Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Please don't quote me out of context. It displays a certain lack of imagination.
    Sorry, how is that 'out of context'. I changed a word from a full sentence of yours and asked you a question. Why will you not address it?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I don't, the BBC does. I am justifying their actions
    What you're doing is splitting hairs. You're justifying what they're doing, wow, big difference.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    No. US foreign policy, economic decisions etc. have an incredibly large impact on the rest of the world. Have you not been paying attention?
    And you're saying that Chinese foreign and economic policy DOESN'T? Wow, it seems like you're the one that hasn't been been paying attention...

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    your point about the US being what it claims to be demonstrates well the problem the BBC and others are trying to make clear - America isn't as liberal or progressive as it might appear.
    See, this is your anti-American views clouding out reason. I believe the US is what it claims, and I do not think that it is the job of the 'BBC and others' to try and persuade me otherwise by running an inordinate amount of news stories focusing on all the negative things it can find. You seem to like the idea that the news should be attempting to convert everyone else to your leftist way of thinking, I believe the news should not be trying to push an agenda in that way. It's actually astonishing that you openly admit that the BBC is trying to push a view to make people dislike the US but are absolutely fine with that.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    World leaders don't make those kinds of decisions based on what the rest of the world thinks
    So why bash the US then? It's not going to change what they do.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    hence why there exist both democracies and dictatorships. Do you honestly suppose that the Communist Party give a **** what the BBC think
    Do you honestly suppose the US government gives a **** what the BBC think?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Instead what we're seeing on the part of the BBC is sound reasoning - put most effort where you can make the most impact. By its very nature as a democratic system, America is deeply susceptible to attacks like these.
    .. It's actually mind-blowing to be reading such open and seething hatred and bias. Basically, you advocate and support the BBC openly pushing an anti-US agenda because you want America to change. You ignore the fact that many do not agree, both here and in the US, with that agenda-pushing, but are fine with the BBC nakedly playing to their own biases as long as they align with yours? Stunning. I guess all that leftist facade of pretending to think that the BBC is neutral has finally dropped.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    And you, sir, are a complete fool for suggesting that I am 'excusing the worst'.
    Sorry, would you like to explain what you ARE doing? Because supporting attacks on the better, whilst advocating ignoring the worst, in real terms, is letting the worst have a free pass on what they do. You can sling an insult at me, but it's becoming patently clear that you harbour such anti-Americanism that you will gladly see them attacked whilst letting China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc. do whatever the hell they want without comment.


    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Because, from a British point of view, it is both backwards and illiberal.
    Polls consistently show that Britons, in the majority, back the reintroduction of the death penalty. So which 'British point of view' are you representing here?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I don't really see how it can have the support of a clear majority of people, unless the people as a whole are asked to vote on the matter for each individual state.
    Yup, that's pretty much how it works. The matter is dealt with by the directly elected State governments, and the polls that are held on the subject consistently show clear majorities favouring the death penalty. Hence it does have a clear majority in those states where it is law.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    And thus making less of an impact on the world.
    And what about the millions of people who were under the illusion that the BBC was, you know, a news reporting organisation, rather than a massive mouthpiece for global change? You know, who missed that bit in the Charter about 'pushing a global leftist agenda' and saw only the bit about 'neutrality' and 'impartiality'? I guess they're just to be ignored, right? I mean, it's not like they fund the BBC too, or anything...

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I don't see what you're complaining about, it's not like they haven't reported on the executions in China
    One article on the legal way that death penalty appeals are handled and one on a general UN comment on China's HRs... 3,400 executions.
    28 articles... 60 executions.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    How did you find out, out of curiosity?
    By using OTHER news services, perhaps?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    why has this been moved to general. this thread was a continuation of my bush/blair bashing ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    Do people think the UK press only focuses on bad stories from the US?
    It would explain the story on the New Jersey budget crisis--makes the US look bad.
    But I don't really know. Opinions?
    As someone else has pointed out, many news stories which are portrayed on news programmes and in newspapers are based upon negativity. Basically, it's because of the 'feel-good' factor... It sounds sick, but people watch the news because it makes them feel that their life isn't as bad as others around the world.

