UK TV Media: should the requirement to impartiality be lifted?

[Dav]

Jeez, it seems standards of logic are different between continents too. They are not deciding which biases get shown, they are ensuring ALL biases get shown.

And that is NOT POSSIBLE. There is a bias for each person, even muliple biases for each person; you can't show them all. Even if you categorize them in groups - "conservative" bias, "liberal" bias, etc. - there are always some that will be left out. I'm sure that the BBC has libertarian-biased programs, right? Fascist/Nazi? Anarchist? There are an infinite number of them.

They are ensuring that the mix of biases which the regulators deem "balanced" gets shown, thus putting networks at their mercy.

Why only government? This focusing on government is dangerous.. means that private companies get away with murder.. oh wait, that is exactly what is happening in the US.. And we are not talking about censorship. We are talking about accurate reporting with as little bias as possible. HUGE difference.

Don't mince words. We are talking about censorship. If you prevent a media outlet from reporting certain things because then they wouldn't be "balanced" you are censoring them, by definition.

And no, private corporations can't get away with murder, that's one of the biggest strawmans yet. What they can get away with is having an opinion; and as soon as the government begins regulating how they can express this opinion in any way, shape, or form, it's censorship. If you don't believe me, consult a dictionary.

In other words, you have no problems with corporations controlling the media and making the media only show the corporations view, but when it comes to the government directly or inddirectly stopping such attempts by either corporations or the government it self.. then you are against it? Are you for real? That is exactly the views in part of a true corporatist which is not far from being a fascist.

Wow, a lot of word-mincing going on here.

Guess what: "corporations" aren't a thing. They are MANY things, i.e. many corporations, and in the right marketplace, they COMPETE with each other. And yeah, I have no problem with any of these corporations HAVING A MEDIA OUTLET, because that is what freedom of the press is. If they are not allowed to use any media outlet they want for anything they want, as long as it is within laws applied to all public mediums (i.e. libel, child porn, etc.), then you are censoring them and violating freedom of the press. It's that simple. Corporations have freedom of speech just like anyone else.

If people don't like it, they don't have to watch it. They can even create their own media outlet if they want, to compete with it. But regulating media content is, well, regulating media content, which is the very definition of violating freedom of the press.

I mean exactly what I wrote, you..... have..... yet..... to..... show..... violation........

What exactly do you want me to show?
They are forcing the press to only report the way the law/regulators say that they can report. This is violating freedom of the press by definition. On a small scale, this means forcing the press to adhere to the regulators' idea of "balanced". On a larger scale, you have something more like the Soviet Union.

 

[Andalublue]

Don't mince words. We are talking about censorship. If you prevent a media outlet from reporting certain things because then they wouldn't be "balanced" you are censoring them, by definition.

Yeah, British media's really censored, in a way no one in the US would accept. The problem with that prejudice is in practice. British TV holds politicians to account in a way I've never seen a US politician being held to account on American TV. Can you link to a US TV journalist being as uncompromising in calling a politician to account as this...



or as this...



Now, in a state with heavy media censorship, do you think this kind of interviewing of the Home Secretary and Prime Minister would be tolerated?

 

[Dav]

Now, in a state with heavy media censorship, do you think this kind of interviewing of the Home Secretary and Prime Minister would be tolerated?

There is your false premise. I never claimed "heavy" media censorship, in fact I said several times that it only existed on a small scale.

 

[Andalublue]

There is your false premise. I never claimed "heavy" media censorship, in fact I said several times that it only existed on a small scale.

So what kind of light censorship do you think operates that allows those two examples of inquisitorial journalism?

 

[Dav]

So what kind of light censorship do you think operates that allows those two examples of inquisitorial journalism?

Um... the fact that the censorship is light?
We're not talking Stalinism here. Just a very, very mild variation of it.

 

[Grant]

'm aware of the almost religious significance Americans sometime put into the great god "free marketplace" - however, like that other mythical being, it remains a philosophic ideal rather than a real one. The marketplace of unfettered news press is dying here in the UK, including the Financial Times.

