Fascinating Look at Modern Media

[mx]

Simultaneous headlines as of now, on two professional and supposedly objective sites:

BBC (UK):

New 'Iraq massacre' tape emerges
The BBC obtains new video evidence that US troops may have deliberately killed 11 Iraqi civilians in March.

- Haditha: Massacre and cover-up?
- Iraqi viewpoint: Fear of US troops
- Abu Ghraib dog handler convicted
- Guantanamo hunger strike grows
- Army 'to blame' for Katrina flood

CNN (US):

Iran deal offers hope and hurt

Six world powers -- including all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Thursday agreed on a plan for resuming negotiations with Iran -- but only if Tehran agrees to suspend its manufacture of nuclear fuel. "We urge Iran to take the positive path... which would bring significant benefits to Iran," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who announced the agreement.

- Female drivers attract Afghan stares
- Terror factory reveals secrets
- Muslim girl says teacher made fun of her scarf




I find this simply amazing, and it really illuminates why so many people in Europe hate the US, and why the two countries are not on the same page. The spin on both ways is unbelievable. Almost every one of the BBC headlines included US atrocities, and almost every one of the CNN justified actions against Muslim countries. The wool is over both of our eyes.

[Reaganista]

Just because the BBC says something doesn't mean right.

And euros hate the US because their commie economies are all miserable failures.

[Already_Taken]

Just because the BBC says something doesn't mean right.

And euros hate the US because their commie economies are all miserable failures.
lol i hope you are joking.

that is pretty interesting though, I never thought to look at two different countries headlines to see what's up. thanks for pointing that out:thumb:

[Reaganista]

No I'm not joking.

Are you from texas via stockholm or something? damn euro

[AKid2]

MANUFACTURING CONSENT by Edward Norman and Noam Chomsky really shook any trust I had in any sort of media. I recommed the read for the shock factor.

[davser]

And euros hate the US because their commie economies are all miserable failures.

You really need to get out more.

[Slapping Penguin]

Why don't they just ban that fool. Grow up Tway and realise that America not the only good thing on the planet.

[PerpetualBurn]

lol @ racist tway.

[SubtleDagger]

Tway's becoming the anti-fenwood. If you threw him and fenny together they'd fuse and become an unstoppable fallacious arguing machine.

[The Wizard of Oz]

Simultaneous headlines as of now, on two professional and supposedly objective sites:

BBC (UK):

New 'Iraq massacre' tape emerges
The BBC obtains new video evidence that US troops may have deliberately killed 11 Iraqi civilians in March.

- Haditha: Massacre and cover-up?
- Iraqi viewpoint: Fear of US troops
- Abu Ghraib dog handler convicted
- Guantanamo hunger strike grows
- Army 'to blame' for Katrina flood

CNN (US):

Iran deal offers hope and hurt

Six world powers -- including all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Thursday agreed on a plan for resuming negotiations with Iran -- but only if Tehran agrees to suspend its manufacture of nuclear fuel. "We urge Iran to take the positive path... which would bring significant benefits to Iran," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who announced the agreement.

- Female drivers attract Afghan stares
- Terror factory reveals secrets
- Muslim girl says teacher made fun of her scarf




I find this simply amazing, and it really illuminates why so many people in Europe hate the US, and why the two countries are not on the same page. The spin on both ways is unbelievable. Almost every one of the BBC headlines included US atrocities, and almost every one of the CNN justified actions against Muslim countries. The wool is over both of our eyes.
What can I say. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

[davser]

Simultaneous headlines as of now, on two professional and supposedly objective sites:

BBC (UK):

New 'Iraq massacre' tape emerges
The BBC obtains new video evidence that US troops may have deliberately killed 11 Iraqi civilians in March.

- Haditha: Massacre and cover-up?
- Iraqi viewpoint: Fear of US troops
- Abu Ghraib dog handler convicted
- Guantanamo hunger strike grows
- Army 'to blame' for Katrina flood

CNN (US):

Iran deal offers hope and hurt

Six world powers -- including all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Thursday agreed on a plan for resuming negotiations with Iran -- but only if Tehran agrees to suspend its manufacture of nuclear fuel. "We urge Iran to take the positive path... which would bring significant benefits to Iran," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who announced the agreement.

