|
United States43878 Posts
On February 03 2010 16:45 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC
The fact that Serbia can't manage to create a functioning public institution doesn't surprise me given you're only just starting to get the hang of democracy. Please don't judge real countries by your own failures to achieve.
|
Obama should meet with the Dalai Lama anyway cuz I want to see what happens.
|
On February 03 2010 16:45 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC
No, this is what you said.
On February 03 2010 07:57 fox[tail] wrote:
The BBC is CNN's bitch, which means that objective journalism is not a term in their dictionary, all (mainstream) western media are the same.
These are slightly different.
|
On February 03 2010 16:35 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:
And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken. Actually it is political maneuvering. What most people aren't taking into account is how closely this followed the US arms deal with Taiwan. While Western media paints the picture that US isn't consenting to Chinese demands on the matter, it mentions little on the fact that actually MOST of the requests made by Taiwan in the negotiated deal was actually later reneged by the US after Chinese demands including several key components such as the Raptors. Meeting with the Dalai Lama is essentially the US's way of "saving face" themselves hence why I wasn't very surprised at the decision at all.
America needs a show of force against strong states. Meeting DLLM accomplish nothing substantially but it provokes a reaction.
The west is naturally suspicious of an emerging China.
|
United States43878 Posts
On February 03 2010 16:40 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:38 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:37 KissBlade wrote:On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I'm curious about this. If the BBC makes no money, how does it pay it's workers? The very idea that it's a publicly funded institution dictates that the funds have to come from somewhere ...? It has the power to levy a private tax on all British tv owning households called the License Fee. This tax is independent of the Government. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I may very well be, I only just started looking things up about BBC) but isn't BBC's operations overseen by governors appointed by the Crown? Also I should point out, Fox News clashes with the government too (especially current regime). However, you can hardly claim it is an unbiased or reliable source ... And I say this as a Republican!
Obviously not but American politics (and society) is far more partizan than British. Whether you're for something or against you're going to have a lot of popular support. The BBC is constitutionally impartial (ie their royal charter requires it of them). Fox clashes with Democratic governments but is less likely to clash with Republican ones whereas both Labour and Conservative governments in Britain insist the BBC is biased against them.
Oh, and the Crown is required to be politically neutral by tradition (like a constitution only more British). Obviously Elizabeth Windsor holds political views but The Crown, ie her public role, does not. She can say what she likes in private but her job is to be neutral.
|
On February 03 2010 07:24 pioneer8 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 03 2010 04:21 Dracid wrote:
pioneer8:
Okay. Explain why that's an essential freedom. I'm a very big fan of freedom of speech, but I do not see it as an essential aspect of life, because it's something I take for granted most of the time. Freedom of speech also is not, and should not, be absolute. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded area, and for good reason. China takes it quite a few steps beyond that, but it's not like it would affect your life in any significant capacity.
As for internet sites: Use a VPN. Chinese people who care enough to access restricted internet content can do so.
Also, please stop explaining what life is like in China, because you really have no idea. People aren't jailed and tortured for making minor criticisms of the government, but it's clear I'm not going to convince you otherwise. You're wrong, and you have nothing to back up your claims, so I don't even know why I'm responding to you. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4326341.stm"For the past 16 years, she and a few others who lost sons and daughters during the 1989 Tiananmen massacre have been calling on the government to apologise. But in response, these women, known as the Tiananmen Mothers, have faced imprisonment, house-arrest, phone-tapping and constant surveillance." I believe that counts as "minor criticism". There are hundreds of other mainstream articles you can pull up yourself. If you are so sheltered and naive as to believe that the Chinese government doesn't do these things, im saddened for you. You are suggesting that the burden of proof is on me, while the mass tortures and imprisonments, heavy persecution of even the mildest dissidents, forced labor camps, secret arrests, police state control grid, etc etc do not exist, while in reality, it has been common knowledge for many years. On your other point you ask why freedom of speech is an "essential" freedom. You do not understand the term rights and freedom and you should learn more about it. Freedom, ie, political rights, are laws that are designed to protect you from government. There's the philisophical idea of inalienable god given rights that is the foundation of these laws. Your understanding of both these topics is lacking, though you attempt to pompously direct me. Your denial about the most obvious things reveals how sheltered you actually are and is just mind boggling...
