Government threatens to break up BBC

[Lori Price CLG]

Government threatens to break up BBC

The BBC is facing the most radical shake-up in its history in a proposed overhaul that could split its Scottish operation from the rest of the UK as ministers seize on the crisis following the Hutton report.

Leaked Whitehall documents reveal that ministers are considering the complete dismantling of the Corporation, with regional wings being allowed to develop into "separate entities".

There are also plans to strip the BBC of its long-standing editorial independence, putting it under the control of an outside regulator and giving MPs more say over its affairs.

<snip>

-Lori Price

[Calico4000]

1. Will never happen

nt

[SemperEadem]

59. I wonder now if they see the wisdom in our First Amendment?

Government can regulate what they broadcast? But then again, it isn't the U.S.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Amazing how the same crap is happening in England that's happening here

"Be critical of conservative/idiot leadership, and thou shalt be hammered"

[AP]

4. In the UK, the want to break it into smaller parts -- they want to devolve

power so there isn't one big entity with monopoly power to influence people's opinions.

Breaking the Scottish part off is a way to increase diversity of opinion, and it's more democratic.

From the article:

Leaked Whitehall documents reveal that ministers are considering the complete dismantling of the Corporation, with regional wings being allowed to develop into "separate entities".

[ClintonTyree]

3. One more brick...........

in the road to government controlled media. I hope this never happens, but if it does the free world and free press become things of the past.

[AP]

5. Word choice: "threatened" reveals bias of reporting.

They've been talking about this for a while. It's not a "threat." It's a plan to make the entertaiment market in the UK more competitive and less of a gov't run monopoly.

Trust me. It's democratic.

[xxqqqzme]

6. democratic is NOT

the word I would use to describe murdoch salivating over controlling yet another market.

[rman]

7. "strip the BBC of its long-standing editorial independence"

"putting it under the control of an outside regulator and giving MPs more say over its affairs."

how does that equate to "less of a gov't run monopoly"?

and how is Murdoch's media empire not "one big entity with monopoly power"?

[AP]

19. It's currently a government allowed monopoly with NO Democratic represent-

ation of how it's run.

If the government is going to let it totally control what people are allowed to see, it makes sense that MPs -- people elected by the people -- can have some oversight.

And, people, BBC isn't just a NEWS organization. It's an entertainment organization and it's a monopoly, and monopolies are economicall inefficient and reduce the quality of the product created and it's unfair for private entertainment companies to have to compete with the monopoly.

The entertainment part of BBC should be broken up into small pieces and sold, so that there is value and quality-enhancining competition in the ENETERTAINMENT market. TV is really done on the cheap in the UK and it means that they import Friends rather than export Alan Partridge. A more competitive market woulld improve revenues for exports, and make Britains wealthier.

Murdoch can salivate all he wants, but the key is to have privitization of the parts that should be privatized (entertainment) and then have effective anti-monopoly provisions so that no one company can dominate the entire entertainment production and distribution landscape.

[GCP]

34. "monopolies are economically inefficient and reduce the quality

of the product created".

So I suppose any of the independent channels would have put their necks out and funded "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", "Red Dwarf", "Monty Python", "The Ascent of Man", "Civilization", "The Young Ones" and on and on and on.

It's because the Beeb has the ability to fund innovative programming like the above, that the independent channels are still trying to catch up with them.

The BBC has done more for entertainment and the arts than all the channels in America put together.

I think I'm going to have to put you on ignore, I disagree with everything you say, including your routine defence of Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

[AP]

36. Have any of those shows ended up on prime-time US TV? No.

But if they had had higher production values, they might have.

Original US programming often ends up on prime-time UK TV.

In the US, they generally only buy the scripts, or stick them on a low-ratings channel.

If ONE british tv show made it to the US in original form, it would result in a huge influx in cash.

[Spentastic]

38. Where do you get your drugs?

Are you honestly saying that those programmes are not valid because they didn't appeal to the U.S market? Has it crossed your mind that the BBC doesn't comission shows to appeal to an American audience. It is after all the BRITISH Broadcasting Company. I don't see that many Australian shows gracing U.S airwaves either.

I'm actually coming to the conclusion that you're quite mad.

The BBC is allowed to make and promote the programmes it does due to its special status. Furthermore, there are other commercial channels in the U.K so your "monopoly" argument seems a bit thin.

