Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: 01010 on February 07, 2004, 03:40:09 am
-
http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm
I'm more than a little baffled by this to say the least.
-
You..........gotta be kidding.
If that's anything other than a complete fake, I'm removing France and putting America at the top of my to-nuke list.
-
I know, I just, I'm really at a loss for words right now, I can't comprehend it.
It isn't fake.
-
Yeah, I saw this a few days ago.
I just sat and stared for about half an hour after watching it.
-
And Americans never lie...
-
I know Fox news is right wing trash, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch after all, but I mean the hypocrisy is too great, I've had three hours sleep, I've got a hangover, and for some reason I can remember be smashed in the head with a half a breezeblock last night (with a rather lovely bump to go with it) but this has just woken me up with a shock really.
What a twat.
-
No wonder the Fox was the only news channel they showed to US troops. Talk about propaganda... :rolleyes:
-
Y'know, it's somewhat ironic that he accused the BBC of being a crappy news service in the manner in which he did.
One thing I do like about the Hutton Report fiasco is that it's made Bush try to not make the US Iraq inquiry thingy part of the election propaganda just incase something similar to the Hutton Report happens.
-
(http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/images/smilies/jaw.gif) How insane. It is rather funny that he implies that America only contains the US. So much emphasis on 'lied' :doubt::ick:
-
Originally posted by Lt.Cannonfodder
No wonder the Fox was the only news channel they showed to US troops. Talk about propaganda... :rolleyes:
propaganda is the art of lying one's ass off.. simply put:rolleyes:
-
This is just plain sad. I guess he doesn't know a single thing about the Hutton Report or the BBC case.
1) The simple fact is that almost every single person in Britain feels that the Hutton Report was a complete whitewash designed by the government to try to clear them of any duplicity in the case they made for war.
2) Andy Gilligan did not lie about what David Kelly said. What the Hutton report found was that his claim that the government made stuff up when making the case for war was unsupported That simply means that he couldn't back up his view. Not that it wasn't true.
3) I was amazed by the coverage of the end of the whole Hutton thing by the BBC. There was no attempt to be partisan on News 24. They were completely objective even though it was their own new company that had been found guilty. I don't believe that FOX could EVER be as objective.
4) The BBC has never been anti-american. What this guy takes exception to is the fact that the BBC was and always has been objective and therefore has to report things that make america look in a bad light. That's not being anti-american. That's just not being pro-american.
-
The BBC were pissed. You could see it in the face of every reporter and anchor throughout the whole thing.
But they were still professional and objective. Sure, you could tell from the tone of their voices and the little pauses they made that they were biting their tongues, but they never let-loose on the pile of crap that Hutton coughed up.
-
But it's ok at the end of the day, because it's complete and utter ****e like that spilled by that retard that shows you HOW much better the BBC is over it's competitors.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The BBC were pissed. You could see it in the face of every reporter and anchor throughout the whole thing.
But they were still professional and objective. Sure, you could tell from the tone of their voices and the little pauses they made that they were biting their tongues, but they never let-loose on the pile of crap that Hutton coughed up.
Exactly. That's why I ignored Hutton. A news station that could remain that objective when they themselves are the story is worth listening to. Hutton himself is a Labour man so no one expected him to present a fair view of the report but equally no one expected him to make such a whitewash of it either.
What worries me about things like this is that there are many people who listen to foolishness like this and believe it instead of turning over to PBS and listening to the BBC news and hearing a much fairer version.
-
All I have to say on the matter: :rolleyes:
-
All he got right there was that Andrew Gilligan lied and is a idiot. Rest of it was nonsense.
-
What a pile of steaming donkey ****.
But isn't that what you expect from Fox news?
-
..hehe.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
propaganda is the art of lying one's ass off.. simply put:rolleyes:
Yes, but propaganda of this extent, I've only seen in the Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.
You think if we all gave, say, a hundred bucks, we could buy a tactical nuke?
-
Where are we going?
And why are we in a handbasket?
Meh, I'm not even gonna watch it. It's just some stupid American media stuff, and I don't even watch the news anymore.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
You think if we all gave, say, a hundred bucks, we could buy a tactical nuke?
It used to be $3.2mil for a nuclear-equipped Tomohawk missile (at US-Military rates).
Considering their age, the extra American security and the willingness to sell of certain pro-chaos criminal organisations; the price should have remained fairly stable.
Or we could buy some refined, weapons-grade Uranium. It's only about £300k/Kg IIRC.
-
ok, aside from the "Buy HLP a nuke" fundraiser, i am completely baffled.
this HAS to be a fake, i mean, how stupid can someone be?
-
Please, for the love of all things good, don't look to Fox News as anything other than a jingoistic propaganda source. Not only are they Murdoch's major mouthpiece in this country, but they will shill for anyone who ponies up cash.
Please, don't judge our (already pretty pathetic) media based on FoxNews.
Jesus. Fox makes me ashamed to be an American.
-
Where's Turnsky? He should be ashamed too.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
i mean, how stupid can someone be?
*laughs raucously*
-
fox in US == pravda in USSR (?)
-
Originally posted by kasperl
ok, aside from the "Buy HLP a nuke" fundraiser, i am completely baffled.
this HAS to be a fake, i mean, how stupid can someone be?
You really don't know the FoxNews track record do you? Their cast is a laundry list of blatant liars and their tag line, "Fair and Balanced" is an outright lie.
If you know who Rush Limbaugh is, imagine this: Fox News is a network people who actively try to make Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal socialist by comparison.
-
i don't know whi Rush Limbaugh is, but your discription gives me an idea.
still, how much people accept fox as a valid source?
-
They're American.
-
Originally posted by an0n
They're American.
still, how much people accept fox as a valid source?
-
The people. They're American. They'd believe Bush was Chinese if they read it on the back of a pack of Corn Flakes.
-
an0n, there's no need to play at being Vadar.
-
I accept the Simpsons as a valid news souce, so by proxy you could say I accept fox then ;)
Homer watches tv "Whoo hoo! Dirty lying Brits, Take that BBC!"
Lisa chimes in, "DAD! It's FOX News!"
Homer does 180 "Doh! Dirty lying FOX NEWS!"
As for me I don't really know what's going on (or care) but one thing I DO know, someones always lying about SOMETHING!
:lol:
-
Mik, would you mind giving YOUR view on that question? no offence SD, but it doesn't sound all to serious, and this time, i am really interested.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
an0n, there's no need to play at being Vadar.
Fine.
One thing though. Turns out, I'm your father.
:nervous:
-
[:mad2:] I love HLP. I really do. The conversations here actually have some thought in them, the jokes are actually funny. This is probably the most mature video game message board I've ever seen. The only thing I hate is that whenever some American retard does something like this, nearly every non-American on the board goes on and on about how stupid every American is, how we're all retards, and how we all think we're better than everybody else. I have nothing against Britain, and I'm sure most other Americans don't either.
So, when some Brit-hating retard like the guy we all just saw insults you, don't blame it on all of us. If you wanna do some nuking, nuke the old fogey's house and leave the rest of us out of it! [/:mad2:]
:P
-
Stereotype. Deal with it
-
Originally posted by redsniper
[:mad2:] I love HLP. I really do. The conversations here actually have some thought in them, the jokes are actually funny. This is probably the most mature video game message board I've ever seen. The only thing I hate is that whenever some American retard does something like this, nearly every non-American on the board goes on and on about how stupid every American is, how we're all retards, and how we all think we're better than everybody else. I have nothing against Britain, and I'm sure most other Americans don't either.
So, when some Brit-hating retard like the guy we all just saw insults you, don't blame it on all of us. If you wanna do some nuking, nuke the old fogey's house and leave the rest of us out of it! [/:mad2:]
:P
The sad thing is that people like that are the ones that give Americans a bad reputation abroad. I've visited America several times in the last few years and the majority of the people I've meet have been good people who I enjoyed meeting and think of fondly.
It's just a real pity that idiots like that aren't taken out and beaten for the common good :)
-
Well as a friend of mine once said...
"I need some comedy in my life. Time to go turn on Fox News!"
Seriously, though, most people recognize that Fox News is more than slightly biased and right-wing. Except for people in my town, because I live in the bastion of right-wing conservatism. :sigh:
-
The funny bit is he gets so worked up he actually starts stammering his words, any moment it feels like he's about to don a funny moustache and start screeching in German!
Poor old man, so little news career left he's moving into dramatics ;)
-
Edit- 1. I kinda suspect that's not his personal opinion.
2. Descriptive language is A-1 super, but "frothing at the mouth"?
-
you guys just can't stand it when someone speaks their mind, can you? you know this kind of stuff is what made Daveb leave HLP, right?
-
you know that guy is just a busness show anchor,
and most of the people are given short moments to give there personal oppinions about things.
-
LOL Does this mean I can stomp out over what HE said.
I don't know whether there are Americans who actually believe a word this person is saying, but here in England, that would be classed as 'inciting racial hatred'. But then if we were to follow that line, we could condemn both our governments for that.
I don't think this is a Pieslice of American thinking, but I do think the guy is a prat.
-
yeah, that guy and... Cal Tommas (I think that's the guy, he looks and sounds like Hitler) as the two biggest rabid conservitive atack dogs.
and before anyone sais O'Reily he's actualy prety centrist, though he is outspoken on several conservitive issues.
and I don't get the BBC so I can't coment on the validity of there reporting
-
Yeah, Carl, open-armed acceptance of militant ignorance, bigotry, and total, genuine hatred of anybody who disagrees with oneself sure are the things that make communities great!
What freaky dimension are you from, man? And how popular is the Nazi party there?
Bob: O'Reilly? Centrist? Outside of his own (false) claims to being an independent voter, when has he ever given an indication of being centrist?
-
when he gets pissed at bush for there being no WMD in Iraq
he is also anti-death penalty and critical of Bush's environment polocy
that's all I can remember off the top of my head
-
After watching that all I have to say is:
*cough... *cough...
How did he get that job? At least if they want to "slander" they could do it in style.... :rolleyes:
-
probly becase he had experience as a busness analist.
-
Disagreeing with a hardline right-wing looney on a few issues doesn't make one centrist any more than putting a stethoscope on a horse makes it a doctor.
Relative to the rest of the Fox sycophants, sure, but if that's the best a news service can do they're ****ed up beyond belief anyway.
And whatever O'Reilly might theoretically lack in far-right ideology he sure as hell makes up in being an asshole. I should really dig up that recording of him on the NPR interview...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah, Carl, open-armed acceptance of militant ignorance, bigotry, and total, genuine hatred of anybody who disagrees with oneself sure are the things that make communities great!
What freaky dimension are you from, man? And how popular is the Nazi party there?
you would be doing yourself a favor by shutting up. i don't see how anything he said was anthing like what you're saying.
this is what i got from that video: the BBC messed up. they shouldn't lie.
this is what you guys are saying he said: the bbc should die! kill them all! only americans are right! NUKE THE WORLD!!!!
-
being an asshole makes one a hard core right winger?
and his show isn't a news service, it's more analisis/entertainment, he isn't presenting fact he is giveing his opinion and never claims to do anything other than that, and you can't tell me watching him rip people apart isn't at the least entertaining.
-
Carl, the guy opens by accusing the BBC of having spread "blatant anti-Americanism".
:wtf: This sounds scarily like an attack on the media's right to go against anything the US Govt claims is truth. As a Brit I for one will not allow the BBC, the crown jewel of journalism in the world and a British institution, to be reduced to a mouthpiece for whatever government presides in Westminster and the White House. My country is better than that, my people are better than that and I'm damn sure I'm better than that.
If this is the way any large number of people have interpreted events, we're ****ed really.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Mik, would you mind giving YOUR view on that question? no offence SD, but it doesn't sound all to serious, and this time, i am really interested.
Could you clarify which question you mean?
-
as I said, I don't get the BBC so I can't comment on what happened, but, what if they lied, if they figured they could get something out of makeing some big consperisy theory about Bush takeing over the world. the fact that there is a 90% hatred of bush/America in the UK (europe in general) does seem a bit odd to me, over here things never get more than about 70% in any one direction (for more than a month or two.
oftine we are told not to place too much faith in our government and our media, maybe you should not be so sure that your media is always being as truthful as you think
-
[q]maybe you should not be so sure that your media is always being as truthful as you think[/q]
It's not so much faith in them telling the absolute truth, as faith in the fact that Blair and Bush will be telling absolutely no truth.
Edit: Besides, the BBC (is British) and a damned sight more respectable than FOX. ;) :)
-
[q]90% hatred of bush/America in the UK[/q]
Truth is, it's from anyone outside the US really. No one inside really sees the result of US led globalisation, and if they do it's no more than an academic exercise. (With honourable exceptions such as Noam Chomsky, et al)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the fact that there is a 90% hatred of bush/America in the UK does seem a bit odd to me
We just really love our bandwagons over here. It's currently 'cool' to ***** about America, even if you can't spell the word 'politics'. I flat refuse to jump on.
-
[q]I flat refuse to jump on.[/q]
Wait till we outlive our usefulness.
-
Eh?
-
you know what, I bet China is behind all of it :nod:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
oftine we are told not to place too much faith in our government and our media, maybe you should not be so sure that your media is always being as truthful as you think
Yeah, we're taught not to trust the government or the media. Then we grow up and elect people like Bush ("Trust me, I know what's best"). And we have people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and Combs and John O'Reilly, whose word many people seem to take as Gospel.
I particularly love O'Reilly. The guy has been caught in more lies than Clinton, but no one remembers any of them ("Hard Copy won a Peabody!", "I was a registered independent!", "I come from a blue collar background!" All lies, and all documented and provable as lies). Sean Hannity is a good one for repeating the same lie over and over ("We have found Iraq's WMDs!". Of course, he never ever once retracted the statement).
If more people were critical of what the government fed them, we wouldn't have so many who thought that Iraq was involved in Sept11 (whatever Bush would like you to believe) or that Iraq had WMDs (questionable claim on the face, proved false later).
The fact of the matter is that while we grow up knowing we shouldn't trust the government and the media, most of us end up doing just that.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
fox in US == pravda in USSR (?)
This reminds me of a joke that started out in Russia. As some of you might know, Russia has two big-name newspapers: Izvestia (which translates as "News") and Pravda (which translates as "Truth").
The joke was this: "In 'News,' there is no truth, in 'Truth,' there is no news."
That pretty much sums up Fox News.
As for the dude on "My Word," whoever he is, it wasn't a news broadcast per se, it was more akin to an opinion editorial, where a reporter gives his own opinion on current events rather than reporting it. Technically and legally speaking (and I'm a lawyer, so I know), it's not slander as no one is asserting flat out that it's supposed to be objective. While it might look like a news broadcast at first glance (and seems very much designed to fool people that it is a news broadcast), it's nothing more than a guy on the news giving his opinion.
All the same, though, this sort of thing is exactly what I would expect from the trashhouse that is Fox News. I still remember how, during the war in Afganistan, some schmuck "military consultant" was recommending that we actually use tactical nukes on the Taliban. Oh, sure, that sounds like a great idea: let's liberate a country by making it permanently radioactive. :rolleyes:
It's only a matter of time before Fox news screws up so blatantly they get sued for slander and gets fined out of business. I still remember happily what happened when Fox News tried to sue Al Franken over his satire book "Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them," a book that pokes fun at Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media. If you want to know more about how this suit by Fox News was resolved, just ask. All I'll say right now is that Al Franken was very happy with the result, as his book became a national bestseller immediately afterwards. :D
-
Man, "Lies and the Lying Liars..." is a absolutely hilarious book. :)
You know what's really funny about it though? Franken publishes through a company owned by Murdoch. That makes the whole thing more poetic. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Could you clarify which question you mean?
the one about how many people viewed Fox as something thatmight speak the truth.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
As for the dude on "My Word," whoever he is, it wasn't a news broadcast per se, it was more akin to an opinion editorial, where a reporter gives his own opinion on current events rather than reporting it. Technically and legally speaking (and I'm a lawyer, so I know), it's not slander as no one is asserting flat out that it's supposed to be objective. While it might look like a news broadcast at first glance (and seems very much designed to fool people that it is a news broadcast), it's nothing more than a guy on the news giving his opinion.
