Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I should also add that a large portion of those uncovered 15% are young professionals who feel they have no need for health insurance as they have a very low chance of getting sick, and paying the doctor a visit every few months is cheaper than having health insurance.
    That'd be me, aside from the professional part.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I should also add that a large portion of those uncovered 15% are young professionals who feel they have no need for health insurance as they have a very low chance of getting sick, and paying the doctor a visit every few months is cheaper than having health insurance. It is also illegal for any hospital to deny a seriously ill person treatment if they don't have enough money to cover the stay.
    Why are you letting facts get in the way of a good opportunity for Europeans to feel morally superior?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Why are you letting facts get in the way of a good opportunity for Europeans to feel morally superior?
    Because shaming Europeans is a good hobby of mine?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I should also add that a large portion of those uncovered 15% are young professionals who feel they have no need for health insurance as they have a very low chance of getting sick, and paying the doctor a visit every few months is cheaper than having health insurance. It is also illegal for any hospital to deny a seriously ill person treatment if they don't have enough money to cover the stay.
    Oh, so most of the uncovered are actually yuppies who'd rather spend their money on vacations to Hawaii are they? Well, for a start 8 million of the 46 million uninsured are actually children so that doesn't sound right; and presumably the children of parents that do not have the means to insure them and are no doubt uninsured themselves.

    I find what you say very difficult to believe Bismark; "young professionals" I should have thought would tend to be intelligent enough not to throw caution to the wind and have means enough not to have to. They are also as a group likely to have some sort of corporate coverage anyway.

    According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey the following can be said about today's uninsured:

    Fact: Uninsured adults are less likely to get the medical care they need.
    Fact: Uninsured adults are less likely to have a personal doctor or health care provider.
    Fact: Individuals who are uninsured are less likely to receive preventive services.
    Fact: Adults who are uninsured are twice as likely to report being in poor or fair health as adults who are insured.

    Now, if so many of these uninsured people were "young professionals" who didn't much object to paying cash from their own savings for their medical wellbeing we surely wouldn't expect to find this pattern emerging would we?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    There is a lot of evidence that suggests much of what Bismarck is saying is true. There are 26 million Americans (about 9 percent) that are "uninsured by choice", meaning that, for whatever reason, they have decided not to take the initiative and get coverage. Of these 26 million, ten million qualify for government programs and haven't bothered to enroll. 16 million of the 26 million uninsured people make over 50,000 dollars and can definitely afford it but don't want to pay for it.

    The fastest growing group of uninsured Americans are people making over 50K a year.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I'm certianly not a lefty, and CERTAINLY not anti-american. I have lived there, and am marrying one... but I dont see that the BBC is anti-american... one MIGHT contend it was anti-Bush, but even that is hard to make stick.
    The BBC provides bloggers with plenty material that proves otherwise.

    http://www.theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/
    http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
    http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/

    Look at the kind of stories they run incessently. These are some headlines of recent articles:

    "Third of US teenagers are unfit"
    "Inside the fattest state in the US"
    "US slowly wakes up to obesity crisis"
    "US people getting fatter, fast"
    "US city orders up 'fast-food' tax"
    "US approves 'Cheeseburger bill'"

    This is BS, lawz...you're a pretty reasonable guy and I don't see how you can possibly defend this crap. This isn't news-It's a blatant attempt to reinforce negative american stereotypes. Most of the obesity stories don't offer anything new and are basically reprints of older articles calling us fat. The UK is right behind the US in obesity, so the BBC is in no position to lecture us on this topic. Why is how many calories we eat of such concern to the BBC anyway? Why can't they just let people be fat? I'm 6 feet tall and 153 lbs (69 KG) in case you're wondering.