[AP]

41. What I'm saying: low production values, thanks to BBC economics

has prevented the UK from making EVEN BETTER SHOWS which could have been sold to the US for prime-timer airing which would have generated bigger license fees which would have gone into building up a wealthier entertainment industry in the UK.

As it is, the UK sells a few scripts to be re-made into American shows. But the money is generally flowing the other direction, to pay American production companies to buy licenses for shows with higher production values.

Economics 101.

[Spentastic]

44. Bollocks

That's as usual a statement without any proof whatever. You have an interesting hypothesis but nothing else.

[AP]

47. Do you think that the production output of the BBC is the absolute best

the British are capable of?

Don't you think there's a lot of tallent in the UK that, with the right production finance, could be producing TV programming that'd be good enough for prime time American TV?

We all read British literature in high school and college. I don't see why television production is such a lop-sided economic reality.

[Spentastic]

63. You miss the point

so completely that your "arguments" are barely worth considering.

Do you belive that the bottom line determines the validity of everything?

Is Friends better comedy than Fawlty Towers?

Economics is a model for markets, not quality or creativity.

Rupert Murdoch would love you.

[AP]

68. I think you miss the point. You're asking people to work as hard as people

in Hollywood and accept less because a lot of armchair socialists who don't understand the value of intellectual or physical labor think the marketplace should be rigged in a way that impoverishes them.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

[NashVegas]

75. What's Good Enough For Prime Time American TV?

Survivor / Joe Millinaire / Real World / etc

The Practice
Fear Factor
Yes, Dear
Everyone Loves Raymond
8 Simple Rules
The Guardian
Friends

Without which, none of our lives would ever be the same.

[AP]

79. Joss Wheedon was going to produce for Channel 4 a show with Giles from

Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It was going to made for British TV and produced in the UK, and the hope was that they could show it during prime time in the US. The show never got past pre-production.

If British TV were a wealthier, more professional industry (which I say it would if the BBC weren't the elephant promoting economic irrationalities) perhaps the show would have made it to British and American TV, and perhaps it would have bumped some crappy reality TV show.

Buffy cost something like 1 mil per show. I doubt there's a single British show that costs that much. If there were more shows with production values that high, I bet some of them would cross over to the US in a bigger way than Ab Fab, or Fawlty Towers.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

80. It's the BBC

it's still in pre-production (talks began in about 2001, but Wheedon spent more time on Buffy/Angel & some other series in the US & Anthony Stuart-Head has been doing several comedy shows for BBC).

We ain't gonna agree on this (& it's past my bedtime ;)) so I'll leave it at that!

[AP]

81. If there were more money to do it, it would have happened. But this

is all hypothetical.

But do you really disagree that, if British television were a wealthier overall industry, it'd be more likely to produce a show that could be aired on one of the big five stations during prime time?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

82. It depends on what you mean

Sitcoms wise, I think we already do - but the US Network preference is to take a British idea & try & transform it into something pap (Coupling being the recent example -- I await to see what happens to the Office, etc, etc).

If you're talking about ER (& whatever other non-cable US drama's - I can only think of HBO shows!) then I think we've certainly produced comparable - though more English & admitedly 'cheaper' (although actor fees are not as ridiculous as State-side) - like Cracker, Touch of Frost, Moorse, the recent Canterbury Tales, etc.

We also have a lot of documentaries, nature & history shows on over here in prime time which are excellent - & get decent ratings & export - but not to NBC/CBS/ABC/etc because they simply don't want to air stuff like that. (And many of our drama's would be far too racy for US consumption if Janet's tit is anything to go by -- nudity, swearing & drug abuse is common (not to a vulgar degree, but you get my message) & I would rather not have producers thinking in terms of the export market before considering local consumption. ))

But then British TV doesn't schedule in the same way as you guys -- series' are normally 6-8 episodes, & we have far more "one-off" drama's than US Prime Time (to the best of my knowledge). (& don't forget that - again as one example - "Angel's In America" was a joint HBO/Channel 4 venture). Because these would be very unpopular with US advertisers, they don't transfer to your market - but do very well in other English language countries.

(must go before I fall asleep (& apologies for frantic nature of typing), but in answer to your question - no - because I don't agree with your criteria about $$ = better program + the restraints placed on terrerstrial TV in the US. )

[NashVegas]

85. I'm Waiting for "State of Play"

To get aired over here on BBC America or other PBS.