    I don't necessarily think that the news is to make the US look bad. I mean, the news is there to inform people. Granted, on other news platforms, certin news stories can be used to persuade the viewer not to support a particular politcial party, etc. Having said that, this is not usually the case with the BBC, as it is run by the government.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Sorry, how is that 'out of context'. I changed a word from a full sentence of yours and asked you a question. Why will you not address it?
    Because you missed out half of the sentence, incidentally the half which gave the sentence its full meaning. I just pretty much wrote a goddamn essay for you addressing the question.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    What you're doing is splitting hairs. You're justifying what they're doing, wow, big difference.
    Yes because I could see you had some axe to grind about the Chinese and you weren't being particularly reasonable or giving the BBC a chance.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    And you're saying that Chinese foreign and economic policy DOESN'T? Wow, it seems like you're the one that hasn't been been paying attention...
    Again, please don't twist my words. The question you asked was - "So, if tomorrow, Bush decided to assume permanent control of the US and rule like China, would we get an end to the obsession with the things the US does?" - and my answer was no, obviously, because America is extremely influential in other ways (foreign and economic policy), as is China (whose foreign and economic policy also features regularly in the news). The amount of executions in either country has absolutely no impact on the wider world - it is merely a matter of morality and outrage. You appear to have a problem with basic English comprehension.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    See, this is your anti-American views clouding out reason. I believe the US is what it claims, and I do not think that it is the job of the 'BBC and others' to try and persuade me otherwise by running an inordinate amount of news stories focusing on all the negative things it can find. You seem to like the idea that the news should be attempting to convert everyone else to your leftist way of thinking, I believe the news should not be trying to push an agenda in that way. It's actually astonishing that you openly admit that the BBC is trying to push a view to make people dislike the US but are absolutely fine with that.
    I'd hardly refer to myself as 'anti-American', which might explain why I'm applying to American universities in a couple of months' time, think highly of most of the Americans I know and love American culture. I am, however, anti-bull****, which seems to be one of the current American government's major talents.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    So why bash the US then? It's not going to change what they do.

    Do you honestly suppose the US government gives a **** what the BBC think?
    You missed my point, which was that news sources such as the BBC are widely available to the general population who, America being a democracy and not a totalitarian state, feature heavily in the running of the country.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    .. It's actually mind-blowing to be reading such open and seething hatred and bias. Basically, you advocate and support the BBC openly pushing an anti-US agenda because you want America to change. You ignore the fact that many do not agree, both here and in the US, with that agenda-pushing, but are fine with the BBC nakedly playing to their own biases as long as they align with yours? Stunning. I guess all that leftist facade of pretending to think that the BBC is neutral has finally dropped.
    Where's the hatred and bias? You're the one who began by spouting some outraged rubbish about how the evil Communists in China should be put to shame by the BBC - I was reacting against your position. The BBC is not advocating any 'anti-US agenda', it is merely reporting on a rather surprising and hypocritical turn of events which it feels is more news-worthy than the by now expected executions in China. You claim that I am advocating pushing forward an 'anti-US agenda', and yet you yourself are pushing for an anti-China agenda. Hypocritical? Just a little.

    In case you weren't aware, the BBC is run by people, not robots. There is no possible way it could be entirely neutral and exist without at least some element of subjectivity. The very act of deciding which stories to report involves a value judgement.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Sorry, would you like to explain what you ARE doing? Because supporting attacks on the better, whilst advocating ignoring the worst, in real terms, is letting the worst have a free pass on what they do. You can sling an insult at me, but it's becoming patently clear that you harbour such anti-Americanism that you will gladly see them attacked whilst letting China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc. do whatever the hell they want without comment.
    See above.

    I am not 'ignoring the worst'. As I mentioned before, this stuff isn't going unnoticed. The BBC reported it, and information on the topic is widely available.

