Replies

Perhaps decades ago before there were commerical broadcasters that system of funding made sense. It doesn't now. Any more than public funding of NPR and PBS does. The inevitable consequence of that kind of funding is arrogance and unaccountability and leftist claptrap.

Given that the output of the B.B.C. is, in terms of quality generally a million times better than the British commercial broadcasters, and than the American ones too (or at least most of what we get sent over the pond), I heartily disagree.

There may be some inevitable tendancy towards leftism in any large secure corporation; however, revamping the B.B.C. Governors' role of supervision, close monitoring of output by the B.B.C., perhaps making the Governors responsible to a Select Committee or Parliament, all would serve to minimise that effect on its output.

I have no experience of N.P.R. or P.B.S., but from what I read here, Freepers are just as vexed with A.B.C., N.B.C. and C.B.S. It would seem that commercial boradcasters are just as able of leftist bias. Finally, I would point out that this was an argument between the B.B.C. and a leftist government.

And I will remind you that the BBC coverage was so laughably biased that the UK servicemen threw the BBC crew off their ship and tuned into Fox.

Gilligan, at the heart of this mess, was broadcasting the Coalition was failing in its advance at the very moment Fox's Kelly was on a tank in the heart of Baghdad.

It is so vehemently anti-Semitic that it broadcast a program in which the speaker called for the murder of emigrees to Israel from the UN, punished a comedian who made fun of jihadis, and just hired someone from Al-Jazeera .