[AP]

89. You know why shows only go 6-8 episodes in the UK? Because there isn't

enough money in the production budgets to hire a team of writers, as the Simpsons and Friends have. They can't stay fresh, and they can't physically churn out the product.

On some levels, this is good, and I think US TV would benefit from not being on every week of the year, and from running 22 episodes straight without re-runs.

Nonetheless, only being able to churn out 6-12 episode seasons (due to economics) is a MAJOR factor preventing US networks from picking up British productions. In fact, the real money is in syndication and you need at least 3 seasons of 22+ episodes to get syndicated, and VERY FEW British shows have the stamina and resources to go that far.

They would if the BBC didn't dominate the media landscape.

[GCP]

58. 'the UK sells a few scripts to be re-made into American shows."

Yeah, we've seen the great production values that were put into these shows and the huge successes that were made of them over here - NOT.

Do you remember the US version of "Coupling"? It was horrendously bad and was off the air in 3 weeks.
How about the American version of "Fawlty Towers"? I believe it was called "Maude" and also was horrible. "All in the Family" was the castrated version of ""Till death Do Us Part".

If you can't see the quality that the Beeb puts into it's original shows, then there's no hope for you. My mother is still in the UK, and thinks the majority of the imported US shows are a complete load of crap.

[goobergunch]

42. Don't forget Doctor Who!

:hi:

[AP]

45. All the money made from licensing Dr Who in the US probably isn't as

much as the license fees from 4 episodes of Friends. It's a totall guess. I could be wrong. But I'd be surprised if I was.

[goobergunch]

48. I'm not concerned about money here

I'm concerned about entertainment value. I'd rather watch Doctor Who then Friends any day of the week.

I don't believe in unrestrained capitalism. Sorry.

[AP]

51. People who work for a living are. Why do you want to deny people who

work for a living the ability to reap the full rewards of their labors? And I'm talking about gaffers and electricians and carpenters as well as writers, directors and actors.

[goobergunch]

54. So you're saying

that it's okay to have crappy entertainment, as long as people get paid well for it? That's what I'm hearing.

[SemperEadem]

60. that's exactly what is happening in the US right now

why are you so surprised?

[goobergunch]

62. I'm not suprised.

Just not happy.

[AP]

69. Entertainment is crappy because of a private monopoly in the US.

The point is that there's a middle ground that rewards people who work hard and make good product and it's bettween the BBC-public monopoly and the US-private monopoly paradigm, and that's what Blair is trying to achieve.

[NashVegas]

56. The World Doesn't Need More Gaffers and Technicians

We need more plumbers. We need more doctors and nurses. We need more sanitation engineers.

[AP]

70. Gaffers and Technicians have homes with toilets for plumbers to fix.

Today, people are working their asses off in the entertainment industry in the UK. They deserve to be able to do so in a marketplace that isn't rigged by a government monopoly. And they deserve to realize the full value of their labor.

[bpilgrim]

73. oh, so it's about jobs you say

how interesting, so they are only just 'privatising' the industry yet i thought elected officials were gonna be on the boards?

:crazy:

peace

[AP]

78. This is very simple. However, you need to focus:

There are some activities which the gov't SHOULD perform because they're too easy to monopolize and don't respond to the profit motive. These include utitlities, train lines, and health care. There are many other industries that are best provided in a well-regulated free market in which trusts are busted, price fixing prevented, etc.

Entertainment is NOT an industry best provided by the government or by a private monopoly.

As for the BBC, the fact is that the public pays a huge subsidy to keep it in shoes. But the public doesn't have a seat at the table. So long as it is funded by taxpayers, there should be people directly elected by the people having a say in how it's run.

If it were a private company, in theory, shareholders would have a say via proxy voting and the ability to vote people to the board. Nothing is lots by having actual MPS close to the decision makers. That's INCREASED democracy, notwithstanding the way private media tries to portray it as bad.

[bpilgrim]

86. the simple fact is that they are being broken up because they spoke out

and now you think they will have even more independence with a gov official sitting next to them - lol

sure, ap... whatever you say.

peace

[nolabels]

90. "a private monopoly"

Dude let me clue you about that, you must live in someplace other than the US
You are really mistaken if you think jobs are created by monopolies

http://www.aftra.com/press/pr_20030414_avoid_clear_ch.html
AFTRA National Board Urges Members to Avoid Clear Channel New York Stations

Board Also Issues Strike Authorization to New York Local in Clear Channel Dispute

New York, N.Y., April 14, 2003 - At its National Board meeting this weekend, held via videoconference between New York and Los Angeles, the AFTRA Board of Directors voted unanimously to adopt a resolution urging its 80,000 members to "refuse to make any appearances, to perform or grant interviews for any of the Clear Channel-owned stations in New York, until such time as Clear Channel has reached an acceptable collective bargaining agreement with AFTRA."

AFTRA represents actors, broadcasters and recording artists around the country, and is in the process of informing managers and agents of this decision. "This is one of the best examples of how performers and media artists come together to support each other," said AFTRA National President John Connolly. At the same meeting, the AFTRA National Board voted to accept a proposed plan to consolidate AFTRA and SAG.
(snip)

[edzontar]

67. So you think AMERICAN media is better?

I'll give you HBO and a few decent shows like the SIMPSONS and BUFFY TVS, butt just LOOK at what has happened to the NEWS in your corporate, money-driven utopia....

I'd take the worst of BBC for ANY of the drivel on FAUX, CNN, MSRNC, etc.

[AP]

71. Good American TV makes its creators way more $ than great British TV.

Creators are laborers too. They deserve to realize the value of their labor.

The problem with American TV today is that we're moving towards private monopolies.

There used to be a rule that broadcasters couldn't own the companies that produced content. The Republicans got rid of that rule. Now, companies like Disney control the entire pipeline, so they try to use synergy to sell their shows (and they are less willing to take chances on new stuff). TV has gotten much worse since those rules changed and there aren't many honest people in LA who deny that the economic model is a major reason for the increasing crapiness.

[NashVegas]

84. So What?

You insist on assigning a dollar value onto an intangible asset.

The only accurate dollar value that can be assigned is the amount advertisers will pay to have their products promoted during the programming.

Anyone have a BBC rate card?

[AP]

88. So what? People in the entertainment business in the UK are working their

asses off, and because of the BBC's domination of the market, preventing real competition, the market denies these people the full value of their labor.

So, you're denying these people and the industry to make money in proportion to their efforts, AND the british public is paying a flat tax to pay for the privilege of having a less productive society.

This is why monopolies are bad.

[NashVegas]

83. With Its Cheesy Sets and Cheap Production

Fired my imagination more than any US show in the last 15 years.

[Spentastic]

10. Here we go again

On what authority are we to trust you AP?

Your credentials for defending liberal instituitions / ideals in the U.K seems a bit off.

I believe your track record includes supposrt of Tony for his decision to kill Iraqis and surprising support for the involvement of the private sector in everything.

I'd suggest that those who are interested do not in fact "trust" Ap but look into this government's complete disdain for independent reporting that criticises Tony Blair.

The BBC is able to provide quality programming because it is not subject to competition. Remove this ability and the airwaves will be filled with U.S made tripe.

[NashVegas]

17. No, It's Not

The BBC is the largest public-servant media entity in the world, bar none.

It has no stockholders to answer to, no military-industrial complex agenda to push. The BBC is the reason the US government is allowing our media to consolidate to the point they are: we want an entity that can go head to head against them and counter its editorial independence.

Allow me to remind you: the BBC (a government entity) carried Greg Palast's reports of what happened in Florida 2000 when no American entity would.

This would dump the tradition of a media entity serving the public interest in favor of the Rupert Mudochs of the world.

[AP]

20. The BBC is a flat-taxed financed public entertainment monopoly that holds

back the UK from having a top-notch, wealth-producing entertainment industry.

It's bad for competition. It's bad for the entertainment industry in the UK.

The BBC -- Greg Pallast notwithstanding --is TERRIBLE at covering African news. It's incredibly pro-imperialist. They only thing they really do well is criticize America. They disdain America, and that's why Pallast gets free reign.

Also, it enabled Thatcher and Major to stay in power for way longer than they should have. It's great to have government-sponsored, non-commercial media, but it's not great to have a single voice that's able to dominate the entire landscape.

[NashVegas]

24. "top-notch, wealth-producing entertainment industry"

The worst thing that ever happened to art was the discovery that it could be a wealth-producing industry. The industry has taken art out of the realm where it was something anyone and everyone can do, and put it in the realm where it's something only very *special* people — those who are willing to bow to their corporate masters and promise not to rouse the public's conscious — can do.

We are buried up to our necks in an entertainment industry that serves to keep true human expression suppressed at all costs.

No thanks.