    'letting China... do whatever the hell they want without comment' - *slight* overexaggeration here. In fact, I've just written a 4000+ word essay exploring the truths and lies behind the Communist Party's facade in China; if you don't believe me, I'll bloody send you the thing.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Polls consistently show that Britons, in the majority, back the reintroduction of the death penalty. So which 'British point of view' are you representing here?
    Two points. Firstly, polls and statistics are as a rule bloody unreliable (you might have learnt this in GCSE mathematics?) and the fact that you are citing them as your evidence is rather worrying. Secondly, if the polls are indeed representative of British public opinion, why is it then that the death penalty hasn't been reintroduced? I thought we lived in a democracy as well, in which case, going by your idealist view of a perfectly-functioning democracy, the government should have reintroduced the death penalty by now.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Yup, that's pretty much how it works. The matter is dealt with by the directly elected State governments, and the polls that are held on the subject consistently show clear majorities favouring the death penalty. Hence it does have a clear majority in those states where it is law.
    Again, polls are largely b*llocks. As for state governments dealing with the matter - that is precisely my point. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps these governments are voted in on a wealth of other policies, not just on their views on the death penalty? Hence, you have no real basis for saying that a 'clear majority' support it in those states. How many states in the USA have kept the death penalty, out of interest?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    And what about the millions of people who were under the illusion that the BBC was, you know, a news reporting organisation, rather than a massive mouthpiece for global change? You know, who missed that bit in the Charter about 'pushing a global leftist agenda' and saw only the bit about 'neutrality' and 'impartiality'? I guess they're just to be ignored, right? I mean, it's not like they fund the BBC too, or anything...
    The Guardian and The Telegraph are also 'news reporting organisations'; that does not mean they cannot report news with a certain political bias. I think you're taking the Charter a little bit too literally; as I mentioned above, 'neutrality' and 'impartiality' are almost impossible to achieve. Every citizen in the entire country funds both the government and the BBC; does that mean they are representative of their views?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    By using OTHER news services, perhaps?
    So the information is readily available - why then do you care?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Because you missed out half of the sentence, incidentally the half which gave the sentence its full meaning. I just pretty much wrote a goddamn essay for you addressing the question.
    And yet you won't give me a straight answer to such a simple question? Weird.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Yes because I could see you had some axe to grind about the Chinese and you weren't being particularly reasonable or giving the BBC a chance.
    I don't have an axe to grind about the Chinese. I have an axe to grind with the BBC, who have had more 'chances' then I want to know.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    The amount of executions in either country has absolutely no impact on the wider world - it is merely a matter of morality and outrage. You appear to have a problem with basic English comprehension.
    And here we have the admission that his whole spiel about 'impact on the wider world' has completely no relevance to the point in hand. If the number of executions in either country has NO impact on the world... Why disproportionately report on one? You've yet to supply a single reason, beyond blithering on about 'well, the US says it's a democracy', which in my mind, is an appalling argument.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I'd hardly refer to myself as 'anti-American'... I am, however, anti-bull****, which seems to be one of the current American government's major talents.
    Hah. Sure, that's why you desperately see the BBC as a mouthpiece to force the US to change? Because you just 'love it so much' that you want to see its widely-supported practices altered and want the BBC to run what amounts to a permanent smear campaign against the country. Tough love, eh?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    which was that news sources such as the BBC are widely available to the general population who, America being a democracy and not a totalitarian state, feature heavily in the running of the country.
    And yet another attempt at a point that makes no sense at all. Now we have 'the US has freedom of the press', therefore we should lambast it much more than China who not only execute 60 times more people, but don't have a free press either! Excellent, another example of picking on the far better because the worse is just too bad. And you never answered my question - Do you think what the BBC says has any influence on US government policy? Because if you do then you're kidding yourself.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Where's the hatred and bias?
    In the advocation of the BBC running a publically-funded leftist smear campaign against the US?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    You're the one who began by spouting some outraged rubbish about how the evil Communists in China should be put to shame by the BBC - I was reacting against your position.
    HEHE! Wow, leftist hypocrisy really has no bounds...
    So, I advocate that China should be REPORTED ON (not put to shame) for its executions, and you would prefer the US (60 times less executions) to be SMEARED by the BBC for their executions and you actually sit there and think that that's the moral and correct position to be holding.
    It's one of the clearest examples I have ever seen of leftist anti-US sentiment clouding any sort of humanity or reasoning.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    The BBC is not advocating any 'anti-US agenda', it is merely reporting on a rather surprising and hypocritical turn of events
    Sorry, which 'surpprising turn of events' is this? The US re-introduced the death penalty in 1976, and has been bumping them off at a steady rate since then, would you like to tell me what exactly this major 'surprising turn of events' requiring so much reporting, is?
    And I thought I dealt your silly 'hypocritical' bit in my last post, but I see you've sneaked it back in again, without any sort of counter-argument.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    which it feels is more news-worthy than the by now expected executions in China.
    Sorry, how are the Chinese 3,400 executions a year, MORE expected than

