Latent racism in the republican party?

Can I ask as a matter of interest what you make of the concept of the BBC as a news, and more generally TV, channel?BBC TV (within Britain at least) is entirely advert free. All of it. Radio as well. It is also the most watched news and listened to national method of broadcasting. I believe that the website is also the most visited site in Britain aside from Google (but I might be making that up so I will have to check if challenged) and one of the most internationally accessed news sources too. It is funded by a sort of taxation. It sometimes takes almost absurd lengths in the name of commercial impartialiality (covering up logos on products etc.)It is also at frequent loggerheads with the British government. Some notable and very public disputes have resulted in serious embarressment for the government and near all out war netween the corporation and specific government representatives. Most notably over the Iraq war. BBC report on 'sexed up' dossier is vindicated, says Dyke | The Independent | The IndependentNow I don't claim that the BBC is a paragon of non-bias. But whose interests, if anyones, would you claim the BBC is serving in Britain? Does it fall within the paradigm you are detailing here for US news? Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add link and article extract

It is called the "TV license" which is an archaic term. I had to look up the rest of the details and rather than repeat them I will quote them here: Television licence - WikipediaMy understanding is that the government ultimately sets the TV license rate (in negotiation with the BBC itself - always a controversial negotiation) but that it does not administer or deal with the money in any way.I would guess that it is as hands off as any "state" broadcaster in the world. But I could be biased on this This is the wiki entry for the BBC BBC - WikipediaEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Pardon my ignorance but can I ask a couple of questions:1) How is PBS funded?
2) The fear with any "state" broadcaster is that it will effectively be a mouthpiece for the government. What measures are in place to avoid this?
3) Is PBS commercial in any sense? Is it, like the BBC, advert free? Does it take the same sort of lengths as the BBC to remain brand impartial (e.g. covering brand logos on TV programmes)
4) Is it international in any sense or US based and available only.
5) To bring back vaguely on topic - What is the PBS take on Obama? Does it have opinion based reporting? Or is it purely dry factual content only?I hadn't really heard of PBS until you mentioned it here. That is why I am asking. I guess ultimately my point of comparison is the BBC so in what ways is it similar or different are the most obvious questions for me to ask.