    The other stereotype the BBC relentlessly reenforces is that we are all a bunch of religious fanatics. I don't know where you lived, but if it was on the Northeast or west coast, you'll see how silly this is. More headlines just in the last few months:

    "US evangelicals warn Republicans"
    "US evangelicals launch green plan"
    "US evangelicals boost green lobby"
    "'Religious bullying' at US academy"
    "Bush's faithful balancing act"
    "Christian foot soldiers battle for Bush"
    "US truckers shown road to Christ"
    "Churches book up Passion tickets"
    "Radical Georgian ex-priest held"
    "Religion and politics in America"

    Enough is enough already. Read this stuff every day and the ignorant public in Europe is going to think that everyone living in the USA is an evangelical Christian. Why don't they do a story on a place like San Francisco, CA, where people are more atheistic and liberal than any part of Europe, just for the sake of having some kind of balance?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Enough is enough already. Read this stuff every day and the ignorant public in Europe is going to think that everyone living in the USA is an evangelical Christian. Why don't they do a story on a place like San Francisco, CA, where people are more atheistic and liberal than any part of Europe, just for the sake of having some kind of balance?
    Bring them a story and they probably will.

    This isn't anti-Americanism, this is news reporting.

    Every group out there thinks the same way you do, because the only stories about the subject of their choice is news, rather than a happy feely story.

    People don't want happy feely stories.

    They don't sell.

    If I went by the BBC then every person aged under 25 in this country is a binge drinking, sex crazed, hoodie wearing chav that steals mobile phones, and fails at school.

    Of course that doesn't relate to me, so why don't they do a story on me?

    Because I am not news.

    You use obesity as examples.

    So?

    Think about it, which is "news"

    Dwayne is 11 years old and 25st, or Marcia is 11 years old, and normal weight and height for her age?

    Which one are people interested in, and going to watch?

    Today in Luton, a group of teenagers were involved in the brutal assault of a pensioner, or Today in Luton, a teenager helped an old lady over the road?

    It's not anti-Americanism, it's news.

    Go ask anyone else, go ask a football fan, who see's nothing but stories of football fans being portrayed as thugs.

    Go ask a member of any political party, who see's nothing but stories about how his party is full of sleaze.

    Go ask anyone.

    It's news.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Think about it, which is "news"

    Dwayne is 11 years old and 25st, or Marcia is 11 years old, and normal weight and height for her age?

    Which one are people interested in, and going to watch?

    Today in Luton, a group of teenagers were involved in the brutal assault of a pensioner, or Today in Luton, a teenager helped an old lady over the road?

    It's not anti-Americanism, it's news.

    Go ask anyone else, go ask a football fan, who see's nothing but stories of football fans being portrayed as thugs.

    Go ask a member of any political party, who see's nothing but stories about how his party is full of sleaze.

    Go ask anyone.

    It's news.
    Calling people fat everyday isn't news. If it is, then the 7 year old kids in the sandbox insulting each other are world-class newscasters.

    When does it stop being news and just become the reenforcement of negative stereotypes? This endless barrage of obesity stories never brings forth any new information. Most of the time it's just a rehash of the same "stories"

    About the only thing I agree with in your post is this statement right here:

    Which one are people interested in, and going to watch?
    You are, collectively, all interested in hearing Americans being called fat everyday. Things are really that simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Calling people fat everyday isn't news.
    It's reporting on obesity.

    Sure, it's sensationalised, but so is all news, that's not an anti-American thing (see my other examples).

    When does it stop being news and just become the reenforcement of negative stereotypes?
    When the public become bored of it.

    Perhaps you are unaware that our TV schedules are full of programes like "Fat camp", "Celebrity fat club", & other such obesity centered programs (none as far as I know containing, or pertaining to Americans).

    You are, collectively, all interested in hearing Americans being called fat everyday. Things are really that simple.
    See above, fat is just a fashionable topic right now, and the news is playing it to death, it's not anti-American at all.

    Never mistake paranoia for fact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's alright, though, because we still run ****.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Look at the kind of stories they run incessantly. These are some headlines of recent articles:

    Interesting post. However, its easy to be selective about headlines, and I certainly don’t think that these can be seen as evidence of an anti-American stance:

    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    "Third of US teenagers are unfit"
    "Inside the fattest state in the US"
    "US slowly wakes up to obesity crisis"
    "US people getting fatter, fast"
    "US city orders up 'fast-food' tax"
    "US approves 'Cheeseburger bill'"

    This is BS, lawz...you're a pretty reasonable guy and I don't see how you can possibly defend this crap. This isn't news-It's a blatant attempt to reinforce negative american stereotypes. Most of the obesity stories don't offer anything new and are basically reprints of older articles calling us fat. The UK is right behind the US in obesity, so the BBC is in no position to lecture us on this topic. Why is how many calories we eat of such concern to the BBC anyway? Why can't they just let people be fat? I'm 6 feet tall and 153 lbs (69 KG) in case you're wondering.


