[quote]pat36 wrote:
Kidding of course, but since everybody else seems to be data mining the articles I can play too…
“THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week…” [/quote]
Says the Times of London.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Kidding of course, but since everybody else seems to be data mining the articles I can play too…
“THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week…” [/quote]
Says the Times of London.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
dannyrat does make a good point regarding Islam.
The more we condemn Islam the stronger it will become.
Make the masses swallow fire and brimstone is easy when the world tries to condemn your religion.[/quote]
I have to disagree. I think Islam is condemning itself. Seeing murder after murder, after suicide bombing, after terrorist attack, after riot, after violence after violence, what are we supposed to think.
It may be a religion of peace but many of it’s practitioners are acting like blood thirsty savages with an unquenchable desire for an ever higher body count.
Really, how much can we take? How much do we have to see? Besides, is it condemning if it’s actually true?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
dannyrat does make a good point regarding Islam.
The more we condemn Islam the stronger it will become.
Make the masses swallow fire and brimstone is easy when the world tries to condemn your religion.
I have to disagree. I think Islam is condemning itself. Seeing murder after murder, after suicide bombing, after terrorist attack, after riot, after violence after violence, what are we supposed to think.
It may be a religion of peace but many of it’s practitioners are acting like blood thirsty savages with an unquenchable desire for an ever higher body count.
Really, how much can we take? How much do we have to see? Besides, is it condemning if it’s actually true?[/quote]
You are right Pat, that stuff is happening. But since this thread is about media unimpartiality, think about what you do ‘see’/ It’s askew, and panders to an archetype.
Like i fruitlessly said in a little campaign on this forum about a year ago, if you see what’s unseen, which the exponents of this violence and savagery see and feel on a daily basis, things become less ‘black and white’.
This is the reason why i think, in the sake of balance, it’s a good thing that the BBC may be ‘too liberal’. I’m sure any intelligent person remembers that with the media, you need more than one source to get anywhere near the whole story.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Having a job and working hard is the best weapon against poverty. You should try it, people will actually pay you for doing things for them. People who work hard don’t need hand outs.[/quote]
spoken like a true westener. some people around the world were delt pretty shitty cards.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
dannyrat does make a good point regarding Islam.
The more we condemn Islam the stronger it will become.
Make the masses swallow fire and brimstone is easy when the world tries to condemn your religion.
I have to disagree. I think Islam is condemning itself. Seeing murder after murder, after suicide bombing, after terrorist attack, after riot, after violence after violence, what are we supposed to think.
It may be a religion of peace but many of it’s practitioners are acting like blood thirsty savages with an unquenchable desire for an ever higher body count.
Really, how much can we take? How much do we have to see? Besides, is it condemning if it’s actually true?[/quote]
beware people, we are all subject to the propergander of our home contries. what we see isn’t nessasarily a reprasentative example of the world as a whole.
[quote]DS 007 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
Have you run into your dad in the shitter lately, asshole?[/quote]
I moon you for rebuttal.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
Having a job and working hard is the best weapon against poverty. You should try it, people will actually pay you for doing things for them. People who work hard don’t need hand outs.[/quote]
Ok, let’s take the average Chinese laboror. He works 12-14 hours a day. 7 days a week. And he makes less than 1 $ a day.
Are you suggesting he should work harder to avoid poverty.
Think before you post Pat.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
Having a job and working hard is the best weapon against poverty. You should try it, people will actually pay you for doing things for them. People who work hard don’t need hand outs.
…and they get to go to Corfu on business, right, Wreckie?
[/quote]
Hey, don’t blame me for having the job I have.
And it pays well.
And I enjoy it.
I learned something I’d like to share with you though.
Even the mediteranean diet puts on weight if you dive into it head first every day.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
Having a job and working hard is the best weapon against poverty. You should try it, people will actually pay you for doing things for them. People who work hard don’t need hand outs.
Ok, let’s take the average Chinese laboror. He works 12-14 hours a day. 7 days a week. And he makes less than 1 $ a day.
Are you suggesting he should work harder to avoid poverty.
Think before you post Pat.[/quote]
Asked and answered dip-shit, go look it up, or don’t; I don’t give a shit either way, but it’s in this thread, pg1.
