actually, that was in response to Varegg who was downplaying them as a force of influence. They are not, and that was my point. It just so happens they are cooperating for the good of all involved. Something nobody knew nor did most expect.AussieReaper wrote:
Hahaha. You sounded pretty worried from posts like these:lowing wrote:
I am encouraged by the actions the military has taken in this, and somewhat surprised. So no, not much anymore. In my defense however, the only thing I said about them was, "charming group", based on their previous actions and current posturing. THe rest was assumed by various members involved in the thread.AussieReaper wrote:
Hey lowing, still worried about the Muslim Brotherhood in Eygpt?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p3449706
Arguing that Varegg was downplaying their presence, etc.
I only mention it because the MB have stated that they are not going to put forward a candidate for the Presidency and are not planning on putting for many (if any) members into Parliament.
"The Muslim Brotherhood ... are not seeking personal gains, so they announce they will not run for the presidency and will not seek to get a majority in the parliament and that they consider themselves servants of these decent people," a statement read.
"We support and value the sound direction that the Higher Military Council is taking on the way to transfer power peacefully to create a civilian government in line with the will of the people," the statement continued.
Hardly seem like the evil group some of your sources were touting...
I'm sorry, what show or news broad cast ISN'T out for sponsors and ratings? Apparently you think all the rest are out to inform with no spin or regard to entertainment value for ratings.JohnG@lt wrote:
Fox is entertainment, nothing more. They found their niche as the anti-Democrat news agency. If a Democrat says the sky is blue, Fox will lead off with a story describing the color of the sky as multi-spectrum. Fox is nothing more than a vehicle to generate ad revenue. They will publish what they think their audience wants to see and hear. They do not create policy, they merely give the people the populist message they desire.AussieReaper wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007Spark wrote:
Nonsense IMO. The absolute reverse is true. Why else would the GOP higher ups have been so thoroughly blindsided by the Tea Party?
Fox is completely run with a Conservative spin, the spin has been arguable righter than the Republicans in some cases. But the Tea-Party movement has been promoted by major Republicans. Namely Palin. She did make it to VP nominee...
BBC? They don't have to get sponsors but are still biased.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
reallllly wasn't talking about govt. TVpresidentsheep wrote:
BBC? They don't have to get sponsors but are still biased.
BBC really isn't govt tv.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
What I've seen in the US is way more government TV than the BBC ever will be. Massive donations by networks to both parties (and one of those parties is in power at some point or another). Blatant bias and reporting. It's not that hard to see how some of the networks in the US are just flat out working for their respective political party's
If they are getting their money form the govt. to operate, without the need to sell air time, then yeah, they it is govt. tv.presidentsheep wrote:
BBC really isn't govt tv.
the BBC is normally the first and most bold media outlet to challenge the government here and its policieslowing wrote:
If they are getting their money form the govt. to operate, without the need to sell air time, then yeah, they it is govt. tv.presidentsheep wrote:
BBC really isn't govt tv.
the private media organisations (e.g. murdoch's empire) are completely in the pocket of the government, and vice versa.
the BBC is PUBLICALLY funded, not funded by the government. thus it represents and stands up for the people.
get your facts right.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Whatever is on tv biased or not, they are free to put there, the govt. isn't sponsoring any of it. It is opinion some like it some don't. But it is not owned or sponsored by the govt. sorry.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I've seen in the US is way more government TV than the BBC ever will be. Massive donations by networks to both parties (and one of those parties is in power at some point or another). Blatant bias and reporting. It's not that hard to see how some of the networks in the US are just flat out working for their respective political party's
nor is the BBC. so quit your condescending "sorry" tone. you're wrong, it's plain black/white. shut up and move the fuck on.lowing wrote:
Whatever is on tv biased or not, they are free to put there, the govt. isn't sponsoring any of it. It is opinion some like it some don't. But it is not owned or sponsored by the govt. sorry.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I've seen in the US is way more government TV than the BBC ever will be. Massive donations by networks to both parties (and one of those parties is in power at some point or another). Blatant bias and reporting. It's not that hard to see how some of the networks in the US are just flat out working for their respective political party's
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Where does the BBC get is money for operating?Uzique wrote:
nor is the BBC. so quit your condescending "sorry" tone. you're wrong, it's plain black/white. shut up and move the fuck on.lowing wrote:
Whatever is on tv biased or not, they are free to put there, the govt. isn't sponsoring any of it. It is opinion some like it some don't. But it is not owned or sponsored by the govt. sorry.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I've seen in the US is way more government TV than the BBC ever will be. Massive donations by networks to both parties (and one of those parties is in power at some point or another). Blatant bias and reporting. It's not that hard to see how some of the networks in the US are just flat out working for their respective political party's
Doesn't matter. They're still working for them hugely. You can sit there with the blindfolds on ignoring the reality or chalking it down to the greatness of freedom, but really it's a poor excuse.lowing wrote:
Whatever is on tv biased or not, they are free to put there, the govt. isn't sponsoring any of it. It is opinion some like it some don't. But it is not owned or sponsored by the govt. sorry.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I've seen in the US is way more government TV than the BBC ever will be. Massive donations by networks to both parties (and one of those parties is in power at some point or another). Blatant bias and reporting. It's not that hard to see how some of the networks in the US are just flat out working for their respective political party's
And yeah, the BBC isn't like that either. And it doesn't fund any of the parties or become the parrot for a particular organisation, either.
