It would appear that about 1/3 of them are NOT valuable. It shouldn’t be hard to poll the audience to find out which ones fall in that category. People who run busniesses do this everyday.
Here’s another possible solution: consolidate. In my area, there are 3 PBS stations, not counting the HDTV one and the other “delayed” PBS station on premium cable. They all show largely the same programs-- I’d estimate about a 75% overlap. Sure seems like some easy fat cutting if you ask me.
I cannot “prove” anything, I can only argue as convincingly as I can. All I can do is assure you that had a BBC employee of any seniority issued directives like some of these, *even if they had favoured a different perspective, they would have been sacked.
Test scores: social somewhat on the left side, economic just to the left
Disagree. Hong Kong has a public broadcaster modelled on the BBC (it broadcasts direct on radio, but just produces programmes for television), and it provides a generally reasonable service. It flourishes best when there is a strong person at the helm (the last head was shunted sideways because, some felt, she was too strong), and paradoxically perhaps is less likely to become a mouthpiece for the Central Government and its cronies than the commercial operatops. This is because many advertisers are large corporations that do business in China and want to cultivate ties there. There is always the suspicion (as with the largest selling English newspaper The South China Morning Post) that the tail is wagging the dog with regard to self-censorship of dissenting viewpoints.
There are 6,753 words on that page you linked to. I do enjoy reading, but might you point out WTF it is that you are talking about?
This is my third request. Put up or shut up.
The point you seem to be missing is that the BBC has a charter which demands impartial balanced coverage (regardless of the political beliefs of those reporting), and this would be enforced by sacking staff who waiver from it. In direct contrast to the runnings of Fox, as detailed in the memos linked to by Sentient:
Some choice clips below from the link you seem unwilling to read. Hope it’s not too long for you…
There are plenty more. If you can’t recognise this style of leadership as institutional bias, then this discussion, I guess, is moot.
Well, OK, a fe choice quotes:
I could probably find similar documents in “liberal” institutions. The point is that a BBC chief would be sacked for such (indeed, the Director General Greg Dyke resigned over much, much less).
This was quite uncalled for.
SM was clearly dodging. He made vague references to this, and refused to provide a cite. After repeated attempts, he does provide a cite but doesn’t elaborate on what he’s referring to or what it means. I was pressing him deliberately because he has a habit of doing this. It’s the message board equivilent of muttering something under your breath during an argument. Come out and say it, man.
Strongly Disagree
On the educational front: Say you had a big company that manufactured a product X. If a private news company were to discover that there was a serious defect in product X but also that releasing such information would cause them to lose their advertising contract, then it would think twice about releasing the information. The same scenario could apply to a political party. Public broadcasters means that the citizens have a stream of information which is less corruptible than private broadcasters. Regardless of the leaning of the station, ideally, a public boradcaster will put the interests of the people above the interests of profitability.
I believe a viable democracy cannot be maintained without such a watchdog in place.
On the entertainment front: Unlike many other posters, I don’t see what’s wrong with the government saying this is good art and this is the art we want you to see. I see nothing wrong with a government wanting it’s populace to be artistically literate and aware of the cultural history from which is emerged regardless of the wishes of the people. Also, I believe that some forms of experimental art has a far greater effect on society than what pure box office figures would suggest. They serve to give inspiration to and cultrally enrichen a new generation of creators which is a worthy goal for government to pursue.
Quite right. Apologies for the flippant nature of the comment.
I would say though that I personally thought the point **Sentient ** was making was very clear. (but maybe this was because it is one I would happen to make myself)
Debaser, I assure you that I always debate in good faith and try to provide citations as soon as called upon - I apologise for not doing so immediately the first time you asked, but I responded to the second. I will leave the audience to their own conclusions about our respective moda operandi in this thread, nd merely remark that everything sounds like muttering to the hard of hearing.
All right, now on to the memos…
First of all the cite you give is a blog.
Here is today’s entry:
Clearly this is a left wing blog that I’m sure would be happy to see FOX News go down in flames. They are not a valid cite in GD on the SDMB. I have no reason to believe that the memos posted aren’t simply made up by them. There is no control over what Chris, the “Scallywag-in-Chief” as he calls himself posts on his blog.
Even if it is true, I’m not impressed with the content either but that is an argument for after you can show that it’s even worth discussing.
SentientMeat: There’s the bias readily recognisable in the article as blatant as the one you cited and the there’s the more insidious type, hidden away in the choice of material they choose to go with, the people they choose to interview, the use of words (such as terrorists vers. Militant) etc. The first is actually the more innocent of the two because it’s so apparent. However one doesn’t have to search long on internet blogs before meeting the claim that the BBC is consistently left biased and anti-American (look for instance www.andrewsullivan.com - English so he should know).
Here’s one that made the rounds a little time back: the BBC providing proof for what the majority of Koreans believe on basis of … internet chat sites.
