2099net wrote:Well, yes. But I was talking about the BBC. The BBC should be above all that.
Yes, the BBC should be above this. But they're not always above it. They may not be corporately owned, but that doesn't mean they don't engage in biased, ideological-driven reporting:
A decade of propaganda? The BBC's reporting of Venezuela
Researchers at the University of the West of England, UK, have exposed ongoing and systematic bias in the BBC’s news reporting on Venezuela. Dr Lee Salter and Dr Dave Weltman analysed ten years of BBC reports on Venezuela since the first election of Hugo Chavez to the presidency in an ongoing research project, and their findings so far show that the BBC’s reporting falls short of its legal commitment to impartiality, truth and accuracy.
The researchers looked at 304 BBC reports published between 1998 and 2008 and found that only 3 of those articles mentioned any of the positive policies introduced by the Chavez administration. The BBC has failed to report adequately on any of the democratic initiatives, human rights legislation, food programmes, healthcare initiatives, or poverty reduction programmes. Mission Robinson, the greatest literacy programme in human history received only a passing mention.
More:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5003
2099net wrote:I expect you're more aware of the situation and the BBC's independence than most being as (I guess) you also have public funded TV in your country.
Yes, we also have public television (next to commercial tv stations). It's being paid for by both taxes, and by commercials. But the stations are not allowed to put the profits from the commercials in their own pockets. They have to re-invest them in the programs they make. And they're not allowed to interrupt a program for commercials; they have to do it in-between programs, and there's a maxium of time given to advertising.
Public tv brings programs commercial tv don't deliver: programs about the backgrounds to the news, current events, politics, art, cultural events etc. They enrich the media landscape. I only watch the 3 public channels, none of the 8 commercial channels (I also like the Belgian public tv, which we can receive in the south, where I live). But over the last 5-6 years, ratings have become increasingly more important to the public channels. As the government keeps cutting their budgets, they have to rely more on bringing in more money from commercials, and they can only do that by getting higher ratings. That's why I also see more and more 'sensational' programs and more 'empty entertainment' on public tv.
2099net wrote:The problem isn't corporations owning the media. After all, newspapers have long been owned by corporations. Nobody questioned the integrity of The Times (of London), the Wall Street Journal or other famous, respected newspapers until recently.
Well, I question the integrity of some 'respected' newspapers. One of the internationally most respected papers is The New York Times. Yet this paper did not one single bit of investigative journalism into the bogus claims of the Cheney/Bush-administration about the supposed threat that Iraq posed. Simply put: the NYT, and many other 'respectable' newspapers beat the drums of war just as loud as the administration. In a way, they were enablers of the Cheney/Bush-administration.
2099net wrote:I seem to have gone off on a tangent there, and I apologise.
Oh please, don't apologize. I've enjoyed your post. But reading through your post I kept thinking: how many people actually *know* that so much media outlets are owned by just one owner (like your Murdoch example)? Not many, I bet. The connections you make in your Avatar-example, I think most people don't. They don't even know these outlets all belong to one company.
The_Iceflash wrote:Also, in my opinion, MSNBC is the worst of the US cable news channels.
I strongly disagree. MSNBC *is* a 24 hours cable 'news' channel, yes, and that makes it instantly inferior. But MSNBC at least still has Rachel Maddow. She's single-handedly doing the real investigative journalism that all other 'reporters' don't want to do. How she even gets away with it (GE approving it, I mean) I don't know, but I'm glad she's still doing her job. She goes after Democrats (also Obama) just as hard as she goes after Republicans. I've honestly learned a *lot* from her show that I wouldn't have known otherwise.
I also like Keith Olbermann, although he's doing a bit too much tabloid journalism for my taste. It's a shame so much of his time goes up on playing around with the Fox anchors (dissing them). But when he's doing one of his 'Special comments'... WOW! I *loved* it how he revealed the gigantic amounts of money both Republican and Democratic senators receive from the insurance companies to block the 'Public Option'. No other network has done that. And during the Cheney/Bush years, he was the *only* one who disseminated their constant stream of lies point-by-point. Nobody challenged them ,except Olbermann. So that's why I respect him still.
Super Aurora wrote:Speaking of Bill Maher, have you ever saw his documentary on religion(mostly on Judaism,Christianity,and islam)? I founded that doc extremely hilarious.
Yes, I've seen it, and I thought it was funny, too. The only thing that put me off was his (short) conversation with Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders. He's against Islam, but he's also everything Maher despises about 'the crazy right': racist, bigoted, simple-minded, narrow-minded, misguided, anti-intellectual, conspiracy theorist etc. He needs to go ASAP!
Lazario wrote:And Goliath... that video HURTS! As an American, I find it hard to ignore the apathy people have toward how much corporations decide our lives for us because of money interests.
It may not be a comfort, but... it's spreading across the Atlantic. Western Europe behaves more and more like the US. The mindset you're describing is slowly but steadily taking over Europe. The only countries where the regular people still *care* and *fight* for their rights and their democracies, we mock. Just look at how we mock Latin-America. How the corporate media demonize their presidents and politcs on a constant basis, and how we parrot it. Hundreds of thousands of people are getting access to education, getting lifted from poverty, getting decent health care, getting honest media, getting to vote in referendums and polls to shape their own future. And we call their leaders 'dictators' because they're socialists. Because we are so much better...
Lazario wrote:Thanks for another stab, G. I didn't enjoy it.
Well, somebody has to say it! If journalists won't do it, then let comedians do it. It's sad, but true. If you thought that was a stab, you're going to enjoy this one. I think this was his best *ever*. He can't top this one:
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="
http://www.youtube.com/v/w-oPdoT0H1A&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
http://www.youtube.com/v/w-oPdoT0H1A&hl=nl_NL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
) about Rev Al... I think CHARLATAN! 
And, you probably have a good reason for that. I personally don't pay that much attention to black ministers / preachers. But unless they're spewing hate about gays, I don't care. In fact, white people are SO damn uptight about what they fear black people are saying about them. Who cares? Is anybody honestly stupid enough to think black people will ever hurt white people as a race? There is this psychotic racist fear white people have of black people with power and influence. It's really messed up. I don't care what anyone thinks of my skin color. And if there are black people out there who think I'm an inferior race... I wouldn't lose a second's sleep over it.
