Is BBC absolute crap?

On BBC news this morning there is a report on Gay marriage in America.
Very interesting if you are a homo which 99% of the worlds population is not.
Maybe the entire remaining 1% being homos watches BBC, in which case BBC is gay.

At least the BBC has had to sense not to renew Jonathan Ross's contract. Allegedly saving themselves 6M a year.
If ever there was proof that the nuckle heads that run the BBC are out of touch with reality it was giving this waste of space a 6m contract in the first place. Only when Ross made continuous c*ck-ups and there was public outrage about his behaviour and salary did they realise they may have made a mistake.

Initially I was puzzled by your attempt at logic OT then I realized that in order to know what the beeb was saying, you had to be watching & so maybe your post was more of an announcement than anything else.

Galee, Mr. Ross is just the latest in a long line of overpaid wasters that they ditched. Sadly some prat at the beeb actually offered them these sort of deals in the first place. Rumor had it that the beeb had offered him a new deal, but much reduced (figures of 30% to 50% have been banded about) & so he said he was not interested. 3M (at worst estimate) is still one hell of a lot of money - & probably nearly 3M too much..

jackspratt wrote:I see that FOX has raised the quality and standards of its newsroom even further

Uuugh. Incredible, but typical. If one makes the effort to research the background of FOX talking head "journalists" (many of whom don't even have proper journalism credentials), every single one of them has a career laden with clusterfoookups and/or career killing incompetence or scandal - those are obviously desirable qualities when showing up at a FOX job interview.

I challenge anyone to find ONE FOX News journalist without a history of clusterfoookups and/or career killing incompetence or scandal. Just ONE person.

BBC, on the other hand, has a long record of holding its people to professional standards and making them accountable for what is released to the public. ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT HAPPEN IN AMERICAN MEDIA to the degree that it should - that is a huge part of the problem with it.

How about a community organizer? I hear he's killer at organizing car washes and bake sales.

Dopey Hopey Changey.

Still got Bush stuck in your craw?

Hey Black Man, how do you know so much about Fox News? How many hours a week do you spend watching it, frothing at the mouth? Did you actually study the careers of Fox staff or are you merely parroting something you read on a "proper" website?

Wasn't it you who lectured earlier about diversity (ha!) in personal news gathering? Wasn't it you who said it's best to listen to both sides of an issue?

Your frequent and recurring hypocrisy is astonishing.

jackspratt wrote:Unfortunately KD, if a B grade actor can become President, I see no impediment to an intellectually deficient, ultra conservative, right wing-nut achieving the same lofty status. (But to give him some credit, at least Reagan surrounded himself with some mildly competent people - unlike his conservative successor +1)

Interestingly, it seems she (Palin) may not even tick enough conservative boxes to please the current mainstream Republicans.

God help the rest of the world.

ROFLMAO! Truly good points!

Commercial break to give Texpat the attention he craves: Yes, it's true. You still don't matter.

Some thoughts on what should happen to the BBC from a free-market think tank. Will be interesting to see what the Government (the NEXT one, I imagine) actually do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8458271.stm

Reagan could always rely on his lifeline to Margaret Thatcher so that he could make rational and intelligent decisions. Actually, his administration did quite well in its confrontation with the Soviet Union.

I was always a detractor of Reagan when he was in office, but I remember when he went to China and most everyone in the west cringed when he lectured the Chinese government about religion, democracy, capitalism and human rights. The Government of China hated it, of course, and made sure the television audience did not get a translation of his words. But there were enough Chinese that knew English so they could get understand his speech, and get it printed. It sold like hot cakes. The Chinese people liked the audacity of the Great Orator to teach their communist leaders a thing or two.

Subsequently, young Chinese sought to learn more about democracy and human rights and asked the government to do more for freedom of speech and to reduce corruption and so on. Reagan, in other words, inspired the Chinese people. Mao might say that he had a revolutionary impact in China.

And then there was the Tienamen Square massacre.

Oh, and for all of its shortcomings, I still like the BBC.

The upshot is that we should not underestimate Reagan the politician as I once did. He also seemed to be a force for good...in a simple way. Maybe we think we are too sophisticated and proud to give Reagan credit for his accomplishments. However, the Chinese people got his message.

"I challenge anyone to find ONE FOX News journalist without a history of clusterfoookups and/or career killing incompetence or scandal. Just ONE person."

Sarah to the rescue???