… Justin Webb on yesterday’s Radio Five Drive show, being interviewed about Kate Couric, new CBS news anchor. He spoke about how the big networks were losing market share to cable and the internet.
“There ate three groups of people who don’t watch the evening news any more, and they are intelligent people, young people, and right-wing people – and obviously there are some people who fall into all three categories – at least (laughs) arguably – so right-wing people tend to watch Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, intelligent people tend to not bother with the telly at all, and young people get their news from the internet where they get it at all.”
I wonder what happened to the American left ? I suppose that’s synonymous with intelligent.
If anyone wants to listen, it’s here for a week (Wednesday’s show, 2h53m in).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4889760.stm
Funny how the israelis/america always manage to hit kids.
No mention of how many children involved here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4887856.stm
reith
we are not asking what you think about badgers. It is how the BBC spins the debate and the news that matters. And they spin it a lot.
Meanwhile apart from prattling on about the insignificant inquest that the BBC puffed up to one of its top headlines (now wasn’t that a surprise ?) and that most people here were ignoring, you have lied about the BBC’s coverage of Hamas and failed to answer anything else. You are an empty vessel.
archonix dumbsisco
Thank you for the information. It would be nice ( or should I say better than lieing all the time ) if the BBC ever gave credit were it was deserved….ever.
Like Richard Nixon opening up China to the world, and ending the Viet-Nam war. Which was started by JFK. The American Democrate lover-boy of the BBC and Oliver Stone..
Or Margaret Thatcher for saving the country from 3rd world status and winning back the Falklands in 3 mounths with minimal casualties. With no help from the BBC at all,as usual. In fact, as was later shown to be all uninformed lies. Accused her personaly of “enjoying” and deliberately “promoting” the war. Also sinking the Belgrano, just to provoke it.
Or Ronald Reagan for ending and winning the cold war, without any one getting killed. While the BBC described him as a thick actor hell-bent on world destruction.
But this would require the entire entity of the BBC to have a compleat “road to Damascus” event. Which simply would not happen for them. If god did exsist and bother to appear though the cloads. They would just think it was a American capitalist Zionist plot to derail their megleomaniac gravy train.
john reith
Why don’t you study law
the problem is one of classification. The present definition of the mental element of murder results in defendants being classified as murderers who are not in truth murderers.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd971030/powell02.htm
Has the BBC yet reported that the French Govt has buckled and the law which inspired so many protests is to be replaced by one amenable to the demonstrators ?
German teletext reported it 3 hours ago
I love John Reith
We would have nothing to complain about if it was not for brave but missguided propergandised trusting fools like him.
I bet he payes a lott more extra for his double-glazing than I do.
G Powell/dumbcisco
you’re right….not only do I pay more than the guy charges for double glazing, I even call round the various companies inviting to pester me at home…..it’s the same masochism that brings me to this nut-house….
dumbcisco ….that’s twice you have called me a liar. I am tryng to get a firm figure for the number of Hamas reports on the beeb since Jan 25 that have mentioned Hamas refusal to recognize/ aim to destroy Israel. I hope to have full answers on Monday but I have had a provisional answer from my monitoring service…..53. I certainly saw it on Newsnight and heard it on the radio many, many times.
Neil, from the last paragraphs of your first link:
Overnight on Thursday, Israeli helicopters attacked several targets in the Gaza Strip, including offices of the armed wing of the Fatah movement.
There were no reports of casualties after the three overnight air raids.
They followed rocket attacks on Israeli towns, which Israel blamed on the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, the armed offshoot of Fatah.
Right, the Kassams just sort of fired themselves over into Israel, and the Israelis, looking for someone to blame, unfairly picked on al-Aqsa.
If the BBC were not so thoroughly blinkered by its bias, it would acknowledge that Israeli army intelligence is excellent and that if the Israelis say al-Aqsa was responsible, you can be pretty damn sure it was.
