It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The BBC is funded by the television license fee(aprox 120 for every household that owns a TV)

The Charter of the BBC states that it must be politically neutral.Infact the British government has sought in the past to influence the BBC,most notably during the Suez Crisis,It has always resisted.




posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
So let's get it straight it is funded by a government tax.

With some advertising revenue generated by shows it designs or decides to air (to audiences selected by BBC staff of course).

So who places the people that run this organization?

Is their a board of directors? Who are they?

Is there a charter of operations?



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The BBC is constitutionally established by a Royal Charter. An accompanying Agreement recognises its editorial independence and sets out its public obligations in detail.

The current Royal Charter and Agreement date from 1996 and run to 2006.


www.bbc.co.uk...


The License fee is not a government tax.There is no advertising on the BBC.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
License fee is not a tax? Okay.

Sounds exactly like the CBC with a few differences though.

Seems like government influence could be exerted but you will deny this.

I am still curious about the board of directors though and who appoints them but you don't have to answer that.

No advertising? That licensing fee must be fairly high then.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
If you'd been following the recent argument between the BBC and the government over Iraq you wouldn't ask if it was run by the government.Infact you'd know it wasn't.


I don't know who appoints the governers.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Oh I am aware of who is running it now Jewish socialists loyal to globalists aka European union aka OWO. Or in short labourites controlled by Rothschilds.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Ohh. You know Greg Dyke then do you THENEO ??



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by baked
Can't remember the MSNBC girls name but she is hot too.....


soledad obrien?



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Not personally.

So tell me this, how is the BBC playing the Euro card these days eg. England in the EU (or whatever its called these days?).

Blair is making strong statements about bringing England in and if my statements are correct regarding who is running the BBC in the background then they have to be happy with Blair on this subject correct? Just wondered. Yeah I know they hated the war, but socialists don't really hate war, they only hate wars they don't start.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by baked
Can't remember the MSNBC girls name but she is hot too.....


soledad obrien?


ThankYou!
She's a cutie



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
How?

It doesn't play anything.It simply reports the news.

That is what independent broadcasters do.

I guess you haven't seen to many examples of that on your side of the Atlantic.So you confusion is understandable.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I'm still waiting to see some examples of what the Wraith dude was talking about.

I hate it when people log on, toss in a shinola grenade, and then run away.........



[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Pyros]



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I like this BBC article on "World press freedom ranked".

news.bbc.co.uk...

Funny how the BBC talks about the USA, but never mention themselves.
Gee, there they are at #27 but the USA is #31 so I guess they can pick on them.

Canada? #10.

Full list here: www.rsf.org...



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
You know you are not superior despite your beliefs.

but anyways,

playing is what you do and not what you do,

do you understand?

oh I assure you they play everybody plays.

do you understand that?



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Bottom 10
139 - N Korea
138 - China
137 - Burma
136 - Turkmenistan
135 - Bhutan
134 - Cuba
133 - Laos
132 - Eritrea
131 - Vietnam
130 - Iraq

You would think north korea would be a little closer to the bottom.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
How?

It doesn't play anything.It simply reports the news.

That is what independent broadcasters do.

I guess you haven't seen to many examples of that on your side of the Atlantic.So you confusion is understandable.


Oh that is good! My news is better than yours? Come now John, I guess that is why you chose the name Bull? Are you actually trying to say that there is no agenda at all in any news coming from the BBC?




posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Actually Canda is not that bad at the moment because there is a diversity of organizations working here,

but control is starting to increase in many ways such as via ownership concentration and lack of diversity among competing outlets.

Used to be 10 years ago I could watch the news and had my pick of about a half dozen local area newscasts that have a diversity of views. Increasingly they are starting to look a lot the same and it is bothersome to me.

but we have a diverse selection still for a small population, we are well covered in cable and we all have access to a fair bit of US coverage too. I have read that where I live in Toronto that it is as good as it gets for breadth of media even compared to places like NYC for example.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BelowtheRadar
Anti-big government works for me. Conservativism is supposed to be anti-big government. Bush screwed that up nicely.

Guess i'll try libertarian...


*sigh*
Bush is not a conservative. Anybody who understands conservatism knows better than that.
Is he a boob? Of course not. He has proven himself to be a shrewd operator and was running circles around the democrats even before the attack on 9-11-2001.
Are there people here that do not chant "Death To Bush", but realize he has some good points, and gets the job done generally, yet still have issues with him? Certainly. Not everyone here is a child or is immature.

If you are looking for a site that is nothing but knee-jerkers who blindly swallow the "news" that was fed to the public unrivaled for years until a new source came along, I'm sure you will find it. Go look for it. Then you can sit around and sing from the liberal hymnal with others just like you. Or, you can stick around and learn while at the same time offering another point of view to others. That is what we have here. Differing points of view, politically. We like it that way, elsewise we'd all go to sites where all the people are in lock step.

How is this a political scandal, by the way?

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Didn't Fox break the Bush drunk driving story?
Didn't Rupert Murdoch back Gore in the last presidential election??



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   



How is this a political scandal, by the way?

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Thomas Crowne]


The democrats are trying to take down Fox New. The spread nothing but lies about Fox. There...now its a politcal scandal. Just trying to make ya happy TC.


Really I don't see what the problem is.
Foxhas blasted both republicans and democrats. And complants both. Basiclly they just tell it as it is. Then put there own comments on a paticular issue. They are pretty much like any other news channel. Usually I just listen to the news part and ignore their comments and make up my own mind.

[Edited on 1/7/2004 by nyeff]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join