I try to be open-minded, I just seem to disagree with you on some things. Believe me, I am very happy to continue this discussion; I do have a specific question for you about the BBC:
Do you remember when the BBC reported that Tony Blair's statement that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes was exaggerated? Do you remember how Tony Blair got really angry, and then the chairman and director general of the BBC both resigned, and its vice-chairman publicly apologized?
Why were they sorry? Was it in fact true that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes? If a news source made a factual criticism (and, as we all know, a massively understated one), and then people got angry... and members of the staff were fired... doesn't that demonstrate that the angry people have some sort of executive oversight?
I really don't know how to interpret the above, recent example except by concluding that people at the BBC should be afraid of losing their livelihoods if they challenge the government line.
That is indeed a generalization. I will agree with the "all government is bad" part though, if by government you mean compulsory statist authority and by bad you mean unethical.Originally Posted by John56{vg}
Not at all! You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine, and (I believe) we're welcome to criticize each other's. No-one need ever worry about offending me; I've got very thick skin.Originally Posted by John56{vg}
I think you were actually talking to me if you look back. I asked: "Is it completely irrelevant that they are funded by a government?" and you said "I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded." I was the first person in the thread to bring up funding's influence. Or maybe your post was a complete non sequitur?Originally Posted by John56{vg}
That is kind of a thought-terminating cliche, not really a question. Put another way, maybe you meant "you're very opinionated". Indeed, I am! You are too.Originally Posted by John56{vg}