If Fox is your bastian of all that is fair and truthful in US media then you’e in

The BBC is the most trusted News Service in the world. If it doesn’t uphold the extreme right wing American politics then so be it.

If you have access to BBC World you can watch for yorself and make your own judgement rather than dis/believe Fox’s spin.

Otherwise go here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_news_24/default.stm at 21:45 and watch how a proper debate can be conducted. Link is on the right hand side of the page “Question Time US election special”

Far from being anti-Bush/anti-Republican guests also include a former Bush script-writer, a right wing British journalist and a civil liberties attorney.

I wouldn’t believe all you read on Fox News.

Posted by: symptomless at October 28, 2004 05:15 PM

Meant to say got to that link at 21:45 GMT

Posted by: symptomless at October 28, 2004 05:32 PM

What, no Al Gore? I’m very disappointed.

And symptomless, the BBC might have a great reputatiion reporting on droughts in Africa and insurrection in East Timor, but when it comes to American politics—-and now even British politics—-they’ve recently forfeited their reputation, and it’s unlikely they’ll get it back any time soon.

I mean, Michael Moore and George Soros? Are you fucking kidding? Do you really think you can spin that? You either think you’re a lot smarter than you really are, or you believe that the rest of us here reading CP are far more stupid than we actually are, or, most likely, both. I mean, Please.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at October 28, 2004 05:45 PM

erm, I’ll quote myself, “guests also include a former Bush script-writer, a right wing British journalist and a civil liberties attorney.”

What exactly is it that needs spinning? You will not find a fairer and deliberately balanced broadcaster.

The BBC is paid for by the British people to be independent, something unheard of in the US, whether its commercial or UNBELIEVABLY political backing.

Posted by: symptomless at October 28, 2004 06:10 PM

I love it. Funny how the left side is full of high profile media sweethearts and that symptomless doesn’t even bother to mention a single person on the right by name.

Posted by: agrosquid at October 28, 2004 09:01 PM

..you just got to love these`s lib`s,symp..the “GREY LADY“,and blather where too once admired and respected..sorry that vanished when they became so opinonated ..yes when they just reported the news..straight..they where second to none..sad but ..RIP..

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 28, 2004 09:28 PM

Its great how you equate independent with liberal.

Like I say, the BBC is funded by the people, and is held highly accountable by the people through independent watchdogs. The media laws in the US don’t have any such safety nets. The air waves used to be owned by the people in the US. Those days are long, long gone. Rupert Murdoch owns most of them and how close is he to the Republicans?

Have a look for YOURSELF at the way its balanced, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2004/vote_usa_2004/default.stm

Make up your own mind, or you can let Fox do it for you.

If anything all the big right-wing names may be appearing on Fox so they don’t have to be ‘fair and balanced’.

Posted by: symptomless at October 29, 2004 04:37 AM

symptomless, I can better understand what the state of denial looks like when I read your posts. Perhaps for balance, the beeb could have Molly Ivans and Susan Estrich opposite George Soros and Michael Moore?

The whole idea that ‘publically funded’ is somehow cleaner or more balanced that ‘privately funded’ is torpedoed in the process. But then, you’re probably running in the same circles who see the MSM as ‘too conservative’ (when you’re not beating the servants for serving the brie at the wrong temperature). Yes, we’re not leftists, we’re just ‘independent’. Doesn’t that have an affirmative ring to it? Everyone else is biased, but we’re….we’re just telling it like it is and those stiff-necked cro-magnons just don’t get it. I can almost hear you sniffing in your posts.

We have laws in this country that cover libel and slander, but it’s still legal to have a point of view. It’s just remarkable to see so many lefties (like yourself) with your hankies out, trying to pick the cinder out of the eye of FoxNews while the timber lodges firmly in your own. As for safety nets, you’re soaking in it.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 29, 2004 09:53 AM

Anyone like to defend Fox? Is Fox at all defendable?

If this story has any legs you’d have to assume that Fox doesn’t have an agenda!

Are you not at all skeptical about Fox? Do you believe all they say because you agree with what they say?

——

quote: We have laws in this country that cover libel and slander

The problem isn’t always what is said on the air but more importantly what’s left out. This story is a PRIME example, makes it sounds like the BBC is a frothing at the mouth anti-american liberal soap box. Try finding out the truth for YOURSELVES. Do you notice the theme here?

——

For clarity and the record I said that the BBC is ‘publically accountable’, not just ‘publically funded’. Any tears in my eye’s are there for those that can’t tell the difference.

nb. Leftist’s[sic] aren’t the one’s with servants.

Posted by: symptomless at October 29, 2004 10:54 AM

ROFLMFAO!!!…just HAD to share this in case you haven’t seen it (and PERFECT for this thread!)!

Field Guide To Trolls

(Just in case I screwed up the HTML...again:
http://www.themartialist.com/pecom/fieldguidetotrolls.htm)

Let’s play a game…see how many YOU recognize!

I’ll get us started…

Symptomless: The UK EuroTroll

For background…

{The EuroTroll. A subspecies of Contrarian Troll, EuroTrolls frequent US-based forums, or forums that are otherwise dominated by Americans. They never tire of disagreeing with American sentiments or challenging statements and concepts favorable to the US. EuroTrolls generally believe that Americans are arrogant and ignorant of the great civilizations in Europe and elsewhere – civilizations far superior to America, if only Americans would stop to notice this fact. Usually quite proud of socialism and other European institutions and conventions unpopular among American individualists, EuroTrolls often devolve into some lesser species of troll when they can find no one but other trolls (and fellow foreigners) to agree with them.}

The UK EuroTroll. The most common manifestation of EuroTroll, the UK EuroTroll is often sexually ambiguous and prone to making homoerotic comments. Vulgar and hostile, UK EuroTrolls are also the most hoplophobic* of trollkind. The breed is characterized by a penchant for pontificating from ignorance and will speak at great lengths about subjects on which its kind are totally uninformed.

*Suffering an irrational fear of weaponry.

Don: The Sophist Troll

The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or “philotrolls,” fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.

When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude. Philotrolls consider anyone with whom they do not agree to be “immature,” and are fond of quoting that old saw that “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

When cornered they are quick to resort to personal attacks. A philotroll’s bag of rhetorical tricks includes a variety of transparent ploys, such as willfully misinterpreting the opponent’s words, committing Straw Man fallacies, accusing his or her opponents of engaging in the very tactics used by the philotroll, and so forth.

When engaging in their sophistry, philotrolls are among the most hypocritical and aggravating of trollkind.

dubyus: The Bruce/Brucie

The Bruce. Inspired by the dictionary definition of the term – and by the movie They Call Me Bruce? – Bruces may correspond to any number of troll profiles but are characterized by a single, external characteristic: They are invulnerable. In the world of Internet fora, this means they cannot be banned from a site. No amount of complaining on the part of a forum’s membership can convince the administrator to ban a Bruce, no matter how disruptive or useless such a troll’s participation becomes. Bruces possess some innate ability to remain active despite exhibiting behavior that would draw warnings and discipline if displayed by other, more productive members of a bulletin board. A curious and perhaps hypnotic species, Bruces are often hybrids descended from Sophists, Affected Profundity Trolls, and Don Kings.

The Brucie. As the name indicates, these are curiously associated with the unbannable Bruces, perhaps because site administrators cannot bring themselves to be unkind to anyone suffering a Brucie’s difficulties. “Brucie” is a slang term for a troll suffering from mental derangement or physical malady. Brucies often speak of their mental and physical problems, either out of some sad obsession or in an attempt to garner pity. A troll who displays erratic, almost mentally handicapped behavior is rightly described as a Brucie.

And finally, I guess myself:

Troll Bashers. The worst enemy of trolls, Troll Bashers appear to possess an almost pathological hatred for trolls. Fully aware of the tools and tactics of trolling, Troll Bashers expose trolls whenever they see them. Often the first to identify Contrarians, and unforgiving in the pursuit of Deceptives, Troll Bashers are experienced and venomous. Often accused of being trolls themselves, Troll Bashers understand the difference between the initiation of trolling and the retaliation against it – and believe any amount of retaliatory abuse is justified when a troll rears its ugly head. {Note: AKA-“Whack-a-Troll”!!!}

Posted by: DevilDoc at October 29, 2004 12:54 PM

Well it seems Geaorge Bernard Shaw was the first Euro troll:

George Bernard Shaw - “America is the only society
that went from barbarism to decadence, without experiencing civilisation”.

I note that whenever someone has nothing to add to the debate they prefer personal insults. I wonder where this belief of arrogance and ignorance comes from?

Posted by: symptomless at October 29, 2004 01:11 PM

LOL...yep, thanks for confirming.

EuroTrolls generally believe that Americans are arrogant and ignorant of the great civilizations in Europe and elsewhere – civilizations far superior to America, if only Americans would stop to notice this fact.

Posted by: DevilDoc at October 29, 2004 01:32 PM

symptomless, I didn’t note any further explanation of exactly how the British people pay for the BBC.

Isn’t it really a tax? I mean do the people of Britain have the ability to NOT pay for the BBC?

You see we pay for our networks too. That’s probably why we have a choice. YOu may not like Fox, so don’t watch it. The problem with the BBC is similar to the problem I have with NPR. I despise NPR and that ill feeling is only amplified when I remember the fact that NPR is publically funded.

so save the Smarm about BBC. Mr Gilligan and Co pissed away any credibility the Bagdad Broadcasting Company once had.

Posted by: skip at October 29, 2004 02:41 PM

[Something to the effect: leftists aren’t the ones with servants] - right. I’m having trouble following your logic because I’m trying to count all the Mont Blanc pens in your shirt pocket. The old saw about leftists coming from poverty, defenders of the poor, all that BS - they are, by and large, the over-indulged children of the upper middle class (like Ho Chi Minh or Che) - they cop to poor roots for street cred.

I never attempted to defend Fox, it is as far right as CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, NPR and the BBC are to the left. You can always tell when the troll is losing the argument because they want to change the subject.

And that wasn’t a tear in your eye, that was a cinder. It’s a Biblical reference which I wouldn’t expect a leftist to follow anyway.

Oh, and I AM thinking for myself, but thanks for asking. It’s always nice to know the condescending lickspittle supremists amoung us are concerned. Almost makes you seem……..

human.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 29, 2004 03:14 PM

The BBC is not paid for not by tax, but by licence fee. You have to pay for the licence fee if you have a TV, even if you don’t watch the BBC. Its odd but in a recent poll most people are happy with that since they like and trust the BBC. Its about 100 pounds, 150 USdollars.

The government also pays a proportion of the costs but that’s set by an independent commision and they decide how much.

The BBC has no advertising, nor is it run by the government, and the licence fee also pays for about 80 national and local radio stations, and bc.co.uk.

Now, If Gilligan is all you have to go on for a smear its probably worth doing some homework on that, the British people trust the BBC more since that affair than before.

OUTLINE: The government press secretary, not even an elected MP note, complained violently over one report put out by Gilligan criticising his war intellegence claims. One report out of 120 hours of daily broadcasting, at 6.07 in the morning!

Gilligan did the right thing that a journalist should do, protect his annonimous source. The government, Daily Telegraph(right wing), and MI6 hounded Dr Kelly (who was the one suspected) until he topped himself. The resulting whitewash of an inquiry exhonorated the Govt from any wrong doing.

You’ll note that Gilligan, the Director General, Greg Dyke and the Head of Governers, Gavin Davies, all resigned to avoid embarressment to the organisation and to PRESERVE its independence and integrity, rather than any admission of guilt.

(Resignation is also a British quirk and doesn’t necessarily lead to the assumption of guilt, though can do).

Since the Hutton report the Butler report has found all the claims within the report to be correct. The BBC was right but the damage had been done. (There’s been no resignations from the Government, surprise, surprise).

As a result the British people trust the BBC more than the Government.

Posted by: symptomless at October 29, 2004 03:19 PM

“Change the subject” ????

The credibility of Fox is the subject here. If it were credible there would be a story.

Posted by: symptomless at October 29, 2004 03:22 PM

Meant to say “wouldn’t” but it works either way.

;)

Posted by: symptomless at October 29, 2004 03:27 PM

OK, let me be sure I’ve understood. the funding for the beeb isn’t a “tax” it’s a “fee”. OK, there are some subtle differences between these two, but there’s some similarities too.

For example: in neither case can one decline the honor of funding the beeb. Be it a tax or a fee the government takes one’s money and one has no choice, unless one wishes to go TV less (not a bad Idea).

so sure, when I go fishing I have to have a license. To obtain said license I pay the state a “fee”. If I don’t want to pay the fee, I just don’t fish, but if I want to go fishing… sure as hell sounds like a tax to me.

Posted by: skip at October 29, 2004 04:07 PM

Except the tax goes to the government and the fee goes to the BBC

Posted by: symptomless at October 29, 2004 08:31 PM

Also since you pay the licence fee, as most people do, you demand that the BBC be fair and trustworthy.

In the case of commercial broadcasters you of course have a choice of whether to trust them or not. If you don’t trust them you don’t watch, but with political backing hey’ll broadcast anyhow.

The BBC is unique, its not something that could be started in today’s media world, and has to constantly adapt, but in the unique way that it is funded it upholds the standards that it was first created with, to inform, educate and entertain.

So when a cheap political upstart like Fox comes along and bad mouths it for political gain I’m sorry but I’ll defend it too the hilt.

And as much as I defend it, the best that I can suggest is that you watch it for yourselves or log on, especially as in the US, you don’t even have to pay!

Posted by: symptomless at October 29, 2004 08:47 PM

symptomless - Oh, so the topic of this piece, titled “BBC Election Coverage” is actually about the
credibility of Fox, not the fact that All-Twit Channel 2 has Michael Moore covering the US election with George Soros for balance. ;p

Like I said, when they’re losing the argument, they change the subject. Nice try.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 29, 2004 09:36 PM

The credibility of Fox becomes the story when the actual reporting of the story is false, only tells half the truth and is scewed for political gain.

OK, here we are, I’ve found a link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/us-debate.shtml

You tell me if this is fair and balanced. Bill O’Reilly is on the debate for ****’s sake, how more high profile right wing can you get? Fox is either biased or negligent of the real facts.

Now I understand your opinions of the BBC as unfair when you have to contend with the twisted political reporting of the right wing funded major broadcasters there.

It takes 80 years to create a reputation for independence, fairness and balance. A few criticisms to destroy it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/us-elections.shtml
Here’s more, it seems that we’re actually going to more informed than many voters in the US! Please don’t take offence by that remark, maybe I should say more impartitially informed.

Posted by: symptomless at October 30, 2004 02:40 AM

symptomless, I don’t have ‘unfair’ opinions of the BBC - all opinions are earned. Fox is loony right and the BBC is loony left. I don’t pay attention to either - most of my news comes over wire services on the internet. I have a strong libertarian streak, but I also believe that America has done pretty much the right thing in major conflicts. Execution has sucked, sometimes we back the wrong horse in the race, but it’s not a game of moral one-upmanship, it’s practical matter of national survival, a process every nation engages in if it desires to be here next week.

The influence of one major media outlet over another would be significant if I ascribed to my opponents the brains of a gnat, but I like to give people more credit than that. People normally watch, read and listen with critical ears and it’s pretty easy to tell when the media leave the road of straight reporting and start heading for the tall grass.

Perhaps in the future you could give other people the benefit of the doubt - you know, the possibility that they know what they’re talking about just as you assume you know what you’re talking about. What’s the term? ah, respect, yes, that’s it.

Try not to picture the entire US as an amorphous blob of stiff-necked rightwing ideologues and it might help with your interpersonal skills. You’re doing nothing to diminsh the awful stereotype of the Euro-supremist who treats everyone over here as if they enjoy the luxury of a political opinion without the hard work that goes into establishing one. We are open to other’s opinions - but talking down to us doesn’t work.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 30, 2004 11:30 PM

The local NPR station carries the BBC news at 10 AM. I get the cricket scores, whatever the hell good that does me. I can listen, I have ears, and there’s a reason NPR and the BBC walk hand-n-hand down the street together.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 30, 2004 11:33 PM

torpedo,

In regards to the BBC’s political weather vein its worth calibrating what’s north since even much of the political right here even regard many of the Democrats policies of being further to the right than theirs so its worth knowing where the line in the sand should be drawn.

What’s important, as you say, is to recognise any perceived political direction in the broadcast, whoever it may be. But much more importantly, and crucially to this argument, is to know whether you can trust you news source to tell the TRUTH, the WHOLE truth. The BBC can be trusted to attempt to tell the balanced truth whether its cricket scores or political news. Fox can’t, as evidenced here.

And if a story appears in Fox that is untruthful then that’s the story.

I’m generally try to be light hearted when I come here and I come here out of choice rather than necessity but if there’s anything that I have said that offends rather than being incorrect I’ll accept criticism.

And if its respect you want then its a case of looking at the bigger picture.

I’ve tried to remain on topic in this thread and based my arguments on facts, of course tempered by personal opinion, but I’ve been accused of everything from being in denial about the non-impartiality of the BBC, to being sexually ambiguous, homoerotic, vulgar & hostile and hoplophobic(? non gun-totting I assume). All of which are untrue (except for the guns), and totally irrelevant to the debate.

Maybe you can understand some of the problems we have over here when we’re confronted by such aggression and ‘inverted bigotry’ and I wouldn’t assume that contributors to the command-post are not “stiff necked right wing ideologues” unless they act that way, but its more often than not that most of the negative stereotypical aspects of Americans are displayed on this board, which is a great shame.

That being said its been nice chatting, I’m glad that I’ve been at least to demonstrate some of the pride that we have here for the BBC. We slag it off all the time but if anyone else does unjustly then its like a red rag to a bull.

Regards,

a proud hoplophobe.

Posted by: symptomless at October 31, 2004 09:40 AM