h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The BBC coverage of the anti-war movement seemed to stop once the war started. At that point it moved onto a sort of "laugh at the incompetent American cowboys," type thing, which is always a sure way to inspire British Nationalists .

If the anti-war arguements seem so narrow, then that's a result of the coverage. There's plenty more to it than just the "blah blah Bush is a monkey, Yankee Imperialismo steal oil," type stuff.

I also don't believe the 2% statistic. I don't know about the German newspaper, but the Guardian is hardly impartial. I find its best to make a point of not believing statistics in general. You don't know how the data was collected or how the statistics were calculated from it.

*I also don't believe the 2% statistic. I don't know about the German newspaper, but the Guardian is hardly impartial. I find its best to make a point of not believing statistics in general. You don't know how the data was collected or how the statistics were calculated from it.*

Statistics can be made to support a wide range of ideas with proper collection techniques and iterpretation including but not limited to time and persons involved,underlying mood and emotions of those collecting data and if pertenent being collected from.

In general statistics are collected by a group or persons in conjunction with research to prove or disprove a theory. The validity of the data is often tied directly to the reseachers credibility and ethical mores. However even valid statistics can be manipulated to to support unsound concepts.

ben, I am glad you found it - I find posting links to conversations really difficult.
Re BBC coverage - at times, about the middle of hostilities,Jimmy and I found it a bit pro-war, *but* we could have been influenced by our point of view... I find it interesting that the World Service did then, and still does refer to the 'American-led invasion'... which I like.

On the World Service, the only anti-war voices I heard were those of various Middle Eastern people interviewed in Cairo on occasion, a series of statements from Nobel Peace laureates and the occasional summary of texts and emails sent - each one carefully balanced - one pro-war for each anti, f'r instance.
Overall, except for one dire day (Ruth Richardson, NZ's own poison dwarf, slagging off the NHS and one smug Anglo-French couple on People in Politics, both Upper class (she a banker (!) and he a 'diplomat', both pro-war, although the whole point was supposed to be that one of them was supposed to be anti, her the French one I theorise,)aside from that awful day, the World Service coverage was balanced to the point of being painful!
It'd have to be, I suppose - listeners are literally *everywhere*

"My point was that the anti-war movement were *not* kept off the news."

OK, so we're arguing a point of fact. My recollection is different from yours but I don't see how we can argue about this any further without doing more research than I expect either of us is willing to do.

I will just make one other comment on this point though:

"As I said, the anti war movement never changed it's rhetoric throughout the war so having them on every day to tell us yet again that they didn't like Bush and that it was all about oil would just have been repetitive."

But the pictures of stationary bombers at RAF Fairford were NOT repetitive? Or the distant flashes in nightvision? News coverage during this war was virtually defined by its repetitiveness.

I think I'll see if I can find out a bit about the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung report that the Guardian article mentioned, excuse me for one moment...

Nope, I couldn't find it, maybe someone else will have more luck? I emailed the guy who wrote the article for the Guardian asking for more details, but there's no guarantee I'll get a reply.

I've just come back from lunch to a clipping on my desk and I've just found the online version

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,929976,00.html

Now I just have to find out who left it there

Zagreb :


"The Channel that, in my opinion, showed bias was Channel 4 News which had a noticeable anti-war bias ("the war" became "the bombing", for example, US spokesmen were interviewed with hostility) and which is fronted by the irritatingly partisan liberal cliche John Snow"

Thank God for Jon Snow !

If you hadn't noticed, Jon Snow won "Presenter of the Year" at the Royal Television Society journalism awards.

Channel 4 News and Newsnight are the only news programmes worth watching, IMHO.

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/03/week_1/02_rts.html

You stick to your Rupert Murdoch nonsense news (Fox, MSNBC etc), the rest of us will be a little more selective !

Zagreb: " have to take exception to your claim that British people have "little interest in individual rights". The rights of the individual are paramount here, in fact it was British ideas that largely formed the basis of the American constitution (our own attempt to remove the parasitic aristocracy was defeated thanks to Cromwell's subversion of the Republic to a theocratic state). We're not particularly keen on all-out capitalism (we are famous/infamous for our disrespect of wealth and power and hatred of people who are "full of themselves") but we take the rights of the individual and personal freedom very seriously."

Though, to be honest, those British ideas which formed the basis of the US Constitution were never very popular in Britain. They were fringe extremists who were resoundingly voted down. There wasn't even a bill of rights for the British until last decade.

And a people who are famous for disrespect of wealth and power would not be one to retain an oligarchical structure like the monarchy and the House of Lords. Sorry, the evidence does not support the conjecture.