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    You claim that I am advocating pushing forward an 'anti-US agenda', and yet you yourself are pushing for an anti-China agenda. Hypocritical? Just a little.
    Hehe! What blithering rubbish, you really can't put an argument together, can you.
    Somehow it's 'anti-China' to ask that if the BBC wants to report on the subject of the death penalty, it focus on the biggest user (by a long way) on Earth? Like to explain that?
    Because that's my position - if the BBC wants to go on about the death penalty, it's unfair and ridiculous to focus on the country that has fair justice and kills 60 a year, to a far greater extent than you focus on the country that has little justice and kills 3,400 a year. That is a reasonable position, is it not?
    Your position, is that it is entirely legitimate to virtually ignore the 3,400 and focus almost exclusively on the 60. And yet you call ME hypocritical and deny what you're doing is anti-US? That position is completely illogical and untenable - i.e. leftist.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    In case you weren't aware, the BBC is run by people, not robots. There is no possible way it could be entirely neutral and exist without at least some element of subjectivity. The very act of deciding which stories to report involves a value judgement.
    Ah yes, explain away entrenched leftism and a completely off-centre world-view by simply saying 'it can't be exactly neutral'. If what you say is true, then - 1) They shouldn't use words in the Charter that claim impartiality etc., and 2) They shouldn't force people to fund it on pain of jail. The fact is, they do both, so your response, as true as it may be, just shows them to be even worse.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I am not 'ignoring the worst'. As I mentioned before, this stuff isn't going unnoticed. The BBC reported it
    The BBC barely reported it.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    and information on the topic is widely available.
    If you go search. But the usual person just watching the evening news is going to see a story about the US DP every couple of weeks, and one that touches on the Chinese DP only every six months. What kind of view is drawn from that?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    'letting China... do whatever the hell they want without comment' - *slight* overexaggeration here. In fact, I've just written a 4000+ word essay exploring the truths and lies behind the Communist Party's facade in China; if you don't believe me, I'll bloody send you the thing.
    And yet you're STILL happy to advocate the BBC pushing their agenda of maligning the US and leaving China mostly alone, even though you KNOW just how bad China is in comparison to the US? Stunning...

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Firstly, polls and statistics are as a rule bloody unreliable (you might have learnt this in GCSE mathematics?) and the fact that you are citing them as your evidence is rather worrying.
    Untrue. That is a line hauled out everytime someone doesn't agree with a poll and it has no basis in fact. A well-constructed and sampled poll is indeed quite accurate and will usually capture broadly what the views are.
    And indeed, as this site notes - "...the death penalty is consistently supported by a majority of the public, indeed it is normally given as the classic textbook example of an issue where MPs consistently vote in a way that does not reflect public opinion". Whether or not you value polls, the fact that pretty much every poll taken has said the same thing, demonstrates what the feeling is.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Secondly, if the polls are indeed representative of British public opinion, why is it then that the death penalty hasn't been reintroduced? I thought we lived in a democracy as well, in which case, going by your idealist view of a perfectly-functioning democracy, the government should have reintroduced the death penalty by now.
    See above. It is an issue on which the public feel one thing, but the MPs vote the other for a multitude of reasons. These include the fact that the DP is probably incomparible with the ECHR, the fact that MPs want to be seen as setting an example to other countries, etc.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Again, polls are largely b*llocks.
    When polls consistently and constantly show the same public position, you should take note.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Hence, you have no real basis for saying that a 'clear majority' support it in those states.
    Except for the fact that you know, pretty much every poll ever carried out shows that a clear majority DOES support the death penalty in those States?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    How many states in the USA have kept the death penalty, out of interest?
    38 have a death penalty statute. 33 have executed at leas one person since the DP was re-inroduced in 1976. In addition, the Federal Government (3 since re-introduction) has the DP, as does the US Military (0 since re-introduction).

