da_blissmachine: I get BBC all the time... and I have to say it has been going downhilll in past few years... not necessarily politically bias, but just not really checking thigs out, giving a voice to everyone who calls themselves an expert... oh wait thats all media!
longtimelurker: Gig, I must honestly say that I think you are taking this stuff WAY too seriously (but then you implied that you think that too). Disputing posts and sources aren't personal attacks on you - hell, there wouldn't even be a debate if we all just sat there agreeing with each other (reminds me of an interesting opinion piece in the paper today - Hell is a place where everyone agrees).
You may make a post to make a point, if I disagree about that point then I will say so and give my reasons (and any hard facts I have available) to try and discredit it - this is the classic falsification philosophical technique. It is then up to you to respond in turn and attempt to discredit my reasoning. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of 'your source is crap because it's written by a load of hippy lefties/rightwing fascists' (delete as applicable) recently, which doesn't disprove anything and definately doesn't add anything to the conversation, tending to reduce it to a brawl.
You may feel that I am constantly over-critical, but it is a LOT more common for us to be extremely cynical of our government and politicians in general - it's kind of in our culture. I do it to my own government (whether it be left or right at the current time) and I do it to the governments of other nations - in general, anyone lusting after that much power is usually the last one that you'd really want to give it to, given the choice.
You may make a post to make a point, if I disagree about that point then I will say so and give my reasons (and any hard facts I have available) to try and discredit it - this is the classic falsification philosophical technique. It is then up to you to respond in turn and attempt to discredit my reasoning. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of 'your source is crap because it's written by a load of hippy lefties/rightwing fascists' (delete as applicable) recently, which doesn't disprove anything and definately doesn't add anything to the conversation, tending to reduce it to a brawl.
You may feel that I am constantly over-critical, but it is a LOT more common for us to be extremely cynical of our government and politicians in general - it's kind of in our culture. I do it to my own government (whether it be left or right at the current time) and I do it to the governments of other nations - in general, anyone lusting after that much power is usually the last one that you'd really want to give it to, given the choice.
tracksuitboy: [quote author=tracksuitboy link=board=99;num=1067641118;start=0#10 date=11/01/03 at 07:16:27]
Gigs you seem to hate everyone who disagrees with you!
[/quote]
Oops ... think I went a bit too far there! You had the decency to apologise to Javier, so I am doing the same with you. Saying you hate anyone who disagrees with you is bang out of order; you are entitled to your opinions and I should not be so agressive i defending mine! Guess we'll have to agree to disagree! Sorry mate!
Gigs you seem to hate everyone who disagrees with you!
[/quote]
Oops ... think I went a bit too far there! You had the decency to apologise to Javier, so I am doing the same with you. Saying you hate anyone who disagrees with you is bang out of order; you are entitled to your opinions and I should not be so agressive i defending mine! Guess we'll have to agree to disagree! Sorry mate!
da_blissmachine: CNN is deffinitely politically biased. BBC probably not. But political bias is not the only form of credibility. Hey just because noone has criticised the BBC doesn't mean its credible. It may just mean noone had the guts to do it yet. And no I'm not the only one. The world broadcast organization has recently been chastising the BBC over "uncharacteristic increase in sensationalism" and undue conclusions whithout extensive research. While BBC co was once the leading member, it now may be kicked out! BBC World is considerably more reliable than general BBC i think. It, however, is increasingly moving away from general BBC and becoming more autonomous... only time willl tell.. it may be just a phase.
longtimelurker: Sadly sensationalism is quite a growth phenomenon over here. Hoperfully it is just a passing phase but it just seems that everyone is solely out for ratings at the moment and the easiest way to do that is to trump up stories - BBC is by far less guilty of that than their main competitors ITV and Sky, however (and don't get me started on CNN!). The world service wont have the same sort of pressures, though, being broadcast on a global scale makes it a lot more unique and ratings are much harder to accurately quantify.
Personally for TV news I prefer Channel 4, which tends to go into a lot more detail than the other stations, and is also quite a bit more high-brow. I only really use BBC for internet news and 24hr coverage for which, in my opinion, it is currently unsurpassed.
Personally for TV news I prefer Channel 4, which tends to go into a lot more detail than the other stations, and is also quite a bit more high-brow. I only really use BBC for internet news and 24hr coverage for which, in my opinion, it is currently unsurpassed.
da_blissmachine: BBC world doesn't need to be competitive... its the only technologcially reliable source of news in many areas, esp where only 1 person per block or so has a radio much less a TV or internet access.
longtimelurker: [quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=99;num=1067641118;start=20#26 date=11/02/03 at 04:56:50]BBC world doesn't need to be competitive... its the only technologcially reliable source of news in many areas, esp where only 1 person per block or so has a radio much less a TV or internet access.[/quote]
Exactly - that was what I was trying to get at before, but couldn't think of how to say it properly. It has also proven invaluable many times over in war-stricken countries as the only means of the citizens of those places being able to hear news untainted by the propeganda of their own respective governments (of course, this becomes a bit more difficult when we are one of the involved parties).
Exactly - that was what I was trying to get at before, but couldn't think of how to say it properly. It has also proven invaluable many times over in war-stricken countries as the only means of the citizens of those places being able to hear news untainted by the propeganda of their own respective governments (of course, this becomes a bit more difficult when we are one of the involved parties).
da_blissmachine: in general i think 3rd world based news is better than 1st world based new... ironic isnt it
you can get hyped up crap in good picture/sound quality but you have to go through static for valuable information
you can get hyped up crap in good picture/sound quality but you have to go through static for valuable information
longtimelurker: [quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=99;num=1067641118;start=20#28 date=11/02/03 at 05:07:05]in general i think 3rd world based news is better than 1st world based new... ironic isnt it
you can get hyped up crap in good picture/sound quality but you have to go through static for valuable information[/quote]
I think its because in the 1st world we have the luxury of it not being so important. It's a tragedy that for us, our most widely read newspaper (the Sun) has a reading age of 5, has a regular feature of page 3 (topless) models and will happily put the exploits of David and Victoria Beckham on the front page (and usually 2,3,4,5...) while confining (extremely biased) real news to a small paragraph on page 27.
I had a Moroccan friend that said that he felt that a lot of people in his little village in the mountains had a better knowledge of the world than the majority of Britons.
you can get hyped up crap in good picture/sound quality but you have to go through static for valuable information[/quote]
I think its because in the 1st world we have the luxury of it not being so important. It's a tragedy that for us, our most widely read newspaper (the Sun) has a reading age of 5, has a regular feature of page 3 (topless) models and will happily put the exploits of David and Victoria Beckham on the front page (and usually 2,3,4,5...) while confining (extremely biased) real news to a small paragraph on page 27.
I had a Moroccan friend that said that he felt that a lot of people in his little village in the mountains had a better knowledge of the world than the majority of Britons.
Similar threads