I consider the way the way BBC rigidly avoid the term “terrorist” even in the most atrocious cases (except where the BBC itself is the target of course) to be deeply troubling. More so if the BBC actually go back in old articles on archive to edit out offending words no longer considered acceptable – if that’s what caused the search engine snafu detailed here (come to think of it Orwell had his time in the BBC very much in mind when writing about Winston Smith and the Ministry of Truth):
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2066
*“These self-imposed language limitations sometimes cause journalists to tie themselves into knots. In reporting the murder of one of its own cameraman, the BBC, which normally avoids the word terrorist, found itself using that term. In another instance, the search engine on the BBC website includes the word terrorist but the page linked to has had that word expurgated.” *
But this is not the discussion and as has already been repeated numerous times - one shouldn’t need to prove that bias actually exist – merely that some people believe it does. The bottom line is, you believe you have the right to force some people to pay for what they consider revolting and moral corrupt political propaganda so you can enjoy what you consider good television.
Well, I read the same excerpts in the Guardian but cannot find that precise page: Google was my only option, and that unfortunately only referenced personal sites and OutFoxed.org. I can do little to persuade you of the memos’ veracity except point to their exact duplication all over the web and the notable absence of any denial or litigation from Moody or FOX.
Rune, I do not dispute that many percieve a bias in the BBC (and I happen to know that the use of the word “terrorism” is often a very tricky dilemma from the perspective of one striving for impartiality). I can only assure you that if there were any evidence of directives, that employee would be sacked.
Yet again, I say: That the BBC charter stipulates that the institution strives for impartiality does not mean that it is perfect, nor that people will not perceive bias.
Rune, The BBC may sometimes be seen to have a bias, but it is not as you think…
My local BBC news often use the word ‘terrorist’ in certain context; perhaps they are merely wary of “repeating the meme” in international broadcasts for fear of looking like taking sides- to be* truly impartial* the news coverage has to be as ‘fair’ to the perpetrators of terror as it is to the victims, as unpalatable as that may be to some. They are not there to politicise any particular event, nor hide from reporting the accepted facts, regardless of how this will be recieved (as bias) by viewers from any part of the political spectrum.
Trying to stay focused on the OP here. If you REALLY want to get into all the things we pay for that I think can and should be privatized (several were on the list Lissa mentioned we are currently paying for), I’m more than willing to debate it.
So, I’ll just speak to your last point “News coverage that reports the facts without political bias (pandering to viewers) or corporate bias (pandering to advertisers or parent companies).”. Again, you are assuming that this is the case, and assuming that everyone agree’s with YOUR interperatation of lack of bias, pandering, etc. Many people don’t agree, so why should they HAVE to pay for something they don’t agree with?
Certainly its unfair that some folks pay their taxes and are ‘forced’ to live under laws (abortion comes to mind, as an example) they don’t agree with. However, if you are to have ANY structure in a democratic government (or any government for that matter) then there are some root level services that have to bow to the will of the majority…that are the sole function of government. Laws are one of them. Thats a function of a government…and mechinisms exists to change those laws if needed be, so citizens have some recourse in that situation.
As to the war in Iraq…well, war is also a function of a government, one of the reasons we elect a government to make such decisions…and we choose whether we are for or against all those things with our vote. Just about everything else though is up for grabs as far as SHOULD the government be doing it.
But whats our mechanism for getting rid of things like PBS/NPR? How do we ‘vote’ on that? Not with our pocketbooks…the money is automatically withdrawn without our say and put into it. So it can continue to exist in a vaccume Its pretty much a non-issue with most politicians…and most citizens for that matter.
PBS/NPR…IS it the will of the majority? I don’t know…I’m not even sure if its knowable, its such a small issue. I doubt it is, but I am pretty sure most people don’t care enough to make a big deal about it. Its one of those programs (of which there are a seemingly endless number) that is below the normal radar screen of the average citizen…but as I said earlier, a little here and a little there and soon we are talking about REAL money.
-XT
A neutral point of view is not some mythical ideal that can never be attained. Thousands, if not millions, of news and encyclopedia articles have been written with a NPOV.
Some people may think neutrality is never possible, and some people may think a neutral article or news report is actually biased - perhaps because they think the facts themselves are biased. Those people are kooks, IMO, and can safely be ignored.
Because otherwise, it won’t get produced and we’ll have no neutral media.
Alternately: for the same reason I HAVE to pay for the war in Iraq, and for enforcement of all the laws I disagree with. I vote for candidates who promise to change those laws, when possible, just as someone else can vote for candidates who promise to cut funding for public media… but if my side loses, I still HAVE to pay taxes.
By filling in a box, connecting an arrow, punching a hole, pulling a lever, etc. 
Seriously, if you oppose a law or a war, you vote for a candidate who also opposes it, right? So if you oppose funding PBS, vote for a candidate who shares that view.
If there are no candidates who oppose funding PBS, then you’re unfortunately in the same boat as all the rest of us who feel strongly about minor issues. How often do you think I get to vote for candidates who want to repeal copyright laws, for example? 
If you think it should be a bigger issue, then get out and raise awareness of it. If most people really don’t care for the type of programming PBS and NPR provide, and they’d just as soon let commercial interests take over, then you should have no trouble finding a receptive audience.
Woofa…this thread is a real blast from the past! I had forgotten about SM’s political compass threads.
-XT
I like how a US Public Broadcasting System station in Chicago shows news programs from other countries all day, including Al Jazeera, and how Al J has become a respectable news source, especially compared with RT (formerly Russia Today). I don’t think that, without public funding, the station would or could show either.
This thread was bumped by a spammer. I’ve banned it and deleted its posts.