    The fact is here, you are representing a MINORITY view and trying to portray it as a majority view and claim that other people don't really disagree with you in the numbers that they do. But the fact is, you're wrong.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    The Guardian and The Telegraph are also 'news reporting organisations'; that does not mean they cannot report news with a certain political bias.
    The difference being - I don't have to fund those papers to push their political biases, and neither paper has a Charter which contains lofty terms such as 'impartiality' and pledges it to bringing me news without a political bias. They are privately funded and optionally paid for, the BBC is not.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I think you're taking the Charter a little bit too literally
    By expecting that if they put it in the Charter they should try and fulfil it? Or that, if they can't do something they shouldn't pledge to do it?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Every citizen in the entire country funds both the government and the BBC; does that mean they are representative of their views?
    Nope, which is why I am in favour of scrapping the license fee and forcing the BBC to compete in the open market. Now that you've confessed that their supposed neutrality etc. is really just a bit of a joke, wouldn't you say the same?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    So the information is readily available - why then do you care?
    Because it's indefensible for the focus to be so lopsided for no fathomable reason. No reason you've given has justified it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    There does seem to be an undue amount of focus on the US. One major example is the US death penalty. Last year, the whole US only executed 60 criminals, all of them after lengthy trials and ridiculously lengthy appeals processes. And eventually the punishment which was decided on by a jury and is legally upheld and supported by a majority was enforced. And there were so many stories on it. The BBC ran 21 stories surrounding individuals being executed, and 7 about the death penalty in the US generally.

    US: 60 Executions, 28 BBC Stories

    How many executions did China carry out? Best estimates (on the low-side) are 3,400. And knowing how fair and just the legal system is in China - you can bet that none of them got anything like the process and appeals they get in the US. How many BBC articles? 1 article on China's top court getting back its right to review death sentences, and 1 generally on China's HR, with a mention of executions.

    China: 3,400 Executions, 1/2 BBC Stories


    Last year was also the year that the US executed its 1,000th criminal since the death penalty came back 30 years ago. That triggered 3 BBC stories. China whacks that many by April in any given year, no stories.
    Becuase reporting the unsurprising and obvious isn't news.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Becuase reporting the unsurprising and obvious isn't news.
    **** why can't I be this concise?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    And yet another attempt at a point that makes no sense at all. Now we have 'the US has freedom of the press', therefore we should lambast it much more than China who not only execute 60 times more people, but don't have a free press either! Excellent, another example of picking on the far better because the worse is just too bad. And you never answered my question - Do you think what the BBC says has any influence on US government policy? Because if you do then you're kidding yourself.
    I've dealt with all the other points you raise, unless you are incredibly thick you should be able to understand the points I am getting across.

    I do, however, wish to clarify this one last point. One of your arguments was - America is a democracy, therefore the government carries out actions in line with public opinion. If the American people read and are influenced by the BBC reports, this should (by your theory) affect the government's policy decisions, therefore it could be a more worthwhile use of the BBC's time (in their eyes). Seeing as the Chinese can't read this stuff, and assuming the BBC does have some kind of agenda, what's the point of them spending more time on China?