- Female drivers attract Afghan stares
- Terror factory reveals secrets
- Muslim girl says teacher made fun of her scarf




I find this simply amazing, and it really illuminates why so many people in Europe hate the US, and why the two countries are not on the same page. The spin on both ways is unbelievable. Almost every one of the BBC headlines included US atrocities, and almost every one of the CNN justified actions against Muslim countries. The wool is over both of our eyes.

The fact is that Iraq and going to war illegaly is still a major issue in the UK, which the BBC serves.

Current headlines -

Man shot in anti terrorism raids
Iran nuclear bomb in 10 years
US probes new Iraq massacre claim
Prescott job interests Johnson
Urgent law to shut rape loophole
Virus ship docks in Southampton
Iraq agenda at Blair Prodi talks

Are you suggesting that they ignore talk of a further massacre of innocent civilians in Iraq?

The BBC states the US viewpoint that Iran will have the bomb in 10 years. Is that anti US? In my view this story supports the US view. You really need to take a longer term look at what is being put out rather than look at a snapshot of one day.

[SubtleDagger]

Well, as far as the topic goes, news broadcasters want to get attention and make money. BBC of course uses stories that showcase America's problems because of the obvious dissent towards America by the rest of the world. CNN will obviously try to play up wartime as much as they can while maintaining that we are in some shape or form succeeding so people will keep reading.

I think the contrast you've put between both news venues is unnecessary because really both of them are just trying to suck people in in the first place and have no inherent relation to each other.

Either way, the news has always been intentionally misleading if he audience is dumb enough to fall for hype. That's the nature of the beast.

[Riva]

Tway's becoming the anti-fenwood. If you threw him and fenny together they'd fuse and become an unstoppable fallacious arguing machine.

I choose to read that as unstoppable phallic arguing machine for shits and giggles.

[davser]

Also, you need to read what's in the actual story to see if both sides of the argument are presented. Usually the BBC covers opposing positions. No idea what CNN do.

[Damrod]

The problem, like it was mentioned before in this thread, is that the media wants to sell. They make money by selling those stories. Most of the private stations at least.

Another thing is the basically completely different view on military actions. Maybe because of the European past (for us in Germany specifically), maybe because of basically different views on the world. I don't know the exact reason. When a lot of people don't support military actions that are injustified and unnecessary from their point of view it is clear that the media "tunes to that frequency" and gives the people what they want.

[mx]

My point was not that BBC was a bad news source, or even that today's threads are competely indicative of a trend. However, it was extremely interesting to look at the headlines as of 12pm last night, EST. I don't really see how I can be attacked for a simple observation =) In any case, it's something to think about.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'd say they're generally reflective of their respective audiences. British people, especially the type of person who reads the BBC, are becoming more and more critical of the war effort, while America on the whole seems to have a rather more "support the troops" atmosphere right now.

[mx]

That's precisely what I meant. The fact is, however, that different populaces are being presented with remarkably different spin.

[davser]

Tell us something we don't know!!!

The US media seems more ready to support the President in his actions (at the start anyway) whereas the UK media is likely to be more critical, especially when UK is in cahoots with the US. However, when the Falklands conflict was underway the UK media was firmly behind the action, not surprising considering it was British sovereign soil being invaded.

[peeted]

theres less govenment pressure in the uk media, its allso reflected by te fact that they badmouth anyone whos in power and seem to have done for the last40/50 years

[PerpetualBurn]

They don't really bad mouth the government. People like Jeremy Paxman invariably tear apart whichever sap has been put on the stand. It's just that the government in power is mostly the party of interest.

[Dave de Sylvia]

theres less govenment pressure in the uk media
Quite the opposite, in fact.

[PerpetualBurn]

How so?

[Dave de Sylvia]

How not so? The government has the theoretical power to censor the media, and has threatened to do so in recent years and actively did so for much of the twentieth century.

[Reaganista]

Why don't they just ban that fool. Grow up Tway and realise that America not the only good thing on the planet.

I know there's other good things, like Israel and Taiwan and Hong Kong and South Korea and the democratic republics of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[PerpetualBurn]

How not so? The government has the theoretical power to censor the media, and has threatened to do so in recent years and actively did so for much of the twentieth century.