Apparently the BBC employs journalists. Would it really take more than one phone call to your nearest terrorist to learn from the horse’s mouth who in fact fired the rockets? Are the various Palestinian terror groups coy about providing this information? Don’t they usually trumpet it, proud of their attacks on Jewish civilians? Never hear about more than one terror group claiming responsibility for the same attack?
But why do a bit of groundwork when it’s so much easier to give in to your bias and cast the Israelis in a bad light?
Listening, John Reith?
I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll look at the inquest story that you keep waving triumphantly around the place if you take an honest look at just one of the thousands of perfectly valid examples of BBC bias on this blog.
I watched 20 seconds of BBC news today, the BBC did not disapoint.
Their is the truly astounding story today of “vile” racism. This involves a 10 yes 10 year old boy in hot water with the police for calling his best mate a “Paki.”
The sentance from the BBC reporter was one of those o so often jaw droping BBC moments.
” not all however agreed with the actions of the police.”
NOT ALL…I think not one.
I would assert that their is no responsible parent that could ever believe that the actions of the powers that be, are in any way good for anyone at all anywere in the whole world.
Prey to your god that one day we will wake from this impending nightmair of a police state. One that does not arrest any criminals only 10 year old schoolboys with load mouths.
Does A Lurker still believe their is such a thing as “liberal left” in Britain? Because their really is no such thing. What does he want a goverment camera in every house and the social-services doing his cooking for him, before he smells the roses?
After this goverments 3 term display there will not be any more for a while, that even think their is anything liberal about socialism whatsoever.
Bryan writes:
“…if you take an honest look at just one of the thousands of perfectly valid examples of BBC bias on this blog.”
And there, Bryan hits the nail on the head. For all Reith’s bluster and name-calling, day after day, this Blog produces hard evidence of BBC bias, which he ignores.
When he (or some other of his chums at the BBC) can address more than the odd quibble, then it might be time for us to take them seriously. Until then, Reith (much like his namesake) remains an odd figure, hoplessly out of step with a world which no longer accepts the patrician voice of our masters from Broadcasting House as holy writ.
Welcome to the Internet, Reith. Sorry the game’s up – but that’s how democracy works.
I am tryng to get a firm figure for the number of Hamas reports on the beeb since Jan 25 that have mentioned Hamas refusal to recognize/ aim to destroy Israel
Come on John, you are not writing for the BBC now. Where and when did Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel creep into this debate? We are talking about the number of times Hamas’ pledge to destroy Israel has been mentioned by the BBC.
I’ll give you one for free. It’s a little pearl in Alan Johnston’s propaganda oyster, linked to in ed thomas’ post above:
And so can membership of the governing party, Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel.
That’s Johnston’s style. From time to time he tells the truth – but it’s really just to distract you from the countless times he obfuscates, hides and distorts the truth in pursuit of his anti-Israel agenda.
Here’s another fact I’m sure you would be loath to absorb: The BBC’s occasional admission that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel follows hard on the heels of Hamas’ own statements to the media since it gained power. How often did the BBC discuss Hamas’ bloodthirsty charter before the terror group was voted into power? Care to check that out?
Like all good dhimmies everywhere, the BBC follows the lead of its Islamic terrorist masters.
John Reith
It is a bit unfair to call people liers just because they are wrong. The BBC is the liers we are most concerned about. The BBC do it on purpose, and some people still trust them. Especialy the “working poor”, which always get buggered the most by all bad “big” goverments in the end. Being economical with the truth is the BBCs way of life, and has been for a long time.
I warn you; if you keep reading this site you WILL end up as “nutty” angry, paranoid, and generaly worried, as most of us.
To my knowledge no-one deliberately lies on this site, the truth is far too strange enough.
G Cooper
I know you dont like my contributions much. But yours are always just……..great. You always get to the point, and say it how you feel.
Welcome to the Internet, Reith. Sorry the game’s up – but that’s how democracy works.
GCooper
Sure does. As the Yankie bloggers say, “We’ll fact-check his arse.”