    And now to deal with your accusations about my supposed political bias. Firstly, you are obviously horrified by the left. Secondly, you clearly hate the BBC and want them on the open market. Thirdly, you are clearly very much pro-America. You are the one with the agenda, not me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I've dealt with all the other points you raise, unless you are incredibly thick you should be able to understand the points I am getting across.
    I understand what you are trying to say, I jsut think that the position is both entirely hypocritical and morally perverse.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    One of your arguments was - America is a democracy, therefore the government carries out actions in line with public opinion.
    Not on all issues, the nature of government is to be faced with changing circumstances etc..

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    If the American people read and are influenced by the BBC reports, this should (by your theory) affect the government's policy decisions
    That's pretty damn tenuous. You really think that enough Americans read, then agree with, then base opinions on what the BBC says to actually make a difference in a nation of 300million people which by all accounts do not usually care what the rest of the world thinks, to actually make a difference to government policy?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Seeing as the Chinese can't read this stuff, and assuming the BBC does have some kind of agenda, what's the point of them spending more time on China?
    Because the point of the BBC is NOT to push a world-changing agenda, it's to report the things that happens. The issue is far bigger and more abusive in China, I'd rather hear about it there.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Firstly, you are obviously horrified by the left.
    Damn straight.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Secondly, you clearly hate the BBC and want them on the open market.
    Spot on.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Thirdly, you are clearly very much pro-America.
    Are you psychic?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    You are the one with the agenda, not me.
    That's not an argument, sweetie. That's you pointing out that I am arguing a side, which is something everyone does,a ccording to their views.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Not on all issues
    Precisely - cf death penalty.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That's pretty damn tenuous. You really think that enough Americans read, then agree with, then base opinions on what the BBC says to actually make a difference in a nation of 300million people which by all accounts do not usually care what the rest of the world thinks, to actually make a difference to government policy?
    No, read what I *actually* say prior to spouting such crap, rather than putting words in my mouth. I am explaining a possible reason why the BBC might be reporting on it to the extent it is. You might notice the word 'if' at the beginning of the sentence. The other possible explanation I put forward was that China's executions are less surprising and news-worthy, and thus less reported.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Because the point of the BBC is NOT to push a world-changing agenda, it's to report the things that happens. The issue is far bigger and more abusive in China, I'd rather hear about it there.
    Did you not read my points about subjectivity?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Damn straight.


    Spot on.


    Are you psychic?


    That's not an argument, sweetie. That's you pointing out that I am arguing a side, which is something everyone does,a ccording to their views.
    You agree with my three premises, the conclusion logically follows from those premises, thus you agree that you are the one who began with an agenda. If you had an agenda from the very start, why should I take your arguments seriously? You have been shown more open bias from the very start, thus not only are your accusations about my own supposed bias hypocritical but also your own arguments are in turn less reliable. Now go away you're getting boring.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    I am explaining a possible reason why the BBC might be reporting on it to the extent it is. You might notice the word 'if' at the beginning of the sentence. The other possible explanation I put forward was that China's executions are less surprising and news-worthy, and thus less reported.
    Both reasons I've shown to be manifest crap. And you're STILL pushing them.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Did you not read my points about subjectivity?
    Yet more distraction attempts. Sorry, what does subjectivity have to do with it. China executes many more with much less justice. Where's the subjectivity in calling that a bigger deal?

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    You agree with my three premises, the conclusion logically follows from those premises, thus you agree that you are the one who began with an agenda.
    My agenda is demanding fairness in coverage. I'm not anti-China, I'm not anti-DP, in fact I don't really care one way or the other on each. The only 'agenda' I am pushing is asking the BBC to stick to their Charter principles and to report without an anti-US slant.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    If you had an agenda from the very start, why should I take your arguments seriously?
    I don't have an agenda in the way you describe, I have VIEWS and OPINIONS. And my views and opinions mean I say certain things. If you don't like that, why are you in D&D? You're being utterly pathetic and silly, trying to claim that I can't talk because I have a ceetain outlook on the situation. Frankly, you look stupid saying that.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    You have been shown more open bias from the very start
    Hah. More idiocy. What 'open bias'? See above.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    thus not only are your accusations about my own supposed bias hypocritical
    Not at all. The thing is, you have your biases and are willing to defend those same biases in practices that are SUPPOSED to be neutral. I have my biases, and am trying to get the supposedly neutral organisations to BE NEUTRAL, as they rightfully should. So the massive hypocrite (not to mention complete idiot and useless debater) is you.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    but also your own arguments are in turn less reliable.
    After you have been repeatedly demolished on pretty much every point and have displayed NO decent moral or fair reason why the BBC should do what it does, you claim my arguments aren't reliable. Now you're just lieing.

