1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

BBC World Channel Coming soon?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by UKintheUS, Dec 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 26, 2005 #41 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    I will not go into answering your question in any depth because you know your first statement in that question is ridiculous.

    I have also lived in anumber of other countries, to include 4 years in Europe. I have also traveled extensively to 22 different countries. It doesn't change my view at all.

    I have no problem with a foreign news service opearting in America but not when it has an obvious bias and agenda and not when it is state funded. Sorry.

    Also, disagree with me if you like but try not to be insulting by telling me to "get a life" and that I am not "living in the real world. That's not very nice and it certainly doesn't help your argument.
     
  2. Dec 26, 2005 #42 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    Didn't the the BBC themselves admit to bias in the recent past? Didn't that lead to a shakeup in management? :)
     
  3. Dec 26, 2005 #43 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    I already stated what my objections are. I think they are an obviously biased news service, often anti-American, and they are government funded. Get rid of those factors and I'd have no problem with them being here.

    TV is not the only way to get international news in our digital age.

    I'm an also independent, by the way, and before anyone starts replying to me as if I am some republican Bush stooge.
     
  4. Dec 26, 2005 #44 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    What I "want to hear" is objectivity and not some political and social agenda. I want to hear news in its simplist form and then I can decide what to believe or not. I don't need a talking head with an agenda to do that for me.

    Going by your post I believe you are taking offense to my remarks in a nationalistic kind of way. I'm sure the UK has made fine contributions to the world but listing them and using that as some kind of support for the BBC is not only irrelevent but rather silly. No offense intended.

    I would ban any foreign government funded news service in my country, which it is because the BBC itself would not exist without the TV licence, and those with obvious political and social agendas. Simple as that. Those are quite sensible positions to have.

    Your final comment of "the world does not revolve around the United States" is typical of the kind of thinking that comes from anti-American Europeans. Such remarks come out of nowhere and are usually unrelated to crux of the discussion. It says a lot.
     
  5. Dec 26, 2005 #45 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    We have laws in America over foreign ownership of media companies that make sense and that should extend to a foreign government funded news services operating in the country. In that case there wouldn't be anything to decide on as they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast at all. I think the only reason they are being allowed is because they, the country, is a close ally.

    Have a Merry Christmas fellow native American.
     
  6. Dec 26, 2005 #46 of 137
    greatwhitenorth

    greatwhitenorth Godfather

    360
    0
    Jul 18, 2005
    Your claims of an Anti-American bias on the BBC are ludicrous on its face. Yes, they have a British bias, just as FNC (and CNN) have an American bias, just as Al-Jazeera has an Arabic bias, just as every news operation is biased in the direction of their particular area. But to claim "Anti-Americanism" is just plain foolish. Not everyone who disagrees with our government is anti-American.

    As far as allowing different news services to operate, I think that certainly would violate the spirit of the First Amendment. IMHO, the First Amendment was enacted so that Americans would not be denied access to any information. In this ever-complex world, we need to understand the facts from every possible viewpoint. Rather than restricting the flow of information to Americans, we need to increase it. Knowledge=freedom=power.
     
  7. Dec 26, 2005 #47 of 137
    UKintheUS

    UKintheUS Godfather

    335
    0
    Dec 23, 2005
    Goodmorning. Happy Boxing Day. Nice to see you have managed to answer everyone. In the world. Now being English and Married to an American even I know that only the main broadcast Networks,

    ABC
    NBC
    CBS
    UPN
    WB
    FOX
    PBS


    These are the only Networks barred from Foriegn ownership. I admire your views though i see you as being very narrow minded and so does my American Wife (and she voted Bush).

    My wife said remember PBS is viewer supported they show what the people want to see, and people are coughing up the cash for BBC World News.

    Just wait till next year when the new French, English Language News Channel starts. And Both my wife and I agree Al Jazzerra should not be broadcast anywhere outside of arabia.
     
  8. Dec 26, 2005 #48 of 137
    UKintheUS

    UKintheUS Godfather

    335
    0
    Dec 23, 2005
    My friend I maybe British, but i so agree with you.
     
  9. Dec 26, 2005 #49 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    I wasn't talking about bias towards their own country. I was simply saying they have an anti-American bias and a general bias overall bassed on their political and social inclinations and beliefs. You may disagree but this is a widely held view. There are also plenty of sites out there that do a fine job of documenting their bias.

    I never said nor suggested that disagreement equals anti-Americanism.

    Our Constitution is not written for foreigners. Our Consitution does not give a foreign news service the right to operate in our country.

    I have not suggested that Americans should be denied access to information in a general sort of way. I have only said that foreign government funded news organizations should not be allowed to operate in our country, including those that are obviously biased and anti-American out to promote social and political agendas.

    Pure knowledge = awareness which can lead to wisdom, then freedom and power.
     
  10. Dec 26, 2005 #50 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    If anything, and based on your prior posts, the fact that you are British and in agreement with him is not be surprising.
     
  11. Dec 26, 2005 #51 of 137
    UKintheUS

    UKintheUS Godfather

    335
    0
    Dec 23, 2005
    Hate to say this my friend but as a Brit living here I have the Constitution protecting me too. Under the international treaty between our 2 Democratic countries if I am here I have the same rights as you except to vote, and if you were in Britain you are protected under British Law and the Crown and also cannot vote.

    And BBC World is not funded by the UK gov.
     
  12. Dec 26, 2005 #52 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    Sorry, have no idea what "Boxing Day" is. That is not an American holiday.

    With respect to your wife why would I care who she voted for or whether she disagrees with me or not? I'm not interested in who your wife voted for as it is not pertinent to this discussion. I'm also not interested in her views as it is you who I am in a discussion with.

    All I stated was that there are restrictions to foreign ownership of our media due to obvious influence reasons and that such reasoning should extend to the BBC news discussion. I never went into detail over exactly who and what is controlled. That wasn't the point of my remarks. I made that quite clear. Your response over who is affected by such regulations, whether true or not, is irrelevant.

    When PBS starts trying to broadcast a news service in the UK then I will say the same thing about them as I have said about the BBC.

    People are coughing up cash for PBS just for BBC World News? :lol:

    Have no idea what you are referring to.
     
  13. Dec 26, 2005 #53 of 137
    greatwhitenorth

    greatwhitenorth Godfather

    360
    0
    Jul 18, 2005
    No. perhaps our Constitution wasn't written for foriegners, but it applies to them just as much as a citizen. No, you're right, I agree that regulation of foriegn news services is not addressed in the First Amendment, but censorship would be the ultimate result of your proposal.

    As to your claim that you have not suggested limiting information, that's exactly what you espouse in your next sentence. You seem to have the attitude that by allowing differing viewpoints to enter the country, it would somehow "contaminate" us. I know that we are intelligent and mature enough to handle different sources of information and make up our minds accordingly. To think otherwise is to take a paternalistic attitude that in effect says "Listen to us, we know what's good for you".

    As to your last sentence, my world is not "pure", it is imperfect, flawed, and chaotic, and your use of the word "pure' in this context reeks of propaganda.
     
  14. Dec 26, 2005 #54 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    The Constitution was written for American citizens. Don't assume because you have obvious fundamental human rights granted to you that that somehow trnaslates into full Consiturional rights and protections. If you ever become a citizen it still wouldn't for you could never run for president and you could have your citizenship revoked, among other things.

    The BBC is funded by the British government through the TV license fee. Foreign BBC efforts use programming, services, and capabilities that would not exist if it were not for that license fee. There is no getting around that fact.
     
  15. Dec 26, 2005 #55 of 137
    greatwhitenorth

    greatwhitenorth Godfather

    360
    0
    Jul 18, 2005
    Although both my parents are US citizens, my dad was in the US Air Force, and I was actually born in Buckinghamshire. So maybe I've already been "contaminated":lol:
     
  16. Dec 26, 2005 #56 of 137
    greatwhitenorth

    greatwhitenorth Godfather

    360
    0
    Jul 18, 2005
    When was it considered acceptable to brag about one's ignorance?
     
  17. Dec 26, 2005 #57 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    No, it does not apply "to them just as much as a citizen."

    What I have advocated would prevent possible foreign government influence, along the lines of existing laws, and would ensure that news is covered objectively and fairly. That's censorship for the good.

    Reread carefully what I wrote and compare to what I have already said and what i continue to say. I have been clear and consistent.

    I have already said I have no problem with foreign news services so long a they are not government sponsored and are not bias, anti-American, and out to promote political and social agendas.

    As for the federal government taking a "paternalistic attitude" in regards to foreign threats that is its job.

    If your world is "imperfect, flawed, and chaotic" why would you want to introduce more of that into your life with news loaded with political agendas and misinformation?

    How you feel my use of the word pure in regards to my favoring unbiased, objective, and professional news reporting translates into "propaganda" is beyond me. You should expand on that as I don't see where you are going.
     
  18. Dec 26, 2005 #58 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    Why should I be ashamed to let someone from another country know that I don't recognize his holiday, especially when it is presented in a way as if Americans are supposed to know?

    You may be ashamed to admit not knowing something but I'm not in the least. I don't pretend to know more than I do.
     
  19. Dec 26, 2005 #59 of 137
    delphi96

    delphi96 Mentor

    47
    0
    Dec 25, 2005
    Maybe. :)

    If you grow up in another country with a fundamentally different culture, in regards to politics and social conditions, it wouldn't be surprising to see your thinking aligned with that culture.
     
  20. Dec 26, 2005 #60 of 137
    greatwhitenorth

    greatwhitenorth Godfather

    360
    0
    Jul 18, 2005
    It is propaganda because you apparently think the government, not the people should decide what is unbiased and objective. You want to cede your rights and responsiblities under the First Amendment to the government, and have them make up your mind for you. You seem to think that Americans (and foreigners living here) need to be protected from information. You assume a lack of capability of Americans to accurately hear, digest, and assess information, which I personally find offensive. If we give government more power over the flow of information, we give them more power over the flow of ideas, which is far more of a threat than BBC World could ever be.

    My world is imperfect and flawed because I live in a country where liberty and freedom are cherished. Because of these freedoms, this land can get a bit chaotic. I would not live anywhere else, because I believe in individual rights and responsibilities above all else.

    Bottom line, don't watch BBC World if you don't want to, but don't tell me what I can or cannot see.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page