Subject:
|
Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 May 2003 17:24:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
243 times
|
| |
|
|
<reinserted a few quotes that David snipped, but I think i've got the
attributions right, apologies if I flubbed>
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Nevertheless, your mistrust is not at all misplaced. The BBC, despite being
> > > government funded,
> > Nonsense! It is funded by the public through a licence fee [~UKP100 / US$160]
> > for every viewing household & through sales of its products. Fantastic value
> > when you think about it.
Sorry, how is a license fee that one *must* pay (or be in violation of law),
and which is collected *by the government*, and then given to the beeb, BY
THE GOVERNMENT, *NOT* government funding of the beeb? To call it anything
else strains credulity...
It doesn't matter *what account* the money comes from exactly, if it's a
license fee or a special tax or a general revenue allotment, they're all
government collection mechanisms, government accounts, the BBC is
nevertheless "government funded", and funded by a coercive mechanism.
Note that I didn't say "wholly funded", I acknowledge they get money from
sales of various things (like BBC America to the cable companies over here,
for example).... PBS is the same way, some government funding (mostly
capital these days) and some revenue from voluntary sources.
> And not made up like the NY Times...
>
> Ooops--US news sources are fallible! Did I say that out loud?
NO argument here! *All* sources are fallible. To be imperfect is to be human.
What you should measure, though, is whether they are biased and hide it, and
what they do about mistakes they make, and whether they make mistakes on
purpose. The NYT has gotten pretty low marks from some folks on those
metrics lately (read: in the past 40 years or so). But then so have a lot of
other outfits with biases all over the map. *cough* Fox News *cough*... Of
course, your mileage may vary.
> If you want to keep your head in the sand, then that's your choice. Don't
> admonish those that want to actually practice some true discernement, however.
Who do you view as a good source? I already know who Scott does, presumably.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| (...) *WRONG* there is no "must". One only has to pay if the household has a TV. (...) It is collected by the BBC [well actually their appointed agent]. (...) You are squirming. (...) *sigh* I see your point Larry… but its pretty tenuous. The fact (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I'd start with a variety of sources, instead of just one or two that tell us what we want to hear, or worse, tell us what they want us to hear and filter out that which may (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) And not made up like the NY Times... Ooops--US news sources are fallible! Did I say that out loud? If you want to keep your head in the sand, then that's your choice. Don't admonish those (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
