breaksny

I give a fuck about pbs and alot of other people do. Maybe you don't, and I don't really care if u watch it or not. While there's no shortage of conservative talk shows and newscasts on network tv, cable or broadcast, but there's no other regular outlet for moderate discussion on tv where both the left and right actually engage in a dialogue on a regular basis on US tv. Koppel being the exception, These are not the left wing shows you distort them into being dusted, you're just attempting to paint them with some simplistic brush of being right wing. I mean if I wanna watch a straigh conservative show I can turn on a conservative broadcast like the O Riley factor or Alan Keyes's show. Don't forget pbs even gives a weekly forum to conservatives like john mcglaughlin (not the group but his one on one show) and regularly gives conservatives the chance to talk in a level of discourse more sophisticated than anywhere on network tv. And I can tell you Charlie Rose is no leftist @ all. He gave Karl Rove a whole hour long interview last nite, something Jim Lerher and his team do with Bush cabinet members as often as they can as well. He likewise grills palestinian officials much more thoroughly in his interviewing than he generally does Israeli ones. I've seen it literally dozens of times. If you think it's boring cuz the style is too old-fashioned or intellectual or stodgy for you that's one thing, but the left-wing label doesn't apply given how much airtime they do give to conservatives.

I've certainly felt better. I seem to be in this weird pattern where 1 nite I get a great 8-9 hours, and then the next I only get 4 or 5. Funky.

Wow we actually agree on something. I think I'll have 2 let this sink in for a few mins. Anyway, I'd say it's probably a good majority of the population, esp Gen Xers and younger. The problem is CNN Headline News's solution to the problem, for example, doesn't seem a solution really: i.e. the MTVization of newscasts. It's not their visual style of cramming the screen with info that I have a problem with, it's more that their video segments are too concise to the point of leaving critical parts of the day's news out. If they'd take something more of the approach of the BBC's daily 30 min news bulletins, where a typical news video report lasts on avg @ least 90-120 seconds, & often a min or 2 longer per piece, then you'd have the time to go into the depth on a story that it needs to get fully balanced and intelligent coverage, but still keep it concise. Maybe if they or CNN's main channel had a 30-60 world news cast that ran say 2 or 3 times a day, along with their normal coverage on America that would go some way 2 filling the gap. I guess what I'd like to seeis some American alternative where the companies (or ever just 1 single commercial channel) would look beyond the bottom line and put this stuff out there for its educational value, and other practical, but not strictly financial, value. Money may talk loudest, but it often doesn't talk most wisely. And that's why alot of these other european countries have state-owned medias. You see some conflicts of interests, granted, but it's not like the BBC isn't responding to market pressures @ all anymore anyway. Just read their website or the Financial Times or Economist for proof of that. The fact that the bulk of broadcast media in the US is owned by just 5 conglomerates, which I've already mentioned by name, shows these companies have questions of conflicts of interests in their business news coverage frequently anyway. So it's not like the market is the complete solution to that issue either. It can partially regulate itself, but it's not perfect, otherwise all this communications power wouldn'tve been handed to them in the Telecommunications liberalization act of 1996 anyway. Their PACs worked with Congress to draft said act, along with other PACS such as those of the cable and phone companies, to allow them to achieve early market hegemony in each of their respective sectors and it's frankly a threat to freedom of speech and communication, as well as anti-competitive business practice, effectively codified by the federal government. Fortunately Letterman's decision may save Koppel, for now. But if I were him I'd jump ship for another network anyway and take my crew with me.

I @ least am not saying we shouldn't have a sombre memorial, as we do. If that's how u wanna mourn and remember, go 4 it. I think having an alternative that has a more optimistic compliment to said somber symbol of rememberance is a positive thing though. It provides a hopeful message that something can be built on the tragedy. Life springs from death if you will, a theme that goes back over a century to when Walt Witman was a journalist/poet here. It probably goes back further than that. And if there were ever a time we need such a message, it's now.

Hmmm maybe britney is a giant squid in disguise....

Last nite's leftovers: chicken and vegis.

Can we stay on topic here people?! What's more important those 2 wankers or giant squids?

No complaints here. Don't take this the wrong way, but it's better than just looking @ a hole in the ground, if only cuz it provides some hope potentially as well as a sense of memorial.

That was just one example. The whole problem with the American media illustrated by its insularity from the outside world. The fact is there is far less coverage, and of a generally lower quality in American broadcast media than on that channel. It's Europeanness has nothing to do with it. Sure Europe's member states r smaller than the US and possibly more affected by events in the outside world than we are, but especially given the fact that we as a country have more global responsibilities in the rest of the world (militarily, economically, diplomatically, and otherwise) than any other nation, we should have the public most educated in world affairs. And it's the media's job in this society to provide that education and it's not. This would apply even if we weren't @ war, but even more so since we are. It's a sad fact that the best coverage is on a partially state-funded network for a 30 min news broadcast originating in a foreign country shown @ most 3 times a day. America can do better and really should since it's in our own national interest to do so.