MSNBC, CNN, and Fox aren't very much different. They're each just focusing on different demographics.
the public that elect to pay an annual license fee if they so wish to receive the bbc's broadcasting services... it's not mandatory.lowing wrote:
Where does the BBC get is money for operating?Uzique wrote:
nor is the BBC. so quit your condescending "sorry" tone. you're wrong, it's plain black/white. shut up and move the fuck on.lowing wrote:
Whatever is on tv biased or not, they are free to put there, the govt. isn't sponsoring any of it. It is opinion some like it some don't. But it is not owned or sponsored by the govt. sorry.
it's the same as an annual subscription to cable or skyTV.
it's a public license fee historically enabled by a royal charter. it has little to nothing to do with the state other than that 'official' historical-document.
now you have consumer choice with your television (e.g. sky, freeview, virgin cable), there really is no 'state monopoly' of the BBC.
move on and pipe down
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
You misunderstood me. All news channels are the same in this regard. Fox simply found its niche with conservative viewers.lowing wrote:
I'm sorry, what show or news broad cast ISN'T out for sponsors and ratings? Apparently you think all the rest are out to inform with no spin or regard to entertainment value for ratings.JohnG@lt wrote:
Fox is entertainment, nothing more. They found their niche as the anti-Democrat news agency. If a Democrat says the sky is blue, Fox will lead off with a story describing the color of the sky as multi-spectrum. Fox is nothing more than a vehicle to generate ad revenue. They will publish what they think their audience wants to see and hear. They do not create policy, they merely give the people the populist message they desire.AussieReaper wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007
Fox is completely run with a Conservative spin, the spin has been arguable righter than the Republicans in some cases. But the Tea-Party movement has been promoted by major Republicans. Namely Palin. She did make it to VP nominee...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
SO basically, if you wanna watch the BBC you have to pay a "licensing fee" which is price set by the British govt. ummm sounds like another form of tax to me. Cuz if I don't want to pay property tax, all I gotta do is not buy property either. but yer right, lets move on.Uzique wrote:
the public that elect to pay an annual license fee if they so wish to receive the bbc's broadcasting services... it's not mandatory.lowing wrote:
Where does the BBC get is money for operating?Uzique wrote:
nor is the BBC. so quit your condescending "sorry" tone. you're wrong, it's plain black/white. shut up and move the fuck on.
it's the same as an annual subscription to cable or skyTV.
it's a public license fee historically enabled by a royal charter. it has little to nothing to do with the state other than that 'official' historical-document.
now you have consumer choice with your television (e.g. sky, freeview, virgin cable), there really is no 'state monopoly' of the BBC.
move on and pipe down
as did MSNBC with liberals, so why single any of them out as more devious than the other?JohnG@lt wrote:
You misunderstood me. All news channels are the same in this regard. Fox simply found its niche with conservative viewers.lowing wrote:
I'm sorry, what show or news broad cast ISN'T out for sponsors and ratings? Apparently you think all the rest are out to inform with no spin or regard to entertainment value for ratings.JohnG@lt wrote:
Fox is entertainment, nothing more. They found their niche as the anti-Democrat news agency. If a Democrat says the sky is blue, Fox will lead off with a story describing the color of the sky as multi-spectrum. Fox is nothing more than a vehicle to generate ad revenue. They will publish what they think their audience wants to see and hear. They do not create policy, they merely give the people the populist message they desire.
the function of parliament setting the fee is simply that it keeps the competition fair and the price-setting democratic. no corporate monopoly or issues of competition ethics. it has nothing to do with 'political sponsorship' or 'state-run media'. you're being a twat. a house is pretty necessary to live. watching a specific television channel is not. ridiculously desperate attempt to save a shit argument; you were misinformed from the start. hush up.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
You really don't get how the BBC works so you're just dismissing it?
