| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:43:56 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:07:14 GMT, CMOT TMPV said: As an American I can tell you I find FoxNews terribly unbalanced, often offensive, and just plain rotten. I've given up watching it entirely (except for their weather which is quite good....) Do Fox viewers get less hurricanes than (eg) CNN viewers? Unlikely, though they might get fewer hurricanes. :) -- James Farrar September's coming soon |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
|
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... Whilst we have to pay a compulsory licence fee that is for using any device which can receive TV transmissions whether or not one watches the BBC. The advantage is that we don't have to put up with near continuous adverts. IIRC someone worked out that the average UK household pays more for the independendant TV and radio stations, through buying the products, than the cost of the TV licence. Even if one doesn't own a TV but buys products that are advertised one is paying for the independant channels. However one doesn't have to have a TV licence. In any event, how it is funded is vastly different from who dictates what is broadcast or published. The UK government doesn't dictate what get broadcast and quite often complain about what they perceive as the BBCs "bias". Interestingly the complaints are the same regardless of which party is in power. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:05:10 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... No we're not. The fact that you think we are furthur proves your ignorance. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
Nick Cooper wrote:
Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... No we're not. The fact that you think we are furthur proves your ignorance. Indeed. B. |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:06:51 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 19:44:33 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:05:10 GMT, wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... No we're not. The fact that you think we are furthur proves your ignorance. That you think you're not doesn't justify yours. Follow the money... Read the Royal Charter and then **** off. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... Whilst we have to pay a compulsory licence fee that is for using any device which can receive TV transmissions whether or not one watches the BBC. The advantage is that we don't have to put up with near continuous adverts. IIRC someone worked out that the average UK household pays more for the independendant TV and radio stations, through buying the products, than the cost of the TV licence. Even if one doesn't own a TV but buys products that are advertised one is paying for the independant channels. However one doesn't have to have a TV licence. In any event, how it is funded is vastly different from who dictates what is broadcast or published. The UK government doesn't dictate what get broadcast and quite often complain about what they perceive as the BBCs "bias". Interestingly the complaints are the same regardless of which party is in power. So, it appears that you're saying that your government has no control over what can and cannot be transmitted via television. Interesting. Under normal circumstances that's correct, and it really does **** some of them off. :-) |
Fox News says London blasts "to Western World's advantage"
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:11:36 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:31:47 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:55:18 GMT, wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:35:28 GMT, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:09:27 GMT, wrote: You don't like their reporting method of "calling it like it is"... I would rather put it as "calling it like Murdoch thinks it is". I have, as ever, far more respect for the BBC's reporting. I've always been a bit suspicious of state controlled news agencies, Pravda and such. Except that the BBC isn't a "state controlled" new agency, and for you to suggest it is is clear evidence of your own biased agenda. Certainly it is. You're taxed for using it... Whilst we have to pay a compulsory licence fee that is for using any device which can receive TV transmissions whether or not one watches the BBC. The advantage is that we don't have to put up with near continuous adverts. IIRC someone worked out that the average UK household pays more for the independendant TV and radio stations, through buying the products, than the cost of the TV licence. Even if one doesn't own a TV but buys products that are advertised one is paying for the independant channels. However one doesn't have to have a TV licence. In any event, how it is funded is vastly different from who dictates what is broadcast or published. The UK government doesn't dictate what get broadcast and quite often complain about what they perceive as the BBCs "bias". Interestingly the complaints are the same regardless of which party is in power. So, it appears that you're saying that your government has no control over what can and cannot be transmitted via television. Interesting. It has no operational control over what the BBC broadcasts any more than the FCC in the US has any operational control over what networks in the US broadcast. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk