You can't beat the BBC for documentaries
-
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the same network that broadcast such a viciously anti-American discussion of 9/11 two days after the attack that they were forced to make a public apology?
I don't recall... linkage?
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the same network that, according to the British P.M., that, while reporting the aftermath of Katrina, it was full of hate America and "gloating" about our troubles?
I was in the States at the time of Katrina and watched the whole thing on BBC News - I don't recall the actual broadcasts being gloating or full of hate or anything else you claim that Tony Blair attributed to them.
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the corporation that has a picture of Bush as Hitler hung up in its newsroom? (According to its own Washington correspondent who went on to say that his employer treated America with scorn and derision.)
But then I remember Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America"
Oakman wrote:
Last January criticisms of the BBC in regards to its Iraq War coverage were so damning that the chairman of the board of governors and its director general were forced to resign.
I don't recall. Are you referring to the Andrew Gilligan affair?
Oakman wrote:
Recently, Ibrahim Helal, editor in chief of al Jazeera TV was hired by the BBC World Service Trust. The job the BBC wanted him for? To advise on balance in Middle East coverage.(!)
Yes?
You don't recall? My goodness, you sound like a replay of our last, unlamented, Attorney General. If you know so little about the BBC, why do you offer up any comment at all? I assure you that a tiny bit of googling on your part will bring up each and every case of anti-Americanism by the BBC. If
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with their unsuported attacks on the U.S. fitting in with your preconceptions about the Yanquis, would it?
No. Read my post again. I said that I respect anyone that defends a view or agenda as long as he/she does it with intelligence. I do have preconceptions about the US. Anyone has preconceptions about the US (good or bad preconceptions). But it doesn't stop me from reading US media and respecting and reading conservative news sources (e.g: Washington Post, The Economist) or writers (George Will, Robert Samuelson). OTH there are several leftist-liberal sources that I don't read. Particularly here in South America.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That used to be the case.
But we have your word that they are playing by the rules now, eh?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
My Word ? I neither work for the BBC nor the Regulators so my word in this case would be meaningless. However, you can have my word if you want, not that it would do you any good. UK Law and EC Directives govern all UK broadcasting organisations, and in the case of the BBC, The Board of Governors act as trustees of public interest and are overseen by the statutory OfCom.
-
You don't recall? My goodness, you sound like a replay of our last, unlamented, Attorney General. If you know so little about the BBC, why do you offer up any comment at all? I assure you that a tiny bit of googling on your part will bring up each and every case of anti-Americanism by the BBC. If
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I'm sure if you went back over the years of BBC history you would find many reports that, to a red-blooded American, would be very damning. But then, you'd also find many instances of the opposite. I'm also sure that if you wanted to go muck-raking you'd be able to find the same in American news corporations about Britain. C'est la vie.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
You use the Daily Mail as an argument HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH!
I knew you'd react that way, that's why I mentioned the Mail first. But if you are sure they didn't get it right try The Guardian^ The Buzz Machine^ Eursoc^ The Anglican Church^ And the Telegraph^ Many of the above cites credit the Mail for originally breaking the story - still laughing???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Friday, January 18, 2008 6:39:56 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with their unsuported attacks on the U.S. fitting in with your preconceptions about the Yanquis, would it?
No. Read my post again. I said that I respect anyone that defends a view or agenda as long as he/she does it with intelligence. I do have preconceptions about the US. Anyone has preconceptions about the US (good or bad preconceptions). But it doesn't stop me from reading US media and respecting and reading conservative news sources (e.g: Washington Post, The Economist) or writers (George Will, Robert Samuelson). OTH there are several leftist-liberal sources that I don't read. Particularly here in South America.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Read the BBC reply here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bias_at_the_bbc.html[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Read the BBC reply here
Amazing how many words she used to say so little about the meeting, to refute none of the allegations, and to assure us that the BBC would do better in the future. I've seen very similar damage-control releases put out by the White House, The Pet Food Industry, Walmart, all of the presidential campaigners.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
My Word ? I neither work for the BBC nor the Regulators so my word in this case would be meaningless. However, you can have my word if you want, not that it would do you any good. UK Law and EC Directives govern all UK broadcasting organisations, and in the case of the BBC, The Board of Governors act as trustees of public interest and are overseen by the statutory OfCom.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
my word in this case would be meaningless
Well, then if we can't take your word, why did you post a flat out, unreferenced statement, hmmm?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&select=2395071#xx2395071xx[^] in that posting, was the reference I used. It is a relevant then as it is in all of my postings in this thread. In my previous posting I said "UK Law and EC Directives govern all UK broadcasting organisations, and in the case of the BBC, The Board of Governors act as trustees of public interest and are overseen by the statutory OfCom." This you will find within the pages of my reference, included there also to the hyperlink to OfCom and their statutory duties. Anyhow, it is late, and I'm off to bed.