See, the thing is, I asked you how your life is necessarily more free than someone in China, and for some reason you still haven't. If you're going to say that people get jailed for saying anything against the government in public, then you're going to need something to back it up, otherwise you're just pulling conjecture out of your ass.
Freedom of speech is far from an inalienable god given right. You say that I don't understand rights and freedom, yet you do nothing to explain them. Here's the thing: Freedom is never absolute, otherwise you'd be living in an anarchy. There are always limits to your freedom, so the whole China has no freedom rhetoric demonstrates a good amount of ignorance on what China is like as well as what freedom actually means.
Honestly, it seems like your understanding of freedom is rather juvenile, since it only seems to extend to being able to criticize the president in a public forum. Arguing for freedom of speech should be easy, you're fed all the reasons in school. It's necessary for a democratic government, because you need an educated populace. China however, is not a democracy, but I'm not going to argue with you about why it should or should not become democratic.
Anyhow, freedoms are nice, and they sound nice, but until you can explain to me how the freedoms you enjoy as an American significantly change your life from that of the Chinese, the freedoms you espouse as being necessary to life are simply ideals that you take for granted.You think it'd be easy, if you have freedom whereas the Chinese do not, but in reality, life in China isn't radically different from life in America, at least not because of "freedom."
Edit: I don't really know anything about how the BBC works, but from what I've read the BBC doesn't seem to be exactly impartial with regards to news involving China.
|
On February 03 2010 16:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:45 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC The fact that Serbia can't manage to create a functioning public institution doesn't surprise me given you're only just starting to get the hang of democracy. Please don't judge real countries by your own failures to achieve.
Don't talk about countries you know nothing about, I was born in Australia so I know a bit more about your country than you think, I really like Britain, and I'm not attacking the people of Britain, just the polices of a fallen corporation. The UN was created on certain ideals that it no longer represents, NATO was defensive, now it's offensive, and BBC is now biased towards China. What something is meant to do and what it does are two different things
|
On February 03 2010 16:54 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:45 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it. The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money. I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time. For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC No, this is what you said. Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 07:57 fox[tail] wrote:
The BBC is CNN's bitch, which means that objective journalism is not a term in their dictionary, all (mainstream) western media are the same. These are slightly different.
By saying BBC News is CNN's bitch i meant that they follow CNN's lead on who if right and who is wrong, all mainstream media in NATO countries follow the same 'rules'
|
United States43878 Posts
And yet you thought the BBC was a Government puppet simply because it had public funding. Evidently being born in Australia is insufficient as a qualification for commenting on British institutions. Fortunately your repeated ignorance in this topic should have cleared that up for anyone in any doubt.
I'm not entirely sure why you're trying to salvage this. You were bullshitting about something you knew nothing about and were called out on it. Unless you're going to prove me wrong and yourself right by demonstrating that the existence of the License Fee (their public funding) somehow puts the BBC under the thumb of the Government you're not going to redeem yourself.
What you said wasn't true and that discredits you. No amount of being born in Australia is going to undo that.
|
On February 03 2010 17:11 KwarK wrote:
And yet you thought the BBC was a Government puppet simply because it had public funding. Evidently being born in Australia is insufficient as a qualification for commenting on British institutions. Fortunately your repeated ignorance in this topic should have cleared that up for anyone in any doubt.
I'm not entirely sure why you're trying to salvage this. You were bullshitting about something you knew nothing about and were called out on it. Unless you're going to prove me wrong and yourself right by demonstrating that the existence of the License Fee (their public funding) somehow puts the BBC under the thumb of the Government you're not going to redeem yourself.
What you said wasn't true and that discredits you. No amount of being born in Australia is going to undo that.
The moment the BBC made a 24h news channel, journalism had to go out the window. Objective journalism takes time, by the time a responsible person does the investigation (about chemical weapons in Iraq) and makes a report ITV, Channel 4, CNN etc. have already broken the story, the government has said it was true and the public has already reacted, and by that time it's useless to run that story because the BBC will have already lost credibility for not being there first. If they lose credibility than why should the public pay?
Thats why now we have 'fast' journalism which doesn't really care about the facts but only how to fill a time slot with something 80% of people believe.
I already explained that when I said government I didn't mean Gordon Brown, but Torrie and Labor together... They have the same views on China, which they propagate, a very large percent of the UK voted for Torrie/Labor, so it would be foolish to go against 80% of Britain, because it would take time to prove them wrong. It would be logistically impossible for BBC to do (non-biased) investigative journalism for every minute of a 24h news channel, and at the same time ITV, Channal 4 ect. are telling the people what they want to hear, and people would rather listen to what they want to hear than the truth.
EDIT: Who put that government into power? The people, and the people want to know that their system is way better than anyone else's (read China). On the domestic front the BBC is way less biased than when they talk about foreign affairs
|
United States43878 Posts
I could reply to that post but it's all theorycrafted nonsense about how when forced to come up with news on demand journalists resort to making it up. The easiest reply would be that they don't because the unicorns verify their stories instantly.
It still doesn't change the fact that you made repeated criticisms which turned out to be completely untrue. You have been discredited. I have no inclination to discuss the BBC with someone who is simply using me to learn about it. You demonstrated the depths of your knowledge with that nonsense about public funding. It doesn't add to your case that you can't seem to spell Tory or Labour and that Tory is simply a nickname for the Conservative Party. Especially given I have already mentioned both with the correct spellings earlier in this thread.
I'm not going to argue with somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and refuses to bring up any facts. Show me some evidence and I'll take a look at it. Quote some sources and I'll read them. Tell me what you think and I'll do my best to ensure that everyone else in the topic knows how qualified your opinions are.
|
On February 03 2010 18:08 KwarK wrote:
I could reply to that post but it's all theorycrafted nonsense about how when forced to come up with news on demand journalists resort to making it up. The easiest reply would be that they don't because the unicorns verify their stories instantly.
It still doesn't change the fact that you made repeated criticisms which turned out to be completely untrue. You have been discredited. I have no inclination to discuss the BBC with someone who is simply using me to learn about it. You demonstrated the depths of your knowledge with that nonsense about public funding. It doesn't add to your case that you can't seem to spell Tory or Labour and that Tory is simply a nickname for the Conservative Party. Especially given I have already mentioned both with the correct spellings earlier in this thread.
I'm not going to argue with somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and refuses to bring up any facts. Show me some evidence and I'll take a look at it. Quote some sources and I'll read them. Tell me what you think and I'll do my best to ensure that everyone else in the topic knows how qualified your opinions are.
Haha right you are, I guess i spelled Tory wrong because I've always seen them as Tories, but it's a shit load easier to write than the Conservative Party....
If you want evidence than go to these guys: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Even though I think they just hate the BBC, there are some real gems in there...
EDIT: And I can't be bothered to write anymore about this because you are blatantly refusing to read into what i write. I said that the BBC is very biased when talking about the rest of the world, on domestic issues they are as non-biased as they can be.
|
United States43878 Posts
If you'd bothered to click your link (although a blog is hardly evidence) you'd see the top post was criticizing the anti Israel bias. Given NATO is generally pro Israel and your point is that the BBC follows the NATO line that'd seem to be evidence against your case.
But yeah, I'm going to continue to ignore you because you're just repeating your "the BBC is biased" without qualifying it after having demonstrated beyond any doubt you don't know anything about the BBC.
|
On February 03 2010 18:26 KwarK wrote:
If you'd bothered to click your link (although a blog is hardly evidence) you'd see the top post was criticizing the anti Israel bias. Given NATO is generally pro Israel and your point is that the BBC follows the NATO line that'd seem to be evidence against your case.
But yeah, I'm going to continue to ignore you because you're just repeating your "the BBC is biased" without qualifying it after having demonstrated beyond any doubt you don't know anything about the BBC.
Look in the forum under examples of bias, and if you think that by repeating something like 'you don't know anything about the BBC', that i am somehow discredited for giving a logical view on the western media(!?!?!), and my thoroughly adequate response's to your questions make you right and me wrong than by all means please ignore...
