[quote]lixy wrote:
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.
Wow! That’s not at all how I pictured it.
Thanks a bunch for sharing that insight.[/quote]
Yes, thanks. It’s always nice to get the inside scoop.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Yes, quite. You can proove anything with numbers.
However, you said “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.”
Yo didn’t say “generally”. You didn’t say “and if you’re in the middle class or higher” or “and if your nations economy is growing”.
You said: poor people are lazy. And God frowns on them.
Rich people work hard, and that’s why God smiles on them.
You don’t get rich by working hard in a country like India though. So now what? God doesn’t smile on you when you work hard but live in India?
How much money do you make when you live in Indias middle class? Something like 4000$ probably.
That doesn’t do much good for the invidual Indian, does it?
Yes, that’s what we like to do, holding people down.
Are you willing to trade places with them?
Sure we do. We recognise people can be poor for a number of reasons. Perhaps that have bad health, preventing them from work and raising medical expenses. Perhaps they’re not properly trained or didn’t get a decent education. Perhaps they’re just plain lazy.
[quot]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.
[/quote]
That’s funny. We don’t support oppressive regimes. The US does. Remember when the US was arming Saddam’s Iraq to the teeth to fight the good fight against Iran.
And now your continuing support for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Let’s face it, the US supports oppressive regimes when it suits them and only mention human rights, when it suits them.
The BBC is a very biased organisation. If you really want to see how biased, here is where you need to look.
This part of the site is called “have your say”. They ask people to comment on news stories. Unlike T-Nation they censor posts. The excuse they use is the volume of posts they get. However if you look at the responses they get to a talking point you can see a real cherry picking of responses.
What they will do is let a lot of posts that support their bias through. Moderate views that go against their bias they will censor. But radical views that are flippantly written by some asshole who will alienate people from the opposing view they let through. This way they create a view that the majority of people agree with them while the few who disagree are radical jerks.
Another point. While I can believe 1paklondoner’s obsevation that bbc is run by an oxbridge old boy network, I would challenge that they are a bunch of tories. Amongst the upper classes for many years there has been a segment of bored rich kids for whom it has been a real status symbol to be a left wing radical. There have been quite a few labour party elites who have come from an upper class background.
Another big issue Britain has had to deal with is the issue of gerrymandering. Until Margaret Thatcher came to power successive labour governments had used public funds import new supporters from the third world while at the same time they were using public funds to export English families to Canada and Australia. The result is immigrants and their kids who are loyal labour voters and less English families who were swing voters.
Under these circumstances of course Bono and Geldoff are darlings of the BBC. The minority population is the labour parties most loyal base. The BBC is appealing to that base.
Another point. While I can believe 1paklondoner’s obsevation that bbc is run by an oxbridge old boy network, I would challenge that they are a bunch of tories. Amongst the upper classes for many years there has been a segment of bored rich kids for whom it has been a real status symbol to be a left wing radical. There have been quite a few labour party elites who have come from an upper class background.
[/quote]
I agree with the observations about the emergence of the upper class /anarchist/liberal/socialist. And I have have had the misfortune to deal with many ‘trustafarians’ who all act the radical anarchist or socialist until the funds run out and Daddy has to bail them out. However, the BBC’s upper echelons is staffed by those older than Methuselah, not young enough to get involved in May Day riots.
I guess the old boy network is alive and well. My brother did have some freinds who were hit by a drunk driving mason who never went to jail for it.
Then again some of those real old, old boys have been very left leaning for a long time. Wasn’t it Neville Chamberlain who founded the national health system and the beginnings of the welfare state.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I guess the old boy network is alive and well. My brother did have some freinds who were hit by a drunk driving mason who never went to jail for it.
Then again some of those real old, old boys have been very left leaning for a long time. Wasn’t it Neville Chamberlain who founded the national health system and the beginnings of the welfare state.[/quote]
Ahh… Bless im’. However, I’m sure in the original draft for the NHS it was only for people who could trace their family back to William the Conquerer or if your dad knew their dad. The plebs were given one packet of band-aids to share among them and told to ‘stop moaning’. **
** (I may well have been away when we learned about the formation of the health service in school, and imagined and filled in the missing parts myself)
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
You said: poor people are lazy. And God frowns on them.
Rich people work hard, and that’s why God smiles on them.
You don’t get rich by working hard in a country like India though. So now what? God doesn’t smile on you when you work hard but live in India?
How much money do you make when you live in Indias middle class? Something like 4000$ probably.
[/quote]
Please point out exactely where I said this and I might lift a finger to further discuss this. Otherwise, I do not have the time at the moment to type out reuftations to these, uh, “arguments”.