I'll go further: due to the lack of competition, which has driven most US entertainment into polarizing "niche" markets, the UK has more variety and diverse programming on its airwaves than US Americans could dream of.

In 1973, in the US, you could turn into one radio station and hear anything from the Chi-lites to Herb Alpert to Eric Clapton. Now, you have radio stations that devote themselves to singular genres. The result has been to polarize us into "metal" fans, "pop" fans, "rap" fans, "alternative" fans, "r & b" fans, "jazz" fans, etc. etc.

A look at the British pop charts is to witness the diversity of popular music in the UK. A look at Billboard is to witness the utter homogenized crap that passes for "entertainment" in the US.

And you want to remake the British media landscape into an imitation of our own? Blechh.

[AP]

37. Like any other industry, entertainment is a business, and people who

work hard in it should be entitled to reap a fair proportion of the value they create. They way the entertainment industry has been run in the UK has made it less productive.

Rank was one of the biggest entertainment companies in the UK, and I believe it went bankrupt. Working Assets is a great company. They should be buying up American companies, but the way the entertainment industry exists in the UK -- dominated by a publically subsidized gov't monopoly -- has held them back.

There'd be more money and more jobs and better products and more middle class wealth in the UK but for the way the BBC has made the entertainment market irrationally small.

[NashVegas]

46. A Culturally Bankrupt Industry

In this case, seeks to have a culturally vibrant entity broken up so 'entertainment' can supplant it?

I hope the Brits are smart enough to tell Rupert Murdoch's admirers to shove it.

[AP]

49. ...that employs a lot of people, and could employ more in the US if the

private monopolies didn't control it, and could employ more in the UK if the public monopoly didn't control it.

Really, this is the core of liberalism. The government should take care of the things only the gov't can take care of, and a well-regulated marketplace that prevents monopolies from forming is the best way to create as much wealth and jobs as possible.

News may be a government business. But entertainment production certainly isn't.

[NashVegas]

57. "Just Stay Asleep. Keep Watching TV"

.

[AP]

72. People who work for living making TV shows are trying hard to make

stuff that people like. I'm all for allowing them to do that and seeing those people derive a fair share of the wealth they create in that process.

[Lori Price CLG]

50. BBC as 'public servant' --and excellent points, Crisco!

I concur.

:)-Lori

[AP]

52. They're a public monopoly that is denying a lot of people from carpernters

to directors the ability to realize the full value of their labor.

[NashVegas]

55. Oh, Please

Profiteering stockholders is more like it.

There's nothing corporations hate more than an entity they can't get a piece of. When you add publicly-held stock to the mix, you add a public demand for the action.

The only difference between what the corporate profiteers want in this case, and what the Mafia protection rackets do is that what the latter operates without illicit government approval.

And I'll say it again: the entertainment industry is, by and large, culturally bankrupt.

In no other industry are the wealth creators encouraged to get stoned out of their minds. Especially when there's a dotted line that needs to be signed.

[Spentastic]

61. It's also complete shite

Sky, ITV, Channel 4 etc seem able to exist in the U.K market. This hardly makes the BBC a monopoly does it?

[NashVegas]

65. Actually I Was Wrong

There is another industry where the wealth managers encourage the wealth creators to get shitfaced out of their minds: prostitution and porn movies.

[AP]

76. They're all have to compete with a government-subsidized de facto monopoly

which alters the entire landscape in a very unproductive way.

[AP]

77. Way to devalue intellectual and physical labor!

I thought those were core democratic principles.

Who do you think IS entitled to realize the value of their labor?

[Dover]

8. Sounds like they want to chop it up and feed it to the sharks

Please tell me Brits are up in arms about this!
All of Europe should be in the streets, imo. One only needs to look at what the loss of a free press has done to America to understand the threat. It's one thing to allow for "diversity" by breaking up monopolistic tendencies, it's quite another to surrender editorial control!!!

And that is what they are doing at a time when all the competition have merged to become huge multinational media conglomerates. This seems more like a hostile takeover.

The real issue here is the free press's power of truth. And the controls of government (and ultimately corporate media) can't risk an informed public when their ultimate goal is to CONTROL information, thereby controlling the masses.

In a true democracy their intentions might be altruistic and for the public good, but we now know better. They have NOT forced this kind of "dismantling" onto the major media players so there is no level playing field here. But this argument is an attempt as redirecting the real issue, which is "WHO WILL CONTROL INFORMATION"?

[cubsfan6969]

9. Censorship on the internet is next

[0007]

11. Gotta have something like Ofcom that BBC is gonna get, 'eh?

A media watchdog for the INTERNET is all about big brother and ripping us off in the name of freedom.

[nolabels]

18. I am sure that will work

HOG WASH SOAP
A big chunk of soap with chips of color throughout, this will take out grease, oil, dirt, grass stains .. you name it! Contains no animal fats and is gentle enough to use every day. Wrapped with a piece of homespun and has a cute detail card included.
(snip)

http://www.moonandstarswebdesigns2.com/whenpigsfly/pigs.html

[Occulus]

23. It can't be done.

And I'm basing that solely on the definition of the word "internet."

ANY single computer that accepts connections from outside has the potential to make up a node on the net, be it a web server, shell login, remote X session, whatever. Any such computer can be its own, small internet. All it takes is the ability to exchange data with the rest of the internet. Shoot, for some purposes, I'm running a server occasionally; a file downloaded from me would be said to have been found "on the internet."

No, censorship of the whole net isn't really doable, as the only practical way is at the point of the end user, and that's wide open to attack by that user.

[nolabels]

53. Exactly, and this is why they still have Hugo in Venezuela

Following the story of how they tried to shut the news down when the spooks were going for the coup, these little nods let the news seep out and helped their little plan go up in smoke. I sure they are still stinging from that one.

Rest assured the first place they go for when they want shut something down is telephone switching stations. These are some of the first things they bombed in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

Information is king in todays world

[Flagg]

12. Somethin's rotten in the United Kingdom

[GermanDJ]

13. I used to have this illusion about Tony Blair

that he is a good PM who cares about the people of his country.
The Iraq war finally opened my eyes!

Some very interesting articles about Blair can be found on Greg Palast's website:

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=6&subject_name=Tony%20Blair

[AP]

21. Incidentally, if you read TBDMCB, Pallast's criticisms of Blair are this:

"Gordon Brown is a whore for big business. Therefore, I hate Blair."

Yet, so often you hear here, "Pallast says Blair is bad. Let's get rid of him and get Brown in office."

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

25. Are you sure?

It's been a while, admittedly, since I read the book, but from memory his "Lobbygate" stuff was about Mandleson's love affair with big business.

[GermanDJ]

30. Not true:

Palast criticizes Blair on a whole number of issues.

To give you an example:

"Tony Blair is using the war on terror and the war in Iraq as a way to smash his only political opposition, which is the left wing of his party. There is no opposition from the Tory Party or from the third party, the Social-Democrats. And if Blair was to ever lose his job as Prime Minister, it's because he would be voted out by the members of his own Labor party.

And there was a very good chance of that because he was losing ground. Basically he was running a Thatcher-lite program -- privatizing the subway system for example. I mean, he'd gone on a real ultra-right economic binge, anti-government, anti-union, anti-social spending."

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=188&row=3

[AP]

39. Read what he writes about Gordon Brown. He criticizes Blair for Brown's

corporate whoring.

[Spentastic]

40. Are you able to read?

Are you going to acknowledge the posters claim that Palast accuses Blair of many things including being a corporate whore?

[AP]

43. I didn't say Pallast didn't criticize Blair. Can you read?

I said (or at least I'm saying) that in TBDMCB, (some of) Pallast's harshest criticisms of Blair are for things Gordon Brown did.

That's from memory, but I don't see anyone disproving it.

[Spentastic]

64. Yes you did

"Incidentally, if you read TBDMCB, Pallast's criticisms of Blair are this:"Gordon Brown is a whore for big business. Therefore, I hate Blair.""


How are we allowed to say it on this site? I belive it goes like this. AP, I believe that you may have got your facts wrong. You may have of course inadvertantly been telling Pork Pies.

I'm sorry AP that's an inclusive statement meaning that ALL of Pallast's criticisms in TBDMCB were due to Brown's whoreage. You subseuently qualified that stament to make it mean something entirely different.

So in summary, I can read fine. At least as well as you can spin.

[dbt]

14. Damn RIGHT, Flagg!

The BBC must have been dangerously close to the truth about someone to be getting so much heat!

:think:
dbt

[Elidor]

15. A reporter made a mistake, so let's dismantle the whole thing.

This stinks.

[AP]

22. It proved how much power the BBC had to take down a government based

on a lie.

They're right to DEVOLVE power, and add ELECTED OFFICIALS to the board that runs the company.

