Atlanta Skins Fan Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 ASF... - you have made frequent posts speaking approvingly of the European socialist model when it suits your purposes I call bullsh!t, fan. I've made at this count 2,645 posts. Go find a *single* post approving a European socialist model, or any socialist model. You can't do it. I haven't done it. You're off on your own planet. You may be confused by the details or some need to put some disagreeable label on me. But you can stop making this sh!t up, fan. My political philosophy is the precise *opposite* of socialism. When I posted that I was considering moving to the U.K., I said it was *depite* the (very mild) socialism that I found to be an irritant, and I've noted approvingly that the U.K. is the least socialist of the European nations. When I posted yesterday about alternative energy, I mentioned that a socialist country would be more likely to institute a radical technology change for automobile energy systems. That's because they can: it's an observation about state control, not an argument for socialism. Maybe that's too subtle for you. Nearly every single policy position I've stated is the opposite of a socialist approach. Now please stop wasting my time. Argue the issues. Your tendency to resort to ludicrous labels shows just an inability to make coherent arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 After reading this thread I fail to see the harm in de-regulating any industry whatsoever. If it is a right wing power grab the left should be alarmed and should also try and get some power in this new market. I simply do not see corporate america being a boogy man out to get us. They, like most people, want to make money. And making money has been what America is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 ASF....in your discussions of alternative energy sources/transportation systems, etc., you have intimated that solutions you favor were possible (meaning practically innovated) in countries organized along socialist controls over the economy because the state was willing to accept the front-end burdens of risk assumption and cost which might not be assumed/justified in more capitalist orieinted economies. you have stated that you were considering moving to England because you wanted to escape the encroaching abrogations of civil rights and the sinister manipulation of all alternative story lines and information sources in this country...so that you could better enjoy the honesty of news delivered by government owned/controlled information sources are you a socialist by ideology? don't know & don't care. I do know that when it is convenient you draw upon this well from time to time when you chose to highlight ASF approved results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 you have stated that you were considering moving to England because you wanted to escape the encroaching abrogations of civil rights and the sinister manipulation of all alternative story lines and information sources in this country...so that you could better enjoy the honesty of news delivered by government owned/controlled information sources Wrong again, fan. I've posted that I found the BBC to be the most objective single news source of any I've seen. It's also far more global in coverage than any other source I've seen except perhaps Reuters. (Reuters is reasonably objective, but as a a wire service it's ambitions are more modest.) This does not mean every story that BBC produces is perfect. Nor does it mean that every person on the right or left is going to agree with its coverage. But you can't find a single alternative that is as ambitious as the BBC and as neutral in reporting. (In terms of ambition and scope, the BBC is rather breathtaking. You need to watch the TV version to appreciate this. The BBC World News is just that: it jumps from Outer Timzambu to the U.S. to Scotland in coverage without blinking. Here in the U.S., it's effectively impossible to get such well-rounded world news. CNN operates CNN International, but chooses not to offer it in most U.S. markets, including DirecTV -- which preempts CNN International with CNNfn financial news most of the day.) While I like the BBC, you are being reductive to insinuate that my preference for U.K. media is driven by a desire for "the honesty of news delivered by government owned/controlled information sources." The BBC has a state charter (to be independent), but the government exerts little practical control. More to the point, I tend to read and quote the Independent or the Guardian when looking for political news, because these are fully independent newspapers. As independent newspapers, they engage in more investigative journalism and are freer to make lines of argument (attack or support) in their writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 you have ranted for weeks now about government subborning the domestic media...about the cabal reaching its tentacles far and wide...about how the paucity of numbers in reporting sources (along with concentrated and cross media ownership) coupled with government pressure through regulation, distribution of the frequency spectrum, etc., have cowered the media into becoming right wing shills suppressing the truth as you know it...... who owns the BBC? but this is healthy....so your real concern is not concentration of media control under government auspices...but the people who happen to be pulling the levers of power at any given time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 ASF, Not that it matters much but you realize that the Guardian is an anti-American paper, as is Le Figaro and other leftist papers in Europe, right? It's not even a matter of much debate, really--- they just don't like the United States, and thus they can't disguise cherry-picking scoops that make the US look bad with objectivity. In Europe, actually, most newpapers don't even make an attempt at hiding their political affiliation. There are simply different papers with different constituencies--- it is widely accepted practice. Thus, in the US we often label papers "conservative" or "liberal", but papers tend to value a public perception of objectivity. I would be critical of