CNN Duped by Pentagon Into Portraying Iraq as 'Quagmire'

[RACooper]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought CBC (and maybe even BBC) are partially commercially supported due to cutbacks on government budgets. My memory could be wrong on that.

Kind of like PBS and NPR which now get little or no government funding and have to resort to commercial underwriting.

True the operating costs are not totally supported by the government anymore... and technically haven't been since the late 60s.

However you and I could agree that these networks don't operate as an organization where profit is a primary (or even major) concern... which is what seperates them from say a wholely private business concern with all the attendant need to monitor both the bottom-line and profitability. In much the same way as a totally government funded and operated media orginization will always keep their eye on the government's agenda... if the journalism is beholden to a large degree to either the government or the dollar - then the journalism can be too easily "tainted" or stray from the path of objectitivity (or appearance of )

I like the ABC, CBC, and BBC for the fact that they aren't "subject" to the whims of anyone major concern - they can remain in the "gray zone" and avoid undue influence (well mostly).

[hoosier]

Maybe we should start a thread to discuss America's "Public Broadcasting Service", and my contribution would be that it's time to make these stations self-supporting thru ads, or sell off the channels for big bucks.

Years ago, PBS did a lot of nature shows, adventure shows, even soccer from Germany, etc.

Now, with most homes having 100+ available channels, what show does PBS do that is not already being done - profitably - by Discover Channel, History Channel, ESPN, etc. I can't think of any.

PBS has become a cushy employment setting for the PBS crowd - many who could not make similar salaries in the private sector.

I'd also tell NPR: "make some money or sign off." Let's find out if their supporters will buy ads and if there are enough ratings to be successful.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Maybe we should start a thread to discuss America's "Public Broadcasting Service", and my contribution would be that it's time to make these stations self-supporting thru ads, or sell off the channels for big bucks.

Years ago, PBS did a lot of nature shows, adventure shows, even soccer from Germany, etc.

Now, with most homes having 100+ available channels, what show does PBS do that is not already being done - profitably - by Discover Channel, History Channel, ESPN, etc. I can't think of any.

PBS has become a cushy employment setting for the PBS crowd - many who could not make similar salaries in the private sector.

I'd also tell NPR: "make some money or sign off." Let's find out if their supporters will buy ads and if there are enough ratings to be successful.

The truth is that what you suggest has already happened to a great extent.

The belief that these two services are government supported is a myth rooted in the fairly far distant past. The exceptions are those stations owned by state supported universities (or a few local school systems).

A few years ago, Speaker Gingrich managed to all but "zero out" Federal funding for "educational/public" stations.

While Congress has yet to allow those stations to sell advertising, per se, you now see a fair number of "underwriting" messages at the end of most PBS shows. That's also what spawns those annoying "pledge drives" on both media.

As for "cushy employment" for the "PBS crowd," you should look closer. Their salaries run WAY behind those of their commercial counterparts, and budget cuts precipitated by loss of funding have cut staffs and other line items drastically. The bottom line for employees of PBS stations is that they make a lot less money and have little or no job security.

It's interesting to me that the same people who are ready to attack commercial broadcast media for being slaves to the "almighty dollar" would criticize those stations who at least try to stay away from that rat race.

It's like anything else in life, realistically you can't have it both ways. Either you're swayed by profit motive or not.

[Shortfuse]

Iraq isn't a quagmire?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
I like the ABC, CBC, and BBC for the fact that they aren't "subject" to the whims of anyone major concern - they can remain in the "gray zone" and avoid undue influence (well mostly).

They are subject to the whims and influence of the government or the editor's desires, hence why there have been so studies on bias within the BBC (again the other 2 are not well known enough so I don't know enough about them).

-Rudey

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by hoosier

Years ago, PBS did a lot of nature shows, adventure shows, even soccer from Germany, etc.

Now, with most homes having 100+ available channels, what show does PBS do that is not already being done - profitably - by Discover Channel, History Channel, ESPN, etc. I can't think of any.

REGENCY HOUSE PARTY.


Actually, in all seriousness, PBS is the only television station out of the 100+ I got this summer that showed ballet, stage musicals, or classical music on anything resembling a semi-regular basis.


I'm not sure why this is being argued, though. Even if "most" homes have 100+ channels (a statistic I would like to see backed up), not all of them do. Almost everyone I know has about 70, which a couple exceptions. I have five, three of which come in -- one of which is PBS.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
They are subject to the whims and influence of the government or the editor's desires, hence why there have been so studies on bias within the BBC (again the other 2 are not well known enough so I don't know enough about them).

