For All You Fans Of Fox News

[chinook_apache]

well now thanks for letting me know its 3 syllables. and i did not mention bbc in my post so i dont know how you calling it unbiased....!

[Billy_Dean]

If it's a choice between the Fox news we get in Australia, and the BBC news we get here, there's no comparison, Fox is crap!! As you would expect from Murdoch. For me, when both sides of politics calls the BBC biased, I feel it's probably doing it's job correctly. The BBC also has it's own reporters all over the world, Fox uses feeds.

[chinook_apache]

kool. the thing is murdoch owns sky news here too and thats shite aswell

[j2k4]

Originally posted by chinook_apache@19 October 2003 - 06:17
kool. the thing is murdoch owns sky news here too and thats shite aswell

Forgive me-

It was my understanding that the BBC is the preferred news source of those who use the word "shite".

[sparsely]

you'll get more reality from the Cartoon Network than you will any news channel.

It's all scripted. They are being fed reports....they are lying to you.

All governments are liars and murderers

[clocker]

Who is feeding them the lies?

To what purpose?

[Biggles]

I have to say I rather like the BBC although I do also quite like CNN.

The BBC concept of balance is if it produces a programme with a left wing slant it will also produce one with a right wing slant. It does not try to balance the content of each individual broadcast. Consequently it has the best of both worlds - it can piss the left and right off in one evenings viewing.

My opinion is if one political party consistently likes a particular broadcaster then that channel should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. The Communist Party of the USSR were quite keen on Pravda's news coverage - but I think few would have called it balanced.

However, the BBC's big edge for me is that there are no advert breaks. So much commercial TV seems to work on the assumption that people have the concentration span no greater than that of a mollusc.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@19 October 2003 - 18:16
However, the BBC's big edge for me is that there are no advert breaks. So much commercial TV seems to work on the assumption that people have the concentration span no greater than that of a mollusc. 

The commercial-free aspect has universal appeal, I think, if for no other reason than to "exercise" one's attention-span.

As re: FoxNews:

Every proponent of a "conservative" viewpoint is offset by a "liberal" one.

Perhaps it is that FoxNews acknowledges that "news" today is that which has passed through the various liberal or conservative "spin" processes, and seeks to present the news consumer with both at once, or whatever is left after passing through both processes simultaneously.

To paraphrase another of their slogans:

'Here are the two relevant and opposing viewpoints-YOU DECIDE.'

How, exactly, does the presentation of both arguments preclude "balance"?

Frankly, I'd rather watch Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner cartoons than anything.

I like them for the violence.

[Biggles]

Presenting both viewpoints in the same piece is a perfectly reasonable approach and apologies if I implied it is not. I was merely highlighting the Beebs different approach to balance which is not in any way better, simply an alternative approach that could, if you didn't watch a lot of it, give the impression that they lean one way or another. It would be fair to say though that the BBC probably reflects a very British take on the world which is perhaps more Monty Python than Marx or Freidman.

Agreed - on Bugs Bunny or, my own personal favourite, Daffy. I use to pray that the Coyote would catch that damned bird though.

[Billy_Dean]

[j2]
To paraphrase another of their slogans:

'Here are the two relevant and opposing viewpoints-YOU DECIDE.'

How, exactly, does the presentation of both arguments preclude "balance"?

I'm always wary of anyone telling me what are the relevant sides to a story, there are not always two sides, there are often many more.