Subject:
|
Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 May 2003 19:49:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
241 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> <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),
*WRONG* there is no "must". One only has to pay if the household has a TV.
> and which is collected *by the government*,
It is collected by the BBC [well actually their appointed agent].
> and then given to the beeb, BY
> THE GOVERNMENT, *NOT* government funding of the beeb? To call it anything
> else strains credulity...
You are squirming.
>
> 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",
*sigh* I see your point Larry… but its pretty tenuous. The fact that the
BBC is governed by royal charter is its strength; not its weakness!
> and funded by a coercive mechanism.
…and us brits would not change it for the world!
>
> 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.
...and I thought the NYT's problems were PLAGIARISM related. Do you have a
view on PLAGIARISM Larry? ;)
Scott A
>
> > 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| <reinserted a few quotes that David snipped, but I think i've got the attributions right, apologies if I flubbed> (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