-Rudey

Well all media suffers from the whims of the editor

Yes BBC is influenced by the government, but it is not beholden to the government - they get some funding from the government yes, but they also get a great deal from other sources... so money isn't a primary concern to the management of the BBC, nor is toeing the government line either (many have been around for many administrations)... this allows them to concentrate on non-profitable (or not very profitable) endevours in addition to journalism...

Now the BBC does make at least an effort to maintain an atmosphere of objectivity... while their coverage doesn't always please everyone, they at least don't appear to be promoting one cause or interest over the another.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper


Now the BBC does make at least an effort to maintain an atmosphere of objectivity... while their coverage doesn't always please everyone, they at least don't appear to be promoting one cause or interest over the another.

Stop trying to put out these claims.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by RACooper
Yes BBC is influenced by the government, but it is not beholden to the government - they get some funding from the government yes, but they also get a great deal from other sources...

It's been a long time since I studied international broadcasting, but in its original charter, the BBC reported to the Postal Service (yep, the mail folks) and supported totally by a per head postal tax, so they really weren't that concerned about Parliament whims, etc.

As we've already mentioned above, though, that funding has changed somewhat over the years.

ETA

As I think about it, though, the reason for the BBC's former reputation for independence (to say nothing of its reputation for being a bit "stiff") was its total lack of competition. Until the 1960's when Thames Television, London Weekend and ITV were allowed by Parliament, BBC TV had no competition at all, and I don't believe BBC Radio did either with the exception of "Pirate" stations operating from ships outside the three mile limit.

Competition can be a blessing and a curse. It forces you to be better, but can also cause mistakes.

[Tom Earp]

I am sure that We all know that there are more leaks in any Government than a culindar. Who do they leak it to? The Media.

Psy-ops maybe. But maybe that is why there needs to be a central Intelligence Head. Each Agency is to worried about funds that will be allocated to them to do a proper job.

In the mean time, We and all of The Partners for Democracy are losing People there. That should be a main concern for us.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
It's been a long time since I studied international broadcasting, but in its original charter, the BBC reported to the Postal Service (yep, the mail folks) and supported totally by a per head postal tax, so they really weren't that concerned about Parliament whims, etc.

As we've already mentioned above, though, that funding has changed somewhat over the years.

Yep the BBC was offically part of the old British Empire structure that dealt with communications - so they were "administered" by the same group that handle the telegraph, postal, Parliamentary messengers, and radio - anything doing with communication under the purvue of the government...

Now even under the old system of the head tax they were still subject to oversite by governmental folks... the same way as someone in the government keeps tabs on the Postal Service. Now the budget wrangling came in when the whole "communications" group of governmental supported folks would plead their case for a share of the budget.. or sought to increase the tax as a whole.

Day to day governmental functions really where of little concern simply because the BBC functioned in the beuracracy of the system... yes they were funded but no one really paid them that much attention (well until a scandal involving them or their party broke)...

[DeltAlum]

Here's an update on BBC:

BBC plans significant layoffs, budget cuts
Dec 13, 2004 2:20 PM, Beyond The Headlines

"The British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) announced plans last week for some of the biggest budget cuts in its 82-year history, slashing at least 10 percent of its staff and more than $550 million.

Mark Thompson, the BBC's new director general, told the BBC’s staff "there will be a period of pain and uncertainty, and I am sorry for that."

The BBC, which is funded largely by a mandatory public licensing fee of about $225 per household, has been the object of intense criticism on two fronts in recent months. The more visible dispute has been between journalists and Prime Minister Tony Blair over a BBC radio report that in the prelude to the Iraq invasion, Blair’s government knowingly distorted intelligence reports about Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.

After a public inquiry exonerated the government, the corporation’s chairman and director general were forced to step down. The conflict affirmed the view of conservative critics who contend the BBC has been the voice of the left-of-center establishment, while the corporation’s supporters saw the struggle as a battle for the BBC’s journalistic integrity and independence, the Washington Post reported.

But the more protracted struggle has been over the role and future of the nonprofit corporation, which seeks to maintain its special status as a public service institution while competing for talent and ratings with a host of private, profit-driven networks, cable and satellite television stations, and other media companies. The BBC’s public charter is due for renewal in two years, giving critics in Parliament a rare opportunity to slash or attempt to eliminate the licensing fee."


The underline, which I added, would seem to me to prove that BBC is more than just a "house organ" for the party in power.

[Optimist Prime]

Originally posted by Rudey
Is this real??!?

-Rudey

Technically no, its just all in your head. Nothing is real anymore, its just a TV show.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
Technically no, its just all in your head. Nothing is real anymore, its just a TV show.

Damn.