[Katoabralia]

Yes, because we know the BBC or whatever you watch never does any of this crap. Come on, do you get a hard on bashing fox or something?

Actually, your right, it never does any of that crap. Just because Fox is **** doesn't mean you need to bash a British news institution. Why are you turning this into another America vs. Europe thread?

[Seesspoxy]

Well IIRC Fox is banned from broadcasting as a channel in this country because it is seen as too biased and basically a propaganda channel. So it doesn't surprise me.

I can say the same for any other news group here in the US. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC news are all biased propaganda channels.

[hechicxxrr]

I can say the same for any other news group here in the US. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC news are all biased propaganda channels.

Every news channel is biased to some extent, I agree. But Fox News takes that bias to a whole new level.

[markoiutrfffdsa]

Actually, your right, it never does any of that crap. Just because Fox is **** doesn't mean you need to bash a British news institution. Why are you turning this into another America vs. Europe thread?

Actually Rupert Murdoch is from Australia.

[gueremaisse]

Actually Rupert Murdoch is from Australia.

And his business interests are global. Your point?

[markoiutrfffdsa]

And his business interests are global. Your point?

IT really wouldn't be an America Vs. Europe thing.

[gueremaisse]

IT really wouldn't be an America Vs. Europe thing.

You might want to go over the thread quickly one more time

[markoiutrfffdsa]

You might want to go over the thread quickly one more time

Zstream said something bad about BBC because someone was bashing fox news. Then Tommyknocker was mad because he thought zstream was making it into an American vs European news outlet competition. He replied and said, "Why are you turning this into another America vs. Europe thread?" I replied and said it is not an America vs Europe thing because Fox News is all over and Rupert Murdoch is actually Australian, so fox news is not really American, so I don't think it was Zstream's intention to make this an America vs Europe thing. [yes]

[Hftqdxpm]

Fox news has a bad reputation. For some reason, they aren't any worse than any of our other news channels.

Larry King was interviewing a guy, and the guy was explaining how his friend died. Larry was not paying attention, and just interrupts him and says, "Hey, is your friend alive or dead?"

I was like, WTF? Fox news is crap. But, so is all of our other news.

[markoiutrfffdsa]

I actually think Britain does it right with news, having the combination of private outlets and a state run outlet. That way you get an agency that is not afraid to report on the wrongdoings of the private industry (bbc news) and you also get outlets that aren't afraid of reporting on government controversy (private outlets). Best of both worlds.

[Katoabralia]

Zstream said something bad about BBC because someone was bashing fox news. Then Tommyknocker was mad because he thought zstream was making it into an American vs European news outlet competition. He replied and said, "Why are you turning this into another America vs. Europe thread?" I replied and said it is not an America vs Europe thing because Fox News is all over and Rupert Murdoch is actually Australian, so fox news is not really American, so I don't think it was Zstream's intention to make this an America vs Europe thing. [yes]

Regardless what nationality Rupert Murdoch is, Fox News is a US-based channel. BBC can also be seen internationally but it still remains British.

Edit- I would like to add that Britain sure has its fair share of idiotic media institutions, such as our two most popular newspapers The Sun and The Daily Mail. I just don't think the BBC is one of them.

[Solo3uc4]

The difference is that in America, the more people watch the news, the more of the commercials on that channels are seen by viewers. Hence they're under incredible pressure to get viewers, even if that means bending the news.
The BBC on the other hand gets a "garunteed" income via the licence fee. Fee ethics aside, this means the BBC has less reason to be biased.

"If you run that story about global warming, we'll pull our $2M gasoline commercial deal"...who would this apply to more?

[hechicxxrr]

The difference is that in America, the more people watch the news, the more of the commercials on that channels are seen by viewers. Hence they're under incredible pressure to get viewers, even if that means bending the news.
The BBC on the other hand gets a "garunteed" income via the licence fee. Fee ethics aside, this means the BBC has less reason to be biased.

"If you run that story about global warming, we'll pull our $2M gasoline commercial deal"...who would this apply to more?

I remember a few years again when Top Gear did a review of a new Citeron (French car) and didn't really like the car. Apparently one of the high up people at Citeron got someone to phone up the BBC and remove all their adverts until someone pointed it out to him that the BBC don't actually have adverts.

[JeremyIV]

I remember a few years again when Top Gear did a review of a new Citeron (French car) and didn't really like the car. Apparently one of the high up people at Citeron got someone to phone up the BBC and remove all their adverts until someone pointed it out to him that the BBC don't actually have adverts.

PWNED [rofl]

[KeestRast]

I remember a few years again when Top Gear did a review of a new Citeron (French car) and didn't really like the car. Apparently one of the high up people at Citeron got someone to phone up the BBC and remove all their adverts until someone pointed it out to him that the BBC don't actually have adverts.

LOL at that story!

Little nit-pick: It's actually called Citroen or Citroën.

[ZXRamon]

I remember a few years again when Top Gear did a review of a new Citeron (French car) and didn't really like the car. Apparently one of the high up people at Citeron got someone to phone up the BBC and remove all their adverts until someone pointed it out to him that the BBC don't actually have adverts.

Are you sure that really happened? Sounds a bit like an apocryphal story to me.

[hechicxxrr]

Are you sure that really happened? Sounds a bit like an apocryphal story to me.

Well I guessed JC could have pulled it out his arse to get a laugh. But then there are still lots of people out there that don't get how the BBC is funded.

[FetMiddle]

Every news agency has done this bullcrap, and they do it with every single tragedy that happens. Katrina? Check. 9/11? Check. Any major or minor problem in history, including regular occurring robberies and killings are done in this manner with the news anchor/interviewer asking the interviewee "How do you feel about this? Since this person meant X much to you, how bad does it feel now that they are gone forever and you will never get to see or talk to them again?" It's sick and screwed up and shows just how disgusting our news media is. Why is everyone always so quick to point out Fox on any mistakes? I don't see any other news agencies being pointed out here (and they all make TERRIBLE mistakes and are ALL biased).

The difference is that in America, the more people watch the news, the more of the commercials on that channels are seen by viewers. Hence they're under incredible pressure to get viewers, even if that means bending the news.
The BBC on the other hand gets a "garunteed" income via the licence fee. Fee ethics aside, this means the BBC has less reason to be biased.

"If you run that story about global warming, we'll pull our $2M gasoline commercial deal"...who would this apply to more?

Exactly why we've got a problem here. News needs to be done by individuals that don't have sponsorship allegiances. No I don't have a plan for this, I'm just saying.