-
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&select=2395071#xx2395071xx[^] in that posting, was the reference I used. It is a relevant then as it is in all of my postings in this thread. In my previous posting I said "UK Law and EC Directives govern all UK broadcasting organisations, and in the case of the BBC, The Board of Governors act as trustees of public interest and are overseen by the statutory OfCom." This you will find within the pages of my reference, included there also to the hyperlink to OfCom and their statutory duties. Anyhow, it is late, and I'm off to bed.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Read the BBC reply here
Amazing how many words she used to say so little about the meeting, to refute none of the allegations, and to assure us that the BBC would do better in the future. I've seen very similar damage-control releases put out by the White House, The Pet Food Industry, Walmart, all of the presidential campaigners.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
You don't recall? My goodness, you sound like a replay of our last, unlamented, Attorney General. If you know so little about the BBC, why do you offer up any comment at all? I assure you that a tiny bit of googling on your part will bring up each and every case of anti-Americanism by the BBC. If
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
The moon is made of cheese. I assure you that a tiny bit of googling on your part will prove it to you.
-
The moon is made of cheese. I assure you that a tiny bit of googling on your part will prove it to you.
Oh how clever. Did you make that up all on your own or did you have help from your baby sister? If you're calling me a liar, come right out and say it. If not and you aren't willing to check the references your self - then drop out of the conversation.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oh how clever. Did you make that up all on your own or did you have help from your baby sister? If you're calling me a liar, come right out and say it. If not and you aren't willing to check the references your self - then drop out of the conversation.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Oh how clever. Did you make that up all on your own or did you have help from your baby sister?
No all on my own work - I'll ask my "baby" sister next time though; she's 28 and has a PhD.
Oakman wrote:
If you're calling me a liar, come right out and say it.
If I wanted to call you a liar I'd call you a liar. What I was actually pointing out is that you can find information to support or oppose any particular world view on the internet.
Oakman wrote:
If not and you aren't willing to check the references your self
The whole point of providing references is so that the reader can asses the validity of the work an author bases his opinion on. This is why serious books have huge reference sections at the back, not merely a statement at the back saying "This is all true - google it!". This is especially important when dealing opinion. It also helps if you check your references first:
Oakman wrote:
Last January criticisms of the BBC in regards to its Iraq War coverage were so damning that the chairman of the board of governors and its director general were forced to resign.
Mark Thompson - Director General of the BBC since 2004[^]
Oakman wrote:
then drop out of the conversation
This I will, but not because you're right or have said anything valid. This is not a conversation, it is merely you espousing your own narrow, paranoid world view (which you seem to think is based on fact) and hurling insults and abuse at me. And quite frankly, I can't be bothered wasting my time with you.
-
Oakman wrote:
Oh how clever. Did you make that up all on your own or did you have help from your baby sister?
No all on my own work - I'll ask my "baby" sister next time though; she's 28 and has a PhD.
Oakman wrote:
If you're calling me a liar, come right out and say it.
If I wanted to call you a liar I'd call you a liar. What I was actually pointing out is that you can find information to support or oppose any particular world view on the internet.
Oakman wrote:
If not and you aren't willing to check the references your self
The whole point of providing references is so that the reader can asses the validity of the work an author bases his opinion on. This is why serious books have huge reference sections at the back, not merely a statement at the back saying "This is all true - google it!". This is especially important when dealing opinion. It also helps if you check your references first:
Oakman wrote:
Last January criticisms of the BBC in regards to its Iraq War coverage were so damning that the chairman of the board of governors and its director general were forced to resign.
Mark Thompson - Director General of the BBC since 2004[^]
Oakman wrote:
then drop out of the conversation
This I will, but not because you're right or have said anything valid. This is not a conversation, it is merely you espousing your own narrow, paranoid world view (which you seem to think is based on fact) and hurling insults and abuse at me. And quite frankly, I can't be bothered wasting my time with you.
martin_hughes wrote:
No all on my own work
Well 'twas a really shoddy piece of work - my apologies for suggesting your sister had anything to do with it.
