Revolution in Colorado

Originally posted by normbenign
First, I don't know where the idea that I specifically had any particular evaluation of the BBC comes from. My comment was that in general, any State sponsored media would tend to be less independent than for profit private networks and newspapers. Eventually, it would tend to reflect the government in power.

You can get whatever you want, even if it ...[text shortened]... Do you really believe that government media is likely to be as independent as private media.

Right, so while you cannot actually argue why the BBC is so biased (of course it has some bias since it's run by people, but I surely haven't seen it support any particular political party), you simply claim that the BBC will, in fact, at some unspecified point in the future, turn into a tool of the government. And you base this on... well, what exactly? Do you really believe that the likes of Fox/MSNBC etc. are less biased than the BBC?

Originally posted by finnegan
The BBC as such does not support any party policies and would be in breach of its charters if it were to do so. Both Labour and Tory governments have from time to time made official complaints of bias which did not stand up to scrutiny.

BBC news and current affairs is balanced and visibly ensures every argument has a voice for the other side. In particu ...[text shortened]... g stupid prejudice day after day. Certainly the biggest enemy of the BBC is the Murdoch family.

I am used to public service announcements I get here at home in Michigan, for example the Pure Michigan advertising campaign, or the MEDC's ads trumpeting how this government agency helps businesses. Only that is just the view of the governor who invented this beast. Tax payer money is spent singing the praises of an agency which presided over the longest downturn of the State economy since 1929. This is an ad campaign run through private broadcasters. It could only be worse under a State run system, which would give them unlimited time, and repress arguments to the contrary.

Originally posted by normbenign
I am used to public service announcements I get here at home in Michigan, for example the Pure Michigan advertising campaign, or the MEDC's ads trumpeting how this government agency helps businesses. Only that is just the view of the governor who invented this beast. Tax payer money is spent singing the praises of an agency which presided over the longe ...[text shortened]... State run system, which would give them unlimited time, and repress arguments to the contrary.

Your lack of imagination and cognitive dissonance is not an "argument".

Originally posted by normbenign
'Scuse me. I don't know where I claimed any knowledge of BBC, in fact the quote you make says exactly the opposite.

I've seen a number of BBC productions advocating global warming, mildly anticapitalist stuff, and animal rights.

I simply prefer a free, non governmental press.

So you admit assumed the BBC was biased without any knowledge of it?

I've seen a number of BBC productions advocating global warming, mildly anticapitalist stuff, and animal rights

Global warming is not an ideological concept outside of extremist, conspiracy-obsessed right-wing circles in America, nor is animal rights. What anti-Capitalist "stuff"? be specific for once.

I simply prefer a free, non governmental press.

We're not talking about your personal preferences here, but an allegation you made, one that so far you've struggled to substantiate.

Originally posted by normbenign
'Scuse me. I don't know where I claimed any knowledge of BBC, in fact the quote you make says exactly the opposite.

I've seen a number of BBC productions advocating global warming, mildly anticapitalist stuff, and animal rights.

I simply prefer a free, non governmental press.

Well the Murdoch family certainly advocates a free non governmental press - no regulation, no public duties, no difficult questions about ethics or methods or accuracy.

The Koch brothers prefer similar lack of regulation or supervision - they did not spend $55m of their own hard earned cash on anti-global warming propoganda to be held to account by anyone.

So do the British. We go further and advocate a non commercial broadcaster with a mandate to provide open and honest and accountable, non partisan news and analysis, including diverse competent investigations and documentaries in the public interest.

The BBC is NOT A GOVERNMENT BROADCASTER. It is independent and has its own revenue through a licence paid by every viewer.

Publicly owned is not equivalent to government owned or controlled. Successive governments have tried to interfere and had a severe beating from the British public. The battle to preserve its independence is non stop and a major responsibilituy of our democracy.

The enemies of the BBC, notably the Murdochs, have no interest whatever in open and honest government. They can be bought and sold for hard cash and they promote a highly partial ideology of the Right.

Where do you Americans get your information about the BBC? From Murdoch for #####sake.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Your lack of imagination and cognitive dissonance is not an "argument".

I have no idea to what you are referring.

Originally posted by finnegan
Well the Murdoch family certainly advocates a free non governmental press - no regulation, no public duties, no difficult questions about ethics or methods or accuracy.