The government has no more "theoretical power", whatever that means, than anywhere else.

[Danish]

The problem, like it was mentioned before in this thread, is that the media wants to sell. They make money by selling those stories. Most of the private stations at least.

You're half right. The media wants to sell alright, but they aren't selling stories. The media sells audiences to advertisers.

Public broadcasters aren't subject to the same pressures as private media outlets and are able to present better content geared towards principles other than profitability.

edit: Is it just me, or does it seem that tonnes of mods from other forums are posting here these days? It's making for some good discussion!

[peeted]

true the british media technicaly has more direct links to the govenment but there are allso more publicley funded wachdogs ect to keep the the media less bias.

[Dave de Sylvia]

The government has no more "theoretical power", whatever that means, than anywhere else.
Except America.

[The Peaceful Warrior]

did u guys see the national geographic on hitler's public image

[PerpetualBurn]

Well since the BBC is unable to show adverts, and has to dedicate a certain number of hours to political broadcasting, I would say it's as free as anything worldwide.

[Dave de Sylvia]

edit: Is it just me, or does it seem that tonnes of mods from other forums are posting here these days? It's making for some good discussion!
Mods' opinions are no more valid than anybody else's :p

[Reaganista]

Well since the BBC is unable to show adverts, and has to dedicate a certain number of hours to political broadcasting, I would say it's as free as anything worldwide.

"since the BBC is restricted, I would say it's free"

:/

[PerpetualBurn]

In context with political broadcasting, yes.

[spitfirejunky]

Tway's becoming the anti-fenwood. If you threw him and fenny together they'd fuse and become an unstoppable fallacious arguing machine.

Ideas like that could get us all killed.

[TID22]

I think that the media is insane. Depending on what channel you watch you will have a whole different outlook on the world. Most of our news channels are so libearally bias its not even funny. Then you have Fox that hire's people like O'Reilly. Fox is probably the closest to "balanced" but still have guys like O'Reilly. The owners of these news companies can control America, and they do. Look at Bush's approval ratings. He has like 29% or something. If you took polls of people that watched fox, and then another poll of someone who watched cnn, you would have radically different results. Our public thinks of things the way CNN and Abc think of things.

[-1up!-]

I think that the media is insane. Depending on what channel you watch you will have a whole different outlook on the world. Most of our news channels are so libearally bias its not even funny. Then you have Fox that hire's people like O'Reilly. Fox is probably the closest to "balanced" but still have guys like O'Reilly. The owners of these news companies can control America, and they do. Look at Bush's approval ratings. He has like 29% or something. If you took polls of people that watched fox, and then another poll of someone who watched cnn, you would have radically different results. Our public thinks of things the way CNN and Abc think of things.
:lol: :rolleyes:

[Damrod]

You're half right. The media wants to sell alright, but they aren't selling stories. The media sells audiences to advertisers.

Public broadcasters aren't subject to the same pressures as private media outlets and are able to present better content geared towards principles other than profitability.

edit: Is it just me, or does it seem that tonnes of mods from other forums are posting here these days? It's making for some good discussion!

Hm, but one could argue that they will tune their stories to reach different advertisment target groups.

Anyways, you always have different styles of news coverage. For example, let's take three channels from Germany as example: ARD, RTL and Sat1. ARD has very basic and sober coverage, not really much emotion put into the presentation or anything. RTL and Sat1 are far more boulevard style, a lot of emotion and opinion swapping over there.

But, even within the channels you have differences. For example, late night news mags are often different. On ARD the late news are more 'biased', as they show actual emotion and critical comments by the news dude. A lot more detail in coverage as well. On RTL and Sat1 you have still some boulevard style topics, but much more reasonable. Where Sat1 is quite minimalistic, RTL and ARD are not so far apart from each other.

I guess that's not really different in other countries

[Already_Taken]

"since the BBC is restricted, I would say it's free"

:/
zeroaster part deaux

[Reaganista]

actually I was around long before zoroaster ever showed up

and my posts are notable for being short and crude, not flowery and condescending

the only thing we have in common is that we're usually right

[Cain]

the only thing we have in common is that we're usually right

-wing?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

actually I was around long before zoroaster ever showed up

and my posts are notable for being short and crude, not flowery and condescending

the only thing we have in common is that we're usually rightactually zoroaster trolls better than you

but isn't he a gimmick?

[Reaganista]

No he's not a gimmick

and I'm never anything but sincere

[Reaganista]

-wing?
-on?

omg: shortest cain post ever

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

This guy in the Pit said Zoroaster was.

[Reaganista]

gimmicks don't remain in character as long or consistantly as him

[Already_Taken]

the only thing we have in common is that we're usually right
this made me lol

not for the fact that I'm not quite as far "right" as you but moreso for the irony.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Who are you?

[Already_Taken]

Who are you?
/looks around

who are you?

[italic zero]

The Tway is a better poster than most of you could ever hope to be.

[-1up!-]

Let's get... back on track, shall we...?

[Cain]

-on?

omg: shortest cain post ever

No.

[Riva]

No.

Your keyboard broken or something, Lucas?

[Reaganista]

The Tway is a better poster than most of you could ever hope to be.

this is true.

[Smokey D]

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Just because the BBC is funded by the government doesn't mean it is threatened by censorship, at least not in any meaningful sense. The British government is especially weary of becoming a censor for the sheer amount of negative publicity it would generate and the difficulty in enforcing universal compliance in this age of connectivity.

If we need to go all Chomsky about it, the BBC must remain free of government control because to interfere would illegitimise one of the main props of goverment authority.


"since the BBC is restricted, I would say it's free"

Well, only in the same way that other channels are restricted in that they must show advertising for their own survival.

[PerpetualBurn]

That comment of Tway's was somewhat ill-thought. When I said that the restrictions imposed on the BBC gave it freedom I was specifically referring to political broadcasting.

The BBC have to show a certain amount of politics which means they are obliged to give coverage of a variety of topics. They aren't forced into showing Peter Griffin's Side-boob Hour to haul in ratings.

In this sense, they are free as they do not have to concern themselves with the popularity of topics and show a much better range of viewpoints as a result.

[Reaganista]

if no one wanted to watch anything on the BBC they'd get sick of paying taxes to support it and start voting for people who would cut funding

[Hababi]

MANUFACTURING CONSENT by Edward Norman and Noam Chomsky really shook any trust I had in any sort of media. I recommed the read for the shock factor.


Never take Chomskey as a legit voice on anything outside the world of linguistics. The man is borderline skitzo.

As for the headlines, it's all about giving what the audience wants. Ultimately, news channels aren't in the business of informing so much as they are in the business of selling. They make their money giving their audience what it wants to hear. Fox understands this better than anyone and that's why they're the most succesful cable news channel. And the devil.

[PerpetualBurn]

if no one wanted to watch anything on the BBC they'd get sick of paying taxes to support it and start voting for people who would cut funding

It's not paid for through taxes and it's not a non-profit organisation.

[Reaganista]

nope sorry television licences are taxes

[PerpetualBurn]

It moves through a different system.

[Reaganista]

nope sorry television licences are taxes.

[PerpetualBurn]

This much I don't deny. It is still paid for and distributed in a very distinct manner.

[Reaganista]

ok it's different from other taxes.

that doesn't mean people wouldn't get sick of paying for it if the BBC stopped running shows they wanted to watch

[Smokey D]

Or that the government considers the BBC important enough to broadcast with or without popularity. Kinda like how bridges and highways are made without private funding.

[Reaganista]

um that's not how democracy works

[PepsiMetal]

It's interesting that UK's media actually opposes US even if UK is an ally in this war.

[Reaganista]

you left 3 'the's out of that post.

[PepsiMetal]

I don't care, English isn't my first language.

[Reaganista]

damn euro

[barnable_eatable]

It's interesting that UK's media actually opposes US even if UK is an ally in this war.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that all the UK media shares the same opinion. The UK government is America's ally in Iraq. Fortunately we have something called freedom of press, so to assume that the BBC somehow represents 'the media' in its entirety would be a grave error.

[PerpetualBurn]

The BBC shows opposing information. It's job isn't to pander to the government and its allies.

[humph42]

As far as news stations go, you don't get much fairer than the BBC. That saying, they are still not perfect. The BBC will still not report something in a way as to seriously affect the countries economic interests. Some things are shown, but using Orwellian language, different perceptions of events are shown as the truth, using the BBC's reputation as an objective, liberal news station to create a feeling of absolute legitimacy.

But with commercial stations it's a completely different game. You have to take everything with a pinch of salt. The idea of an successful news station for CNN, FOX, etc isn't journalistic excellency, but high ratings. The more people they have watching more commercials means more $$$. This means you have populist stances on pretty much every issue, you have manufactured stories. News is now entertainment, not something made to strengthen a democracy.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's interesting that in most studies of press freedom, the US ranks below most European countries, precisely because ratings seems to play such a major part in what editors choose to report.

Just to clarify for Smokey, I didn't mean the UK gov. can use its funding to exert influence over the BBC (my fault, I should have been explicit), but the government has used its legal muscle against the BBC in the recent past.

[Cain]

Your keyboard broken or something, Lucas?

lol jason made a funny using the same one joke anybody can ever come up with when talking to me

[Reaganista]

haha ur posts are long

[Jharaski]

I think it would be a mistake to assume that all the UK media shares the same opinion. The UK government is America's ally in Iraq. Fortunately we have something called freedom of press, so to assume that the BBC somehow represents 'the media' in its entirety would be a grave error.

Not to mention that even though the US government supports the war, very few of the citizens do.

[Reaganista]

I can think of a few

[Jharaski]

As can I, but I know way more people who don't agree with it. And some douche on a NYC street a couple weeks back kept whining about the war, saying the same few sentences over and over. I wanted to debate with him, but it's NYC, and I didn't want to get shot. O wait liberals don't like guns..

[Dave de Sylvia]

As can I, but I know way more people who don't agree with it.
That's because you go to college.

[Atomic Rain]

As can I, but I know way more people who don't agree with it. And some douche on a NYC street a couple weeks back kept whining about the war, saying the same few sentences over and over. I wanted to debate with him, but it's NYC, and I didn't want to get shot. O wait liberals don't like guns..

Well, if you'd had a gun, you'd both've been able to shoot eachother. Wouldn't that be great!?

[PepsiMetal]

Not to mention that even though the US government supports the war, very few of the citizens do.

Which leads to the next discussion.

If majority are against the war, then how is this war happening? Isn't democracy = majority rule? Government by the people? :confused:

Haha.

Can't wait till 08 to see who gets elected this time around.

[Iskandar]

If majority are against the war, then how is this war happening? Isn't democracy = majority rule? Government by the people? :confused:
That's representative democracy for you. Unfortunately, it's the only viable form of democracy for a large, highly populated nation like the US.

[Jharaski]

That's because you go to college.

Actually, most of the people I know who support the war are people who go to college with me. Almost my whole family is against it. Most of my friends in high school are against it. The few adults I know outside of school and family are against it.

[Reaganista]

Which leads to the next discussion.

If majority are against the war, then how is this war happening? Isn't democracy = majority rule? Government by the people?
because, thankfully, some members of the public are intelligent enough to realize that they are stupid and completely ill-informed to have specific opinions on foreign policy so they either vote based only on domestic policy or vote based on general foreign policy trends. And the overwhelming majority of Americans support the US taking a strong, proactive and internationalist stance abroad.

[Cain]

because, thankfully, some members of the public are intelligent enough to realize that they are stupid and completely ill-informed to have specific opinions on foreign policy so they either vote based only on domestic policy or vote based on general foreign policy trends. And the overwhelming majority of Americans support the US taking a strong, proactive and internationalist stance abroad.

Longest Tway post ever?

At least the Tway post with the highest number of words at four syllables or higher.

And it was a good one too.

[Reaganista]

Hey I think i've gone on longer than that before.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I think there was that time you were mildly aggravated at something.

[Danish]

That's representative democracy for you. Unfortunately, it's the only viable form of democracy for a large, highly populated nation like the US.

What! Man, you let me down with that one!

[Jharaski]

What! Man, you let me down with that one!

With how few people vote as it is, it'd be somewhat pointless to have the citizens vote on the actions directly themselves.

[Smokey D]

um that's not how democracy works

Who's talking about democracy? This is about the public good.

[Iskandar]

What! Man, you let me down with that one!
:p Let me rephrase: It's the only viable form for a large, highly populated nation like the US currently because of the centralised federal government. Of course it'd work at a local or even provincial level.
With how few people vote as it is, it'd be somewhat pointless to have the citizens vote on the actions directly themselves.
The reason so few people vote is because they are alienated by the insignificance of their vote. In a direct democracy, one could vote and see the results of that vote.

[Jharaski]

The reason so few people vote is because they are alienated by the insignificance of their vote. In a direct democracy, one could vote and see the results of that vote.

I doubt it'd impact it much either, in the US at least. One vote out of a couple hundred million will not be much more likely to impact the results than one vote out of several million, which in turn because x votes out of y. There's still the feel that they're only one person out of so many and will not possibly make a difference. People don't even vote much when it comes to the Senate here... Though I think I see what you're actually saying. It has nothing to do with their favored party WINNING, but it has to do with what the party DOES in office? Still. All of the people I know who do not plan to ever vote (a handful) would act the same way in a full democracy.

[Reaganista]

Who's talking about democracy? This is about the public good.
britian is a democracy.

your saying that elected british officials may maintain the BBC's funding even if the british population didn't like the programming and were sick of paying taxes for it is as much of a non sequiter as me saying that US media companies' owners are perfectly free to broadcast unpopular shows, not advertise and run their stations at massive personal expense.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yes, the BBC is obligated to broadcasting a certain number of political programmes (like Newsnight and Questiontime) even though they take in lower ratings than The Simpsons.

[Reaganista]

and if the british people didn't want this to happen they would end it

[PerpetualBurn]

No. Anyone who doesn't like politics is unlikely to get involved in some political movement to cut funding.

[Reaganista]

that's a marginal percentage of people

[PerpetualBurn]

Voter apathy is widespread in Britain.

[-1up!-]

In much Western democracies, rather. :(

[Atomic Rain]

The way the bbc is judged means that it doesn't have to get enormous ratings for the independtant board to deem it is providing good value to the consumer. Generally quality programming is applauded even if it is only watched by fewer, more interested people.

I think the system as it stands is pretty neat.

[Iskandar]

I doubt it'd impact it much either, in the US at least.
What about votes by municipality?

[Jharaski]

What about votes by municipality?

To determine the whole country's actions? Then small municipalities would be worthless, and few citizens would vote. If you give them too much extra "push" then the large ones will whine. It's what I hate about the electoral process the way it currently runs. Finding that right balance is so hard, with differing interests between residents of large cities and farmers.

Determining what happens at the local level would work beautifully like that. With less people nearby, each vote means something more, and the people will care more because of the local impact.

[Reaganista]

Voter apathy is widespread in Britain.
voter apathy comes from the relative meaninglessness of individual votes. there's a lot of voter apathy in america

willful ignorance is different, only about 10 percent of the America public is willfully ignorant of political happenings

[Iskandar]

Determining what happens at the local level would work beautifully like that. With less people nearby, each vote means something more, and the people will care more because of the local impact.
I meant votes at the local level, actually. :)

Government should be a pyramid, not an inverted pyramid.

[Atomic Rain]

voter apathy comes from the relative meaninglessness of individual votes. there's a lot of voter apathy in america

willful ignorance is different, only about 10 percent of the America public is willfully ignorant of political happenings

Please either reference that figure or accept that european culture is no more ignorant of politics than american

[TojesDolan]

News is about shock and selling so well, what can you do about it.

[Jharaski]

I meant votes at the local level, actually. :)

Government should be a pyramid, not an inverted pyramid.

Ah, yes. It should be. Sadly, people rarely vote for ANYTHING around my parts. Mayor, governor, school board, you have it.

[Reaganista]

Please either reference that figure or accept that european culture is no more ignorant of politics than american

he's the one arguing that european culture is more ignorant of politics

and i got it from the domestic sources of american foreign policy

[Atomic Rain]

he's the one arguing that european culture is more ignorant of politics

and i got it from the domestic sources of american foreign policy

ok, that's fine

objection withdrawn

[PerpetualBurn]

I didn't argue that any group was more or less ignorant of politics. I suggested that people who are disinterested in politics are unlikely to cause a political movement to cut the BBC's funding.

[Reaganista]

well that's a marginal number of people in america

and unless a far fewer percentage of brits own TVs, I can't imagine many people are so apathetic as to pay the 11 pounds (I think?) a month for something they have no interest in watching without any objections

[PerpetualBurn]

Wait, so in America people that aren't interested in politics form political movements?

[Reaganista]

ok you don't need to form a political movement to impart change, especially when you've got the majority of the population on your side

and people who are genuinely not interested in politics make a small part of any western society

[Iskandar]

Ah, yes. It should be. Sadly, people rarely vote for ANYTHING around my parts. Mayor, governor, school board, you have it.
That's because local governments have so little power over their own jurisdictions. :)

[Smokey D]

britian is a democracy.

How can there be democracy where there is no information on what's going on in politics? It's not as if the BBC has a monopoly on information, so the dangers of corruption and censorship are virtually non-existent.

your saying that elected british officials may maintain the BBC's funding even if the british population didn't like the programming and were sick of paying taxes for it is as much of a non sequiter as me saying that US media companies' owners are perfectly free to broadcast unpopular shows, not advertise and run their stations at massive personal expense.

I'm saying that information on certain issues should continue to be made public even if the audience would rather watch Jerry Springer, and that the necessity of ensuring public eduction on these matters outweighs the right not to be taxed.

[Reaganista]

And if the British public disagrees with you, the BBC goes away

[Smokey D]

I don't believe it should, nor that it would if the unlikely scenario ever arose.

But to make it clear, the BBC isn't completely seperate from the market -- it still has to respond to demand and ratings etc.

[Roy.]

Just because the BBC says something doesn't mean right.

And euros hate the US because their commie economies are all miserable failures.

no they hate us because of misinformation. mostly about thier perception of us being greedy and selfish. also they think we see ourselves as being in charge of the world. when it is mostly our goverment. i'd say 90% of americans are just living day to day not thinking at all about the rest of the world. we are seen in the rest of the world as unified with our goverment when actually we disagree with a lot of the goverments decisions. like i said...misinformation.

[SubtleDagger]

yB[o]y']no they hate us because of misinformation. mostly about thier perception of us being greedy and selfish. also they think we see ourselves as being in charge of the world. when it is mostly our goverment.
No offense, but I live in America too, and many Americans are indeed like that.

[mx]

If majority are against the war, then how is this war happening? Isn't democracy = majority rule? Government by the people?

There are no democracies, just republics. Democracies don't work for any group of people greater than a small town or city.

[Atomic Rain]

There are no democracies, just republics. Democracies don't work for any group of people greater than a small town or city.

I don't know; I think there's a certain kind of constructive but circular health to the kind of democracy that i see in britain.

every few elections one party's policies have revealed their weaknesses and we swap to the other. The resultant set of rules and society as a whole is one in the middle; through (failed?) democracy, we are blessed with moderation. With moderation politics stops being a problem to be solved and starts being like the big man of mankind walking forwards by pushing with one leg and then the other.

[mx]

What I meant is that democracy as a pure ideal is not applicable to nation management.

[Damrod]

I definately agree with mx here. I could not spot one administration in the world that qualifies for real democracy IMO. There are a lot of democratically elected governments, but no democracies in the sense they should be

[Dave de Sylvia]

Democracy in common usage refers to any government that's accountable to and revokable by an electorate of universal suffrage.

[Atomic Rain]

aye.

So if our governments really tick us off, we can still get rid of them.

and yet tony blair is still around.

interesting.

[Reaganista]

if one liberal figurehead goes out of style we get to pick another?
from a list of like 5 names?

sweet lets kill people to give this great gift to them, too!

[PerpetualBurn]

aye.

So if our governments really tick us off, we can still get rid of them.

and yet tony blair is still around.

interesting.

Of course Blair's still around...did you not see Michael Howard!?

[-1up!-]

Democracy in common usage refers to any government that's accountable to and revokable by an electorate of universal suffrage.

I'm pretty sure mx refers to direct (pure) democracy. Although nation management has to be done through indirect democracy because of the large number of participants.

[Smokey D]

Yes, but the modern meaning of democracy is different to 'pure' democracy. Hence the qualifiying 'pure' in the latter.