Surely that's even worse.... Dressing up opinion as news to make it believable, yet being able to give the excuse "it's only an opinion"?
-
What I find funny about the guy's rant was him saying 'whilst Gilligan was in Iraq.....'
Uh........no he wasn't. He didn't go to Iraq IIRC....
Arguments aside, there are a lot of people who are going to believe all this despite it being flagged as 'opinion.' You know what the say: Control the media, control the mind.
-
AMERICANs RulE!!1 TEH WorlD SUXORZ!!1 NUKE EVERYTHING!!!1 DIE ANTIAMERICAN BBC!!! XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA!!!
-
Originally posted by Killfrenzy
What I find funny about the guy's rant was him saying 'whilst Gilligan was in Iraq.....'
Uh........no he wasn't. He didn't go to Iraq IIRC....
I certainly don't remember it - in fact, I'm willing to say* he's talking out of his rectum.
(*in my opinion HAHA YOU CANT SURE ME AND I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT!!!1)
-
Originally posted by Killfrenzy
Arguments aside, there are a lot of people who are going to believe all this despite it being flagged as 'opinion.' You know what the say: Control the media, control the mind.
But the little-mentioned anti-effect of it is that those who already know it's bull**** get more and more riled every time they see it.
-
I think it's just this Anti-Americanism thing being taken too far, not only, at any point do I recall hearing ANY newsreporter here in England even hint that 'bungling Americans forces were being ripped apart by brave Iraqi soldiers' as this man suggests, barely even mentions the complete bull which was the dossier created by the government to justify the war. Dr Kelly was a member of the team that compiled it, and told the BBC they were told to make the document more 'enticing', the government denied it.
This led to a massive face off between the Beeb and the Government, which culminated in a report by a Lord who's seat was insecure due to changes the Government was trying to get made to the House of Lords.
Curiously enough, the report was squeaky clean for the government, and I can betcha theres one Lord who'll be keeping his seat ;)
I think it's that which annoys me more than anything, the fact that what the BBC was accused of lying about is absolutely and completely and utterly nothing whatsoever to do with what this man is saying.
To fabricate a story to make it sound as though the BBC was being deliberately Anti-American and using a string of crap as evidence is extremely shaky ground.
-
Maybe this wanker heard someone repeating Comical Ali's comments and thought it was actually the BBC's point of view. :D That's about the nicest thing I could to say about him :D
-
The Fox thing made some downright slanderous assertions (Gilligan saying Iraqis were bravely fighting off incompetent Americans? I'm pretty sure he was never in Iraq and wasn't even involved with the during-war journalism) and was utter trash as a result.
But for those of you who say the BBC is miraculously objective, you need to read between the lines. They might not be blatant about it but subtle tones of anti-Americanism can be found everywhere. The same was true of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli attitudes, although this isn't so prolific any more. This blog (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) points out these numerous instances of bias and makes a compelling case for abolishing the BBC poll tax (or 'license fee') altogether.
-
You are quite right Sid, I don't deny that the BBC was on a slightly anti-war bias, during the whole thing, but yes, the thing that annoys me is not so much this man's opinion as the 'evidence'.
-
Actually, i think the BBc presents an almost completely impartial viewpoint - it's just that peoples opinions make them interpret the information given in a certain way.
I didn't read through that entire website listed but I noticed that the page linked relating to the myDoom virus was totally misinterpreted.
-
The BBC has a tendency to recruit from the Guardian; hence it does possess a left-wing bias.
That said, I think it's important that we all remember that dismissing an argument or claim due to the bias of the arguer, left-wing BBC or the right-wing American networks, is ad hominem circumstantial, and thus is bad form, wot wot.
-
eh?
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
But for those of you who say the BBC is miraculously objective, you need to read between the lines. They might not be blatant about it but subtle tones of anti-Americanism can be found everywhere. The same was true of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli attitudes, although this isn't so prolific any more. This blog (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) points out these numerous instances of bias and makes a compelling case for abolishing the BBC poll tax (or 'license fee') altogether.