    Your only argument appear to be "The BBC should push a certain view" - Firstly, it SHOULDN'T, and secondly I have demonstrated how the views you hold are not even majority views over here. Nice how you've ignored that.

    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Now go away you're getting boring.
    Hehe. You don't want to argue any more? I wonder why...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    Of course there's a difference. What's the point in a newspaper printing about all the deaths in China, when it's no real surprise to us given the Chinese government's openly totalitarian and dictatorial stance? The Chinese government doesn't really pretend to be otherwise - there is nothing new here. America claiming to be all liberal, democratic, progressive bla bla bla and then executing its citizens is hugely hypocritical, and that's why more of a deal is made of it.
    Well I thought more stories on the state of China would be needed considering recent polls show the majority shunning the USA for a society that locks up 8 million people indefinately for thought crimes. Of course, you're right in the sense that the BBC, Al Guardian etc., do take pleasure in pointing out alleged 'hypocrisy' and thus feel justified in spending more time bashing the USA than totalitarian slums elsewhere in the world. Which is our point, it isnt objective.

    I think you'll find the majority of those who voted in the last US election thoroughly reject the label "progressive liberal". That, like the death penalty, does not prevent the USA from being free or democratic.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Well I thought more stories on the state of Chinese society would be needed considering recent polls show the majority prefer China to the US. Of course, you're right in the sense that the BBC, Al Guardian etc., do take pleasure in pointing out alleged 'hypocrisy' and thus spend more time bashing the USA than the totalitarian slums elsewhere in the world. Which is our point.

    I think you'll find the majority of those who voted in the last US election thoroughly reject the label "progressive liberal". That, like the death penalty, does not prevent the USA from being free or democratic.
    I am no fan of the Guardian, and certainly not of the "anti America" brigade, but I think that the reason is a simple one... It's not that interesting to hear that life is bad and human rights are abused in tin-pot-istan or even China... we know that already and fully expect it of them.

    It's the same reason the murder of a young child gets more coverage than the murder of a 30 year old drug dealer... it's rarer.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    I'm from New Jersey, and earlier this week our state had to close down beaches, state parks, and casinos due to a budget impasse in the State Senate. I was on Google News and found that the story was being reported, with regular updates, in The Guardian.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1814487,00.html
    I also saw it in the Sydney Morning Herald (not British but still foreign).

    Why on Earth do British people want to know about what's going on in New Jersey? I've seen people post about too much American influence, but the newspaper at some point decided this was newsworthy.

    Why does American current affairs feature so prominently in UK news? Is it the news media or the public that demands it? Is it a problem for British people?

    Discuss.
    Another story which would have never seen the light of day outside of Atlanta has made it to the pages of a UK paper! I love it! This is the UK media's criteria when deciding if a story is newsworthy:

    • It's about guns in America
    • It's about religious fanaticism
    • It's about the "obesity crisis in America"


    This crazy lady isn't fat though....oh well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad

    Edit: The worst thing about running stories like this instead of real news is that it gives an ignorant public the wrong impression of America. Notice how, in the comments section, many of the readers think this crazy woman's ideas reflect the attitudes of most Americans? This story is just about a fanatical parent, nothing more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ^^
    Yes to that. Having been here for a little over a month, I'm getting really annoyed by how people on TV say stupid things like "dog weddings are huge in America" or other rubbish that I've never heard of in my entire life as an American.

    In terms of being fat...umm obviously the British people haven't watched "**** off I'm Fat," or "Chubby Children": British TV shows. They quote statistics that should have you pointing the finger at yourselves, not across the Atlantic.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
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.