[quote]Junior wrote:
If we have concluded that our preferred “news” sources are shaped by our political orientations, then what the heck is this thread about? “I like (BBC/ABC/FOX etc)” --sums you right up for whatever you are, conservative or lib.
I consider the BBC to be liberal- biased, as a FOX fan. I fully realize the bias of FOX. The biases are not exhibited in the manner of reporting as much as they are in the actual choice of what a particular network deems newsworthy.
An example might be the current Israel war, where one network might choose to emphasize the Lebanese “civilian” casualties over the Israeli civilian casualties. I’m glad you’ve found what you like, getting the “news” you want to hear. As my B.S.- tolerance level goes down with each passing day, I can more easily determine who might have some salient points for discussion by simply asking what their favorite source for “news” is. I will confess right now that along these lines, I would have to say my favorite source of “news” is conservative talk radio. Based on everyone’s critiques/opinions of the various “news” sources, conservative talk radio is no less a “news” source than any of the other less intellectually-stimulating venues mentioned here[/quote]
Good post. They are all biased. It is totally obvious. Anyone that does not see the bias is pretty far out themselves.
The only thing I find more respectable about the BBC compared to the domestic networks is the BBC does not waste time on Scott Peterson, Natalee Holloway or any of the other meaningless stories.
I do not find their coverage of real issues any better than FOX or CNN.
They all cover real issues in a professional manner yet they all exhibit bias.
BBC like British braodcasting corps.? That shit drives me mad. The apocalypse, famine, obese ignorant children, ‘britains knife epidemic’ and sport is all i see.
A rapper named Jehst even has a lyric- ‘as my friends exit my bedsit, i build the next spliff, mute news 24 to escape the madness’
The only thing I find more respectable about the BBC compared to the domestic networks is the BBC does not waste time on Scott Peterson, Natalee Holloway or any of the other meaningless stories.
[/quote]
This is a big one for me. I consider any station reporting these things to be primarily entertainment as opposed to news or public service. The other great thing about BBC World is that it doesn’t have the same insular outlook or better put outright ignorance towards the other 95% of the world that isn’t US territory, Israel or Iraq. I think it’s healthy to know about the situations around the world before they become immediately relevent to American politicans and pundits and thus completely obscurred by bullshit rhetoric.
The only thing I find more respectable about the BBC compared to the domestic networks is the BBC does not waste time on Scott Peterson, Natalee Holloway or any of the other meaningless stories.[/quote]
That’s odd, I’ve had satellite/cable for about four months and I know I’ve seen a story about Bennifer or Madonna and Guy Ritchie. And I quit watching after the World Cup started. I don’t know how much less anyone could’ve cared about the Ukraines at the Cup complaining about frogs, but it was news for a week. Also, if any broadcaster ever asks me why Americans don’t like soccer, I’ll swear a blue streak until they take me off the air.
Agreed, I wish one or two of the news agencies would just say ‘We’re Republican, deal with it. If you want a liberal slant, turn to channel 5 or listen to our token Democrat.’ (I’m assuming FOX would be the first to do it.)
I really felt the Ukranian frog-story could have used footage. That’s the type of story we want a short film of, of the team in fatigues, with guns and fishing rods (??), ambushing the loud frogs. If you haven’t got footage, just leave it out
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
I really felt the Ukranian frog-story could have used footage. That’s the type of story we want a short film of, of the team in fatigues, with guns and fishing rods (??), ambushing the loud frogs. If you haven’t got footage, just leave it out[/quote]
Gigs, you hunt frogs with a gig. I understand your ignorance though, they’re probably banned throughout Europe. Except maybe in Switzerland, they’re probably all trained in the use of gigs there.
But that’s a pretty accurate portrayal, the Ukranians probably would wear camouflage to hunt frogs. And the BBC would probably film it as long as it had something to do with soccer.
At the 'mo, I work in television news (no, I don’t actually have anything to do with what is ON the news, I work in promotions, but I have a good perspective on what goes on), and the thing is that they basically just cover stories that they think people will want to hear about. At my station, people usually do a pretty good job of being impartial, and do their best to do so. We don’t editorialize. However, there are LOTS of very important stories that I never see on TV becuase market research shows that our demographic basically doesn’t give two shits about lebanon or the fact that more people died in Baghdad today. They don’t CARE about genocide in Somalia, and that shit is the last thing they want to hear when they get home after a long day at work.
If a local station wants to remain competative, they essentially have to cater to their market. If that station’s market is stilted one way or another, politically, expect to see the news stilted that way too. If their market cares about world events and “quality” content, expect to see it. If the demographic only cares about kittens in fucking trees, then guess what you’ll get.
Also, in many local markets, stations remain stagnant in their programming and news direction because they have no need to change. In fluxuating markets (like the one I’m in), you’ll see stations changing their ways all the time to try and figure out what combinations end up acquiring the best audience.
These are COMPANIES here, not community outreach organizations. they exist to make MONEY. BBC is subsidized by the British G’vt. PBS in the states is good too, because it’s PUBLICLY FUNDED. To tell you the truth, I don’t really even watch our own news cast very often, and when I do, it’s often for a short period of time.
Keep that in mind next time you’re pissed at your local news… you’re part of the problem.
The BBC’s very bad points are little know outside the US. They want to charge an license in addition to the disgraceful TV license they take money for already, for internet usage because it has BBC content.
Many BBC shows are full of product endorsements, there is one, a popular one, ‘Eastenders’ I have seen it twice since I’ve been here. Its full of Nokia advertising. This for a commercial free channel if very bad. In addition the journalism reporting on issues in Russia and area is very erroneous. A Russian channel would not report on Great Britain in such a manner.