WHO'S HOT & WHO'S NOT! (Iconoclast)

Iconoclast ^ | R. Bastiat

[Apolitical]

WHO'S NOT....

1. THE BBC

Could its 2005 UK election coverage be the last straw for the embattled British Broadcasting Corporation?

British taxpayers and television viewers continue to be bludgeoned by their government into paying a substantial portion of their hard-earned income to support the BBC -- an anachronistic propaganda vehicle that seems to exist largely to disseminate the extremist views of the left-wing activists who dominate its news and entertainment programming.

After surviving recent scandals that forced the resignation of its top executives, the subsidized broadcasting service is again embroiled in controversy -- this time over the openly biased coverage of the British parliamentary election campaign by BBC News, through both its slant on the issues and its selective reporting of "facts."

As the campaign progressed, the BBC's hysterical opposition to Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreign policy manifested itself as open support for the Liberal Democrats, the only major UK party opposing the Iraq war. Even the Beeb's entertainment programs were permeated with vitriolic political jokes and partisan messages. And BBC News has now admitted that it actually equipped hecklers with microphones and sent them off to disrupt a campaign speech by Tory leader Michael Howard.

These are the actions of out-of-control ideological fanatics, not of a legitimate news organization. Still, it wouldn't matter very much all this weren't taking place courtesy of taxpayer funding and the compulsory BBC "licence fee" that imposes a tax of around US$220 per year on each and every TV set in a viewer's home.

In the BBC's latest annual report, its new chairman haughtily proclaims that the broadcasting service "exists because it earns its place in the affections of our audiences by enriching lives through information, education, and entertainment." But in fact, the Beeb owes its existence to the guaranteed subsidy extracted from hapless citizens upon threat of fines and incarceration. Its vaunted "independence" stems from its total lack of accountability to its audience....

[Apolitical]

The British equivalent of NPR, except the poor victims -- the radio and TV audience -- have to pay for it, whether they want it or not. Democracy, Euro-style!

[Paul Atreides]

We have to pay for In Pee Jar, regardless of whether we want to.

[kitkat]

The NPR likes to brag that they are almost wholly supported by private donations, but the truth is that they have to admit that they get twenty-five percent of their money from US, the taxpayers. I like some of their music but I turn off their slanted news.

[Rummyfan]

As bad as NPR and PBS are, the Beeb is much much worse. And the idea of a $220 tax per TV.... well, revolutions have begun over such taxation!

[bc boy]

nice post...but if you want outrageous leftist spew which is taxpayer subsidized...tune in to the Canadian broadcasting corp'n which is unlovingly known by most right thinking canucks as the communist castrating company...EH!!!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

These are the actions of out-of-control ideological fanatics, not of a legitimate news organization.

Journalism is politics, and anyone who claims otherwise is selling something.

Journalism was politics when Jefferson and Hamilton were sponsoring competing newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles and Journalism is politics now. Journalism always will be politics. If you think you see journalism which is not politics, you are actually seeing journalism which expresses your politics.

What the article speaks of as "a legitimate news organization" is Tooth Fairy journalism. It'd be nice if the Tooth Fairy would pay my electric bill, and it'd be nice if "a legitimate news organization" would tell everyone exactly what was important in current events. But what we actually have is concensus journalism - a go-along-and-get-along concensus rather than courageous open partisanship is what passes for wisdom - excuse me, "objectivity."

It is not merely the BBC, and not merely the BBC and NPR and PBS which are illegitimate government-sponsored partisanship. No more than those unworthies could CBS, NBS, or any of the other BS broadcast networks operate without government favor. All require the censorship of the many so that those few might "give us the word" from their Olympian perch.

Broadcast journalism is unnecessary - the Constitution and the British Parliamentary system long predate the advent of broadcasting - and broadcast journalism is illegitimate government-sponsored meddling in politics. In sum, an abuse of government power.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!