That's quite right. There is always more and more government interference in the marketplace and many have become dependent on it. I'm against it and you're apparently for it.

I'm sorry to hear about the Financial Times. It was a good publication. A lack of interest I suppose, and that is telling.

The bit where you and your colleague are either deliberately misunderstanding or we're failing to explain (however Andaluble has done so perfectly) is that the requirement is for due accuracy and due impartiality. More often, that's simply a requirement to balanced reporting.

Don't think for a moment there us any misunderstanding. I understand your position perfectly and have seen this attitude for years. There is nothing new here.. What I am disagreeing with is the philosophy behind it, and that's why this debate.

Actually, I've said that about 4 times in recent pages which tells me you're returning to a tired agenda. It's not hard to understand.

Yes, and I am disagreeing with you, as are others. We get it. We really really do.

If a magnate owns most of the sources and tends to tell his editors which party to support - as Murdoch does with "the Sun" then he is interfering or dictating to the press how to report any stories they are reporting.

That happens all the time in the media and we should be sophisticated enough to understand that. We can see where the Guardian stands on any issue, as well as the BBC. The same is true for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. That's nothing new.

Again, this is deliberate misunderstanding or we're not explaining - or it's such a foriegn concept. The committee (doesn't exist), the govt etc do not tell what stories to write - the only require that the reporting is balanced.

Right. And there is always someone to decide what is "balanced". Do you think I should be the person to decide that? You? Some anonymous bureaucrat? This is the same "I know it when i see it" approach to pornography. Because we all have different opinions and points of view, no one can really decide what's fair and balanced, even Fox News.
Also -

"Ofcom as an independent body does not investigate output until a pulic complaint has been made - hence my repeated requests to all the trolls who have said the BBC is biased but have nothing to prove their case. You simply complain to Ofcom, who investigate. I'm tired of having to say this over and over again".

There is no need to repeat the same thing over and over. We get it. Its just not worth the bother to complain to Ofcom ( I love that name!) when I am convinced the BBC is not worthwhile. All I can do is tell the Brits to beware, that they are often, and usually , selling propaganda. And it's usually anti American. That's why so many Brits feel they can rubbish the States with impunity. They believe what the BBC tells them. I spend a lot of time in Latin America and the crap I've seen on the BBC on that area of the world is also dreadful.

Murdoch owns many newspapers here, his papers have been influential in previous elections by falling behind one party or another. He is in the media business for money and he wants to sell news on the web / other outlets. The BBC is his number one enemy as they produce quality reporting and give it away free. Not my words - but his son's at last year's Edinburgh news seminar.

Perhaps his papers are influential because they appeal to a great many people? I know there are more people than just Rupert Murdoch's son who believe the BBC is crap. Many Brits, especially those who have traveled, believe the same,. Rupert Murdoch is probably a breath of fresh air to a great many people.

IF (yet again) the BBC is biased, he is perfectly placed and has the financial resources to take a series of cases to Ofcom and bring down the BBC. He hasn't tried - because there is no case to answer of a persistent bias.

And again it seems clear that this would not be a good move, for reasons I explained. The influence of the BBC is eroding, and those few who watch it here (I get it on cable) laugh at it.

Bored of re-explaining yet again....

Then please stop.

Maybe what's more worrying is that the US seems to have embraced him and his tactics without question.

Right. Here we go with the US again. The only country in the world that really excites BBC watchers sensibilities. No other country anywhere qualifies for this attention, It is an obsession that demeans the British people. No debate can last long without a BBC watching Brit finally bringing in the Americans and their poor media, religious attitudes, and so on. This from a country in such rapid decline that 500,000 are emigrating annually and facing political turmoil. Get a grip!

But that's your version of freedom of speech and it works for you..

I'm Canadian and it certainly works for me. Mind, we have government trying to control freedom of speech here also, but we still have the jam to fight against it.

If the BBC was state sponsored, I'd be bothered to correct you.

Yeah, I know. Brits always raise this point and are sensitive about it, but who really cares. Don't pay the license and someone has the power too fine you. Or you can't watch telly. You're being governed here, that's certain.

And the BBC's mandate would be taken away overnight if a citizen proved that the BBC is consistently biased. And it ain't gonna happen because (for the 75th time) there is no case to answer. Individual cases to left and right exist - but not a corporate bias.

The BBC has a mandate but it's not empowered by the government. So each year British voters decide to continue this mandate, is that it? Many have proved the BBC to be consistently biased. Blogs on the subject are everywhere.But its like a fish in water asking . "What water?" Regular viewers of the BBC don't even know it. Therein lies the concern.

You are (given up counting) welcome to contact Ofcom and... ah forget it.

You seem to believe this a debate about Ofcom.

It ain't.

 

[Grant]

That's an opinion - until proven.

Yes, it is an opinion but it's based on the fact that big and dangerous ideas have always come out of Europe, be it Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and other failed isms that had lesser success. And here we have Europeans explaining why the media should be watched over by 'someone in charge'. My opinion appears valid.

Well, we're not the country / continent with a strong fetish for shooting each other at the merest whim.

Huh? This from the source of concentration camps, genocidal campaigns, innumerable wars with each other and the source of two world wars in which millions of people suffered and died? Where the entire eastern half of the continent was under armed guard for forty years? I've learned to expect this sort of thing from regular BBC viewers but it still often comes as something of a shock.

Again, as usual, some off the wall anti American cliches must be introduced to the debate, no matter how little relationship they bear to the conversation.

 

[paris]

Yes, it is an opinion but it's based on the fact that big and dangerous ideas have always come out of Europe, be it Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and other failed isms that had lesser success...

Such as Grantism? Ach, nay, that came from the great US Senator Charles Sumner...

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Jeez, it seems standards of logic are different between continents too. They are not deciding which biases get shown, they are ensuring ALL biases get shown. Who ensures that for you in your so-called 'marketplace of ideas'?

And that is NOT POSSIBLE. There is a bias for each person, even muliple biases for each person; you can't show them all. Even if you categorize them in groups - "conservative" bias, "liberal" bias, etc. - there are always some that will be left out. I'm sure that the BBC has libertarian-biased programs, right? Fascist/Nazi? Anarchist? There are an infinite number of them.

This is the nub of the failure to understand. Maybe some examples will help -

• a govt minister is interviewed about a new policy (to balance) his opposite number is given time to respond to the policy OR the people affected by the policy are given time on air to voice their opinions.
• a report from a conflict zone, one side sets off bombs amidst the peoples on another side of the conflict and they are interviewed for reasons why they did this (to balance) the people affected by the bombing are given airtime to voice their grievances and their govt are given airtime to exlain their response.

Pretty simple - otherwise you have propaganda being broadcast - which is what you seem to be arguing for and what your American and Canadian TV stations seem to be broadcasting at will.

I don't mind you hating us, our systems our continent - doesn't change my life - but I'm glad I have news reporting that treats me like an adult, gives me the opportunity to make my own mind up about what to believe from my news.

They are ensuring that the mix of biases which the regulators deem "balanced" gets shown, thus putting networks at their mercy.

More wilful misunderstanding - they simply require that a right to reply is given. Sometimes two reports and two reporters are on a story - each to investigate the two sides of a story. I suppose that's "censorship" in your eyes.

-- We are talking about censorship. If you prevent a media outlet from reporting certain things because then they wouldn't be "balanced" you are censoring them, by definition.

Q.E.D.

The media outlets are never prevented - except on national security but even then they are asked not to give specific details such as location etc.

-- What exactly do you want me to show?
They are forcing the press to only report the way the law/regulators say that they can report. This is violating freedom of the press by definition. On a small scale, this means forcing the press to adhere to the regulators' idea of "balanced". On a larger scale, you have something more like the Soviet Union.

I've explained with examples above. This is not violation of freedom of the press / freedom of speech. Our newspapers are free to present stories from one perspective only - including the Financial Times (or was it Grant that is the fan), they are allowed to ally themselves to a viewpoint or not. It's fair to critique the Guardian as left of centre, the Sun as right wing, the Daily Mail as hard right etc - however our TV boradcast media are not allowed to be.

Simple.

-- You seem to believe this a debate about Ofcom.

It ain't.

I knew you hadn't bothered to read the OP...

--Huh? --

I refer you to your original comment. Don't complain if you introduce random falsehoods in the thread.

 

[William Rea]

Yes, it is an opinion but it's based on the fact that big and dangerous ideas have always come out of Europe, be it Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and other failed isms that had lesser success. And here we have Europeans explaining why the media should be watched over by 'someone in charge'. My opinion appears valid.

...and Democracy then Liberal Democracy, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Natural Philosophy, Nursing, Industrial Revolution, Magna Carta...

Wasn't the US initially a big idea that came out of Europe? Darn, I just proved your case for you Grant!

 

[PeteEU]

Don't mince words. We are talking about censorship. If you prevent a media outlet from reporting certain things because then they wouldn't be "balanced" you are censoring them, by definition.

No one is preventing anyone for reporting anything and that is the point. As long as they balance it out with alternative views if needed then they can show whatever they want. Have you EVER watched British TV news?

And no, private corporations can't get away with murder, that's one of the biggest strawmans yet. What they can get away with is having an opinion; and as soon as the government begins regulating how they can express this opinion in any way, shape, or form, it's censorship. If you don't believe me, consult a dictionary.

LOL you are seriously blinded. Censorship can just as easy happen without any government intervention and DOES happen in US media almost daily. Fox News is well known for self censorship when facts dont fit into the political view Fox News is trying to press. Private corporations constantly want to control the media flow for their own business and that is no difference than Government attempting this. You are deluding yourself if you think the supposed free market (which does NOT exist in the US when it comes to the TV News) works in any way in this case. The Free market rarely works because of the corporations or government meddling in the flow of things. Look at the whole economic crisis.. free market gone amok, and corporations crashing the US economy.

Wow, a lot of word-mincing going on here.

Guess what: "corporations" aren't a thing. They are MANY things, i.e. many corporations, and in the right marketplace, they COMPETE with each other. And yeah, I have no problem with any of these corporations HAVING A MEDIA OUTLET, because that is what freedom of the press is. If they are not allowed to use any media outlet they want for anything they want, as long as it is within laws applied to all public mediums (i.e. libel, child porn, etc.), then you are censoring them and violating freedom of the press. It's that simple. Corporations have freedom of speech just like anyone else.

I see.. then why does the US regulate commercials for minors and pornography.. if it is so big on "freedom of the press" and "free speech"?

If people don't like it, they don't have to watch it.

Same with the British media.. go figure.

They can even create their own media outlet if they want, to compete with it.

Not really. Only American's can own media outlets in the US, and there is limited space on cable and satellite systems.. owned by the very companies that own the media outlets.. that is why Al Jazerra had and has such a hard time getting on cable tv and satellite tv. So the cost of entering the media market is insane high.

But regulating media content is, well, regulating media content, which is the very definition of violating freedom of the press.

You already do that but you dont realize it. You regulate everything from sexual content to swearing over to what can be showed to minors. That is the government regulation. Then you have self regulation by media, who have direct contact with big business and/or political groups and promote these without any consequences or rebuttal. Fox News again is a classic example but so is MSNBC. The amount of free air time the Tea Party and Republican party has gotten on Fox News is ... would never ever happen in the UK.

But as you have proven yourself, you have not read the OP or the rules from Ofcom, but are blinded by your hatred for Europe and anything non American. You are deluded in the self belief of everything American is better than everything else... grow up and smell the roses.

 

[Grant]

• a govt minister is interviewed about a new policy (to balance) his opposite number is given time to respond to the policy OR the people affected by the policy are given time on air to voice their opinions.
• a report from a conflict zone, one side sets off bombs amidst the peoples on another side of the conflict and they are interviewed for reasons why they did this (to balance) the people affected by the bombing are given airtime to voice their grievances and their govt are given airtime to exlain their response.

This happens here all the time!! And you need a government agency to ensure it happens?? That is the normal course of events now, is it? It's clear how the British people have now become far too dependent on government, even to the point where the bureaucracy has to decide what's fair and unfair in the world of ideas.

But of course when complaining of the anti Americanism on the BBC, as many have for years and years, it will take some time for the complaints to get through while the damage has already been done. And the BBC has been at it for so long that Europeans feel it is normal, and no doubt justified, to carp at the Americans. You can have a skyscraper full of Ofcom people and it won't make a bit of difference. They've been raised on the same BBC propaganda as well so their idea of what's fair will probably be skewered also

Pretty simple - otherwise you have propaganda being broadcast - which is what you seem to be arguing for and what your American and Canadian TV stations seem to be broadcasting at will.

So you feel that unless the government supervises everything, and makes sure everything everyone says is fair, there will be chaos?

Big Brother loves you!

I don't mind you hating us, our systems our continent - doesn't change my life - but I'm glad I have news reporting that treats me like an adult, gives me the opportunity to make my own mind up about what to believe from my news.

Nobody hates you. Is that what you're being told? This is a debate board and if someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they hate you. It seems when there is too much government telling people what to think and do, and caring for their every whim, it keeps them immature forever. Please relax and calm down. No one hates you.

More wilful misunderstanding - they simply require that a right to reply is given. Sometimes two reports and two reporters are on a story - each to investigate the two sides of a story. I suppose that's "censorship" in your eyes.

Who is telling these two reporters to work on a story? And why would you suppose anyone would think this censorship? But you should keep in mind that there might be three or more sides to a story also, but if you believe only in Left Wing and Right Wing then I suppose two is plenty enough.

 

[Laila]

Yeah, British media's really censored, in a way no one in the US would accept. The problem with that prejudice is in practice. British TV holds politicians to account in a way I've never seen a US politician being held to account on American TV. Can you link to a US TV journalist being as uncompromising in calling a politician to account as this...

I LOVE Jeremy Paxman.

The man is a God when it comes to interviewing and making Politicans squirm.
I doubt there is a journalist who is as tough as him in this world

 

[Laila]

Perhaps his papers are influential because they appeal to a great many people? I know there are more people than just Rupert Murdoch's son who believe the BBC is crap. Many Brits, especially those who have traveled, believe the same,. Rupert Murdoch is probably a breath of fresh air to a great many people.

:lamo

Murdoch fresh air when it comes to media?
How many Brits? A poll would be wonderful on how many agree with Murdoch because I have mine which shows BBC is the most trusted still.

BBC shall forever stay in UK because it gives quality news, and its existence threatens Murdoch's need to dominate the entire media field.
I laugh everytime Murdoch goes on about competition when he owns how many channels/newspapers

 

[Grant]

LOL you are seriously blinded. Censorship can just as easy happen without any government intervention and DOES happen in US media almost daily.

Again this obsession with the USA by the BBC Groupies. Are there no other countries of interest in your world? But now that you've made that statement let's have some supporting facts. Can you point to areas where the Americans or Canadians are not getting the news, or that only one side is being presented?

"Fox News is well known for self censorship when facts dont fit into the political view Fox News is trying to press

Then let's have an example of this self censorship. But even if they do self censor, though you have not yet proven it, then people will soon realize it and watch something else. That's how the system works. And it works well.

Private corporations constantly want to control the media flow for their own business and that is no difference than Government attempting this.

Agreed. Everyone wants to control the information based according to their own point of view or their best interests.

You are deluding yourself if you think the supposed free market (which does NOT exist in the US when it comes to the TV News) works in any way in this case.

Again, you are going to have to offer up some evidence to support this rather inflammatory, and of course erroneous, statement.

The Free market rarely works because of the corporations or government meddling in the flow of things.

They try it, for sure. Which is why we always have to be watchful. Lack of government intrusion and honest back and forth debate helps that along.

Look at the whole economic crisis.. free market gone amok, and corporations crashing the US economy.

Actually, if you had access to information over there, you'd see that it was government policies which were responsible for the mess. Which corporation do you feel was responsible for crashing the US economy? What did the BBC tell you? Let's have some names here.

 

[Grant]

Murdoch fresh air when it comes to media?

yes, I'm quite sure there are people who feel that way or he wouldn't be in business. That's the true test.

How many Brits? A poll would be wonderful on how many agree with Murdoch because I have mine which shows BBC is the most trusted still.

I have no doubt that the BBC is still trusted by a great many Brits, and quite possibly the majority. The BBC has been around throughout the entire lives of most British people and welcomed into their homes daily. It is as much a part of British culture as fish and chips. That's why any criticism of the BBC is interpreted as "hating" the British people. The two are extremely closely associated. This familiarity, and the trust gained over the years, makes it difficult to believe that the BBC would ever sell the British people a bill of goods, despite all the evidence supporting this assessment.

BBC shall forever stay in UK because it gives quality news

Yes, so you believe anyway.

and its existence threatens Murdoch's need to dominate the entire media field.

As the BBC was there many decades before Rupert Murdoch arrived they obviously had a huge head start to dominate the field, as indeed they once did. And not only did they dominate, they wanted laws passed in order to continue their domination and discourage competition. He was able to fill a gap in the market, honesty probably, that the BBC wasn't able to provide, despite them thinking they had every base covered. That's why he is successful.

I laugh everytime Murdoch goes on about competition when he owns how many channels/newspapers

Well he is making a point if people are forced to buy a license from one source or be deprived of watching television while he has no such luxury. His success, despite the odds being against him, suggests that a great many British people aren't completely satisfied with the BBC.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- This happens here all the time!! And you need a government agency to ensure it happens??

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.... It only took 22 pages to explain this didn't it.

I'm impressed, 22 pages and a variety of trolls however you're still a bit away when it comes to full comprehension. Ofcom is not "govt" - it's independent (explained in link in OP 22 pages ago) and it doesn't ensure anything happens (explained in link in OP 22 pages ago) - it's an arbitrator if people have a complaint that a programme or report is imbalanced or there is no right to reply.

I guess that'll take you and the other fella another 22 pages?

On a final note, the arbitrator serves to take away a broadcaster's licence to broadcast if found to continually break partiality. A little faster than waiting for the free-market to work methinks.

-- That is the normal course of events now, is it? It's clear how the British people have now become far too dependent on government, even to the point where the bureaucracy has to decide what's fair and unfair in the world of ideas.

But of course when complaining of the anti Americanism on the BBC, as many have for years and years, it will take some time for the complaints to get through while the damage has already been done. And the BBC has been at it for so long that Europeans feel it is normal, and no doubt justified, to carp at the Americans. You can have a skyscraper full of Ofcom people and it won't make a bit of difference. They've been raised on the same BBC propaganda as well so their idea of what's fair will probably be skewered also



So you feel that unless the government supervises everything, and makes sure everything everyone says is fair, there will be chaos?

Big Brother loves you!



Nobody hates you. Is that what you're being told? This is a debate board and if someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they hate you. It seems when there is too much government telling people what to think and do, and caring for their every whim, it keeps them immature forever. Please relax and calm down. No one hates you.


Who is telling these two reporters to work on a story? And why would you suppose anyone would think this censorship? But you should keep in mind that there might be three or more sides to a story also, but if you believe only in Left Wing and Right Wing then I suppose two is plenty enough.

Out of interest, your trail in this thread is interesting, firstly with those claiming the BBC is biased, then with those claiming there's a freedom of the press issue and now the British public cannot choose without Govt direction.

Frankly it's boring again now, I stated about 10 -15 pages ago that you have an obvious envy and hatred problem. You really seem to have a serious problem with all things European and especially with British. I wish you well with your life, there's so much more outside of the internet beyond coming to the Europe forum to tell us how corrupt / past it / dependent / deluded we are.

 

[Grant]

Ofcom is not "govt" - it's independent (explained in link in OP 22 pages ago) and it doesn't ensure anything happens (explained in link in OP 22 pages ago) - it's an arbitrator if people have a complaint that a programme or report is imbalanced or there is no right to reply.

So it is not government. It is independent.
Got it!

On a final note, the arbitrator serves to take away a broadcaster's licence to broadcast if found to continually break partiality. A little faster than waiting for the free-market to work methinks.

