Murdoch or BBC. Is that a choice?

“The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?”,

Jeremy Paxman

Why do we have to pay for propaganda? It seems some still find the BBC OK. That’s understandable. It’s something we grow up with and the BBC has traditionally been recognized as a reliable source of news. However, reporting within the BBC has been censored and restricted for many years. You don’t believe me? Various stories about the British monarchy through the years were withheld by UK media until it was impossible to deny the story any longer. Whether or not such items are really news, in that it will have an impact on your life, is debatable. However, the fact that some stories are not covered demonstrates control over news stories within the BBC.  Sometimes omissions are more misleading than untruths. 

Omissions can lead to one-sided reporting. There are frequent claims of a bias in stories about the Middle East. In 2009 doctors who were treating patients in Palestine during the Gazastrip attacks managed to export footage of the situation to the outside world. This revealed a very different angle to the story. BBC continued to claim impartiality but at the same time permitted little balance.

Perhaps we expect to hear about clearly-defined sides to a story. One side is good and the other not. That is rarely the case. To come to an informed opinion we need accurate reporting from all sides.

 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/181174.html 

It might not fit in with our views on the world but where did we obtain the information to form those views? Murdoch? BBC?

“People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”,

Jeremy Paxman