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.

 

Media Talk USA: Is it time for an American BBC?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Media Talk USA: Is it time for an American BBC?


www.guardian.co.uk

Jeff Jarvis looks at the chances of a new, publicly funded media organisation being created in the US, how Michael Jackson's death was broken, and why newspapers should sue Google

Is the financial crisis and the internet revolution the perfect opportunity to create a completely new media organisation? A US version of the BBC. It's the brainchild of David Fanning, executive producer of Frontline on PBS.

The panel looks at the mini-scandal that engulfed the Washington Post over plans to charge for access to its reporters.

What does the panel make of Sarah Palin's surprise exit from p
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 8-7-2009 by john124]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Hell no it is not time for an American version of the BBC and they should stop funding PBS with taxpayer dollars. There are hundreds of free channels, why should we be taxed to pay for a few more.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I am against organizations like the bbc that take licence payers money to then go and adopt a pro israel bias. If these companies want to do that, let them go out and get a zionist sugar daddy, not expect the british fund them for their disinformation. The US does not want a similar body , they also will also end up paying some organization to further a 3rd parties agenda too .



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


Wow you dont know to much about the BBC obviously.
Its a well known fact they appear to have an anti israeli bias. It even made its way into wiki.
i think you have larger issues than the BBC

en.wikipedia.org...
home.comcast.net...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Well since I have never seen BBC so I have no idea what makes it so different. Are they suggesting that the rest of the world has other things to report on what Michael Jackson's orphan chimp is up to? I am shocked.


I just noticed that I have a channel called BBC America, that's not what they are talking about is it?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pazcat
 


BBC anti-Israel bias is a myth



AMW monitored BBC Online news articles about violence between Israelis and Palestinians over four months (February-May 2009). This aspect was chosen because it is one of the most reported in a conflict that is almost always in the news, and thus shapes public attitudes towards the peoples involved.

AMW analysed the prominence of each side's viewpoint and version of events by monitoring how many words were devoted to quoting and paraphrasing Israeli and Palestinian sources, and in what order they were reported. AMW also analysed the prevalence with which each side were portrayed as instigating or responding to violence.

While every BBC article included Israeli sources, 35% had no Palestinian sources. Some of those articles omitted Palestinian statements and viewpoints that were available in other respected news outlets, such as reactions to Israeli violence or explaining why Palestinian violence took place. Of the 65% of articles containing Palestinian sources, 82% devoted more words to Israeli sources. This, as the study says, is "a woeful imbalance"


www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Yes, of course. But it will never happen. Americans don't watch TV for news, they watch it purely for entertainment, that's why they have Fox news and others.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pazcat
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


Wow you dont know to much about the BBC obviously.
Its a well known fact they appear to have an anti israeli bias. It even made its way into wiki.
i think you have larger issues than the BBC

en.wikipedia.org...
home.comcast.net...



And yet they refused to even broadcast a fundraiser to raise relief funds for the decimated Palestinian population - and then blocked a documentary showing the carnage sown by the Israelis - the board is backed entirely by wealthy jews as was the number one fundraiser for the labour party - a man accused of cash for honours -

YEAH RIGHT !! What a laugh....



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by pazcat
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


Wow you dont know to much about the BBC obviously.
Its a well known fact they appear to have an anti israeli bias. It even made its way into wiki.
i think you have larger issues than the BBC

en.wikipedia.org...
home.comcast.net...



And yet they refused to even broadcast a fundraiser to raise relief funds for the decimated Palestinian population - and then blocked a documentary showing the carnage sown by the Israelis - the board is backed entirely by wealthy jews as was the number one fundraiser for the labour party - a man accused of cash for honours -

YEAH RIGHT !! What a laugh....


This is the BBC response about this at the time:


A nationwide appeal for money to help the Gaza relief effort has been denied free television airtime because the BBC fears that it would damage confidence in the corporation’s impartiality.