Of course there is a bias. There is no such thing as 100% objectivity. However BBC did manage to stay remarkably objective compared with rubbish like this excuse for a news station.
-
you see a 20 second editorial from a substitute anchor and you think it's the offical position of the network.
-
It doesn't bode well for the network when they employ anchors to represent them who voice their opinion so publicly with no concern for the fall out on their employing company. I'm fairly sure that if I were to publically announce that my employers mirror company in another area were liars, I'd be in for a stiff talking to.
-
why, that's your opinon and if you were given a forum upon wich to express your opinions why would you be in trouble for doing so
-
You know, watching that made me decide to do one thing: I should really watch the BBC News when it's on PBS.
Anyway, everyone knows that Fox News is one of the most right-wing stations on television. They're incredibly biased in favor of the conservative branch of the Republican party.
A random interesting point: The two most dominant political viewpoints of the populace at large almost never get expressed. Moderate liberal and moderate conservative. This are the groups that maybe 80% of the country would fall into. But all you really hear making noises are the extremists....
-
becase they are the loudest
-
Sid: Wait wait wait, you have to pay a tax for BBC? :wtf:
-
well I don't follow fox nor bbc (for obvious reasons) so I'm not sure what excatly this movie should be, nor who this man is, I mean, it doesn't look like a news report, it seem more a tv space given to an opinions maker.
You can't pretend news to be absolutely objective, and in my opinion if a news service pretend to be so, it is simply hypocrite.
Think at the word information, it comes from the latin in-forma, which mean to give a "shape", so when someone diffuse informations, he also codify those informations using his own point of view, more or less consciously.
I prefer, and consider less dangerous, someone who act like this moron, whose opinion is evident and not hidden, rather than someone who use more .... insidious tricks.
this, until more people can give you the same informations from different points of view and you can choose freely between them.
And this is even more true when expressing opinions than reporting news.
Obviously to express an information through a personal point of view doesn't mean to lie, distort or hide informations, which seem to happen in this case. And in a perfect world we'd have only "intellectually honest" journalists (not sure if this words combination has a sense in english), but we don't live in a perfect world...and about news Italy is surely less perfect than USA..:p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you see a 20 second editorial from a substitute anchor and you think it's the offical position of the network.
Not a bad attempt at spinning the situation without actually lying, Bob. Its a shame that what you're implying is a lie.
I watch FoxNews regularly, as well as CNN, and the BBC. I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, THAT IS THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE NETWORK. I don't base this on the 20 seconds of a substitute anchor. I base it on the long running statements and attitudes put forth by the network's major mouthpieces (the aforementioned Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly come to mind).
-
my point wasn't that it was(n't) there offical position, it was that people seems to be baseing there oppinions on it based only on this spot.
-
So they're getting the truth from 20sec of footage. That doesn't make it less true.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
my point wasn't that it was(n't) there offical position, it was that people seems to be baseing there oppinions on it based only on this spot.
I'm British and I already knew FOX was trash, this just rams home why.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Sid: Wait wait wait, you have to pay a tax for BBC? :wtf:
The BBC is funded by the TV license. It's a £100 charge you have to pay once a year to own a TV set. It's a rather strange system but it means that the Beeb doesn't need adverts or corporate sponsorships for shows which means that it doesn't have to worry about being as commercial as other stations.
BBC1 tends to be fairly popularist but BBC2 & 4 show quite a few more highbrow shows. In fact I learned more history from BBC2 than I learned in school :)
-
Also, BBC 2 airs Red Dwarf, Star Trek and Stargate ;)
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
and Stargate ;)
That earns at least some of my respect... ;) Though some of the new eps aren't as good as their classics. Still itching for Atlantis, though.
-
Anybody who lives in the US, and probably most people who live outside it, know just how full of **** FOX is already, bob.
And in reference to that post way back there, no, I don't think there's any particular correlation between personality and political leaning (though I've never really seen a friendly Nazi or conservative with a whole lotta capacity for sympathy, gotta say), it's just that O'Reilly's an asshole and he's full of it.