    You REGULARLY see such stories about the UK too. In fact, there are more reports on UK obesity. I wouldnt say that the BBC is anti-UK. They have reported on growing obesity in places like France and Holland too as I recall.

    The fact is that the US is the fattest country on earth, and it isnt by way of saying - Americans are bad people, - but more - they have a problem, and this is the way WE too are headed if we dont change.

    Indeed, though on AVERAGE the UK may be close behind, the US is more of a telling story because they also have a group of the population that are fitter than the UK. Thus, the fattest people in the US are a good deal fatter and more prevalent than the UK. Its often places like LA and San Diego that balance it out.

    I lived in the US for a bit, and even in Cali the difference with the UK was pretty clear.

    I think the BBC use it as something of a cautionary tale, while constantly reminding us of the pending problem for us.

    Dont forget that we have to cover the bill on anyone with such medical problems... you generally dont. So for us its a big issue.


    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]The other stereotype the BBC relentlessly reinforces is that we are all a bunch of religious fanatics. I don't know where you lived, but if it was on the Northeast or west coast, you'll see how silly this is. More headlines just in the last few months:

    "US evangelicals warn Republicans"
    "US evangelicals launch green plan"
    "US evangelicals boost green lobby"
    "'Religious bullying' at US academy"
    "Bush's faithful balancing act"
    "Christian foot soldiers battle for Bush"
    "US truckers shown road to Christ"
    "Churches book up Passion tickets"
    "Radical Georgian ex-priest held"
    "Religion and politics in America"


    Again, you have to understand, it is entirely relative. Compared to the UK and a secular Europe, the US is VERY VERY religious. That actually bothers a lot of Europeans, rightly or wrongly.

    However, the US media also regularly illustrates the sway that the religious right has over politics in the US. The matter is particularly topical at present.

    The Economist, which is no where NEAR anti-American also runs stories like the above.

    If you actually look the content of the BBC stories, I doubt you find much by way of editorialisation of the matter. They generally just report on the facts.

    For a country like the UK, where religion is almost taboo for politicians, it is very interesting to hear about a system, where being an atheist would pretty much assure your loss in a Presidential election.

    The US IS relatively very religious. In fact of all First World countries it is probably the most religious. I don't really see how the BBC are doing anything wrong with the above stories, and I certainly don’t see how they can even be classed as particularly pejorative.

    In fact though, watching say, Fox News, I hear far more about US religious groups and issues than in the UK. Issues like prayer in Schools for instance never even make it over here.

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]Enough is enough already. Read this stuff every day and the ignorant public in Europe is going to think that everyone living in the USA is an evangelical Christian. Why don't they do a story on a place like San Francisco, CA, where people are more atheistic and liberal than any part of Europe, just for the sake of having some kind of balance?


    I have seen a decent number of stories on the BBC on places like Chicago, San Francisco, New York. But as said - its all relative. Relative to the UK, there is a greater prevalence of evangelicalism, and obesity.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Again, you have to understand, it is entirely relative. Compared to the UK and a secular Europe, the US is VERY VERY religious. That actually bothers a lot of Europeans, rightly or wrongly.
    VERY VERY religious? Lets have some semblance of perspective here. The US is not VERY VERY religious. The middle east is very very religious.

    Maybe you should ask yourself why it bothers you so much if people want to go to church. I am not practicing, but I still think religion has its purpose. It teaches people right from wrong (except Islam) and some people, unfortunately, need that moral compass in their lives to guide them. I've been to Greece 5 times and I think they are far more religious than the north east or west coast, so why aren't people up in arms over the greeks? What about the catholics in Italy and the way the pope's opinions are held in such high esteem? I find the way your press singles out the US to be very frustrating as one looking in from the outside.