And the blogosphere is doing a superb job of fact-checking the collective arse of the Mainstream Media.
They can run, but they can’t hide.
To my knowledge no-one deliberately lies on this site, the truth is far too strange enough.
G Powell
That’s exactly my take on the issue.
A few weeks ago there was a false story circulating on the net that Muslims had attacked a child – I think it was in connection with the cartoons. Some people on this site indignantly picked up on the story, but we retracted it when it became clear that it was false.
Be good to see the BBC do the same thing, instead of its endless stealth edits.
G Powell writes:
“to my knowledge no-one deliberately lies on this site, the truth is far too strange enough.”
Spot-on! And the most amazing truth of all is that the middle classes have spawned a generation or two of BBC journalists infected with an auto-immune disease.
That’s an illness where the body attacks (and sometimes destroys) itself. Which is precisely the relationship the BBC’s liberal elite has to the country in which it lives.
Future historans will, I am sure, look back on this effete class and wonder what on earth went so badly wrong that they suicidally ripped their own civilisation to shreds for the benefit of no one but barbarians.
john reith I hope to have full answers on Monday
He is only prepared to argue on this blog whilst we are paying him.
These were to be effectively low-cost variants of the US Army’s SF Chinook, the MH-47G. …
Not very effectively:
Chinook HC.3
Ordered at the same time as the HC.2As, 8 Chinook HC.3s were to enter service as dedicated Special Forces helicopters. These were to be effectively low-cost variants of the US Army’s SF Chinook, the MH-47G. The upgrade would include improved range, night vision sensors and navigation capability. The eight aircraft were to cost £259 million and the forecast In-Service Date (ISD) was November 1998 (defined as delivery of the first six aircraft). As work proceeded, it became evident that displays for the weather radar and other systems anticipated for an avionics upgrade programme (put to contract in 1997) would not fit inside the existing cockpit.
One potential solution was to adopt a fully digital cockpit, as used by Chinooks purchased by the Royal Netherlands Air Force. However, this was not affordable within the funding available for the HC3 programme, and a hybrid solution was adopted, incorporating elements of the existing analogue cockpit and the new digital systems and displays. In March 1998 the new ISD was set at January 2002.
The problem seems to have been a lack of definition of requirements by the Ministry of Defence. Of 100 separate requirements only 30 were defined in the contract. All the aircraft were accepted from Boeing by December 2001, meeting, and in some cases exceeding, the contract, but none have so far been accepted into service. A key issue is that the Chinook HC3’s unique, hybrid digital/analogue cockpit is reliant on software to operate. However, the contract did not specify that software documentation and codes should be analysed in accordance with UK standards in order to demonstrate the integrity of the software. It has not, therefore, been possible to demonstrate that the flight instruments meet these standards. The idea that the systems would be proved by the RNAF aircraft proved unfounded due to the unique configuration of the HC3.
One of the main contractors for the avionics system has recently indicated that it would allow access to some software data. However, the process of analysis is time-consuming and expensive and, in addition, there is no guarantee of a successful outcome because the legacy software is not amenable to the techniques required to confirm the robustness of software design. Consequently, the Chinook HC3 is currently restricted to day/night flying above 500 feet in clear weather, and where the pilot can fly the aircraft solely using external reference points without relying on the flight displays. These restrictions mean that the helicopters cannot be used other than for limited flight trials.
Another problem is the corrosion allegedly suffered during storage at Boeing. It was reported in 2003 that the US Army were interested in buying the 8 HC.3s, allowing the RAF to purchase MH-47Gs. However following inspection of the aircraft the US Army declined this option. One HC.3 was damaged during delivery, rolling backwards into a crane at Bristol docks on July 20, 2001. Damage was significant but repairable. If and when the HC.3s enter service they will join 7 Squadron at RAF Odiham.
…
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Chinook
Will
Have a heart all the money in the world would not make defending the indefenceable any easier. If the BBC gave me that job, I would have a nervous breakdown within a week.
