change of president would do America good.

I wish we could have a change of government.I think at the moment americans have been taking a lot of stick and are quite defensive.
A lot of people around the world are anti-bush but its up to them who they want for their leader.

ohh well.I would say that bush will win anyway.

Falstaff

I feel the same way, and have equal contempt for the American media, including Fox News, and I like Fox News. Hollywood would have everyone believe that the world thinks like they do, but that is a sub culture and not the defining edge of American sentiment.

I listen to NPR or national public radio, and I refuse to donate to them lately because of the attacks by western media on America and Bush. I believe in freedom of speech but the BBC is slanderous. But you know, I still listen, trying to obtain a different perspective, because lets face it, if we didnt listen to the important stuff, I think a great deal would slip by us.

You cant learn anything in an information vacumn.