    (Original post by Lawz-)
    However, the US media also regularly illustrates the sway that the religious right has over politics in the US. The matter is particularly topical at present.
    The US media ran quite a few stories about evangelical christians following the election because the mainstream media wanted Kerry to win and they were angry and wanted a scapegoat. Since then, there have been few stories about them, but it's a relentless bombardment of stories about the religious right on the BBC. The US media will run stories about some of the things that go on in the blue states, like the push for the morning after pill, condoms in schools, partial birth abortion, and abortions without parental concent. We have environmental terrorist groups like ELF that light parking lots of hummers on fire, spike trees, and burn housing encroaching on forests. The silence for the BBC is deafening on these stories. The BBC is the master of using selective omission to misinform you about America and Americans.

    The majority of americans DON'T regularly attend church. The reason politicians have to placate the religious right is because of the electoral college. A politician running for the presidency needs to win more states than NY or California. If it were a popular vote in the US, politicians could just campaign in new york and california and ignore "fly over country."

    The states where evangelical Christians live are sparsely populated states. South Dakota is about 50% bigger than England, but only 700,000 people live there. California is full of atheists and the population of California is something like 36 million people. One out of every eight people live in california! There are 20 million people living in New York state.

    Why can the US media manage to balance stories about the religious right with stories about the left in America, but the BBC can't? The BBC viewers are going to be left with the impression that only evangelical christians live here and no one else.

    (Original post by Lawz-)
    The Economist, which is no where NEAR anti-American also runs stories like the above.

    If you actually look the content of the BBC stories, I doubt you find much by way of editorialisation of the matter. They generally just report on the facts.
    They are facts, but the problem with selective omission is that you can deliberately paint an inaccurate picture using facts.

    (Original post by Lawz-)
    For a country like the UK, where religion is almost taboo for politicians, it is very interesting to hear about a system, where being an atheist would pretty much assure your loss in a Presidential election.

    The US IS relatively very religious. In fact of all First World countries it is probably the most religious. I don't really see how the BBC are doing anything wrong with the above stories, and I certainly don’t see how they can even be classed as particularly pejorative.
    Did you bother looking at any of the links to the blogs I put up? These bloggers document the BBC's propaganda and they do a better job than I could. Ask yourself why all the Americans, regardless of political ideology, practically have a heart attack over the BBC?

    You still haven't told me where you lived when you spent time in the USA. Unless you were staying in Utah, I really don't see why you got the impression that we are so fanatically religious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    You still haven't told me where you lived when you spent time in the USA. Unless you were staying in Utah, I really don't see why you got the impression that we are so fanatically religious.
    53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This compares with 16% in Britain, and the figure is even more spread when it comes to actual attendance of religious services etc with 44% of Americans claiming to attend regularly, against 7% in this country.

    Compared with us a lot of America would seem fanatical to a visitor.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]VERY VERY religious? Lets have some semblance of perspective here. The US is not VERY VERY religious. The middle east is very very religious.


    I actually said:

    Compared to the UK and a secular Europe, the US is VERY VERY religious

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]Maybe you should ask yourself why it bothers you so much if people want to go to church. I am not practicing, but I still think religion has its purpose. It teaches people right from wrong (except Islam)


    Oh come now. Religion is great but for Islam? Don’t do that. Im no fan of Islam, but for the same reason I am no fan of Christianity.

    I have a problem because religion is inherently judgmental, no matter WHAT people say. Because it leads to bigotry against, gays, HAS lead to it against women, and all in all leaves little room for liberal thought.

    I have a problem in that all too often religious people end up imposing their beliefs on others. For instance anti-blasphemy laws in the UK, and the row about the Mohammed cartoons.

    if religious adherents prayed and kept their beliefs private fine. But they don’t - religion affects my life when I don’t want it to. It affects the lives of others when I know THEY don’t want it to.

    That's my problem with it.

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]and some people, unfortunately, need that moral compass in their lives to guide them. I've been to Greece 5 times and I think they are far more religious than the north east or west coast, so why aren't people up in arms over the greeks?


    I'm talking about the influence that religion has in the US as a whole. I am well aware there are pockets of secularism and liberalism. That’s not really a fair comparisons.
    Anyway - you cant really be serious? Why are we more interested in the US than Greece? The same reason we are more interested in the US than Luxemburg.