martin_hughes wrote:
This is especially important when dealing opinion. It also helps if you check your references first:
You are absolutely right - I got the year wrong. However, Thompson's immediate predecessor was forced to resign in 2004 because the BBC reported that Downing Street "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's illegal weapons, and the result was found completely false. Guess my world-view is a wee bit more factual than you wanted to let on. My guess is that you checked the rest of my statements, too and couldn't find anything wrong with 'em, so you chose not to mention 'em. But 'tis always easier to call the other guy names than to debate, isn't it? By the way, under Thompson's leadership and in the last nine months, the BBC has been discovered cheating on the results of competitions on children's shows and been forced to publically apologise for lying about the Queen's behavior. Seems like the BBC still hasn't cleaned up their act the way you claimed.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
martin_hughes wrote:
No all on my own work
Well 'twas a really shoddy piece of work - my apologies for suggesting your sister had anything to do with it.
martin_hughes wrote:
This is especially important when dealing opinion. It also helps if you check your references first:
You are absolutely right - I got the year wrong. However, Thompson's immediate predecessor was forced to resign in 2004 because the BBC reported that Downing Street "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's illegal weapons, and the result was found completely false. Guess my world-view is a wee bit more factual than you wanted to let on. My guess is that you checked the rest of my statements, too and couldn't find anything wrong with 'em, so you chose not to mention 'em. But 'tis always easier to call the other guy names than to debate, isn't it? By the way, under Thompson's leadership and in the last nine months, the BBC has been discovered cheating on the results of competitions on children's shows and been forced to publically apologise for lying about the Queen's behavior. Seems like the BBC still hasn't cleaned up their act the way you claimed.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
and the result was found completely false
Mot completely, unless you ignore the rather convienient suicide that closed the story. I suspect there was more than a small element of truth in the initial leak; not all of it, but enough to cause some serious panicing and late night meetings up in Whitehall.
Oakman wrote:
the BBC has been discovered cheating on the results of competitions on children's shows
It was show, singular, and if you take the incident in context it was actually a perfectly sound decision to make when technical difficulties strike during a live television broadcast. You don't actually think the prizes were given out do you?
Oakman wrote:
forced to publically apologise for lying about the Queen's behavior
That really was a slow news week, and was a result of a private opinion being mistaken. Incidentally, it was the BBC who found the problem, and who took action to appologise, which directly counters what you claim it proves. :rolleyes: There are many, many examples you could have picked to make your point. Those were just pathetic.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
They need to do a documentary on a the rise of post soviet, socialism in Europe and America and how it leverages environmental and social issues to increase state control of those societies. Perhaps contrast it with the former soviet union style of communism.
MrPlankton
I am fairly certain that they have (or at least they have licensed one). I watched the end couple of episodes of a mini-series on BBC2 about a year to eighteen months ago that covered that... but without knowing the title Google and Wikipedia are not being helpful in tracking it down. They were mainly narrated, showing clips of various political and social events since the Cold War, and discussing with professors and other such commentators on how they have impacted the growth and power (control) of political Europe over its countries and people. It was discussed here in the Soapbox, although it was not brought up by me.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Upon rereading what you wrote and how I responded, I owe you an apology. It was an over reaction having far more to do with some of the previous posts than anything you wrote here or previously.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Never mind. I'm tough skinned. ;)
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Oakman wrote:
and the result was found completely false
Mot completely, unless you ignore the rather convienient suicide that closed the story. I suspect there was more than a small element of truth in the initial leak; not all of it, but enough to cause some serious panicing and late night meetings up in Whitehall.
Oakman wrote:
the BBC has been discovered cheating on the results of competitions on children's shows
It was show, singular, and if you take the incident in context it was actually a perfectly sound decision to make when technical difficulties strike during a live television broadcast. You don't actually think the prizes were given out do you?
Oakman wrote:
forced to publically apologise for lying about the Queen's behavior
That really was a slow news week, and was a result of a private opinion being mistaken. Incidentally, it was the BBC who found the problem, and who took action to appologise, which directly counters what you claim it proves. :rolleyes: There are many, many examples you could have picked to make your point. Those were just pathetic.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
Mot completely, unless you ignore the rather convienient suicide that closed the story. I suspect there was more than a small element of truth in the initial leak; not all of it, but enough to cause some serious panicing and late night meetings up in Whitehall.
Facts are verifyable; opinions are not. I offered facts; you offer an opinion about some great conspiracy in order to obsfucate the facts.
David Wulff wrote:
a perfectly sound decision to make when technical difficulties strike during a live television broadcast
Really? Its okay to lie cheat and steal during technical difficulties? I guess you do things differently on that side of the pond. However again you offer an opinion. I offered facts.
David Wulff wrote:
That really was a slow news week,
It's okay to broadcast lies about your Queen during slow news weeks? For her sake I hope there aren't too many of those.
David Wulff wrote:
There are many, many examples you could have picked to make your point
Feel free to add to the list.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface