BBC tows the "company line" when it comes to police harassment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Xmas Themes For Uploaded Photos
Next: Just out: 'Hot - Life in the Australian outback' - could use some help
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Dec 2009 20:53 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4mplh5tafch929rlmj7761diokkjpa17s0(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 17:17:17 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > >>What sort of thing do you consider our "good stuff"? We have some very >>good >>crime shows. I'm not aware that we have any sitcoms worth watching. > > It's all about personal taste, but I feel that "30 Rock" is as good a > sitcom as you will see. Over on HBO, "The Larry David Show" is well > worth watching. I'll take a look at 30 Rock. I don't get HBO.
From: Ray Fischer on 6 Dec 2009 02:04 Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote: > >"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >news:U65jIDfrlvGLFAGQ(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >> In message <Xr2dnbGbMrDAXYfWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >> Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >>>> >>>> For all its flaws, and for all the pressure placed on it, the BBC is >>>> still much nearer to the ideal of impartiality than any US TV news >>>> channel. >>> >>>That would be much closer to being believable if the BBC had any >>>competitors. >> >> It does ITN, C4 FIVE, CNN, Sky and all the news papers. +all the local >> independent news stations. >> >>>When a single corporation has a national monopoly on TV news >>>coverage it is pretty naive to imagine they are going to be a model of >>>impartiality. >> >> I agree and the BBC has no monopoly. > >It is, however, a government-funded corporation, eh? Supported by taxes >and/or license fees, rather than competition in a free market. And that is exactly what makes it more objective: It's not pressured by the need to keep advertisers happy. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Paul Heslop on 6 Dec 2009 03:49 Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:41:59 GMT, Paul Heslop > <paul.heslop(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > > >Fox 'news' the single worst offender. > > Yes, it's atrocious. An insult to anyone with intelligence, but > popular in the USA. Go figure, as they say. ;-) > > >Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff about us > >'socialists' > > Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff. Period. I happened to flick through onto an item about the health bill and the way Fox presented it you would think their president was a criminal or something. they also showed footage of obviously racist rednecks opposed to the bill as if they were good nd sane people with a right to be aggrieved... amazing. -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: Paul Heslop on 6 Dec 2009 03:52 Wilba wrote: > > Paul Heslop wrote: > > Wilba wrote: > > > >>> I just look at it as pure entertainment nowadays, like a bunch of kids > >>> playing with their toys. > >> > >> Exactly, and that's refreshing. :- ) > >> > >> You know they did a local version here in Australia? Hideous! > > > > I think they said on this week's show the only country where it isn't > > a big thing is america. but essentially it really does need the > > presenters it has to be what it is. the old top gear was way more > > serious. > > We've only seen the shows from the new era, '02 onwards. We started in the > middle, and when it took off they went back to the beginning. > > I fear I'm going to miss it from now on, since it has moved to another > network that doesn't broadcast in my area. that would be a shame, it seems to be going off into a whole new area of tastelessness :O) -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: Neil Harrington on 6 Dec 2009 10:55
"Allen" <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:S46dnQtdBsKPHofWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)giganews.com... > Neil Harrington wrote: > <snip> >> Except of course that he was mostly right, which keeps him from being >> *completely* discredited. He certainly was reviled, and is so to this >> day. Such was the power of the left-leaning press. Nowadays it's mostly >> only Hollywood types who still have that warm, fuzzy feeling toward >> communists, at least openly. > > You are a very sick and very uninformed man. Why are you reading this ng > when you are probably still using wet plates? Goodbye. <guffaw!> Why not just be honest and frank, and say you don't like what I'm saying but you really have no argument to the contrary? Honesty and frankness are admirable qualities, and would probably make a much better man of you. |