A 46-year-old agreement with overseas aid charities guarantees them a two-minute prime-time slot to broadcast appeals. But the BBC said that the risk of compromising confidence in its fairness, coupled with “question marks” about aid getting through, had led to its decision not to go ahead with this one.


BBC scuppers TV fundraising appeal for Gaza victims

It was broadcasted on ITV, and if you're from Britain you would know ITV is just as popular for news and other programmes. What would any supposed Jews on the board have to really gain by blocking it?

The BBC do make silly and what appears to be random decisions at times, but I think it's out of stupidity or ignorance rather than just bias. After all they have been casual about the Iranian regime's brutality until very recently.

If we assume the wealthy Jews on the board have control, then why did they let the BBC sometimes fall for Iranian regime propaganda?

Why not just inform the BBC of this much sooner since it would have benefited them much more greatly, and at a lower risk than pulling a stunt like forcing BBC bosses not to show a short video on Gaza aid that viewers would still see on an alternative TV channel anyway?


[edit on 9-7-2009 by john124]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
And another point about the Gaza aid programme - Hamas would have used this to their advantage to smuggle in weapons, and you know it! They would have taken in weapons under the pretence of aid... no wonder Israel prevented all ships from entering Gaza!

I suppose you'll blame Israel for the rocket attacks into their own country, and more bull# about proportionality. Every rocket attack had the potential to kill one person in Israel, and Muslims live there as well as Jews. As I recall there were many thousands of rockets fired indiscriminatly towards Israel.

I think any reasonable person has to come to the conclusion that Hamas are resposible for refusing to stop firing rockets, and so are responsbile for all the civilian deaths resulting in the following retaliation, as the militants hid behind women and children. They are too cowardly to come out and fight a proper war.

The same with the taliban - too cowardly to fight the British and Americans man to man so they hide explosives and run away.

The same with the Iranian Islamic regime, the cowardly old men of the illegal regime hide behind basij militants that hunt down protestors, and viciously murder or torture them. Even women and children.

Hamas/Hezbollah are cut from the same cloth as the regime, they are all murdering indiscriminant thugs who don't care how many civilians die so they can fire off a few rockets into Israel.

Yes the people in between - the women and children are the victims. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

You can't just ignore all this stuff I've said and then blame Israel. I don't think Israel are so innocent either, but don't we know what it's like to live with these constant attacks and threats. Of course individual soldiers will crack under pressure and commit a few atrocities, it's happened in Iraq with some American soldiers. I know these are the few really really stupid & uneducated people who don't represent these army's as a whole though.

I don't think the US govt. gave orders for Americans to torture Iraqi's in Iraqi prisons, and I don't think the Israeli govt. gave orders for their troops to kill civilians intentionally. If any soldiers have done this then there should be an investigation by the UN and they should be prosecuted under international laws for their own actions. Israel must cooperate with this, and with Obama over these settlements that are being built. Compromise is necessary for peace. Anyway I'm definitely not apologising for Israel in any way at all, just trying to give a bit of perspective.

In Gaza, Hamas were the local government in power - the people voted for them! If the Iranian regime were responsible for rigging that election, then blame them! And not Israel for Iranian regime influence.

Does this make any sense to you? And the reasoning behind everything I have said is quite clear.


[edit on 9-7-2009 by john124]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
doesn't PBS get public funds? as well as endless and frequent pledge drives.

i don't know what the point of PBS is. everything they show is also shown on other channels, and they have a decided liberal slant. liberal is fine but it should be balanced with conservative offerings or leave politics out entirely. i don't understand why this enterprise gets public money, let alone adding another BBC type product.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
We already have pro-government gushing, fawning tools of state and emperor adulation, namely PBS and NBC. I think NBC is planning on broadcasting from the white house to pump up the socialization of US healthcare, dissenting opinion will not be allowed.

That should finish off healthcare in the US.
Of course if the carbon tax passes you can forget having an economy in the US as well. All work will move overseas where business is not burdened with such foolishness.

I wonder what sort of coverage the BBC gives to these sorts of NWO centerpieces.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join