-
Stargate's on Channel 4, as is Star Trek now (just Enterprise mind). To my mind SG has never been on BBC at all.
KT it's not officially a tax, although it functions as one. If you have a TV, regardless of whether you watch the BBC or not, you must pay it.
-
Well, I suppose this is the main problem, theres an opinion and theres an informed opinion. The Hitler youth had an opinion.......
-
Originally posted by Carl
this is what i got from that video: the BBC messed up. they shouldn't lie.
This is what happens when you rely on 20 second tirades lacking substance or fact for your news. Read up on the backgound of Lord Hutton, the guy who originally said the BBC was lying and you might see things different.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00155.htm
-
The Government appoint the judiciary - what did people expect?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The BBC is funded by the TV license. It's a £100 charge you have to pay once a year to own a TV set. It's a rather strange system but it means that the Beeb doesn't need adverts or corporate sponsorships for shows which means that it doesn't have to worry about being as commercial as other stations.
BBC1 tends to be fairly popularist but BBC2 & 4 show quite a few more highbrow shows. In fact I learned more history from BBC2 than I learned in school :)
Man, this is something I've always wanted for the US. When you consider that there are 224,807,040 in american households (approximately 3 televisions per 4 humans), a $100 TV Tax would net $22 billion for PBS. hell, cut that to $10 per TV and that proves a fund of $2 billion. They currently operate on $324 million per annum. Imagine how much better programming we could get. :)
-
Gonna be a good listening exercise. . .
How can I save this on my winchester?
The Save as does not work, it does not save the video itself. But that is that what I need.
-
Er... not sure we should be encouraging people to look at Fox videos.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Man, this is something I've always wanted for the US. When you consider that there are 224,807,040 in american households (approximately 3 televisions per 4 humans), a $100 TV Tax would net $22 billion for PBS. hell, cut that to $10 per TV and that proves a fund of $2 billion. They currently operate on $324 million per annum. Imagine how much better programming we could get. :)
Well it's only per household not per set but the point is pretty well made. Oh and people over 65 get it for free.
The BBC does [l]waste[/l] spend some of it's money on popularist stuff but it also funds a lot of very worthwhile stuff like the BBC World Service and 24 hour streaming news from their website.
By the way I noticed when I was in America last year that PBS shows some british comedies including the excellent Father Ted. If it's still on all the americans should sit down and watch it. I can't reccomend that show enough.
-
Quite the same as in Finland. You have a TV = you must pay the tv-bill/tax/whatever you call it. It's expensive, though, ~180e, so it's kind of a national sports not to pay it and then be afraid of TV-bill inspectors, who check out apartments who haven't payed their bill. I paid mine two weeks ago.
It's good. National TV's broadcast almost only non-commercial programs, and the money is also used for some kickass documents and TV-series. The non-commercial TV >>> commercial.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
By the way I noticed when I was in America last year that PBS shows some british comedies including the excellent Father Ted. If it's still on all the americans should sit down and watch it. I can't reccomend that show enough.
Never could really get into the Briish sitcoms. I had to have someone try to explain Fawlty Towers to me once. I still don't get it.
That being said, my friend is a big fan of Red Dwarf and I enjoyed the episodes he has on tape. A bloody good comedy, that. :)
-
Wow. Thats awesome.
This is so wrong, that its just gone way over my "'get pissed" limit, and now I'm just sort of taking the whole thing as a joke. I know its not, but this level of irony cannot not be laughed at (uh, double negatives..?)
And they say God has no sense of humour.
-
He doesn't. But Satan's a riot.
-
No sense of humour?
I beg to differ (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/02/wwmd102.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/02/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=52568)
-
What'd I say about the Devil again? No loving God would allow those schlubs in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Never could really get into the Briish sitcoms. I had to have someone try to explain Fawlty Towers to me once. I still don't get it.
That being said, my friend is a big fan of Red Dwarf and I enjoyed the episodes he has on tape. A bloody good comedy, that. :)
If you don't get it then you don't get it. Still I'd say that Father Ted is closer to the Red Dwarf end of the scale than the Faulty Towers one.