any "scoop" that comes from these papers. They ate up the Wolfowitz interview with Vanity Fair magazine with a spoon, not realizing that he had been dishonestly misquoted. These people see what they want to see, and often don't look beneath the skin to scrutinize the credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 who owns the BBC? but this is healthy....so your real concern is not concentration of media control under government auspices...but the people who happen to be pulling the levers of power at any given time..... fan, this logic may escape you, but I'll try anyway. I'm sure you're familiar with the legal concept of a blind trust. These are used for investment vehicles by people with money (such as presidents) who want that money to be invested, but who need to be screened from influencing how the money is invested, because of the potential conflict of interest of their office. Sometimes blind trusts have a few investment guidelines, such as "no tobacco stocks" or "companies with a certain credit rating", etc. Trustees for the trust are responsible for making the individual investment decisions and ensuring that these decisions accord with the guidelines. The BBC is operated essentially as a blind trust by the British Government. It is operated under a specific and legally binding Royal Charter and Agreement that require neutrality and editorial independence by the BBC, and set forth the mechanisms to achieve this neutrality and independence. Here's a quote from the Agreement: The requirements referred to in subclause 3.1 are that the Home Services -(a) are provided as a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment; ( stimulate, support and reflect, in drama, comedy, music and the visual and performing arts, the diversity of cultural activity in the United Kingdom; © contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate at local, regional and national levels; (e) contain programmes of an educational nature (including specialist factual, religious and social issues programmes as well as formal education and vocational training programmes); You can't find this kind of charter or legal requirement for neutrality in any private corporate news organization. They are simply for-profit corporations. That doesn't make them evil or ensure shoddy journalism, but it does leave them unaccountable (aside from libel law) and subject to profit pressures and negative influence by individual corporate executives. Tilting against the BBC is foolish business. It's not the final or only answer in the news business, but what it does, it does best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 ASF, Not that it matters much but you realize that the Guardian is an anti-American paper, as is Le Figaro and other leftist papers in Europe, right? It's not even a matter of much debate, really--- they just don't like the United States, and thus they can't disguise cherry-picking scoops that make the US look bad with objectivity. My wife (who lived in the U.K for six years) agrees with you that the Guardian is left-wing, and she also agrees with your assessment of European newspapers (which tend to be more open about their agenda than American media). I don't have a problem with that per se. What I have noticed is that the Guardian's "cherry picking" of stories that "make the U.S. look bad" still tends to be based on solid journalism. In the U.S., I've noticed more of a sleazy journalistic approach, in which stories (from the left or right) are disguised as neutral stories in neutral papers -- when in practice they tend to be tools for leaks by various factions in government. (One of the exceptions, ironically, is the Wall Street Journal, whose front-page journalism is quite solid -- even if its editorial page is off the map in terms of ideology.) In any case, I prefer the Independent among all the newspapers. It seems to be somewhat more neutral than the Guardian, while venturing more into investigative journalism than the BBC tends to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 But for what it's worth, I too am wary about the FCCs deregulation of media. I can see the benefits of monopolies in certain industries--- power, telephone, utilities--- but I don't see how media oligopolies or monopolies are at all beneficial. But then again, besides radio, I don't think the FCC's decision will affect TV coverage in the short term. Media companies are not loyal to the government by any means, and have historically made a living out of "scandalizing" some minor government corruptions. We saw this during the Clinton administration, before the Lewinsky fiasco. I truly believe that most in the media would love nothing more than to take down the Bush administration, so I wouldn't worry about their relunctance to break unfavorable stories. Look no further than the "Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened" blow-up when someone leaked that he had some reference to terrorist threats on his desk before it happened (which reminds me of the "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and did nothing" conspiracy theories). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 thanks for sharing your iron-clad logic..... - really independent? To perform services in any part of the world for and on behalf of any Department of Our Government in Our United Kingdom, and in particular to provide, erect, equip and instal, or supervise the provision, erection, equipment and installation of stations, studios, apparatus, machinery, plant and other equipment for transmitting and receiving services, programmes and telecommunication signals, and to work or manage, or to supervise the working or management of such stations, studios, apparatus, machinery, plant and equipment. - totally independent? Subject to the prior approval of Our Secretary of State or within such limits as may be agreed from time to time between the Corporation and Our Secretary of State, to provide, as public services, other services whether or not broadcasting or programme supply services (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the Ancillary Services"). - more independence For all the purposes of this Our Charter to acquire from time to time from