Just because someone says they are something doesn't mean they are: The UN no longer stands for what it once did, NATO is no longer a defensive alliance etc.
Now back to China and Tibet...
|
On February 03 2010 11:42 liosama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:38 igotmyown wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_ruleThere were some modernization efforts, however, and by the late 19th century, Seoul became the first city in East Asia to have electricity, trolley cars, water, telephone and telegraph systems all at the same time.[26] But Korea remained a largely backward agricultural economy at the turn of the century.[27] "Japan's initial colonial policy was to increase agricultural production in Korea to meet Japan's growing need for rice. Japan had also begun to build large-scale industries in Korea in the 1930s as part of the empire-wide program of economic self-sufficiency and war preparation." Here's a similar situation where the occupier invests infrastructure, and of course the biased occupiees probably didn't know what was good for them. http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ko/korea_under_japanese_rule.htmThe average life expectancy rose from 26 years to 42 years (1945) and the population increased two-fold, despite widespread economic poverty and malnutrition caused by the annual confiscation of Korean rice by Japanese landlords. How dare you justify the brutal occupation by any means. This is a classical case of an orientalist disease that Japan was infected by after coming into contact with the imperialists, US. Japan could and should have helped Korea but not by means of aggressive occupation and imperial rule, forcing them to use their language, the rape and pillage of their woman and general oppression of an entire peoples, they were already oppressed under their old regime, the only difference is that the new regime was just smarter, more powerful and less religious. (Though State Shintoism began vehemently kicking into play here I doubt anyone actually believed that rubbish deep down inside) Korea was a piece of shit excuse of a country run by corrupt officials based off Buddhist and Confucian principles, that was obvious. The fault of that really goes back a few millennia due to Korea under heavy geographical from China. What's most ironic about it all is that Korea was in the exact situation that Japan was in back around 1880 but this time it was ~20 years later in 1900-1912. A great fleet showing the Japanese people how backward they were to the West by the US, Japan did the *exact* same thing to Korea. The Japanese thought it was their right being the strongest nation in Asia at the time to 'help' their brother. That's all well and good depending on where one defines 'help'. You don't help your brother get back on his feet by bashing the shit out of him. Imagine how good relations with Japan and Korea would be had Japan not occupied Korea. Japan built railroads, factories and everything else in Korea but that will never, ever justify occupation. How would you like it if we were playing a 2v2; but since you're an F- player you haven't a clue how to mine minerals or build an scv, so I destroy your CC, build my own one there and get your scv's to mine for my economy so I can 1v2 the other team. Aggression will never solve anything, it may be one way but it is certainly not the best way, Just ask Howard Zinn R.I.P. Me teaching you how to play SC would have wasted more of my time and minerals, but in the end we'd truly be friends instead of you being that F- player I build all my CC's and Facts in.
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them.
|
On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them.
Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke.
|
On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:42 Masamune wrote:
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China. Masamune, please don't turn this thread into a pissing concept. That's an incredibly pointless argument to try to have. And in general, having this "fuck them" attitude in politics is rather impractical. Bringing schoolyard mentalities onto an international forum would not work for any nation, so suggesting to do so doesn't really add anything meaningful. And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken.
I’m not trying to turn this thread into a pissing contest, because if anyone really thinks that China rivals the U.S. in military capabilities, then they are delusional. There is no contest at all.
And this “fuck them” attitude refers to the Chinese government. Maybe in China, silencing your critics and opponents using any means possible flies there, but why shouldn’t Obama talk to the Dalai Lama? What next? Should we agree that our internet be censored of anything that rubs China the wrong way, too? If anything, I’d call China’s attitude of making threats in the face of potential diplomacy more schoolyard and pathetic than anything I’ve said.
Furthermore, China’s attitude of “either you’re with us or against us” is more comparable to a route Bush would take than Obama’s willingness to speak with a world-known religious leader and face of a government in exile. If anything, the latter is more diplomatic than siding with the stronger side and ignoring the whole issue altogether.
