Sooo, now what?

Instead of the constant bitching about the evils of ameriKa, I'd like to know what people think we should DO about it. Does someone need to drop a bomb on congress? Or do we all just sit on their lawn and protest? What would you suggest we do now?

 

hey man i really want to start a protest anyone intersted any ideas write back man peace and love

 

I'd like to protest the media. Nothing in particular, just the media in general. It's a sad fact that news programs are selling advertisement slots, which means that they are subject to ratings, which means that they are more interested in getting people to watch them than they are on reporting the news as it is. We could use something like the BBC, a non profit organization that just reports news with no spin or agendas (unlike most of what we have now). Just a thought.

 

None of us have the money or resources to compete with the giants. You need so many more heads to oppose, but they're too stubborn and caught up with what they've grown up with to actually question politics.

 

Voting for somebody other than Bush would be a start? And joining Amnesty International.

 

Says who?

You want to watch government owned media?

Can you imagine bias existing for any reason other than profit motives?

 

The BBC is not government owned, it is completely a public entity funded directly by the viewing audience, not the government. Nor is its board of directors comprised of government ministers.

Once again showing how much your delusuional misunderstanding of the world stems from your apriori ideological assumptions rather than the factual reality of any given matter.

 

In that case British Gas was never state owned because it was funded by gas users. Right.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/

So you are telling me that even if you think REALLY HARD you see how this in any way ties the BBC to the state? Go on LHI, try, YOU CAN DO IT!

 

No, incorrect. British Gas was indeed a state "owned" company subsequently privatised. The Beeb has no need to be privatised since it has always been distinctly independent of Government ownership and control.

Hardly surprising that such a nuance should escape your Daily Mailesque oversimplification of any issue.

As for the BBC and its governance...

Given that the queen has no role in government and that the involvement of ministers goes only so far as "advice" in the selection process, your case falls flat and my contention remains sound.

The BBC is NOT government owned. Delude yourself to suit your clearly right wing ideological bent all you wish, however you are incorrect that the BBC is controlled by the government.

Case in point is the broad capacity demonstrated by the Beeb in taking governments of both Parties to task regularly throughout its long and distinguished history.

Another reason it remains one of the world's most respected and trustworthy news organisations. Unlike the Murdoch-inspired spin and drivel you evince in most of your posts.

 

i must confess that i trust the bbc news far more than i trust most other outlets, especially in regards to american news.

 

I guess I gave you too much credit. Some people are so enthusiastically servile to the state that they can't even even see the exercise of government power any more.

The BBC is state owned. As the Royal Charter says,

That says, in plainer english, that if the BBC were to be sold, the money goes to the state. Which means the State owns it. Don't tell me you actually think the BBC is owned by "the people"?

Always congratulating yourself on victory, when in fact none has been achieved. That says that the ministers CHOOSE, and then present it to the Queen as "advice" which she invariably accepts. This is how a lot of things work with the UK, you should know that.

The BBC was set up by the government. It is funded by the License Fee, which is a tax, and has a board of directors appointed by the government. It reports to Parliament regularly.

If none of these things suggest state control to you, then you are a good socialist but typically naive.

 

Once again you presume to have countered my contention only to again fail to grasp the siginificant difference between an entity owned by the government and one which merely has a procedural relationship with the same.

In the words of the BBC's former governor himself...

The essence of BBC independence from government "control" is not only demonstrably visible in its editorial independence (the very independence which saw it lambasted by even this Labour government in the not too distant past), but also in its financial discretion which gives no say to HM Treasury in how monies shall be spent by the Corporation.

Just keep on digging your hole of ideological presumption, it's getting deeper with every attempt you make to dig your way out.

 

Some people who thought America is evil did something about it, they slammed airliners into the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. And what did they accomplish? Did they make America a freer place to live? Did they make other countries freer, less answerable to America? No, protest is the answer.

 

well they wern't trying to free america....

 

And we weren't trying to liberate Iraq....until we found out that there were no more WMD's there and we needed another excuse for bombing people.