The Koch brothers prefer similar lack of regulation or supervision - they did not spend $55m of their own hard earned cash on anti-global warming propoganda to be held to account by anyo ...[text shortened]... ight.

Where do you Americans get your information about the BBC? From Murdoch for #####sake.

At the start of this I admitted not knowing much about the BBC. The name indicated to me, an American a public, therefore government owned and run entity, like PBS here.

What the Murdochs and Kochs of the world or Soros does with their money doesn't bother me a bit. I am not forced to believe or act on what they promote. On my cable system, Fox New and MSNBC are on adjacent channels.

I do believe that a truly free press is essential to a free people.

Originally posted by normbenign
At the start of this I admitted not knowing much about the BBC. The name indicated to me, an American a public, therefore government owned and run entity, like PBS here.

What the Murdochs and Kochs of the world or Soros does with their money doesn't bother me a bit. I am not forced to believe or act on what they promote. On my cable system, Fox New ...[text shortened]... re on adjacent channels.

I do believe that a truly free press is essential to a free people.

Well the BBC is not government owned and run and in fact routinely gives government of left or right a hard kicking, exposing or helping to expose the lies all governments tell. That is why Tories in particular are so happy to attack the BBC - they hate the scrutiny.

Originally posted by normbenign
At the start of this I admitted not knowing much about the BBC. The name indicated to me, an American a public, therefore government owned and run entity, like PBS here.

What the Murdochs and Kochs of the world or Soros does with their money doesn't bother me a bit. I am not forced to believe or act on what they promote. On my cable system, Fox New ...[text shortened]... re on adjacent channels.

I do believe that a truly free press is essential to a free people.

And an independent public broadcaster is an enhancement of free press. The BBC is nothing like PBS.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
And an independent public broadcaster is an enhancement of free press. The BBC is nothing like PBS.

Absolutely. Now by contrast, maybe Italy is a fine example of the private sector running media independent of Government? Fair enough, it is mostly owned and controlled by Berlusconi but hey! Which came first? Control of media or control of government?

Originally posted by finnegan
Absolutely. Now by contrast, maybe Italy is a fine example of the private sector running media independent of Government? Fair enough, it is mostly owned and controlled by Berlusconi but hey! Which came first? Control of media or control of government?

Doesn't matter, it's private, and therefore free. Ayn Rand said so.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Doesn't matter, it's private, and therefore free. Ayn Rand said so.

It is hilarious how much is attributed to Ayn Rand by people who have probably not read her thoughtfully.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is hilarious how much is attributed to Ayn Rand by people who have probably not read her thoughtfully.

It's not an attribution. It's satire.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is hilarious how much is attributed to Ayn Rand by people who have probably not read her thoughtfully.

I have an Ayn Rand book which I have read thoughtfully and it is a challenge to remain thoughtful without exploding. Sometimes she appears to be building up a coherent argument and then it descends to nonsense again. Called "The Virtue of Selfishness - A New Concept of Egoism" it attracted me because I have always been interested in Max Stirner, a C19th philosopher whose book "The Ego and His Own" produced a fascinating rebuttal from Marx (in the German Ideologies under the derogatory heading "Saint Max" ). Stirner remains the definitive statement of the egoist position and his arguments are worth a lot of attention.

Far from offering a new concept of anything whatever, Rand is incapable of acknowledging either the background in philosophy to the notion of Egoism nor responding to its critics. She is simply peddling common sense claptrap in support of an idological position. For this reason and many others she is not considered worthy of serious discussion academically. Her "work" has no merit whatever.

Originally posted by finnegan
I have an Ayn Rand book which I have read thoughtfully and it is a challenge to remain thoughtful without exploding. Sometimes she appears to be building up a coherent argument and then it descends to nonsense again. Called "The Virtue of Selfishness - A New Concept of Egoism" it attracted me because I have always been interested in Max Stirner, a C19th phi ...[text shortened]... considered worthy of serious discussion academically. Her "work" has no merit whatever.

I find it interesting that in attempted support of her arguments she quotes at length the words of her own fictional characters the way others quote experts or noted thinkers. It seems quite bizarre and more than a bit megalomaniacal.