I think this belongs on the drama board.

Wrong thread!!

Well they finally found some but they didn't make it ashore. Poor lil mollusks.

Wow way 2 go maudy. I can't really offer advice having never been addicted 2 anything chemically, but more power 2 u. Have faith you'll conquer it.

No giant squid just yet....stay tuned. www.discoverychannel.com

Ok time 2 watch the giant squid on discovery channel.

Ya I hear u maudy. I'd like 2 c hirsham too. Terry's class as well.

The thing is I dunno what part of the BBC dusted is even referring to. If he means the BBC in England, ya I had a tory-supporting british friend in hs who said they're relatively "liberal," according to the american meaning of the word (since the british meaning connotes libertarianism to americans). But BBC World and the BBC world service isn't that biased, even on the Northern Ireland conflict. They interview Gerry Adam or other Shin Fein representatives whenever the they do a feature on the conflict, as well as David Trimble, or other Unionists. They're also far more thorough. I don't see the American media devoting a full 30 minute news program, for example, to the current presidential elections in Zimbabwe, despite having been banned from the country by the Mugabe's government. And while in that case their coverage does seem slanted to the opposition and Blair's side, they've likewise regularly given Mugabe administration respresentatives air-time to get out their views on the electoral process and what they think is Blair's "neo colonial racism," something I can't agree with. Likewise during the recent commonwealth summit, they interviewed many other African heads of state and foreign ministers who effectively opposed Blair's recommendation for expulsion of Zimbabwe from the commonwealth b/c of all sorts of alleged campaigning, registration, and polling irregularities, not to mention harrassment of the opposition, and the government's rather violent land redistribution program.

lol @ "reading material," tilly. I think in the 1st year or 2 I was dating my ex I spent more time looking @ j crew and victoria's secret catalogues, with her of course, than I ever have b4 or since.

More right wing propaganda. Probably made by people who thought that ludicrous netanyahu.org site u and malone were raving about yesterday was too moderate. This is complete bs people. There's no way it can happen and besides being racist, it grossly simplifies what Fatah or the Palestinian people, quite separate from Fatah stand for. The so called "facts" this sort of video is purporting to portray are only a portion of what the Palestinian elite or its people stand for. Arafat is here to stay, unlike Sharon or Netanyahu, and if any of you SERIOUSLY think things are gonna get better before Palestine does come into being, you're sadly deluding yourselves. The only solution I can see that would achieve said result is the ethnic cleansing which the late Minister Zeevi's party is recommending. Maybe you should consult them or Milosevic or the former leadership of Serbia for advice on how to achieve that. Then Israel will really have a war on its hands, and the US will probably lose support throughout the entire middle east. Fortunately, none of that nonsense is gonna happen.

No basically I don't. I think they're more balanced. I don't think the American television networx (cable included), as well as most of the print/internet media, is as balanced. I think it's more conservative, reflective of the fact that the center of America's political culture is significicantly to the right of most of the rest if of the industrialized world. I see BBC news reporters grilling both sides of the issue around the world, when they're not giving each side its own chance to speak at length about their positions respective, often conflicting, positions. I don't c that as frequently in the American television media, and I certainly don't see the same intelligence or smoothness of delivery among American tv journalists. It's not that they're more pro-palestinian or liberal, it's more moderate. The only place I can think of that's as moderate frankly is pbs. Nightline might be another exception, but they're gonna be off the air soon so there goes that outlet. It would be nice to have one world news channel, american or not, that does straight news round the clock. Talk shows are fine, but the whole MTVization of american television basically dumbs it down and simplifies the world in a way that doesn't provide the coverage people in Europe @ least has.

Whatever dusted. I don't need you to lecture me on where I get my news from. The BBC is more balanced than the american media in the conflict, if you don't see it then go read yer own media. How can I not say that when it's patently obvious to me the other channels r worse? And as to the tv thing, we were discussing tv media, I simply laid out the channel I thought was the best for world news coverage. That has nothing to do with what I read. Get over better than though self in thinking u know more than I do.

Northern Ireland aside, they're certainly more balanced on the Middle East and much of the rest of the world than the American channels r, but whatever go on watching the American channels. I don't care. Their correspondents clearly don't seem to have the same balance or background knowledge, let alone coherence, of the brits.

The BBC is more balanced than any of the American media imo in regard to the conflict. It's also far more coherent in general. They accompany the Israeli military on missions regularly, but they've done the same with Palestinian groups as well. I only watch CNN sometimes cuz I think Fox and the NBC channels r worse.

I c where you're going with this, or could anyway. Maybe yer right and he's anti-jewish. I dunno what I can say, it's tragic and maybe he shouldn't have the right to hold such a controlling stake in the companies. I don't agree with the possible implication that this makes his peace initiative irrelevant or hostile to Israel however. But I don't expect to be able to change yer mind, so just go ahead and make that connection if u want.

Grew up eatin em. My parents were health nuts. They're ok.