Is this for real? Fox news comment on BBC

http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

Adam

Yup,
It's for real...

[ QUOTE ]
Yup,
It's for real...

[/ QUOTE ]

In quaint polite UK English, `my word!` can be used as an exclamation of suprise or shock.

Think it fails to adequately describe the US Lord Haw Haw getting his facts totally wrong in this piece.

Who is the speaker featured in the clip, escaped lunatic?

Thanks
Adam

This person of whom you speek is John Gibson of Fox News.
I suppose that the source of your information would "taint" your view of who is a lunatic.

HAHAHAHAHA!

poetic justice, if you ask me.

sarcasm on:

ooohhhh...the almighty BBC telling a fib? the BBC having a slant? the BBC having an agenda?
impossible!!!
why, the BBC is far above such behaviour!

sarcasm off.

i wonder...are the other parts of America's mainstream media latching onto this?
of course not! it doesnt fall into their liberal agenda.

have a nice and enlightened day.

Bob

[ QUOTE ]
AlphaTea said:
This person of whom you speek is John Gibson of Fox News.


[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, yes, he is a lunatic.

BTW--I am an American living in England and get most of my news from American web sites, but I try to read a wide variety of news sources (including BBC). No one outside of Fox takes Fox News seriously. At least no one who ever watches anything else. Of course, in the US with its increasing consolidation of media, it gets harder every day to get any balance in news coverage.

Not to defend Fox news, but their slant is open and obvious for you to take into account when evaluating their commentary. That piece was quite obviously commentary, editorial comment.

There were a few items of News in it. The commentary was based on those. You can verify the items of News with other sources. They are true. That reporters take on it was not presented as News, but as commentary. Thats OK. Try to find other news items that are actually labeled as commentary. I respect them for offering News separate from commentary and labeling each as they are.

You can bristle at the commentary, and you should work to verify the facts. But don't let the slant of the commentary color those facts.

I indeed labeled the piece as commentary and can appreciate the differnce.It is the less critical members of society that are of concern.

Regret that the item contained no facts.

Fox is perhaps better known for entertainment and this is how pieces such as this should be regarded.

Adam

The constantly offered opinion that mainstream US news media are liberal seems to be incorrect. While a few newspapers and some local TV stations are left leaning, the mainstream media are mostly a different "L" word. "LIMITED" is a more accurate description because, except for NPR & C-SPAN, they all report on the same narrow range of subjects. Narrow and limited = conservative, don't they? Remember that the US media hounded Clinton for eight years and Jimmy Carter was smeared right out of office. I only know of conservative talk show hosts - are there any liberal ones on national TV or radio?

The party in power gets the greatest scrutiny and the RNC has had to do a lot of spinning ever since the 60's when "Tricky ****" hosted Watergate. When the media presented uncomfortable facts, they were labeled in an attempt to discredit the messenger. I guess that after hearing about the "liberal media" for that long, many will automatically believe it's true.

Let me tell you exactly what happened being a resident here in the UK.
The government commisioned an "independant" report because everyone including the BBC said that Sadam could not launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 mins, amongst other things, contary to what the government said.
This report has just come out and to say it is a complete whitewash is an understatement.
The report slammed the BBC and the government got off scot free, thing is it was so onesided, it is obvious something underhand has gone on.
Infact today a group of people got arrested whitewashing the gated near downing st to symbolize what has gone on.

The has been no anti-americanism what so ever on the news, infact the news has been positive american for the quality of the kit they use when our lot are issued with a complete shower of shite.

The people who the government are in for next are the intelligence agencies for dodgy intelligence but from what I understand it was our government again interpretting things to suit them.

Well thats what I make out from whats been said anyway!

Chip

I cannot pick up the original link on my web box, but I can guess by what people have posted what it said.
Fox News is considered at best "infotainment" here, at worst it lies through its teeth because it is paid huge sums of money to do so.
I've only seen Fox News a few times on satellite and cable or whilst I was in the States. I know we pay a licence fee for the BBC, but that makes every British TV owner a stakeholder in the BBC. Unlike the vast amount of the Americamn news media who are owned and financed by big corporate conglomerates.
I have a right to know that what I pay for is accurate and honest. Most other countries broadcasters do not give the TV viewer that choice. It is tha accountability that makes the BBC one of the most trusted news broadcasters on the planet. However, even this august organisation gets it wrong occasionally...usually due to Government or political pressure. The fact is there are very few Western broadcasters who have had the courage to speak out about the carnage that is going on inside Yugoslavia that is an ongoing human disaster of our making. That's another issue...

LMAO!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hahaha.gif Stick that in your tea and drink it. It is commentary, and right on the money.

Well, as someone who actually viewed and paid full attention to the Fox News piece, it is clearly an editorial and was represented as nothing but an opinion piece.

