Borjabrela: The only way ahead with the BBC (and any other state-funded media) is scrapping the TV licence, thank her for her services and wish her a better life.
STOP STATE INDOCTRINATION.
RandomSpaniard: Done. My email to these guys: "I write to inform you that I live in the year 2011 Anno Domini and was not aware there was a Common Era.
I will not be paying my TV licence until the BBC returns to the same time dimension I live in. The ...See more
Less dramatic than it sounds, given we don't own a TV or pay the licence anyway.
Borjabrela: Excellent!
Labour-leaning colleague: I wish there was a dislike button, as having travelled in other countries I thank god we have the BBC every time I flick a TV on switch. The state/establishment bias on the BBC is no worse than the corporate bias of the commercial media and it has been the the commercial media that has used wholesale mysogny, xenophobia and scientific illiteracy to debauch our culture these past forty years.
Borjabrela: I don't pay for the corporate bias of the commercial media. I pay for the bias of the BBC. You like the BBC, you pay for it. I don't like the BBC, I should not be made pay for it. Period.
Labour-leaning colleague: The BBC is democratically accountable: this sometimes means the wishes of the majority(those who want a counterweight in the form of state funded media) sometimes outweigh the minority (those who would not pay for it). The BBC is a good thing for society and we know this because people keep voting for it. All you have to do to get rid of it is elect a party with its removal on their manifesto. This democratic accountability is in stark contrast to the corporate media, where whilst I have never bought a Murdoch paper, the minority that do are considered sufficiently powerful to corrupt the political and law enforcement fabric of this country - something which directly affects me as a non-purchaser.
RandomSpaniard: LLC, nobody has ever been given a choice on the BBC so stop fantasising about democratic accountability. All the main parties have colluded to keep it place and not give voters a choice.
Labour-leaning colleague: They haven't colluded. If there was a strong move in public opinion against it you can bet it would appear on a manifesto. The conservatives in particular despise it - Thatcher hated the BBC, but recognised it would have been electoral suicide to touch it. Even when the establishment does feel brave enough to move against public opinion and attack the BBC (Hutton report) or after the tv faking scandals of a few years ago people still love the BBC. It is one of the core British institutions and a huge part of the nation's intellectual and cultural life.
Borjabrela: LLC, "democratically accountable" are two words used by authoritarian people who want to force unwilling individuals to fund their wishes (just like you). The same way that the fact that Hitler and Franco won polls didn't make them any more "democratic". What is "democratic" by the way? It is one of those words manipulated by socialists/authoritarians to deceive the population. Any time anyone uses the "democratic" argument is discredited in my opinion in the same way that you claim any time anyone uses the "nazi" argument is discredited.
Also I don't need a strong move in public opinion against the BBC for me to deem the BBC a despicable attack to my liberty and therefore for me to consider retaliation actions. The same way that the strong move in some countries to chop female gonads doesn't make this practice any more acceptable in my opinion. STOP STATE INDOCTRINATION still beholds.
It happens that individuals who are against the State are less organised and have less will to use the resorts of power offered by the State (ie., libertarians don't hold a grip in any political party like the unions do) or the mass-manipulation methods (like the liberals do with the BBC). This causes a bias in favour of the state in the governing elite. This does not indicate that my opinion is less valid.
Finally, it makes me laugh that socialist/authoritarians usually use the argument of "evil corporativism influencing the government and hence people's lives" against anti-statist individual-freedom advocates. Don't you guys realise that the main issues in that sentence are: 1, there is a government which can be used as a channel to dominate people's lives, so the solution is to limit government's power; and 2, corporativism is the result of no freedom of competition usually endorsed by the governments. People in power both in government and business collude, but it happens that Tesco/Times can't send me to prison whereas the government would send me to prison/fine me if I don't pay the BBC licence.
Love and Freedom.
Tuesday 27 September 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Democratically accountable" I think not. They have a charter they are constantly misusing with their bias and disinformation.
Thatcher was not in a technical era of doing that much about the BBC, but the internet has changed that.
The only programme BBC radio 4 dare not alter is the Archers. Take away that programme and their support rating will be cut in half.
Listen to the Toady Programme, World at One, The News Quiz, and of course the news and one could be forgiven for thinking that Obama and Red Ed Milliband are the new messiah's, except that they are anti religion, except Muslimism.
Time to give Thompson and his ilk their P45's and let them work for the Guardian, Mirro, Independant and Marxism Today.
Yeah, of course... McDonalds, Hewlett-Packard, Rolls Royce, OUR BANK! They do not adoctrinate us at all.
Culture of adoctrination flows through privately held companies and their publicly traded counterparts, as impositive pyramid structures they are.
It is not only a public concern, man... Wake up!
Post a Comment