In message
1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:54*pm, Graeme wrote:
In message

* * * * * 1506 wrote:





On Aug 1, 11:20*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * *
* * 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 10:25=A0am, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
On 01/08/2010 18:07, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 1, 8:32 am, Arthur
=A0wrote:
On 01/08/2010 16:09, allantracy wrote:

The Daily Mirror ran one of those appalling =91politics of
envy=92 st=
ories

Next thing we know the Sun will have pictures of topless women,
and th=
e
Times an article about how the BBC is a bad thing!

Lord Reith's BBC was a landmark in broadcasting history. =A0At one
time it was one of the UK's greatest assets. =A0Sadly, very sadly,
it has long since passed its "sell buy" date.

(Aren't you on a different continent?)

Not always!

So what is the alternative - and is it fair and balanced?

A free market in broadcasting, much as we have with newspapers..

You've not heard of satellite and cable then?

Which are great. *But, the BBC has a license to utilize the public
airwaves. *They should either stay true to the "unbiased" mandate, or
stop accepting the license fee.

Your evidence that they are not unbiased is?

Your evidence that the BBC is still Lord Reith's unbiased broadcaster is?

I never claimed it was, that was your fantasy.


Endemically, and unquestioningly the BBC has become the mouthpiece of
"Social Democracy". These US are always ion the wrong. The UK is normally
in the wrong. Ethnically fair complected people are always the aggressors.

Ah, you are a racist and anyone who doesn't follow your agenda of hate is a
lefty. Just so long as we know where we stand.

NB I'm a redhead myself, where does that fit into your Neo-Nazi pantheon of
acceptability?

This is often not stated, but almost always implied. Let me give you one
historic example:

"American aggression in Vietnam", to those of us of a certain age those
words are firmly fixed in our minds after hearing them every night from the
BBC.

Another fantasy.

Apart from anything else the Vietnam War, the preferred description on the
BBC, was not often nightly news here, unlike in those Untied States...

We never heard "Viet Cong Intimidation", or "Viet Cong atrocities", only
the "bad" Americans.

Cite?

Now, no one would argue that the servicemen of any nation always behave
impeccably under pressure.

Mai Lai wasn't the Vietcong you know...


A few years after the Communist victory in South Vietnam and
reunification it was NOT these United States

Which United States? that really is an odd expression, why do you use it?

*from whence hundred of boats fled for fear of our regime. Yet I did not
hear the BBC and its fellow travelers acknowledge that the allied fight
against an insipid evil may have been right.

Which allied fight? that was one US military cock-up we weren't stupid enough
to get involved in. Possibly the only good thing you could say about Harold
Wilson. And did you really mean to say /insipid/ evil?


This is but one example.

But not a credible one.

The editors of Pravda could only wish for the skills, not to say cajones,
of the BBC.

Instead they had to make do with people very much like yourself with their
gruesome fantasies and total disregard for reality.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/