None of the money for the TV licence goes to the government. It all goes to the BBC and makes up 75% of their funding, the whole point of the TV licence fees is so the BBC can remain independent of the government.
Doesn't mean they're not biased, but it does mean they don't have to please anyone to get funding, except for ultimately the population.
None of the money for the TV licence goes to the government. It all goes to the BBC and makes up 75% of their funding, the whole point of the TV licence fees is so the BBC can remain independent of the government.
Doesn't mean they're not biased, but it does mean they don't have to please anyone to get funding, except for ultimately the population.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Because it was brought up in the conversation? I didn't go out of my way to bash Fox.lowing wrote:
as did MSNBC with liberals, so why single any of them out as more devious than the other?JohnG@lt wrote:
You misunderstood me. All news channels are the same in this regard. Fox simply found its niche with conservative viewers.lowing wrote:
I'm sorry, what show or news broad cast ISN'T out for sponsors and ratings? Apparently you think all the rest are out to inform with no spin or regard to entertainment value for ratings.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
not trying to make a shit argument, I really couldn't care less, I am simply trying to understand how, a private company can operate without selling anything. As it turns out thee govt. subsidizes them in one form or another. If the govt. steps in to be "fair", and do away with competition, then that tells me the govt. has stake in the company. Nothing is more fair than survival of the fittest in the private sector. You make a superior product, market it, sell it at a competitive price you will be a winner.Uzique wrote:
the function of parliament setting the fee is simply that it keeps the competition fair and the price-setting democratic. no corporate monopoly or issues of competition ethics. it has nothing to do with 'political sponsorship' or 'state-run media'. you're being a twat. a house is pretty necessary to live. watching a specific television channel is not. ridiculously desperate attempt to save a shit argument; you were misinformed from the start. hush up.
not claiming money does go to the govt. It does appear though that the govt. forces you to buy the license fee, in order to watch the BBC, instead of the BBC succeeding or failing based on its own decisions, ratings, sponsors etc...presidentsheep wrote:
You really don't get how the BBC works so you're just dismissing it?
None of the money for the TV licence goes to the government. It all goes to the BBC and makes up 75% of their funding, the whole point of the TV licence fees is so the BBC can remain independent of the government.
Doesn't mean they're not biased, but it does mean they don't have to please anyone to get funding, except for ultimately the population.
Not really, it's your choice whether or not to pay the licence fee if you enjoy the BBCs programs or not, plenty of friends of mine who are students don't pay it and therefore don't watch TV.lowing wrote:
not claiming money does go to the govt. It does appear though that the govt. forces you to buy the license fee, in order to watch the BBC, instead of the BBC succeeding or failing based on its own decisions, ratings, sponsors etc...presidentsheep wrote:
You really don't get how the BBC works so you're just dismissing it?
None of the money for the TV licence goes to the government. It all goes to the BBC and makes up 75% of their funding, the whole point of the TV licence fees is so the BBC can remain independent of the government.
Doesn't mean they're not biased, but it does mean they don't have to please anyone to get funding, except for ultimately the population.
Everyone else tends to pay it as £155 isn't that much for some pretty good TV. The government isn't forcing anyone to pay the licence fee, they will however prosecute you if you don't, the same way they'd prosecute you if you stole something from a shop or refused to pay someone for a job they'd done.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
How is that any different from our model? Weren't we all just forced to digitize?lowing wrote:
not claiming money does go to the govt. It does appear though that the govt. forces you to buy the license fee, in order to watch the BBC, instead of the BBC succeeding or failing based on its own decisions, ratings, sponsors etc...presidentsheep wrote:
You really don't get how the BBC works so you're just dismissing it?
None of the money for the TV licence goes to the government. It all goes to the BBC and makes up 75% of their funding, the whole point of the TV licence fees is so the BBC can remain independent of the government.
Doesn't mean they're not biased, but it does mean they don't have to please anyone to get funding, except for ultimately the population.
Think of their BBC as a cable network. They pay a monthly subscription like we do to Time Warner, Cablevision, Direct TV etc except they don't have to deal with commercials. The only real difference is that they have price controls handed down from the government and we do not. Would you bitch if the government stepped in and said that your cable provider could only charge you $50 a month for your subscription? I'd be dancing in the streets!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
evil socialism and state-run media, apparently.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/