Telling phibs is hard work and you have to have a very good memory. I have a tottal crap one. I base all my views on my own experience of the real world. It must be impossible to be a honest competent BBC reporter, as not living in it, seems to be the only common qualification they nead for the job.
We should have seen it comeing from our school days. I just thought that when these wasters got a job, a wife, and some children, they might grow up a bit. Little did I know that not only would these dangerous selfhaters get elected, they would get elected 3 times. This is unknown territory for this country, I hope soon the British people will understand why past generations have never been as stupid as ours, before it really is to late. I have 4 children many of these people still dont have any, and never will.
But I cant help thinking it would never have had a chance of happening if the BBC had not allowed itself, to be infected so compleatly by the same self destructive, selfloathing bug.
Do these sick individuals have a vision of what they think this country will actualy be like to live in 10 years time, if they carry on like this? Or do they just think that as they hate their lives and country so much everybody else must?
Freedom is the only thing more valiable than life itself. They sell ours off for a “pocket full of mumbles.”
Such are promisses.
Bryan got it spot on. Note how Reith (last time here he was defending BBC’s refusal to acknowledge muslim identity of the psycho who tortured to death a jewish hostage in Paris – said there was no evidence he was a muslim, despite telephoning the family and screaming nonsense from the Koran at them) has slyly moved the goalposts re-BBC acknowledging Hamas’ “Refusal to acknowledge / aim to destroy israel”! It’s the latter point that’s important – “refusal to acknowledge” sounds serious, responsible and diplomatic (BBC take). “Aim to destroy” is the psychotic reality, which the BBC continually underplay.
reith
Your claim was that the BBC consistently reports that Hamas wants the elimination of Israel. I did not say anything about “recognising” Israel. I said elimination was the central aim – because it is in the charter of Hamas.
So don’t try weaseling out of the matter. You lied in saying that the BBC consistently referred to the core aim of Hamas.
The reith business.
He appeared yesterday at 2.02pm whinging about a single comment made at this site, regarding the inquest.
At 2.25/2.27pm I said that the BBC was giving undue prominece to that report while was failing to report that Hamas was committed to the destruction of Israel.
At 2.55pm reith said “I have seen or heard that reported almost every day since 25 January” – but the only examples he quoted was where Israel or Condi Rice had cited the core aim of Hamas – not where the BBC had stated this as part of the context of its reports. This is like the use of the T word only when someone else uses it.
I called him a liar at 3.36/3.38pm. And repeated it at 9.40pm.
Now he is weaseling and trying to alter the definition to include “refuse to recognise”.
He is lying. BBC folk seldom mention that Hamas wants the destruction of Israel. Why ? – because they do not want people to have any sympathy with Israel – they want all the sympathy to go to the Palestinians. And to achieve this they frequently cover up the true aims of Hamas.
The only proper answer that Reith can bring back that would show he is not a liar would be a full list of ALL the BBC reports dealing with Hamas , on air and online, here and on the World Service, that dealt with Hamas. Let that figure be X. And he must then show that within the total of X the BBC mentioned that Hamas wants the elimination of Israel in Y cases, with Y being the preponderance. And he must point to specific dates “almost every day since 25 January” where this occurred – and we don’t want obscure reports that no-one will have heard or seen.
He is lying if he contends that the thrust of BBC reporting since 25 January, (let alone before then) gave the clear view that Hamas wants the elimination of Israel. Because it is Hamas that are the nutters here – murderous and intransigent nutters. here
john reith I hope to have full answers on Monday
He is only prepared to argue on this blog whilst we are paying him.
will
Thanks for the chuckle.
Bob and dumbcisco, yes I suppose he’ll come back on Monday with padded ‘evidence’ of the BBC’s ‘balanced’ reporting.
reith says he is checking his “monitoring service” ???
That sounds to me like he has asked some people at the BBC to set up his answer. Set up as in dress up.
