Comments on: I could have told you that

By: Afghan Parliamentary Elections at Peter of the Cosmos

Afghan Parliamentary Elections at Peter of the Cosmos — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:09:23 +0000

[...] The BBC, in their attempt to remain ‘objective’ always seems to focus on the negative – at least in matters concerning the U.S. or it’s foreign policy. Further proof that the BBC hates America (they cover global news darn well, just ignore anything that sounds like opinion). [...]

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:22:38 +0000

Don’t put the BBC and NPR/PBS in the same basket. Again, I can’t comment on the CBC, but the BBC is viciously Left-wing while NPR is liberal but benign.

I frequently use both the BBC and NPR as news sources. As noted in the links above, the BBCs coverage is phenomenal but their perspective frequently enrages me. NPR is a reliable, relatively commercial free news source with far less global coverage that can get amusingly liberal, but to a reasonable and tolerable level.

By: snow

snow — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:34:37 +0000

Well, AR, I disagree. I think that bias can be clearly seen in the CBC at least, as well as the BBC. Is this reflecting public opinion? Maybe, but why should I be forced to pay for it? As for NPR being a very egalitarian source…I really wonder about that. I heard several anti-corporate programs they made featuring such leftist types as Naomi Klein (she’s a Canadian anti-corporate type) and the Harvard prof who is against copyright, among others (mind you, I’m not being in the least bit scientific here, as a thorough review should be done before funding is cut). It seemed as though the programming was well-stocked with leftists and few conservative points of view.

Again, why should I pay for something that is clearly one-sided? If shows are made on contentious subjects, why can’t they be made to show a variety of points of view? Or why not have a variety of shows with a variety of views? I agree that some of the programming is good and worth having, and yet at the same time, I think that if they’re recieving public cash, they should remain relatively neutral or balanced. Drop the public cash and they can be as biased as consumers, funders and shareholders want, but not with my cash.

By: Alfred Russel Wallace

Alfred Russel Wallace — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:01:14 +0000

“Bias” is almost invariably in the eye of the beholder – the disappointing thing is that an anti-American bias is popular in the UK, and in many ways the BBC is reflecting public opinion. While this may well be disturbing, it is probably worth asking WHY ….. Public funding of at least some Radio and TV seems a very good bargain to me. NPR seems a very egalitarian source…

By: snow

snow — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 06:05:23 +0000

Sorry, I meant PBS, as I’m assuming they get a fair amount of public funding. Can’t say I know much about NPR. At the same time, I agree with mutantfrog that alot of the programing on these public stations are good-I always liked PBS and CBC, heck even the BBC has some fine programs-but why should my tax money be paying for politically biased reporting?

By: Mutantfrog

Mutantfrog — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:14:04 +0000

NPR is almost totally financially independent, but public television in the US does get a lot of government funding. Personally, I’m a fan of public television and I’d like to see them continue to get support without politicians interfering in their programming (like the recent scandal over a Bush appointee to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting being given an order to investigate ‘liberal bias’ and then interpreting that to even include any statement even remotely critical of the administration).

Incidentally, even though NPR itself receives very little government funding, many local public radio stations do have their operating expenses subsidized. I believe, however, that this applies mainly to their infrastructure costs and their local programming (which is unlikely to be affordable via local funding in less urban communities)-NPR is purely a programming producer and does not own or operate any stations directly.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:29:51 +0000

Well, NPR is hardly funded by the US government — it provides about 2% of their budget! I have no idea about Canada’s CBC. Also, in 2003 NPR was given $200 million from widow of the founder of McDonalds. In 2003, the annual budget of NPR was $100 million!!

By: snow

snow — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:31:41 +0000

Enough’s enough of these publically funded media outlets pushing blatantly partisan agendas-I’m also thinking of the Canadian CBC and NPR in the US. Even though the BBC does do some very good reporting, I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for slanted BS. Their reporting should be able to stand on its own without public funding, then they can be as biased as they want. I just don’t want to pay for it.

Please Tony, Paul Martin and GWB, cut the government funding for the white elephant media! I know it won’t happen, but hopefully there’ll be more pressure to reduce it.