Why do you bother, really? There’s a hole in the sand missing your head.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Asked and answered dip-shit, go look it up, or don’t; I don’t give a shit either way, but it’s in this thread, pg1. [/quote]
That didn’t make the least bit of sense. You also didn’t tackle the arguments put forth by Wreckless.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Asked and answered dip-shit, go look it up, or don’t; I don’t give a shit either way, but it’s in this thread, pg1.
That didn’t make the least bit of sense. You also didn’t tackle the arguments put forth by Wreckless.[/quote]
He put forth an argument? Where? That’d be fucking new. And yes, I did tackle the issue of oppressive regimes. OH!~ that’s right you don’t consider China to be one of those. Nevertheless, I have neither the time or the patience to put effort into the crap wreckless says, besides it requires neither.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Perhaps you should have bothered to read the links before commenting on them.
“Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.”
Ok, the coverage of conventional politics is fair and impartial, but the BBC supported Geldofs war on poverty.
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY NO LESS ! ! !
Instead of fighting the poor. If that isn’t liberal bias, I don’t know what is.
Does this mean the non-liberals (Conservatives in the UK, Republicans in the US) finally admit they have a plan to spread poverty? And here I was, thinking poverty was only a side effect of their politics. But no, it’s their only goal.
Having a job and working hard is the best weapon against poverty. You should try it, people will actually pay you for doing things for them. People who work hard don’t need hand outs.
Ok, let’s take the average Chinese laboror. He works 12-14 hours a day. 7 days a week. And he makes less than 1 $ a day.
Are you suggesting he should work harder to avoid poverty.
Think before you post Pat.
Asked and answered dip-shit, go look it up, or don’t; I don’t give a shit either way, but it’s in this thread, pg1.
Why do you bother, really? There’s a hole in the sand missing your head.
[/quote]
Ok then. Replace Chinese laborer with Indian laborer. India is a democracy, isn’t it?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Asked and answered dip-shit, go look it up, or don’t; I don’t give a shit either way, but it’s in this thread, pg1.
That didn’t make the least bit of sense. You also didn’t tackle the arguments put forth by Wreckless.
He put forth an argument? Where? That’d be fucking new. And yes, I did tackle the issue of oppressive regimes. OH!~ that’s right you don’t consider China to be one of those. Nevertheless, I have neither the time or the patience to put effort into the crap wreckless says, besides it requires neither.[/quote]
Last I checked, India, has the largest most effective middle class in the world. So what is you point? Also, you need backup to your stats and facts, I certainly won’t just take your word for it.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
pat36 wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Asked and answered dip-shit, go look it up, or don’t; I don’t give a shit either way, but it’s in this thread, pg1.
That didn’t make the least bit of sense. You also didn’t tackle the arguments put forth by Wreckless.
He put forth an argument? Where? That’d be fucking new. And yes, I did tackle the issue of oppressive regimes. OH!~ that’s right you don’t consider China to be one of those. Nevertheless, I have neither the time or the patience to put effort into the crap wreckless says, besides it requires neither.
Last I checked, India, has the largest most effective middle class in the world. So what is you point? Also, you need backup to your stats and facts, I certainly won’t just take your word for it.[/quote]
When did you ever back up your opinion with facts and stats?
When did you check the effectiveness and size of the Indian middle class? And what was the result?
And even then, that doesn’t say much about the working hours the Indian lower class put in, now does it?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
When did you check the effectiveness and size of the Indian middle class? And what was the result?
And even then, that doesn’t say much about the working hours the Indian lower class put in, now does it?[/quote]
You’re really reaching aren’t you. Here info on the Indian Economy:
Not bad, not great, but improving. I didn’t see anything on the plight of exploited workers, but I am sure you are doing everything your power to help.
So I clicked the link.
And this is what I found.
“The World Bank classifies India as a low-income economy.[4]”
“… a per capita income of $3700 at PPP and $820 at nominal”
“India faces a burgeoning population and the challenge of reducing economic and social inequality. Poverty remains a serious problem, although it has declined significantly since independence, mainly due to the green revolution and economic reforms.”
So, with a low average income and high social inequality, how much do you think the average Indian worker is making? And how much harder should he work to avoid poverty?
Well the problem with self-audits is also that it is very very easy to present conclusions based on what you wanted to find in the first place.