I want a mainstream BBC story nearly every day since 25 January where the BBC says that Hamas wants to eliminate Israel. Without that – he is a liar.
More on the debate about the BBC’s influence.
Dishonest Reporting Awards
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/dishonest.asp
Click on 2005 and scroll down to a few paragraphs above the BBC winners of the year to find the following:
The impact of BBC coverage cannot be understated. A Google study found that for breaking news, internet users around the world were more likely to turn to the BBC than CNN. More than 270 million TV viewers around the world watch BBC World. Even more people listen to BBC World Service, which broadcasts in 42 languages.
Er… probably have to make that 32 since the World Service is no longer broadcasting in Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Kazakh, Polish, Slovak, Slovene and Thai.
I can accept that the BBC does not have the influence it thinks it does in the UK, but I dunno about worldwide.
Bryan
I agree with you that the BBC still has huge influence. Including in America.
More than 270 million TV viewers around the world watch BBC World.
Many years ago outside the ‘Out of Town’ newsstand in Harvard Square I overheard two American males conversing as follows: “She might be dumb, but with that English accent she sounds so intelligent.”
That is probably the attraction of the BBC rather than the quality of its output. I recall a young lady on British TV who is now working in the US where her English accent and language-precision have given her a fan club
http://www.saja.org/dhaliwal.html
john reith I hope to have full answers on Monday
That’s BBC 9-5 Mon-Fri plus pension for you. It’s because of this that our choice of viewing is non-existent. TV Executives ( who mostly live in North London I am given to understand) decide to put on the programme which they believe will attract the highest number of viewers at the same time as another channel in order to poach market share and be able to crow, “Most people watch us”.
This is on weekdays. Weekends are different, either because they think their viewing public is down the boozer or they are not prepared to pay overtime for staff, preferring instead to employ video machine operators churning out Prue-recorded rubbish.
G Powell
I notice your typing is slightly better than mine, my typos are sorted out by (ie spell), which I can recommend for people like me who tend to type in a rush with two fingers.
– A Spell Checker for Internet Explorer
ieSpell is a free Internet Explorer browser extension that spell checks text input boxes on a webpage. It should come in particularly handy for users who do a lot of web-based text entry (e.g. web mails, forums, blogs, diaries).
http://www.iespell.com/
That is probably the attraction of the BBC rather than the quality of its output.
Well, we’ll just have to see what happens once they get their Arabic language TV station up and running and start charging for access to their web content.
Hopefully they’ll lose more than they gain that way.
rick
It sounds as though Daljit (Oxford then BBC fast-track) is currently the BBC anchor from New York, with Justin Webb as anchor in Washington)
http://zapatopi.net/daljit/
That site has some info on some of the BBC senior people, including Richard Sambrook of Gilligan/Hutton fame/infamy.
plus a fawning David Letterman interview, pre-Iraq when she was still at ITN –
[audio src="http://zapatopi.net/daljit/20000706-daljit-davesinterview.mp3" /]
Here is Dhaliwal suggesting that Muslim extremism and terrorism in central Asian republics is all the fault of the regimes there :
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/centralasia/transcript4.html
She has worked at CNN as well as the BBC. Pretty well versed in the left-wing slant, then.
Sarge uncensored
Thank you for the advice. I might start using a spell checker one day. However my grammer is as I speak. Which as I am quite happy with my ability to communicate with ordinary people. I prefer to write my South London way even if it is” wrong.”As far as that is concerned my grammer is already far to good.
I note that John Reith, seems to think we are Bias. This is not an intelligent statement. Everyone is bias, that is part of being a human being. The BBC however is a compleatly different matter. Why should I have to remind him of the mindblowingly obvious?
The BBC only payes any attention the critism that it agrees with. It has no desire or interest in doing otherwise. Its money does not come from its customers. It comes from political patronage. Its customer is therefore the goverment and the political process. Not you or me so it can tottaly disregard our wishes, and our own political bias,as much as it wants.
This would not be such a party political problem (therefor a democratic problem )if the whole of the TV broadcast industry was not also under goverment institutional control as well. Channels 3/4/5 and SKY all rely on a goverment liecence to broadcast at all. The Law now strickly controls even what the news papers can write, which it has not done since the last WW.
Only on the internet is their still freedom of information left. We do have the extra help of being able to communicate far more easily with each other across the world.
If I was the MSM or any goverment I would be quite concerned about this, which they most clearly all are.
However I would get prepared for the powers that be to start “Turning the screw” soon. Nobody likes losing control and power. People like politicians, who make their living from being “economical with the truth,” hate it the most. They also have the power to at least slow this process down, if not stop it.
This is a liberal country with liberal people living in it. We have however the least liberal goverment since Oliver Cromwell. Their is a big problem with European democracy, which if not put right will, and probely already has, resulted again, in a world war.
I agree with you that the BBC still has huge influence. Including in America.
No, wrong, not true at all.
David
You mean people overseas don’t visit the BBC website ? They don’t watch BBC news in America eg on PBS ?
You surely cannot mean they don’t have huge influence here in the UK ?
…
Including in America.
You mean people overseas don’t visit the BBC website ?
I have never seen any source describe bbc.co.uk as Web site which many Americans visit.
They don’t watch BBC news in America eg on PBS?
The same set of old folks who are fans of “Masterpiece Theatre” and Merchant-Ivory films.
I have never watched any BBC news programs on PBS, inasmuch as a I, in common with most Americans, seldom watch PBS.
Fox News may be helping to make Americans more aware of the BBC. Bill O’Reilly mentions the three letters failrly often, lumping your beloved Beeb in with Muslim terrorists, Caesar Chavez, the New York Times, France, seditious academics, and so on.
David
Good to hear that. I perhaps know mostly oldies over there who still revere the BBC.
The huge BBC website is one of the busiest – with many many overseas visitors. And outside America the World Service still gets large audiences.
By the way – Bill O’Reilly is spot-on in his view of the BBC. Seditious is a good word for much of their news coverage.
The same set of old folks who are fans of “Masterpiece Theatre” and Merchant-Ivory films.
Hey watch it! I’m not old!
Would it be fair to say that Americans watch little foreign news services but those that do are likely to see the BBC?
Looking at the website for DIRECTV, the leading satellite TV-to-home vender here, one sees the following BBC fare:
BBC America, Channel 264
The very best of British television comes to America. Enjoy internationally acclaimed dramas, cutting-edge comedies, world-class news and compelling documentaries.
…
KAWB 0022
Sun Apr 09 10:00 am
Future showings
KAWB 0022
Apr 16 10:00 am
BBC This Week
A showcase of reports from around the world.
Duration: 0:30
Rating: NR
Category: News
…
Apr 09 06:00 am
Future showings
Apr 10 06:00 am
Apr 10 07:00 am
Apr 10 08:00 am
BBC World News
International issues.
Duration: 0:30
Rating: TV-G
Category: News
…
WLIW 0021
Apr 09 05:30 pm
Future showings
WLIW 0021
Apr 16 05:30 pm
BBC World This Week
World, business, science and entertainment news.
Duration: 0:30
Rating: NR
Category: News
///////////////
For your convenience, we offer a range of base packages all with local channels included.
THE FIRST STEP TO BETTER TV
TOTAL CHOICE® – Over 155 Channels, $44.99/mo
Want a great introduction to DIRECTV® service? Our TOTAL CHOICE package delivers over 155 quality channels of movies, sports, family and music programming, plus you’ll get your local channels. Enjoy your favorites and a whole lot more — all at one low price!
…
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/packages/base.jsp
BBC America, Channel 264, seems to be included in the Total Choice package, which is DIRECTV’s entry level package.
Sorry, but I sincerely have never heard much buzz about BBC America.
