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

Once upon a time -- around about 7/8/05 16:43 --
possibly 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?

:-)

I wish. I live in Florida

No, but they seem to actually not get too "sensationalist" about it.

-- E

--
"We are a bunch of the cruelest *******s on the planet. I love us." -- Tina
posted on and referring to alt.fan.dave_barry

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.
--
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

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.

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

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.

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

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. :-)

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