On February 03 2010 16:50 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:24 Masamune wrote:On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all? I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them. So which part are you talking about? The fact that China used the veto no more than 6 times during all say 50 years in UN? while United States used it no less than 40? If you look even more closely, All China's vetoes are purely reactionary. They abstain most of their votes. You and the west are conjuring an adversary relationship when historically there were none. Like it or not, China has a voice. Deal with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
The U.S. has obviously used its veto more times than China because ever since the inception of the UN, it has been a world power while China has only risen to power recently...so I don’t know what you’re getting at.
But for clarification, I’m talking about these parts:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-5775752.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN11364578
So 2/6 vetos against U.S.-backed drafts?
And yes, China has abstained many times, but they have usually done so because they would rather not upset the U.S., while still pursuing their own interests. They did this in 2000 by abstaining against sanctions being imposed on the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan because relations between the two were strengthening, in 2004 by abstaining on resolutions of the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon because of favourable relations with the former, and many times on the issue of Darfur because of favourable relations with Sudan’s Mugabe.
So yes, China has gone against U.S. interests before, either with their veto (1/3 of the time...) or with their lack of support (a.k.a. abstaining). This is not even factoring in their favourable relations with Iran and North Korea, either.
And no, I’m not trying to conjure up anything; I’m just defending my view that the U.S. should do what it wants without having to deal with China’s bs.
Why do you and so many other Chinese posters have this baseless, unobjective reasoning in your head where you always think it's "us against them"? Yeah the West has its motives, bus so does China.
|
On February 03 2010 19:19 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 13:42 Masamune wrote:
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China. Masamune, please don't turn this thread into a pissing concept. That's an incredibly pointless argument to try to have. And in general, having this "fuck them" attitude in politics is rather impractical. Bringing schoolyard mentalities onto an international forum would not work for any nation, so suggesting to do so doesn't really add anything meaningful. And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken. I’m not trying to turn this thread into a pissing contest, because if anyone really thinks that China rivals the U.S. in military capabilities, then they are delusional. There is no contest at all.And this “fuck them” attitude refers to the Chinese government. Maybe in China, silencing your critics and opponents using any means possible flies there, but why shouldn’t Obama talk to the Dalai Lama? What next? Should we agree that our internet be censored of anything that rubs China the wrong way, too? If anything, I’d call China’s attitude of making threats in the face of potential diplomacy more schoolyard and pathetic than anything I’ve said. Furthermore, China’s attitude of “either you’re with us or against us” is more comparable to a route Bush would take than Obama’s willingness to speak with a world-known religious leader and face of a government in exile. If anything, the latter is more diplomatic than siding with the stronger side and ignoring the whole issue altogether. Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:50 haduken wrote:On February 03 2010 13:24 Masamune wrote:On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all? I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them. So which part are you talking about? The fact that China used the veto no more than 6 times during all say 50 years in UN? while United States used it no less than 40? If you look even more closely, All China's vetoes are purely reactionary. They abstain most of their votes. You and the west are conjuring an adversary relationship when historically there were none. Like it or not, China has a voice. Deal with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power The U.S. has obviously used its veto more times than China because ever since the inception of the UN, it has been a world power while China has only risen to power recently...so I don’t know what you’re getting at. But for clarification, I’m talking about these parts: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-5775752.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN11364578So 2/6 vetos against U.S.-backed drafts? And yes, China has abstained many times, but they have usually done so because they would rather not upset the U.S., while still pursuing their own interests. They did this in 2000 by abstaining against sanctions being imposed on the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan because relations between the two were strengthening, in 2004 by abstaining on resolutions of the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon because of favourable relations with the former, and many times on the issue of Darfur because of favourable relations with Sudan’s Mugabe. So yes, China has gone against U.S. interests before, either with their veto (1/3 of the time...) or with their lack of support (a.k.a. abstaining). This is not even factoring in their favourable relations with Iran and North Korea, either. And no, I’m not trying to conjure up anything; I’m just defending my view that the U.S. should do what it wants without having to deal with China’s bs. Why do you and so many other Chinese posters have this baseless, unobjective reasoning in your head where you always think it's "us against them"? Yeah the West has its motives, bus so does China.
About USA veto's, I did not make this list:
+ Show Spoiler +US Versus World at the United Nations
The US has repeatedly acted to undermine peace and human rights initiatives
at the United Nations, routinely voting against hundreds of UN resolutions
and treaties. The US easily has the worst record of any nation on not
supporting UN treaties. In almost all of its hundreds of "no" votes, the US
was the "sole" nation to vote no (among the 100-130 nations that usually
vote), and among only 1 or 2 other nations voting no the rest of the time.
Here's a representative sample of US votes from 1978-1987:
US Is the Sole "No" Vote on Resolutions or Treaties
For aid to underdeveloped nations
For the promotion of developing nation exports
For UN promotion of human rights
For protecting developing nations in trade agreements
For New International Economic Order for underdeveloped nations
For development as a human right
Versus multinational corporate operations in South Africa
For cooperative models in developing nations
For right of nations to economic system of their choice
Versus chemical and biological weapons (at least 3 times)
Versus Namibian apartheid
For economic/standard of living rights as human rights
Versus apartheid South African aggression vs. neighboring states (2 times)
Versus foreign investments in apartheid South Africa
For world charter to protect ecology
For anti-apartheid convention
For anti-apartheid convention in international sports
For nuclear test ban treaty (at least 2 times)
For prevention of arms race in outer space
For UNESCO-sponsored new world information order (at least 2 times)
For international law to protect economic rights
For Transport & Communications Decade in Africa
Versus manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction
Versus naval arms race
For Independent Commission on Disarmament & Security Issues
For UN response mechanism for natural disasters
For the Right to Food
For Report of Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination
For UN study on military development
For Commemoration of 25th anniversary of Independence for Colonial Countries
For Industrial Development Decade in Africa
For interdependence of economic and political rights
For improved UN response to human rights abuses
For protection of rights of migrant workers
For protection against products harmful to health and the environment
For a Convention on the Rights of the Child
For training journalists in the developing world
For international cooperation on third world debt
For a UN Conference on Trade & Development
US Is 1 of Only 2 "No" Votes on Resolutions or Treaties
For Palestinian living conditions/rights (at least 8 times)
Versus foreign intervention into other nations
For a UN Conference on Women
Versus nuclear test explosions (at least 2 times)
For the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states
For a Middle East nuclear free zone
Versus Israeli nuclear weapons (at least 2 times)
For a new world international economic order
For a trade union conference on sanctions vs. South Africa
For the Law of the Sea Treaty
For economic assistance to Palestinians
For UN measures against fascist activities and groups
For international cooperation on money/finance/debt/trade/development
For a Zone of Peace in the South Atlantic
For compliance with Intl Court of Justice decision for Nicaragua vs. US.
**For a conference and measures to prevent international terrorism
(including its underlying causes)
For ending the trade embargo vs. Nicaragua
US Is 1 of Only 3 "No" Votes on Resolutions and Treaties
Versus Israeli human rights abuses (at least 6 times)
Versus South African apartheid (at least 4 times)
Versus return of refugees to Israel
For ending nuclear arms race (at least 2 times)
For an embargo on apartheid South Africa
For South African liberation from apartheid (at least 3 times)
For the independence of colonial nations
For the UN Decade for Women
Versus harmful foreign economic practices in colonial territories
For a Middle East Peace Conference
For ending the embargo of Cuba (at least 10 times)
In addition, the US has:
Repeatedly withheld its dues from the UN
Twice left UNESCO because of its human rights initiatives
Twice left the International Labor Organization for its workers rights
initiatives
Refused to renew the Antiballistic Missile Treaty
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty on global warming
Refused to back the World Health Organization's ban on infant formula abuses
Refused to sign the Anti-Biological Weapons Convention
Refused to sign the Convention against the use of land mines
Refused to participate in the UN Conference Against Racism in Durban
Been one of the last nations in the world to sign the UN Covenant on
Political &
Civil Rights (30 years after its creation)
Refused to sign the UN Covenant on Economic & Social Rights
Opposed the emerging new UN Covenant on the Rights to Peace, Development &
Environmental Protection
|
Regarding this thread:
Look at this thing I have created..!!
|
On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke.
liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it.
Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592.
Invasion of Korea
Asiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.onceafrog.com/CastFire.jpg)
