Reply With QuoteI think the beeb overall get it about right. That's why extremists from both sides hate them equally...Originally Posted by animallittle3
Hall Of Fame
Straight in there? I haven't posted in days...
I take it that you won't answer my questions. Why is that?
I have no idea about the case that you are talking about and know (only vaguely because I've never seen one) about royal pardons in England and Wales.
To comment on a case I'd need to check multiple sources to try to establish the facts of the case as opposed to the possibly partisan reporting of one source and then I'd have to check out the applicable law from that country (insofar as the time I was willing to give it allowed). What do you think of that approach? Is that a question that you will answer?
Hall Of Fame
I think the beeb overall get it about right. That's why extremists from both sides hate them equally...
Hall Of Fame
Maybe it’s a simpler explanation
Old school BBC reported facts, ie there’s a new US President or a war has started in Umbongoland
New BBC now seems to want to put a layer of opinion on those facts, and opinions generated by a team of people or by an individual are naturally biased
Hall Of Fame
The reality of modern politics is that no party particularly likes scrutiny. The days of 45 minute interviews are gone and the sound bite is in. Blair and Campbell started it in the UK, but I don't blame them as they are history and their successors have seized on it.
In my view, the Tories are used to a supine print media and really don't like scrutiny. They boycotted the Radio 4 Today programme for a while, the irony of which is that the presenter, Nick Robinson was president of the the Oxford University Conservative Association when he was a student there.
Hall Of Fame
That's an interesting observation. Can you give an example to illustrate your point?
Moderator
I was going to bed last night so didn’t but I did look The founders Wikipedia site this morning. Mr Annanberg owned publishing houses and radio. He was an ambassador to Britain and hosted parties for heads of states and royalty.
Clever man but he knew the dirty tricks.
In 1966, Annenberg used the Inquirer to cast doubt on the candidacy of Democrat Milton Shapp for governor of Pennsylvania. Shapp was highly critical of the proposed merger of the Pennsylvania Railroad with the New York Central Railroad and was pushing the US Interstate Commerce Commission to prevent it from occurring. Annenberg, who was the biggest individual stockholder of the Pennsylvania Railroad, wanted to see the merger succeed (which it did) and he was frustrated with Shapp's opposition.[14] During a press conference, an Inquirer reporter asked Shapp if he had ever been a patient in a mental hospital. Never having been in one, Shapp simply said "no." The next day, a five-column front page Inquirer headline read, "Shapp Denies Mental Institution Stay". Shapp and others have attributed his loss of the election to Annenberg's newspaper.
Moderator
So Kerr.
How close are we to WW3? The doomsday clock will be published soon. It was 90 seconds last year.
Hall Of Fame
The BBC has never simply been about factual information. It has always had opinions represented in its political programmes. It's challenge is to try and balance the different perspectives to try and get as close to balance as is possible.
Both people from the far left and far right will laugh heartily about the success of this ambition, which I think tells us as much about these people as it does about the BBC
First Team
He also knew the 'right' people...
https://annenberg.brown.edu/news/gat...stitute-999260
Funny how that nice Mr. Gates keeps popping up. Coincidental I'm sure.Gates Foundation grants Annenberg Institute $999,260
Moderator
Will it change the thinking? I doubt it! But I'm the wierd one
Posting Permissions