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]What about the Catholics in Italy and the way the pope's opinions are held in such high esteem? I find the way your press singles out the US to be very frustrating as one looking in from the outside.


    Do you live in the US?

    When there were abortion marches in Italy, and other new papal issues the BBC has been all over it. I think you have a selective notion of what the BBC reports.



    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]The US media ran quite a few stories about evangelical christians following the election because the mainstream media wanted Kerry to win and they were angry and wanted a scapegoat.


    Well I have no basis on which to believe that.

    Even the Republicans would admit that the religious groups are powerful when it comes to getting elected. I cant imagine that you would think otherwise?

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]Since then, there have been few stories about them, but it's a relentless bombardment of stories about the religious right on the BBC.


    There really isnt. My guess is that those articles were selected over a large number of months.

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]The US media will run stories about some of the things that go on in the blue states, like the push for the morning after pill, condoms in schools, partial birth abortion, and abortions without parental consent. We have environmental terrorist groups like ELF that light parking lots of hummers on fire, spike trees, and burn housing encroaching on forests. The silence for the BBC is deafening on these stories. The BBC is the master of using selective omission to misinform you about America and Americans.


    Actually I have seen bits on UK TV on such things, but it just isnt as interesting as they don’t influence foreign policy.

    You don’t seem to see the fact that we as British want to know about the religious groups in the US because:

    a) They are curious to us. We have no such aspect to our society
    b) It is commonly accepted that they influence republican foreign policy. They thus affect us more than ELF

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]The majority of Americans DON'T regularly attend church. The reason politicians have to placate the religious right is because of the electoral college. A politician running for the presidency needs to win more states than NY or California. If it were a popular vote in the US, politicians could just campaign in new york and california and ignore "fly over country."


    I'm well aware of that. But you prove the point. They DO have an influence over policy which is interesting to us because of, among other things, the above I listed.

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]The states where evangelical Christians live are sparsely populated states. South Dakota is about 50% bigger than England, but only 700,000 people live there. California is full of atheists and the population of California is something like 36 million people. One out of every eight people live in california! There are 20 million people living in New York state.


    Answer me this - why does FOX news, a fairly conservative US friendly outfit, have greater number of religious stories than the BBC? If it is such a pejorative thing?

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]Why can the US media manage to balance stories about the religious right with stories about the left in America, but the BBC can't? The BBC viewers are going to be left with the impression that only evangelical christians live here and no one else.


    In the western world, the VAST majority DO live in the US, and have a FAR greater influence on the globe than any other evangelical group.


    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]They are facts, but the problem with selective omission is that you can deliberately paint an inaccurate picture using facts.


    You take a few stories and read some blogs and come to a conclusion. I can honestly tell you that as someone who is rather pro-ameircan, who LIKES americans, and who is far from being a leftie, I watch the BBC all the time, and never come away with the impression that they are biased. I just dont see it. I think you would have to watch it regulalry to get a true picture. I am not sure you do.

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]Did you bother looking at any of the links to the blogs I put up? These bloggers document the BBC's propaganda and they do a better job than I could. Ask yourself why all the Americans, regardless of political ideology, practically have a heart attack over the BBC?


    No - I've been airly busy. I may have a look. But I often find blogs on the left and right both to be highly biased, an I take them all with a pinch of salt.

    [COLOR=black]
    (Original post by Made in the [/COLOR)
    USA]You still haven't told me where you lived when you spent time in the USA. Unless you were staying in Utah, I really don't see why you got the impression that we are so fanatically religious.


    Well I lived in San Francisco and NapaValley. I met more religious people THERE, than I do in the UK. That says a lot to me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    VERY VERY religious? Lets have some semblance of perspective here. The US is not VERY VERY religious. The middle east is very very religious.

    Maybe you should ask yourself why it bothers you so much if people want to go to church. I am not practicing, but I still think religion has its purpose. It teaches people right from wrong (except Islam) and some people, unfortunately, need that moral compass in their lives to guide them. I've been to Greece 5 times and I think they are far more religious than the north east or west coast, so why aren't people up in arms over the greeks? What about the catholics in Italy and the way the pope's opinions are held in such high esteem? I find the way your press singles out the US to be very frustrating as one looking in from the outside.