So it is independent, not part of the government, but it has the power to take away a broadcasters license. So do all independent people in the UK have this same power? Who gave them this power? And you feel a group with that sort o power isn't government?

I'm not certain you understand the meaning of "governed" when this independent body is clearly governing broadcasting ethics, fairness, balance, or what have you. It is government. Whether it is a part of party politics or not, for now, it is still governing.

While you feel that this body is absolutely fair at the moment, do you feel it will remain fair in 20, 50 or 100 years time?

You seems to have a lot of confidence in this Truth and Justice council, confidence that has seldom proved justified.

Now that they are in, you'll never get then out.

Out of interest, your trail in this thread is interesting, firstly with those claiming the BBC is biased, then with those claiming there's a freedom of the press issue and now the British public cannot choose without Govt direction.

Use quotes, please.

Frankly it's boring again now, I stated about 10 -15 pages ago that you have an obvious envy and hatred problem.

Hey man, I'm rich and good looking. I don't envy anyone, and certainly not any Brits! If I am criticize terrorism does that mean I'm envious and harboring hatreds? Get away from the BBC, for your own sake and that of your loved ones!

You really seem to have a serious problem with all things European and especially with British. I wish you well with your life, there's so much more outside of the internet beyond coming to the Europe forum to tell us how corrupt / past it / dependent / deluded we are.

It's a knee jerk reaction to anti Americanism. You BBC groupies can sure dish it out but you cry "hatred" or "envy" whenever there's a similar response. It makes wusses of you all.

 

[Grant]

...and Democracy then Liberal Democracy, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Natural Philosophy, Nursing, Industrial Revolution, Magna Carta...

Wasn't the US initially a big idea that came out of Europe? Darn, I just proved your case for you Grant!

Apologies for missing your earlier post, William Rea.

Yes, all those contributions you mentioned were adopted and inherited by a grateful world and, in Britain's case anyway, they helped create Canada, the United States, Australia, and so on. Great Britain was an excellent "colonizer'.

But if you note the time at which those contributions were made versus my mention of Communism, Nazism, Genocide, Fascism, etc., all of these destructive maladies came more recently. It's as though Europe turned its back on all they should have learned from their own history.

Europe now has no real cultural, financial or political clout. There are fiscal problems, demographic problems and serious cultural problems. The riots we have seen in Greece, and more recently in France, will only increase. But this time around I doubt any North Americans will want to get involved in future European problems.

The anti Americanism on the BBC only comes off as pettiness and makes the British people appear foolish, unworldly, and beneath whatever dignity they can yet muster. It has permanently damaged the relationship between Britain and the United States, and has not done anyone any good whatsoever.

 

[William Rea]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.... It only took 22 pages to explain this didn't it.

I'm impressed, 22 pages and a variety of trolls however you're still a bit away when it comes to full comprehension. Ofcom is not "govt" - it's independent (explained in link in OP 22 pages ago) and it doesn't ensure anything happens (explained in link in OP 22 pages ago) - it's an arbitrator if people have a complaint that a programme or report is imbalanced or there is no right to reply.

I guess that'll take you and the other fella another 22 pages?

On a final note, the arbitrator serves to take away a broadcaster's licence to broadcast if found to continually break partiality. A little faster than waiting for the free-market to work methinks.



Out of interest, your trail in this thread is interesting, firstly with those claiming the BBC is biased, then with those claiming there's a freedom of the press issue and now the British public cannot choose without Govt direction.

Frankly it's boring again now, I stated about 10 -15 pages ago that you have an obvious envy and hatred problem. You really seem to have a serious problem with all things European and especially with British. I wish you well with your life, there's so much more outside of the internet beyond coming to the Europe forum to tell us how corrupt / past it / dependent / deluded we are.

I'd rename you Infinite Patience for how you have dealt with this despite the clear intent of many posters to obfuscate and wilfully twist every argument or clarification put before them. Like you I have concluded it is pearls before swine but I did that quite a few posts ago.