 

Liberation was one of the original goals.

 

I see you have dropped your story about how BBC governors are not appointed by the government. This is quite typical, your arguments tend to disappear without a trace once proven wrong, only to be replaced by a tedious call for everyone to "get educated", an essentially boilerplate part of any LHI post meant to distract from your constant blunders.

So the BBC was set up by the government which retains the right to shut it down and dispose of its assets, is financed by a state imposed tax, has a board of governors appointed by the state, reports to parliament on a regular basis...

... and LHI can't understand how this makes the BBC a state broadcaster.

Its hilarious really, all your arrogance about other posters inability to see bias in media is only exceeded by your own total denial of reality when it comes to state broadcasters. You really epitomise socialist thinking.

I mean what kind of gullible fool would actually quote the BBC on BBC independence? Why don't you quote a FOX journalist saying that FOX is totally independent? It's hilarious how easily some people are duped. You really are the perfect audience for state media.

 

I didnt drop anything PB, how typical of you of to claim others are withdrawing arguments when repeating them serves no purpose. Once again we shall run through the matter so that your right wing tabloid drenched mind can comprehend.

1. BBC governors are NOT appointed by the government. The government can make recommendation but the process operates according to a lengthy and fairly open application and vetting process to achieve its pool of qualified candidates from whom the Queen ultimately chooses.

2. The BBC Charter makes it unarguably clear that the BBC is wholly independent from the government. The Treasury has no say over how its finances are allocated and the prevailing Party of the day has no influence nor control over the BBC's editorial content.

3. Insofar as it is "state" owned (not "government" owned, as governments come and go whilst the state - comrpised of the citizenry - remains inviolate) all its assets and holdings would of course be "administered" for sale by the government in the event of its "DISSOLUTION" (meaning that its charter of independence was in fact no longer valid as it would no longer exist as a wholly independent corporate entity).

That one should have to waste the time to summarise these already ennumerated facets of the issue for you only further suggests you either have serious challenges in comprehension or esle are so intractably entrenched in your myopic ideology that you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong and perhaps correcting your erroneous presumptions.

Only through the denial of any Charter Renewal could the government "shut" it down. This is tantamount to a revocation of broadcast licensing which holds true for the government's relation to corporately held broadcast media as well. It in no way constitutes "government control" of the nature you so wishfully advance to further your bogus arguments to the contrary.

Once again, the very independence of the BBC is visible in its unfettered latitutde of rightful scrutiny and exposure of government fraud regardless of which Party happens to be in the ascendancy.

Something you seemingly fail to appreciate being so spin drenched with pro-Murdoch media empire sentiments.

 

One of the most entertaining aspects of so many of your posts is that they concede virtually everything yet still claim victory.

Still trying to weasel out of it? The queen, and only the queen, appoints. The government, and only the government, makes recommendations to the Queen. Nobody becomes a governor without being recommended by the government. It's that simple.

None of thischanges the fact the BBC governors are selected by the government. Trying to dazzle everyone with a storm of insults and irrelevant speculation about what media I watch only serve to demonstrate your increasing desperation at having, yet again, been proven wrong.

Whoopee. Fox news has "fair and balanced" as their motto. This is the best you can do? You are telling me the BBC is independent because of some piece of paper that says they are independent? Because they say they are?

Thanks. So it is state owned after all.

Thanks. So they could shut it down after all.

So now we all agree that the BBC is state media. It was state created, is dependent on state financing, and its board of governors is government appointed.

This is LIH's idea of "independent".

 

Tell you what Pointbreak, arguing with you is like arguing with a stone wall and about as pointless.

Let the intellectually honest examine the documentation and decide for themselves which of us has his head farther up his own ass.

This however typifies your tendency to evade reality along with your incessant cries of "cut and paste" to any who actually support their contention with documented evidence...

Yes, you must of course dismiss the central documented verification of the BBC's operational independence from government control, else you have NO leg left to stand on.