[NashVegas]

26. Which Was the Lie?

That the intelligence was "sexed up?"

Please be joking.

[Spentastic]

28. Proved? How exactly?

Paranoia me thinks. The government is still in power and by the looks of this threatening to break up the BBC.

A lie? Even Hutton was not so bold to put it so.

AP you constantly amaze me. Just when I thin the Labour government has finally done the indefensible I find you here spouting about what a great idea it is. Are you actually Peter Mandelson?

If you are, Fuck off Mandelson. If you're not, no harm no foul. :)

[GermanDJ]

29. What lie are you talking about?

The 45 minutes claim,
the forbidden chemical weapons,
the yellow cake from Niger,

Those were not the BBC's lies.

Those were Blair's, Bush's and Cheney's lies...


I hope you're kidding?!

[0007]

35. What I've been reading from AP - He/She is not kidding

[bpilgrim]

66. actually, it is the GOV that is wielding all the power, based on a lie

make that lies and that they are now planning on expanding and extending that power even further does not bode well for anyone.

everyone can now plainly see that the gov 'sexed up' their 'evidence'.

well, thank GORE he 'invented' the internet so we can have global ALTERNATIVE news sources instead of JUST corporate or gov controlled :bounce:

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[NickB79]

87. It proves how much power the BBC had to take down a government

For telling the truth that the government didn't want anyone to hear! What F-ing lie?!?! If showing the light on a lie that led to the deaths of thousands of civilians is what monopolies do, I'm all for them then.

[NashVegas]

16. That Would Be a Stupid, Stupid Thing

..

[Crachet2004]

27. This is about Murdoch and Sky News....

an English version of Fox. The powers that be can't have an independent BBC telling the truth! I hope people in the UK rally to save BBC independence...but it may be too late.

However, old line media doesn't impact the way it used to...not as influential. There are bloggers on the net who have a greater following than many fair-sized brick-and-mortar print publications. There has been a dotcom explosion of alternative media sites; and we can log on to the World! Attempts at mind control are doomed to failure as long as the internet remains unregulated-and this is the real danger IMHO.

Make no mistake, this is an American disease lapping at the shores of England: They will break up a large, free, powerful organization so that, in the end, it may be bought and controlled piecemeal by the likes of Rupert Murdoch. But given the interconnectedness of the world today, this kind of thinking is so behind the curve, it makes me laugh! Gone are the days when an endorsement by "Time Magazine", could virtually guarantee the election of an Eisenhower!

That's the problem that conservative interests by their very nature have: they will be left groping and grasping-locked in the past, choking and blinded by the cloud of dust the rest of us leave behind as we move into the future.

[fedsron2us]

32. The story appeared in the Murdoch owned Sunday Times

Murdoch hates the BBC because it represents everything that he hates.
Fortunately, I suspect that the grim reaper is likely to call on Rupert before he gets the chance to fulfill his ambition of destroying one of the worlds great bastions of free speech. When he is gone I doubt that his children will be able to keep his dynastic media empire in one piece. I pray to God I will be here to see it fall apart. There are many people in the UK that would be only too happy to dance on that Australian bastards grave.

[Matilda]

74. Amen to that.

But please don't call him Australian - he sold his citizenship for
the right to buy up big media outlets in the States. Murdoch is
a whore, and not even a high-class one at that.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[zanana]

33. BRITS--Don't let it happen!

Where else will we get our news?

[nolabels]

91. We can invent it like the Fakers do on the other side of reality

Next question :silly:

[Gloria]

92. I wake up to the BBC via shortwave and faithfully listen on Sunday

to "Talking Point" which is an amazing call in show on a current topic.

The Hutton report was a "frameup" to let Blair off the hook on WMDs and to hurry the demise of the BBC....all this "reform" stuff was already under way and I posted several stories about it in the World Media Watch........

THe British public isn't buying the Hutton report, but who cares about the public??

In the 2+ years I've been churning out the World Media Watch I have noticed two major trends, almost everywhere...

1) the increasing suppression of the media...here, UK, Russia, Italy, some of Africa most notably.

2) the concentration of crooked politicians from business, or in bed with business, now heading governments.....Bush, Berlusconi (media), Martin in Canada (shipping), Putin (St. Petersburg deals), The Phillipines, Indonesia, Mexico...you name it, they're all tied into the business/globalization thing.

It's like the world is hell bent on sinking into the swamp...