Our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a licence or licences for such period and subject to such terms, provisions and limitations as he may prescribe, and to exercise the powers herein granted to the Corporation in conformity in all respects therewith and with any agreement or agreements which may from time to time be made by Our Secretary of State with the Corporation, and not in any other manner whatsoever. - still more To develop, extend and improve the Home Services and the World Service and to those ends to exercise such licence or licences in such manner or by such means and methods as may from time to time be agreed by the Corporation and Our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and to concur in any extension, adaptation or modification of the terms, provisions or limitations of any such licence or licences as may to Our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seem fit. - independent yet again Subject to the prior approval of Our Secretary of State (or ar appropriate of Our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) and to the acquisition (subject as hereinafter provided) of any requisite licences, concessions, rights or privileges, to construct or acquire or lease and establish, instal, equip and use stations for wireless telegraphy and apparatus for wireless telegraphy and telecommunication systems and any other equipment for the transmission of sound, visual images, messages or any combination thereof by any method whether now known or hereafter invented or developed and whether or not over paths provided by any material substance in countries or places without Our United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, or in space, for the purpose of providing, within the scope or ambit of any such approval for the time being in force, and as may be permitted thereby or thereunder, such sound and television broadcasting services and sound and television programmes of information education and entertainment as may in such approval be specified, for reception in such countries or places as may in or under such approval be designated; and for receiving such services and programmes by such methods and for such purposes as may by or under such approval be permitted. - think the Post would like this? Subject to the prior approval of Our Secretary of State, to enter into joint ventures or partnerships with other companies and to establish companies whose objects include any of the objects of the Corporation or whose business is capable of being carried on in such a way as to facilitate or advance any of the objects of the Corporation, and to purchase or otherwise acquire stocks, shares or securities of, and to subsidise and assist, any such company. - don't go global without our sayso RESTRICTION ON OVERSEA CONCESSIONS The Corporation shall not acquire any licence, concession, right or privilege from or enter into any arrangement with the Government of any part of the Commonwealth or the Government of any other country or place overseas, without having first obtained the approval of Our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. - whoops, don't buy/borrow without our "consultation" PROVIDED THAT (i) the Corporation shall not borrow or raise or secure the payment of moneyupon any property, interests or rights now held by the Corporation which Our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has decided in consultation with the Corporation that the Corporation is to use exclusively for any purpose of the World Service or upon any property, interests or rights which the Corporation has acquired or may hereafter acquire out of moneys paid to the Corporation out of aids or supplies appropriated by Our United Kingdom Parliament for any such purpose; (ii) the aggregate of moneys so borrowed, raised or secured and at any one time outstanding for all other purposes shall not exceed £200,000,000 or such greater sum up to a maximum of £250,000,000 as may from time to time be approved by Our Secretary of State. - the government determining where services must be provided To hold the existing and to construct or acquire or lease and establish and instal additional stations for wireless telegraphy and apparatus for wireless telegraphy in Our United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and to use the same for the emission and reception of wireless telegraphy for the purposes aforesaid, and for purposes ancillary or related to those purposes. - pleased to meet you...can you guess my name? The Corporation is hereby authorised, empowered and required to provide from time to time all such broadcasting, telecommunication and other services and facilities and to do all such acts and things as shall from time to time be required by or under any licence granted by Our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Corporation or any agreement made by Our Secretary of State or our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with the Corporation. this is getting tiresome....who appoints the Governors of the Corporation. And they can be removed by...? so if the government elects not to share or disclose information to the very organization it also owns......."fair and informed debate" will nonetheless ensue...... "legal requirement for neutrality" (your phrase)...beyond the practical aspect of how this is measured, how would this ever be enforced (while preserving independence)? nothing is but what wishing makes it so............the nasty details of governance and accountability are pleasures no body is immune from......... As for the American model.....you miss the essential truth in all of this by a wide margin: having the various information resources "unaccountable" is the greatest virtue.......it is the marketplace of ideas itself that they are accountable to........it is the democracy of the marketplace, something you obviously find ideologically horrifiing on the presmption that you know the truth, that is the ultimate arbiter...... and oh by the way...as is the case in many industries...there are codes of ethics, there is peer review, there are corporate charters.... Thomas More aint got nothin on you brotha!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.