Do the other news services and networks present editorials? Yes. Often. They are often disquised as news stories. It's just a matter of if the viewer is in general agreement of the slant of the news story, no slant is really perceived. When a different slant is used to report the same news, the same person begins objecting about tabloid journalism. When I watch CNN, MS-NBC, ABC, NBC, CBS I see heavily biased stories all the time. Major news media people are documented to as a whole have left-of-center political leanings. If the New York Times gave out dollars for each time they had to print a retraction of a published story due to incorrect facts, they would never make a profit. The BBC is actually guilty of reporting with a bias and reporting stories without proper fact checking, but people who share their bias won't see it that way.

Hmmm... Fox News--If I don't like it, I don't pay for cable or satellite service that includes Fox News.

BBC: If I own a Colour TV, I must pay 121 Pounds per year ($221 USD) (although, if I can prove I am blind, I only pay 1/2 price). If I don't pay: BBC Licensing Web Site

[ QUOTE ]
Using television receiving equipment to receive or record broadcast television programmes without the correct licence is a criminal offence.
You could therefore face prosecution and a hefty fine of up to £1,000. [BB: about $1,800 USD at current exchange rates]

You may be asking yourself 'how will they know if I'm using a TV without a licence?' The answer is through a number of different methods.

At the heart of our operation is the TV Licensing database. It has details of over 26 million UK addresses.

Our officers have access to this computer system and a fleet of detector vans and hand-held detectors to track down and prosecute people who use a television without a licence. To find out how effective our methods are click here.

Each year it becomes easier to find and prosecute people breaking the law in this way.

So please be aware:


Using a television without an appropriate licence is a criminal offence.
Every day we catch an average of 1,200 people using a TV without a licence.


There is no valid excuse for using a television and not having a TV Licence, but some people still try - sometimes with the most ridiculous stories ever heard. To read some of our favourites click...

Detector Van Details:
Our detection equipment will track down your TV

The fact that our enquiry officers are now so well equipped with the latest technology means that there is virtually no way to avoid detection.

How our detector vans can catch out licence evaders
We can detect a TV in use, in any area. That's because every TV contains a component called the 'local oscillator', which emits a signal when the television is switched on. It's this signal that the equipment on our vans picks up.

But, what if you live in a block of flats or a house without road access? Well if this is the case our enquiry officer can simply use one of our hand-held scanners. Measuring both direction and strength of signal, they make it easy for us to locate television sets in hard to reach places.

[/ QUOTE ]

And from what little I read, penalties can include jail time as this is a criminal offense.

Think Gun Registration is fun in the US? Well, the BBC uses TV Dealers to help them control this dangerous weapon:

[ QUOTE ]
How TV Licensing affects Dealers

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (as amended) requires any dealer who sells or rents TV receiving equipment (whether the equipment is new or second-hand) to notify TV Licensing within 28 days of each transaction, giving full details of the buyer or renter.

Don't forget this also includes:


Computers fitted with electronic broadcast cards (TV Cards).


TV Cards themselves.


Set-top boxes.


Failure to do so may mean a £1,000 fine per offence for you, or any store manager employed by your company.

August 2000 was the first time a major retailer was prosecuted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967. One of its outlets was fined a total of £2,500 including costs for not passing on details of six customers who had purchased television sets. More recently in October 2000, a second major retailer was found guilty of five such offences and fined over £2,000 including costs.

If you have not registered with TV Licensing and you sell TV equipment then call 0870 240 1293 or fax us on 0870 240 1294 or simply click here, print and complete the form and post it back to us.

Personal information that you provide with your registration will only be used by the TV Licensing Authority (BBC and its service providers) to help administer the TV Licence system, including licence applications, fee collection and enforcement. Your personal information will not be provided to anyone else unless we are obliged by law to do so. If you wish to see our Privacy Policy, click here.

Customer Services
TV Licensing
Bristol
BS98 1TL

What your help means for us

Once you've notified our TV Licensing Dealer Centre of sales or rentals, the information is logged onto our database. We then compare this list of television owners against details of current licence holders. If they don't match up, then thanks to you, we're probably onto a TV Licence evader.

Three simple options for sending your notifications


1. Computer disk
For details call our TV Licensing Dealer Centre on 0870 240 1293
Fax: 0870 240 1294


2. e-mail - [email protected]


3. Manual forms - For forms phone on 0870 240 1293

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonder why George Orwell based major elements in his book "1984" on the BBC?

-Bill

You mean everything I read in the papers & magazines, as well as what I hear on the telly "may not be true?"

Well "My word!!"

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif

Theres an old Scot`s saying from Burns, saw it on a funfair hall of mirrors, something about The gift of seeing yourself as others see you.....

Editorial is fine , inventing drivel to back up your rant is just like the British tabloid newspapers that share the same owner.Certainly weren`t any " foaming at the mouth " anti American rants, nor cries of an incompetent US army, entireley the opposite.

We have heard of rifles that jam, boots that melted in the heat and incompatible radio systems from the British forces. We understand the US forces refer to the British as `the borrowers` because of our lack of supply, while the US forces enjoy fresh fruit.

The Britsh lose a soldier because he had to give his body armour up to another soldier who was felt to be more at risk, because adequate supplies were not available.

As to pro Iraqi, would hope most of us wish the Iraqi people the best in achieving self determination?

The BBC is paid for by the licence fee you pay for owning a television receiver, one licence covers all TVs in a household. This means the BBC should be free of obvious commercial pressures. It is ultimately controlled by a Board of Governors who are independent of the government of the day. It is Public Service Broadcasting that for the most part works.It is very important that the BBC remains independent and does not have it`s independence threatened.

Fox shares owners, Rupert Murdoch`s News Corp:

http://www.newscorp.com

with the UK paper The Sun

http://www.thesun.co.uk

Newspaper Barons are still around but now they have 24 hr satellite TV as well...

Adam

We are fortunate enough to get the BBC news (via National Public Radio-as well as on UHF television. Some of us do elect to financially and voluntarily support it.

Of course here in the US of A we also get Mr. Murdoch's "products" -bringing us a full menu of just about anything you can mention. rediculous-->sublime. fox "News", Married With Children, The Simpsons etc. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Ouch!!

A News outlet which is biased? I certainly hope so!!

At least Fox is up front about it. I've spent a good part of my life listening to foreign news sources in places like Iceland, Denmark, England, Argentina, Canada, and others as well as the U.S. At one point, I had spent a significantly greater time outside the U.S. than in it.

Just for histories sake, and if I recall correctly, (I am a few years older than most of you!) Watergate happened during the presidential campaign of Richard Nixon for the 1972 election.

I listened to the BBC during the Great Britain/Iceland Cod Wars in the late 1960's early 1970's while living in Iceland, getting the local medias interpretation as well.

I listened to the Argentine media while living in Argentina during the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Island conflict in the 80's, while reading Time/Newsweek and the Wall St. Journal.

I still look for their views on world events, BUT..., and this is huge, they have NEVER been unbiased. Anyone who thinks they are is grossly misjudging.

Like people who say they have no prejudice, but have no close friends of another race, they are biased, just not in the most obvious way. We are all biased, we all have prejudices.

To believe that ANY organization does not is to still believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.

We are all bundles of prejudice, snap decisions, pre-existing experience, and accumulated wisdom, real or otherwise, passed down to us.

To imply that the British don't like us is wrong, to imply that they do is also wrong, because both are true, depending on the circumstances.

The BBC has certainly put some interesting viewpoints out there over Iraq and the rest of the World, so has CBS, NBC, Fox, and every other outlet.

The belief that the BBC operates in some "holier than thou" vacuum is ludicrous. The almost religious following that some have imbued themselves with relating to the news as reported by the BBC is sometimes scary. The BBC is just as biased, just as self-serving, and just as likely to tell the right story wrongly or the wrong story rightly as any other purveyor of the news.

The fact that they don't rely on commmercial funding to operate, but instead take tax money, should scare everyone just a little. Since when has any tax funded entity operated for a significant period of time in the best interest of the public before the very weight of its own bureaucracy causes enough internal structural damage to pull it away from the very reason it was created? (See socialized medecine, welfare, child protective services, medicare, etc. for examples.)

All of us would do well to remember, get lots of information, from as many sources as possible, with the best available research, and then make a decision.

Only one man has walked the earth who could claim to have the source of all knowledge available at all times, and so far as I can see, HE hasn't chosen to weigh in on the subject just yet.

Happiness to all,

Bill

That's why anybody who get his news from a single source is getting shortchanged.
Sadly, what tries to pass as commercial news today is in reality "infotainment". AND, they all have their prejudices because they are produced by human beings.
Being retired, I'm able to read 4-5 newspapers every day from the Economist, Int'l Herald Tribune,the Washington Times, to the Washington Post in ideology, as well as reading 2-3 Iraqi newspapers on the net.

Since I put my money where my mouth is,
I've also been supporting PBS and NPR since the early seventies and will continue to do so, but I also watch the fox news for chuckles.

At age 62, I'm just as interested in following world events as always. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif -History is being made as we live.

Since my sarcastic "lunatic" remark probably overshadowed it, I'd like to reiterate what I think is the worst part of US news coverage: consolidation of media in the US. I may be a bit off in the numbers, but in the 1970s there were about 1500 owners of newspapers and TV stations in the country, and by 2000 there were around 600. That was before last year's change by the FCC to allow even greater consolidation. Companies like Viacom and Newscorp and Time Warner are free to buy up even more independent media entities. Radio is even worse with Clearchannel controlling some ridiculous percentage of radio stations in the largest markets. The 7 largest cable providers control 75% of the market.

I understand that there will be bias in all reporting and it's nice to have that bias out in the open, but the scary part is that it's not some some local editor's agenda being peddled to a town or even a state, it's some huge company's agenda that is being pushed to huge segments of the population (many of whom don't recognize the bias). I think a corporate Big Brother is worse than a government Big Brother when it comes to dishing out propaganda--at least with the latter there is some accountability to the constituency through elections.

- Russ