Post by vandamme on May 13, 2010 11:20:25 GMT
Link
Funny, I thought the purpose of news reporting was to report the news! Clearly they see themselves, and boast, of their overseas propaganda machine. (Of course we here know of their propaganda at home.)
I also love the thoroughness of the survey given the very small sample size and how the impartialality shines through if the survey is in the BBC's favour. Then to top it off they say they are, and should be, a global ambassador based on this small survey, talk about taking it a step too far!
Paid for by TV licensing or stealth taxes? SHRUGS, what is the difference nowadays!
Wow! Given the impartiality of the BBC it is pathetic to comment on other news agencies! The italised part shows me the mindset of their globalist left-wing socialist agenda (more like communist agenda, since using the word socialist is too weak of a word to describe their political slant).
The BBC's news output is more important to Britain's image overseas than the Royal Family or the Armed Forces, according to research praised by the Corporation's boss.
Director general Mark Thompson boasted that the BBC's international coverage was crucial to shaping worldwide attitudes.
In an effort to defend soaring spending on the BBC's sprawling World Service, he pointed to a study suggesting that the BBC should be valued as a global ambassador.
BBC director general Mark Thompson outside the Television Centre in west London. He argues that the BBC is an important global ambassador for Britain
The broadcaster commissioned research gauging the views of about 500 'opinion formers and consumers' who watched and listened to BBC news content - including the World Service - in Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and Kenya.
Mr Thompson told the Royal Institute of International Affairs: 'They were shown a list of different British organisations and initiatives and asked whether they made them think more or less positively about the country: the British Armed forces, the British Council, the UK government, UK government foreign aid, and so on, and the BBC.
Director general Mark Thompson boasted that the BBC's international coverage was crucial to shaping worldwide attitudes.
In an effort to defend soaring spending on the BBC's sprawling World Service, he pointed to a study suggesting that the BBC should be valued as a global ambassador.
BBC director general Mark Thompson outside the Television Centre in west London. He argues that the BBC is an important global ambassador for Britain
The broadcaster commissioned research gauging the views of about 500 'opinion formers and consumers' who watched and listened to BBC news content - including the World Service - in Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and Kenya.
Mr Thompson told the Royal Institute of International Affairs: 'They were shown a list of different British organisations and initiatives and asked whether they made them think more or less positively about the country: the British Armed forces, the British Council, the UK government, UK government foreign aid, and so on, and the BBC.
Funny, I thought the purpose of news reporting was to report the news! Clearly they see themselves, and boast, of their overseas propaganda machine. (Of course we here know of their propaganda at home.)
I also love the thoroughness of the survey given the very small sample size and how the impartialality shines through if the survey is in the BBC's favour. Then to top it off they say they are, and should be, a global ambassador based on this small survey, talk about taking it a step too far!
In the past few years the Corporation has also launched an £25million-a-year Arabic television service to compete with the likes of Al Jazeera and an Iranian service costing £15million a year of taxpayers' money.
The World Service is effectively paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The World Service is effectively paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Paid for by TV licensing or stealth taxes? SHRUGS, what is the difference nowadays!
But critics have repeatedly questioned how this could be a good use of public money.
Mr Thompson argued that the BBC's overseas journalism was more relevant than ever.
Making the case that its global services deserved some public funding, he said: 'In a world where in-depth international reporting is increasingly restricted to a handful of agencies and to news providers who are directly under the influence of sovereign governments and who have no tradition of editorial independence, the BBC's journalism, its ability to put people on the ground and keep them there over years, is more, not less, important than it used to be.'
Mr Thompson argued that the BBC's overseas journalism was more relevant than ever.
Making the case that its global services deserved some public funding, he said: 'In a world where in-depth international reporting is increasingly restricted to a handful of agencies and to news providers who are directly under the influence of sovereign governments and who have no tradition of editorial independence, the BBC's journalism, its ability to put people on the ground and keep them there over years, is more, not less, important than it used to be.'
Wow! Given the impartiality of the BBC it is pathetic to comment on other news agencies! The italised part shows me the mindset of their globalist left-wing socialist agenda (more like communist agenda, since using the word socialist is too weak of a word to describe their political slant).