That was about the most impressively thorough response to my questions as could have been hoped for!I am going to look up PBS and it's programming for myself (maybe find some clips from some of the news shows you mention). Then maybe I'll come back with some more comments or questions if the topic of TV bias/propaganda and more specifically treating news programmes as entertainment/distractions rather than sources of genuine information, develops in this thread.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I get what you are saying and, like I said, I don't think the BBC is a paragon of non-bias. But whose interests is it serving exactly?Consecutive governments in Bitain, of alternate flavours, have derided the BBC as biased against them. Thatcher absolutely hated it. Both in practise and in ideology. Blair and the BBC seemed like very natural bedfellows until he actually got into government. Then a series of embarressing exposures were bought to light and the honeymoon ended rather abruptly. If anything reveals the true nature of the BBC it is the fact that every government of the day, whether it be left or right, decries it as obviously and blatantly biased against them.With regard to Iraq Blair's government was at all out war with the BBC. Did you read my link in Message 7? The director of the BBC (briefly a national hero of sorts for standing up to the "bullying" government) and the Labour government's director of communication Alastair Campbell (one of Blair's key advisors, best friends and one of the most powerful behind the scenes members of the Blair government) both ended up resigning over the matter (whether directly or indirectly - I.e. "to spend more time with my family") See here for some of the correspondance that instigated the row BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | Alastair Campbell's BBC letter Whilst it would be ridiculous to say that the BBC directly resulted in Blair eventually going it is still very probaby true that the BBC's refusal to accept the governments stance on the Iraq war, the reasons for it and other related matters played a significant role in his various enemies (mainly within his own party) being able to exploit popular opinion against the Iraq war to end his "reign". They haven't done Brown any PR favours since either.I know several people who work at the BBC. Some very well. Some really quite senior. They are young (ish), highly educated, middle class, articulate and relatively idealistic. They are the sort of people who could get exceptionally well paid posts in the private sector but who choose to work in (effectively) the public sector for reasons other than pure finance. They are politically left of centre, on the whole, but hardly radical and very probably destined for a fairly conventional lifestyle and outlook on life as they creep into middle aged respectability.This to me sums up the BBC perfectly. It has the "bias" you would expect from such a "media type" workforce. But this is an internal bias rather than an externally imposed one. I dispute that the BBC is simply an indirect mouthpiece for the government. Whatever the opinions expressed in your links. The people that work there value the independence, integrity and traditions of the organisation that they work for above much else. Including pay. Many of them would simply refuse to work there if they believed that your claims were true. Or if they were subject to the sort of restrictions that your claims would necessitate. BBC World Service | Inside BBC Journalism | IndependenceAlso see this regarding the "dodgy dossier" and "sexed up" government reasons for going to war in Iraq as reported by the BBC. BBC 'more trustworthy than government' | BBC | The GuardianIf the BBC is a government mouthpiece it is doing a bloody respectable job of pretending otherwise. And many of the intelligent people that work for it are being unwittingly complicit.Basically you are wrong.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Dronester who are you saying that the BBC is a "propaganda weapon" for exactly? I don't really see how it can be a "propaganda weapon" for the British government (as you implied in your previous post via links, title etc. etc.) or anyone else when:1) The people that produce, write and edit the programming content are blissfully unaware that this is what they are supposed to be doing. And so don't do it. I have already supplied you with a series of links detailing the vitriolic conflict between the BBC and the UK government over the Iraq war. Yet you have not even acknowledged these facts.2) It keeps pissing off, embarrassing and damaging the credibility of successive governments no matter which side of the political spectrum happens to be in power.So who exactly is the BBC a propaganda weapon for? Answer me that.
If you are simply telling me that the BBC employs and is run by slightly liberal white middle class and rather conventional Western European media types, and that it's content reflects that cultural bias to some (or even a large) extent then I really don't see what we are disagreeing about. Because that is exactly what I was telling you.
I wouldn't look to the BBC to declare the righteousness of Al-Queda any more than I would look to it to incite a communist revolution in Britain. But so what? That doesn't make it a mouthpiece for the government. There is no such thing as 100% unbiased news. Even if only the facts are reported without opinion what facts and what stories still have to be decided upon by someone. The BBC is probably about the most trusted international news source in the world. Listened to by millions, especially at times of conflict and war. Often trusted over and above more local sources of information. Is it perfect? No. But if you take into account the inevitable cultural bias that any news agency must have simply by virtue of the fact it has to be derived from and based somewhere, then the BBC is probably about as "free" and "fair" as one could realistically expect. The fact that it is both a non-government and non-commercial broadcasting entity should be celebrated by those of us in the aluminium hat wearing brigade. Not derided. All quotes taken from: BBC News - WikipediaSo what exactly is your argument? What exactly are we disagreeing on here? Who is the BBC a "propaganda weapon" for? And why do those (yes some of them people I know personally) making the programming content not seem to realise that this is their true purpose and role in life? Be specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and add extra link.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Cultural bias and propaganda are not the same thing. I note that you are still unwilling or unable to state who exactly the BBC is a propaganda weapon for?If the BBC is a propaganda weapon for the British government it is an exceptionaly inept one. As well as claims by the previous conservative administration that the BBC's reporting of overeseas conflicts was "treasonous" the present government has been embroiled in highly public and deeply damaging rows with the BBC over it's reporting of the Iraq conflict. Vitriolic exchanges that resulted in a judicial enquiry, threats of further legal action and the eventual resignations of key players on both sides. It could also be argued that this row contributed to the eventual demise of a prime-minister.You keep presenting theoretical reasons from academics or rival journalists to "prove" that the BBC must be a government propaganda weapon. In response I keep demonstrating to you that the BBC acts in ways that are completely and utterly inconsistent with this claim in any practical sense.In addition I know for an absolute fact that people with a high degree of editorial input at the BBC are not operating under the sort of restrictions that would be necessary for your claims to be true. In fact I know that they would simply refuse to accept such restrictions and would walk out of their jobs if forced to work under such conditions. Almost certainly making very public their reasons for doing so should this ever actually occur.So given that no links you can possibly supply are ever going to convince me that people I actually know are part of a government propaganda conspiracy and given that your aluminium helmet is welded to your head so tightly that you probably think that even I have some small role in your assumed conspiracy, I really am not sure that we can take this discussion any further.If you are seeking a news source that is devoid of any cultural bias at all then I wish you luck. However if you can cope with a very moderately liberal middle of the road pro-democracy, pro-free-speech, Western value dominated attempt at political impartiality within wide but fairly rigid cultural boundaries of acceptability from a source that considers it's independence from government and commercial interests as key to it's own integrity, then you could do a lot worse than tune into the BBC. Whether it is rightly trusted given it's undeniable cultural bias is a matter of opinion and context. But it is a fact that at times of war and conflict people around the world do tune into the BBC for what they apparently believe is a more trustworthy source of information than most. Independent surveys bear this out. Both with regard to Middle Eastern countries specifically and worldwide news more generally. See here for results on both: INFOSAT - Alles aus der digitalen Welt | You wrote the subtitle of this conversation "BBC=Propaganda Weapon". But you seem desperately unable to justify it. I'll ask you one last time as you still haven't answered despite me repeatedly asking - Who exactly is the BBC a propaganda weapon for? Be specific.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add linkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.