Clicking on
NEWS & INFORMATION CHANNELS
Get the latest in news, sports, weather and finance with a variety of news channels to choose from.
at http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/see/Landing.jsp
brought up the following list of news and info. channels, which does not include BBC America, channel 264.
It looks like the most popular foreign news channel heremay be a Spanish language channel.
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/see/NewsAndInformation.jsp
See
DIRECTV Channels: Comedy, Drama and More
Movie Channels
Sports Subscriptions
Sports Networks
Family & Children Channels
Arts & Entertainment Channels
News & Information Channels
XM Satellite Radio on
DIRECTV® Service
Music Video Channels
News & Information
Bloomberg Television, Channel 353
A sophisticated 24-hour business and financial news channel, BLOOMBERG TELEVISION delivers power tools for power players and serious investors via 10 networks in seven languages, reaching over 200 million homes around the world. We build on our world-class resources to present up-to-the-minute coverage of financial news and markets, bringing our journalistic expertise to our programming with the best reporters to deliver the news and the best journalists to add perspective and analysis.
CNBC, Channel 355
Financial news highlights dominate the day, while nights include features and discussions of contemporary business issues.
CNBC World, Channel 357
A digital network service of CNBC and Dow Jones, CNBC World offers global financial markets in real time, live and worldwide. Combines the resources of CNBC business news from the U.S., Asia and Europe into a 24-hour-a-day, global business news network.
CNN, Channel 202
The fastest, most complete 24-hour coverage of breaking news. CNN offers programs ranging from business to sports to entertainment, as well as topical interviews and “Larry King Live”.
Court TV, Channel 203
The only 24-hour network dedicated to live and taped coverage of courtroom trials. Coverage is supplemented by programs that focus on courts and legal issues from around the world.
C-SPAN, Channel 350
Unique news and information programming, including 24-hour coverage of important political events from around the nation. C-SPAN offers debate from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives while C-SPAN2 covers the U.S. Senate.
C-SPAN2, Channel 351
Unique news and information programming, including 24-hour coverage of important political events from around the nation. C-SPAN offers debate from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives while C-SPAN2 covers the U.S. Senate.
Current TV , Channel 366
Current TV is the first national network created by, for and with an 18-34 year-old audience. Its short-form programs show young adults what’s going on in their world, in their voice. With a substantial portion of content provided by the audience, it is also the first network in history whose programming is supplied in part by the very audience who watches it.
Discovery Health Channel, Channel 279
It’s your place for personal and family health issues! This informative channel features a variety of health and medicine-related topics, special presentations, enlightening series and more.
FitTV, Channel 368
The only network delivering quality programming to men, women, and families who are interested in enhancing their well-being through exercise, personal trainers, and motivational advice.
Fox News Channel, Channel 360
Fox News Channel provides all the news and information in a fair and balanced format. You’ll get live news updates 24 hours a day, plus programming on key issues and events in politics, business, family, health and medicine, sports and entertainment.
G4 videogame tv , Channel 354
G4 video game television is the only 24/7 television network dedicated to video games. G4 airs all-original programming that covers every aspect of the video game culture.
Galavision, Channel 404
Tune here for the nation’s most popular Spanish-language programming! There’s something for everyone, including movies, sports, music and kids’ shows, plus novelas like “Marimar” and variety shows like “La Tocada.”
Headline News, Channel 204
During your busy morning and day, Headline News brings you the day?s top stories in a fast-paced 30 minute newscast. In the evening, Headline Prime switches gears to deliver a line-up of destination shows not to be missed ? including Showbiz Tonight, Nancy Grace and Prime News Tonight.”
MSNBC, Channel 356
MSNBC is a groundbreaking joint venture from Microsoft and NBC, comprised of MSNBC TV on cable and MSNBC.com on the Internet. The MSNBC concept means that both television viewers and personal-computer users will benefit from a service that offers truly integrated television and interactive news, quality breaking news coverage and dynamic discussion of topical events.