    The US media ran quite a few stories about evangelical christians following the election because the mainstream media wanted Kerry to win and they were angry and wanted a scapegoat. Since then, there have been few stories about them, but it's a relentless bombardment of stories about the religious right on the BBC. The US media will run stories about some of the things that go on in the blue states, like the push for the morning after pill, condoms in schools, partial birth abortion, and abortions without parental concent. We have environmental terrorist groups like ELF that light parking lots of hummers on fire, spike trees, and burn housing encroaching on forests. The silence for the BBC is deafening on these stories. The BBC is the master of using selective omission to misinform you about America and Americans.

    The majority of americans DON'T regularly attend church. The reason politicians have to placate the religious right is because of the electoral college. A politician running for the presidency needs to win more states than NY or California. If it were a popular vote in the US, politicians could just campaign in new york and california and ignore "fly over country."

    The states where evangelical Christians live are sparsely populated states. South Dakota is about 50% bigger than England, but only 700,000 people live there. California is full of atheists and the population of California is something like 36 million people. One out of every eight people live in california! There are 20 million people living in New York state.

    Why can the US media manage to balance stories about the religious right with stories about the left in America, but the BBC can't? The BBC viewers are going to be left with the impression that only evangelical christians live here and no one else.



    They are facts, but the problem with selective omission is that you can deliberately paint an inaccurate picture using facts.



    Did you bother looking at any of the links to the blogs I put up? These bloggers document the BBC's propaganda and they do a better job than I could. Ask yourself why all the Americans, regardless of political ideology, practically have a heart attack over the BBC?

    You still haven't told me where you lived when you spent time in the USA. Unless you were staying in Utah, I really don't see why you got the impression that we are so fanatically religious.

    Isn't it funny when you write a massive post all about being careful about evaluating sources, taking into account all the factors, being reasonable in conclusions.. then two words in brackets that generalise about over 1 billion people show it all to be a load of ****.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Lawz-, I appreciate the time you took in replying to my posts. I think we're at a bit of an impasse.

    Americans living in America are in a position to judge if reporting on their country is fair or not. I see the BBC as a coercively-funded organisation that's bent on painting a very unflattering picture of America.

    Brits, who don't live in the US, think it's fair and evenhanded in its treatment of the US.

    Who is in a better position to judge?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Lawz-, I appreciate the time you took in replying to my posts. I think we're at a bit of an impasse.

    Americans living in America are in a position to judge if reporting on their country is fair or not. I see the BBC as a coercively-funded organisation that's bent on painting a very unflattering picture of America.

    Brits, who don't live in the US, think it's fair and evenhanded in its treatment of the US.

    Who is in a better position to judge?
    Why would someone raised in US culture, surrounded by US media be in a position to judge if it was fair? People and countries are terrible at self-evaluation.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    Isn't it funny when you write a massive post all about being careful about evaluating sources, taking into account all the factors, being reasonable in conclusions.. then two words in brackets that generalise about over 1 billion people show it all to be a load of ****.
    Yeah, I intentionally said that because people always compare the religious right in America to these lunatics in the middle east that decapitate children. Fanatically religious Muslims and Evangelical Christians are not the same. Sorry if saying that offends people.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    Why would someone raised in US culture, surrounded by US media be in a position to judge if it was fair? People and countries are terrible at self-evaluation.
    Who knows American culture better than the people that live here? It's nothing like the crock you are being sold in your media, but how would you know better?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Lawz-, I appreciate the time you took in replying to my posts. I think we're at a bit of an impasse.

    Americans living in America are in a position to judge if reporting on their country is fair or not. I see the BBC as a coercively-funded organisation that's bent on painting a very unflattering picture of America.

    Brits, who don't live in the US, think it's fair and evenhanded in its treatment of the US.

    Who is in a better position to judge?
    Do you watch the BBC regularly?

    Also - I think as an American you may be quick to find offence. Its human nature. I am neither American, or really British. As such I dont have any prefernce either way.

    However, I take it that in the US you dont watch BBC news nearly as much as myself. I think you would have to do so to have a real basis to comment on bias.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 9, 2008
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.