Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[Plissken]

As usual, The Daily Show nailed it

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th.../for-fox-sake-

[AiR]

That was fun. Fortunately for me all regional distributors have agreed to not air Fox News so I am no longer accidentally exposed to their "news".

[nomix]

Sadly, I don't get fox. I get Latvian TV shop at our summer house, BUT NO FOX.

[AiR]

Fox News (FNC) is broadcasted on Thor 5 which is a Telenor satellite. I have no clue as to why though since it's encrypted and Canal Digital will not sell you the codes and equipment you'd need to decrypt it. Most likely it's just for legacy reasons, FNC had that spot once and retains it even if Canal Digital have replaced them with Aljazeera. Viasat chose to replace FNC with Deutsche Welle.

[update]
It was easier than I though, it's encoded with PowerVu which means it's for broadcasters only. So if you get a job at NRK or TVNorge you'll be able to watch and laugh claw your eyes out at FNC.

[TBoneUs]

God this summer I wanted to shoot myself. The ship I was on had it streaming 24/7. The owner payed for it to be sent via marine satellite link. God knows what that fucking cost, and it was the only thing we got. Then again I dont think any of the American networks really show news. I know others complain, but the BBC is 10x better than anything else we get here.

[nomix]

The BBC is king of news, CNN is tiny compared to the BBC..

[Plissken]

Actually, in terms of news resources, CNN is bigger than the BBC. Even with the massive expansion the BBC has done - back around the time of the Gulf War, the news operation covering it was about 10 people. (John Simpsons - "Strange Places, Questionable People" is a great read.) I don't have time to research the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if CNN is as big as the entire BBC.

The BBC is a small organisation in terms of budget and personnel when you consider what it has to do. Which makes the quality of its output all the more remarkable - and is why the likes of CNN, News Corp etc hate it.

Unfortunately, David Cameron has already promised Murdoch that he will shackle the BBC if/when he wins the election next year.

[jetsetter]

BBC News and CNN have similar budgets with BBC News spending $580 million a year and CNN spending $550 million a year. Fox News and MSNBC spend about $250 million a year each.

[AiR]

Who is this David Cameron and why would he want to destroy the greatest broadcasting company in the world?

Also related to the discussion

+ YouTube Video

[Cobol74]

David Cameron is an ARSE (a posh one, but still an ARSE) and he wants to be elected as PM, so he is Murdoch's new bosom mate as he thinks he has to have the Murdoch empire on his side. Now Murdoch is desperate to get rid of competition, or better still get his hands on BBC Licence fee payers money.

I object strongly to licence money being given to commercial organisations (Worse - run by a known anti British Murdoch, and obviously it is a foreign owned organisation). It's like 'Communism' for the rich, take from the poor and give to the rich to make the rich even richer.

Still Labour were about to do a deal too.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

David Cameron is an ARSE (a posh one, but still an ARSE) and he wants to be elected as PM

Unless he does something drastic like have sex with a duck on live TV, he almost certainly is going to be our next PM.

[Cobol74]

I know - he did not seem to know what a Grammar School was! He is a complete and utter GIT.

Oh and now the EU fun begins - too bloody late, still.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8345199.stm

"French minister Pierre Lellouche has said he is not worried about the Tories' new European policy and would be able to work with David Cameron.

Mr Lellouche had appeared to be highly critical of the UK opposition's pledge to take some powers back from Brussels, claiming the stance was "pathetic"."


We now have a supreme court that is not er supreme. ... For instance.

[Plissken]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

BBC News and CNN have similar budgets with BBC News spending $580 million a year and CNN spending $550 million a year. Fox News and MSNBC spend about $250 million a year each.

Sigh...

The BBC is a small organisation in terms of budget and personnel when you consider what it has to do.

120 hours per day of news output. A dedicated news and radio channel, BBC Parliament, BBC World News, plus other national (UK) and national (Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland) radio and TV, 41 regional radio stations, local TV stations, kids news, the website etc etc.

BBC News employs 2000 journalists and another 1500 staff - how many does CNN get for the same money?

[Lupin_IV]

It took the writers for The Daily Show 18 days to read the story from the New York Times in which a representative of Fox News stated that live news is presented, 9am-4pm and 6-8pm with the remaining time being made up of editorial programs and reruns.

[Plissken]

It took Fox News 7 months to notice the school song and make an issue out of it.

[ChelsDS]

I barely pay attention to the news, so when I do it's fairly limited so I could be completely off my rocker but...

is anyone else irritated by how much of a media whore Obama is? Sure it's his first year in office, first black man in office and young as well but... this is irritating. Maybe it's from the mentality of people wanting to know and see everything about celebrities that it transferred over to the new President but... jeebus, it's a bit much.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by ChelsDS

Maybe it's from the mentality of people wanting to know and see everything about celebrities that it transferred over to the new President but...

Wait, how does that make Obama the whore?

And really, I think it's kinda refreshing to have a President that wants to be seen on TV. I think it's a new-ish concept now because the last one was such a media liability that nobody really wanted him around.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by Plissken

Actually, in terms of news resources, CNN is bigger than the BBC. Even with the massive expansion the BBC has done - back around the time of the Gulf War, the news operation covering it was about 10 people. (John Simpsons - "Strange Places, Questionable People" is a great read.) I don't have time to research the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if CNN is as big as the entire BBC.

The BBC is a small organisation in terms of budget and personnel when you consider what it has to do. Which makes the quality of its output all the more remarkable - and is why the likes of CNN, News Corp etc hate it.

What does make BBC amazing, though, is their coverage pretty much everywhere. That's the strength of these enourmous public broadcasters, they tend to get people on the ground a lot faster and generally more broadly than other channels.

The BBC could be a wee bit less leftist, but there are those that are worse in that respect, and those that are a lot worse the other way.

Anyhow, the BBC is great. Only thing they don't have is Robert Fisk.

[SpitfireMK461]

Originally Posted by ChelsDS

I barely pay attention to the news, so when I do it's fairly limited so I could be completely off my rocker but...

is anyone else irritated by how much of a media whore Obama is? Sure it's his first year in office, first black man in office and young as well but... this is irritating. Maybe it's from the mentality of people wanting to know and see everything about celebrities that it transferred over to the new President but... jeebus, it's a bit much.

I don't see how Obama is the whore because of this.

Personally, I find it amazing we have a President who actually talks to us.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by ChelsDS

I barely pay attention to the news, so when I do it's fairly limited so I could be completely off my rocker but...

is anyone else irritated by how much of a media whore Obama is? Sure it's his first year in office, first black man in office and young as well but... this is irritating. Maybe it's from the mentality of people wanting to know and see everything about celebrities that it transferred over to the new President but... jeebus, it's a bit much.

It's part of a fundamental shift in how "the people" view politicians. These days they need to be just as much "a celebrity" as they do a politician.

Is this for the better? Yes and no. Yes, because politicians have more of their lives "in the media" - they can't secretly be a racist, or have affairs and get away with it. It also means they have to explain themselves more often. No, because stupid shit like this happens, and that makes me despair for humanity.