It amuses me that there are Contributors accusing others of anti-Americanism while their posts indicate they are clearly anti-European and anti-British (no matter how indirectly it is or if it is by proxy through attacking the BBC). It is sad that there are so many people on this Forum that define everything by an anti-ism in whichever form it takes. I think they need to remove the plank from their own eye first (that is if they were ever really that serious about the debates they enter to start with; which I doubt).

What was the topic of this thread anyway.....

 

[William Rea]

Apologies for missing your earlier post, William Rea.

Yes, all those contributions you mentioned were adopted and inherited by a grateful world and, in Britain's case anyway, they helped create Canada, the United States, Australia, and so on. Great Britain was an excellent "colonizer'.

But if you note the time at which those contributions were made versus my mention of Communism, Nazism, Genocide, Fascism, etc., all of these destructive maladies came more recently. It's as though Europe turned its back on all they should have learned from their own history.

Europe now has no real cultural, financial or political clout. There are fiscal problems, demographic problems and serious cultural problems. The riots we have seen in Greece, and more recently in France, will only increase. But this time around I doubt any North Americans will want to get involved in future European problems.

The anti Americanism on the BBC only comes off as pettiness and makes the British people appear foolish, unworldly, and beneath whatever dignity they can yet muster. It has permanently damaged the relationship between Britain and the United States, and has not done anyone any good whatsoever.

I've lost interest in your anti-European rhetoric.

Despite its inherent problems, in 2009 according to the IMF, Europe had the largest economy in the World at $16,447.26 billion. Not bad for a bunch of brainwashed, Socialist loons huh. Which parts of the US economy are not owned by China at the moment?

This is totally off topic but needed to be said; I am out of this thread.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

But this time around I doubt any North Americans will want to get involved in future European problems.

Exactly. Whenever the USA gets involved anywhere, you get constant leftist bleating, black propaganda and skirmishes with the police by louts.

But whenever the USA decides to stay at home with its feet up, you get constant bleating and black propaganda. America are violent and interfering bully-boys when they go to war but callous and contemptuous of peoples' plights when they don't.

I suggest the Americans tell the whining Liberal sleazeballs to arm themselves and do what they like whenever there's a new Bosnia or something. If such claims were true, I wouldn't blame the USA for fighting only when there's oil, because since the end of World War 2 foreign political classes in Europe have shown so much hostility.

 

[Grant]

I've lost interest in your anti-European rhetoric.

Sure, William Rea, but if it was an anti American thread you wouldn't run off so quickly. Like any BBC groupie you'd be piling on post after post. But one Canadian calls you out and you scurry along with the rest. As I mentioned earlier, you lot can certainly dish it out but you just can't take it.

Despite its inherent problems, in 2009 according to the IMF, Europe had the largest economy in the World at $16,447.26 billion. Not bad for a bunch of brainwashed, Socialist loons huh. Which parts of the US economy are not owned by China at the moment?

Don't know but I'll bet it's a lot. The incompetent lefty they have in there now is mortgaging America's future just as Europeans has mortgaged theirs.

This is totally off topic but needed to be said; I am out of this thread.

Adios!

 

[Grant]

Exactly. Whenever the USA gets involved anywhere, you get constant leftist bleating, black propaganda and skirmishes with the police by louts.

But whenever the USA decides to stay at home with its feet up, you get constant bleating and black propaganda. America are violent and interfering bully-boys when they go to war but callous and contemptuous of peoples' plights when they don't.

I suggest the Americans tell the whining Liberal sleazeballs to arm themselves and do what they like whenever there's a new Bosnia or something. If such claims were true, I wouldn't blame the USA for fighting only when there's oil, because since the end of World War 2 foreign political classes in Europe have shown so much hostility.

I don't know what the BBC and its followers have gained from their decades of anti Americanism, Republic_of_Republic, but i can't see any benefits. There are still many countries who will ally themselves with the United States (at least when they get a new president) but who will ally themselves with Britain? I would certainly try my best to ensure that no Canadian ever fights in Europe again, and I suspect that Americans feel the same. I can't see anything that would change that either, especially now the Britain has lost its identity, and can never get it back.

They've shot themselves in the foot, for sure, and it's a damned bloody shame.