NASA TV, Channel 376
Delivers real-time coverage of NASA activities and missions. Tune in for educational programming, a look at the early years of NASA, special updates on Space Shuttle missions, Earth views from the Shuttle and more.
RFD-TV, Channel 379
A 24-hour network with educational and informational programming targeting rural America. RFD TV focuses on rural news, events, and convention coverage, agricultural information and family-oriented programming.
The Weather Channel, Channel 362
Provides 24-hour reports on regional and national weather conditions, special weather-related features and reports on unusual weather phenomena.
Univision , Channel 402
One of the top Spanish-language broadcast networks in the U.S.! It features a variety of programming including telenovelas, sports, news and music, plus talk shows like “Cristina” and variety shows like “Sabado Gigante.”
Lurker
Yes it is. However most Americans dont, even if watching their own news, pay much attention to it. Just like most British people. Otherwise we would not have had Conservative or Republican goverments, for the last 60years. We only get those when the reality of life comes knocking on the peoples door.
They are just getting on with their own lives.
Like all of us should be doing more of.
Would it not be comforting if the BBC had a Bill O’Reilly type of program even once a week.
Of cause it would be, but that is part of the reason we dont get one.
However; how now could the BBC get a “credible” conservative to work or even subcontract for them?
Because their credibility would disapear as soon as they took the states pound.
155 quality channels
leave out the word “quality”
The BBC could not even cope with 5 minutes of Frederick Forsyth a week for very long. He was dropped like a hot potato.
Just like the smart and smooth ex-Labour MP who had a morning chat show was forced out as soon as he criticised Islam.
ex-Labour MP who had a morning chat show was forced out as soon as he criticised Islam.
He didn’t criticise Islam – the article which was printed – the one he said he did not authorise – attacked Arab rulers
Yes, it was not a criticism of Islam. He was criticising life in Arab states. And his criticism was accurate, valid. But not to the liking of the BBC, which seems to prefer to kowtow to despots over there.
Rick,
Quality is an personal aspect. I personally find the BBC to be low quality, especially the news. However the BBC’s extortion funding model is more of a problem to me than it’s low quality.
I would like to make the claim that the lack of feedback from their funding model is THE major cause for their low quality output especially compared with the amount of input (2.8 billion).
Quality is an personal aspect
No it is not. It is an integral component of the 1990 Broadcasting Act which Culture Secretary David Mellor had inserted.
“Quality” is not personal, but objective as a criterion in the working of the Act. The fact that the US Cable may offer 155 Channels is from my experience a farce, having lived there long enough I depended on videos for viewing since live-TV was so awful. British TV has followed the same trajectory with BBC, ITV virtually indistinguishable and Sky providing a platform for US cartoons.
Television is dead as a medium even if the BBc is dead as an institution.
Rick,
The governments definition of “quality” matches the “excellence” of the NHS.
I value knowledge so I skip the BBC “news”; I value my health so I skip the NHS.
I value knowledge so I skip the BBC “news”; I value my health so I skip the NHS.
Interesting comment…..but since ALL doctors are trained in the NHS you must be in rude health; and since no private hospital has an A&E unit; you must e accident-free. Long may that continue.
The BBC is really giving huge prominence to the allegations by Seymour Hersh about Bush wanting to attack Iraq. (The BBC seems prone to be spoonfed stuff from extreme lefties like Hersh and Greg Palast – and I notice it described Hersh’s New Yorker magazine as famous rather than famously-leftie, the essays aren’t a patch on earlier decades).
Here is a critique of Seymour Hersh. Seriously biased in the BBC’s favoured direction – rabidly anti-Bush.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7658/digging_into_seymour_hersh.html
It seems he has an anti-Israel bias too, as well as a record of very serious errors :
http://www.zoa.org/pressrel/19990112a.htm
This piece shows that Hersh is a very UNRELIABLE reporter :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_5_10_04.html
So if the BBC uses stuff from Hersh, they surely should stick a health warning on it ? But as he sings the same song as the BBC, they prefer simply to amplify his paranoia about Bush.