A great example for this is a not dissimilar audit from a couple of years ago where contrary to what you might have expected, the BBC decided that people wanted many many more reality tv shows and soap operas, because they created water cooler moments.
The fact is the vast majority of the UK is saying they would much prefer to have some ‘quality’ programming and less of the soaps running 5 days a week with a 3hr omnibus on Sunday. And I’m fairly sure everyone in this country with an IQ of over 50 would breath a collective sigh of relief if Big Brother was finally axed.
Anyway, I used to work for the BBC. And for all the dedication to objective portrayal of information etc and accusation of liberal bias, which I personally feel is more just a reflection of its home-grown audience these days, I can honestly say I have never seen an organisation run with such an ‘old-boy network’ heirachy which is elitist, snobbish, based on Oxford/Cambridge links as well as Masonic ones. There is little in the way of merit-based progression and one of the first things I was asked when I was in as an independent Producer, in a Production meeting (!!!) is which Uni had I attended. (Note to self - next time don’t mention you dropped out after a year!) So here we have a bunch of old-money Tories (for the most part) presenting news with a liberal bias.
Now you might be able to say that they should have the courage of their convictions, but is it not possible that their suggested liberal ‘bias’ is actually a form of balance when taking onto consideration their own stances? And surely this can only be applauded.
In capitalist countries with a free press, people will do anything they can to get you to tune into their show and it is no longer a truism that BBC News is only there as a public service to the UK. It is a massive international money making machine, just like BBC Drama, Comedy and BBC films. It may follow more stringent guidelines by which it must abide, but it is still chasing the money just as much as commercial TV channels.
Just my tuppence worth…
PS - BTW in my opinion BBC News is still the best of a mainly bad bunch. However it still leaves a lot to be desired so I will rephrase that with ‘BBC News still remains the least shit’.
PPS - NEVER, EVER pay any attention to any news station that asks you to text-in an opinion (for ?1 a text) and then makes THAT the news. Murdoch, I’m talking to you!
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Anyway, I used to work for the BBC. And for all the dedication to objective portrayal of information etc and accusation of liberal bias, which I personally feel is more just a reflection of its home-grown audience these days, I can honestly say I have never seen an organisation run with such an ‘old-boy network’ heirachy which is elitist, snobbish, based on Oxford/Cambridge links as well as Masonic ones. There is little in the way of merit-based progression and one of the first things I was asked when I was in as an independent Producer, in a Production meeting (!!!) is which Uni had I attended. (Note to self - next time don’t mention you dropped out after a year!) So here we have a bunch of old-money Tories (for the most part) presenting news with a liberal bias.
[/quote]
Wow! That’s not at all how I pictured it.
Thanks a bunch for sharing that insight.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Wow! That’s not at all how I pictured it.
Thanks a bunch for sharing that insight.[/quote]
In fairness there ARE doors open there but they are more ‘front of house’ so to speak. Production, presenting, technical. Writers/directors etc… Most positions along the decision-making process starands of the upper hierachy are almost exlcusively taken up by these types.
Maybe it’s changed in a 3 years, but I doubt it very very much. The beeb is just like any other old institution - The upper ehelons of which are staffed by those who got there job because of WHO they know rather than WHAT.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
So I clicked the link.
And this is what I found.
“The World Bank classifies India as a low-income economy.[4]”
“… a per capita income of $3700 at PPP and $820 at nominal”
“India faces a burgeoning population and the challenge of reducing economic and social inequality. Poverty remains a serious problem, although it has declined significantly since independence, mainly due to the green revolution and economic reforms.”
So, with a low average income and high social inequality, how much do you think the average Indian worker is making? And how much harder should he work to avoid poverty?
[/quote]
I can play that too, I can mine data from the entry to show what I want as well. Like that the fact that well over 750 million indians live in the the middle class or higher. Also, they are the forth largest economy in the world and the great strides against poverty have been made and are continuing to be made.
Would you prefer to hold them down to prove your point? It seems to me their hard work is paying off.
Do you have no poor people in belgium? What about the gypsies, you freely hand over your wallet to them?
The poor are everywhere, the oppressive regimes you support have more of them than anybody else and that is usually state sponsored; or forced rather.