Obama Thread

[Rich]

Annual budget - 200,000,000 pounds
Income from licence fees - 180,000,000
Difference from - government
Strings attached - plenty

prima facie evidence, not speculation is required and do look up the Thatcher govt. vs. the Beeb

 

[Rich]

What is your evidence for THAT

company accounts and further personal research

 

[statsman]

company accounts and further personal research

prima facie evidence, not speculation is required

 

[statsman]

The BBC is a government department and as such is subject to government interference.

All it takes is a threat by the government not to make up the deficit and I'm sure they would fall in line. After all, who appointed the head of the BBC, the government.

Your claim that they have never made an error would be more in keeping with Vatican State broadcasting. They at least have historical precident for infallability.

 

[Rich]

You're scraping the barrel again, where's your findings from the Thatcher prompt?

 

[Rich]

prima facie evidence, not speculation is required

company accounts are independantly audited here, try again

 

[statsman]

company accounts are independantly audited here, try again

As they are most places.

We are not talking about financial skullduggery, we are discussing subtle pressure in the boardroom.

You are avoiding the issue. The govenment gives the BBC lots of money every year and you honestly believe they don't expect anything in return?

RE Mrs. Thatcher, you can call her a lot of things but subtle is not one of them.

 

[Rich]

RE Mrs. Thatcher, you can call her a lot of things but subtle is not one of them.

Even she couldn't control the BBC and there's plenty of evidence to support that claim, now where's yours that show the current idiots fare any better?

 

[Mike375]

I find myself being in the rare situation of being in agreement with Rich

I don't think either the BBC or Austalian counterpart the ABC are influenced by gov't so as to have a bias in favour of the gov't. In fact just the opposite.

I imagine the BBC is similar to the ABC in the sense that population of "watchers" see it as real tax dollars that do the funding, that is their money.

The govenment gives the BBC lots of money every year and you honestly believe they don't expect anything in return? As just mentioned it is not the gov't's money, they are just allocating tax dollars. In the case of the BBC and ABC the tax payer sees things much more this way than is the case with gov't allocation of tax dollars to othe areas.

 

[statsman]

Even she couldn't control the BBC and there's plenty of evidence to support that claim, now where's yours that show the current idiots fare any better?

The same place yours is that the BBC has never made an error.
(Thought I forgot that one didn't you)

Seriously, I think it is naive in the extreme to think that a government that pays millions of pounds (over and above the licence fees) for a government service is not expecting the occasional favour in return. I am not saying they are controlling every aspect of the BBC, but I am suggesting there are occasional subtle hints from the Prime Minister's Office (or elsewhere) that a different slant on a news item might be beneficial to the BBC.

 

[Wayne Cramer]

Maybe Hillary can get an embassadorship to Lower Ebonia working for Secretary of State Reverend Jerimiah Wright.

 

[Sum Guy]

Maybe Hillary can get an embassadorship to Lower Ebonia working for Secretary of State Reverend Jerimiah Wright.

I thought Hillary still had 2 years to go as a Senator.
She doesn't have to polish up the resume for a while yet.

 

[Sum Guy]

How would you know?
Oh and by the way, here is the longest running TV prog in the world
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262990/

I always thought "Match of the Day" was the longest running programme in the world.
Followed closely by "Hockey Night in Canada" (or La Soiree de Hockey if you're a Habs fan).

 

[thisisntwally]

Seriously, I think it is naive in the extreme to think that a government that pays millions of pounds (over and above the licence fees) for a government service is not expecting the occasional favour in return. I am not saying they are controlling every aspect of the BBC, but I am suggesting there are occasional subtle hints from the Prime Minister's Office (or elsewhere) that a different slant on a news item might be beneficial to the BBC.

this is a good point. I would also like to note that 10% is considered a controling stake in a company (at least by international business standards, I don't really know where you protective eastponders draw that line). More importantly it looks to me as though that 20,000,000 (so thats US$40,000,000++) pounds is the difference between an operational BBC, and a BBC which cannot cover its costs and shuts down.

If the BBC is bailed out by the gov't to such an extent, it seems absurd to think that Gov't intrests in 'the news' would be ignored. The budget commitee need not even voice thier needs, BBC management would likely censor itself to avoid the risk of disasterous cuts in financial support.

Also should people worry about the spin inherent in gov't release of information, or selective disclosure of actions etc? If NASA only releases part of the story, or agressively publishes select issues can a BBC report be considered true to life?

 

[Sum Guy]

Also should people worry about the spin inherent in gov't release of information, or selective disclosure of actions etc? If NASA only releases part of the story, or agressively publishes select issues can a BBC report be considered true to life?

The reason why the NASA reports are used in the news is because the news providers don't have anyone on staff to rebut them.
They would have to hire a special space consultant and pay him/her. Why bother. The viewers don't know any more about it than they do.

 

[Wayne Cramer]

I see Obama finally took a stand against Reverend Jerimiah Wright. Good to know that if he becomes president it will only take him twenty years to realize when something is amiss and take corrective action.

 

[Fifty2One]

I see Obama finally took a stand against Reverend Jerimiah Wright. Good to know that if he becomes president it will only take him twenty years to realize when something is amiss and take corrective action.

Ya George would have dropped bombs first and waited for the facts later!

 

[Wayne Cramer]

Better than waiting so long that we're the recipients of the bombs.

 

[thisisntwally]

Ya George would have dropped bombs first and waited for the facts later!

and he would have dropped them on Jesse Jackson's house.

 

[Rich]

Ya George would have dropped bombs first and waited for the facts later!

But he doesn't understand facts at any time