Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light. Gender:
Posted:
Jul 16, 2011 - 5:03pm
kurtster wrote:
Thanks, I will really dig into the link. I was working on the basis that it was soley supported by taxes, therefore being an extension of the government. I have held the BBC in high regard for trying to keep things correct and watch occasionally the feeds available here over the years.
Pardon the last sentence, I know it screams mixed tenses and worse, but I'm too tired to fix it.
Well, yes it is paid for by the license fee, which is due if you watch broadcast television in the UK. Some people portray the £145 licence fee as a dreadful tax, but the way the beeb was set up was carefully done to ensure it's impartiality and independance, as you might see from the link. And it pays for terrestrial broadcasting for all channels.
The BBC is our national broadcaster, free from commercial or short-term political interference and, ultimately, answerable to us, the license payer.
And can you imagine the bliss of watching TV programmes and whole movies without a single advertisement? This really, really pisses off big business.
What Murdoch has spent decades doing is try to kill, or at least emasculate the BBC until it's a shrivelled shell of its current self, forcing viewers to buy his hugely expensive service. I tried to find some easy examples of Sky costs, and being crap on a computer, only found this from '09, but I think it illustrates the mendacity and greed of Murdoch the sheer value for money that the BBC provides for a mere £145.50
Of course, our current government have imposed a six year freeze on the cost of a TV license, which will cripple the ability of the BBC to do it's job properly. The prime beneficery of this policy? Rupert Murdoch.
It takes a lot to rile the British, but I think it just might be working.
And I reckon you 'mericans should be ready for some interesting revelations vis-a-vis 9/11.(good grief, that makes me sound like a conspiracy nut, but hey, after the events of the last ten days little surprises me anymore)
Oh, and sorry Mr K, forgot to say that I hope you're well rested now!
Thanks, I will really dig into the link. I was working on the basis that it was soley supported by taxes, therefore being an extension of the government. I have held the BBC in high regard for trying to keep things correct and watch occasionally the feeds available here over the years.
Pardon the last sentence, I know it screams mixed tenses and worse, but I'm too tired to fix it.
Wow! That's just embarrassing isn't it? The worst thing is that they actually believe the crap they're coming out with as do millions of people watching it. Frightening.
Favorite part (among many): blaming the media and the public for being so fixated on this. And then he says "Up next: Casey Anthony...."
BBC is Brit CNN. Little more than an entertainment channel. I've watched them slowly sell out to American showbiz-type mediocrity over the past 15 years.
Indeed. It still throws out the odd good documentary here and there and can still make some great tv. However, as a news channel it just follows a certain line, mostly conservative in my experience. Also, it seems obsessed with celebrity, BBC news never used to show that crap but it's pretty common now.
BBC is Brit CNN. Little more than an entertainment channel. I've watched them slowly sell out to American showbiz-type mediocrity over the past 15 years.
Wow! That's just embarrassing isn't it? The worst thing is that they actually believe the crap they're coming out with as do millions of people watching it. Frightening.
I don't think there are any REAL news networks in the US. I get most of my news via the BBC. I have to resort to an overseas news agency to learn about what's REALLY going on here because the news here is politically biased and/or on the take. There seem a bit of irony in this.
Yes. ironic when one considers that the Beeb is a government outlet in itself.
I don't think there are any REAL news networks in the US. I get most of my news via the BBC. I have to resort to an overseas news agency to learn about what's REALLY going on here because the news here is politically biased and/or on the take. There seem a bit of irony in this.
Barrasso (FYT) is an interesting guy. For years he hosted a 2-minute health thing on the TV, wrote a column for the state papers, etc. and was generally regarded pretty well. He got appointed to fill in the remainder of Craig Thomas' term and really hit the ground running. Accomplished a lot and was very active and proactive for Wyoming issues. He won the seat to complete the term outright very easily, and at some point totally abandoned his independent streak. I liked him for his first six months, was kind of "okay that's not like you" for the next year or two and for the last year at least he's been assimilated. He says things that even make Wyoming people blanch, and is bragging about how *some organization* has labeled him the "most conservative member of the senate." Well that makes you a fringe element, John.
I assume he's playing his cards so that he'll get appointed to a leadership position or something, which Al Simpson did, and that spelled the end of Al's ability to buck the party too. (Of course once out of that position, Al went back to being Al )
Barrasso's a nice guy, well-spoken, but he's playing to a small audience the way he's going for the ultras. Even in Wyoming that won't endear him to many. Oh he'll still win, of course, the state's tilted 70-30 toward the GOP. Dammit.
Thanks, wasn't sure of his name.
Seemed to be ok, although never seen him in any format before. Can't add anything more other than he didn't hurt himself speaking. After watching it, it was a decent and civil discussion on the topics of the debt, trust in government and how to become more bipartisan. The questions posed were very direct with quick thinking required to answer. The end was a panel of 10 or 12 repub women representitives, so that was weighted to be sure.
Coburn of OK was after Barrasso, It was more than talking points. The beginning of each segment was kicked off by Luntz, after that the direction was clearly in response to questions, not a predetermined script.
I was glad to see it, serious questions asked and answered civily. During the speakers responses, the audience had meters to react to the speaker, showing curves by D and R. Most interesting. This is the second one of this type I have seen and it was as good or better than the first.
If you got a DVR, give it a shot. Its not a waste of time. We need more of this. On again in 45 minutes.
Studio version w/band