" There wasn't even a bill of rights for the British until last decade."

...and the US didn't get universal sufferage until the 1920s


[bookmarking]

"Though, to be honest, those British ideas which formed the basis of the US Constitution were never very popular in Britain. They were fringe extremists who were resoundingly voted down. There wasn't even a bill of rights for the British until last decade."

They weren't popular in Parliament (which until about 100 years ago was exclusively full of toffs) but there must have been some reason why Cromwell got so many ordinary people to fight against the King all those years ago

The first British Bill of Rights actually appeared in 1689 or thereabouts, a demand from the Barons to the King to limit his power. Not sure what that counts for in the modern world, though.

"And a people who are famous for disrespect of wealth and power would not be one to retain an oligarchical structure like the monarchy and the House of Lords. Sorry, the evidence does not support the conjecture."

A classic piece of British hypocrisy, of course. The British hate people who "give themselves airs" but love the Queen. Well, some of them do. Personally, I can't stand her or her awful neurotic snobbish family. It's a patriotic thing for the Brits, rather than an ideological thing. And increasingly, the Royal Family come under a lot of flak for their state-funded lifestyle and detatchment. The Queen was pretty much forced to change the public image of the Royal Family after the nation effectively turned against her for her coldness at Diana's death in 1997.

*Cough* Magna Carta: The death knell of autocracy.

I would say the royal family and house of lords are basically the result of political intertia. Hand-me-downs from a bygone age if you like, and as such a general rallying point for the more conservative members of society.

They do both serve some purpose though. The Royal Family produces huge amounts of money for Britain by attracting stupid tourists (which is a tautology), whereas they cost only about 8p per year per person to maintain. Also, we can't very well get rid of the monarchy when a large chunk of the Commonwealth wants to keep them.

The house of lords is there to counterbalance the government, although its actual influence seems to be crumbling as it is generally juust plain old reactionary, and so gets overruled by the Commons and the government pretty frequently.

That 1689 document may have been called a bill of rights, but by our current definition, it was not one. And that 1689 (or whenever) document only affected the aristocracy. The commoners had no more rights than before... which is to say, none.

The Magna Carta only ended autocracy and ushered in a long period of aristocracy. And even at the time, it only affected the monarchy by degree... which was slowly eroded over time. In Thomas Paine's time, though there were aristocratic checks in place, the king still ruled with a free, if indirect, hand: "... that it (the crown) derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident, wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock the door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the key."

Royalty and tourism: surely the tourists would come to tour the buildings, and don't really care about their inhabitants.

"I would say the royal family and house of lords are basically the result of political intertia. Hand-me-downs from a bygone age if you like, and as such a general rallying point for the more conservative members of society."

That would be fairly true, especially in the case of the House of Lords. The Labour government has made some moves to change the make-up of the Lords but these have met with challenges from the usual sources, plus the Lords themselves. The Monarchy is another case, there is simply no serious movement to disestablish it, nor has there been since Cromwell and the Commonwealth. The British people have become so attached to the idea of "Queen and country" that I think it's become psychologically almost impossible for them to imagine anything else, especially the English.

"They do both serve some purpose though. The Royal Family produces huge amounts of money for Britain by attracting stupid tourists (which is a tautology), whereas they cost only about 8p per year per person to maintain. Also, we can't very well get rid of the monarchy when a large chunk of the Commonwealth wants to keep them."

I agree with Blatherskite, the tourists would still come to see the buildings etc as they do in ex-monarchies such as France and Austria.

"whereas they cost only about 8p per year per person to maintain"

For me, that is hardly the point. I pay tax to maintain things like the National Health Service, the emergency services and other miscellaneous things I feel I am entitled to as a citizen of Great Britain. I do not pay it to maintain the luxury lifestyles of a unlikeable family of snobbish aristocrats who feel they have the right to lord it over a people who work to keep them in money. There is no modern ideology of left or right that could argue that this system is justifiable.

"Also, we can't very well get rid of the monarchy when a large chunk of the Commonwealth wants to keep them."

As far as I know, many Commonwealth members such as Australia and Canada have the Queen as their Head of State simply because she is the British head of state. Were another office to open, it can be assumed that whoever occupied it would automatically become head of state of these countries. Apart from that the Commonwealth is a collection of nations who share the history of once being under British rule. This does not mean that they have any sort of right (nor I think, particular desire) to interfere in British internal politics.

"Apart from that the Commonwealth is a collection of nations who share the history of once being under British rule. This does not mean that they have any sort of right (nor I think, particular desire) to interfere in British internal politics." - The inverse is also true... those members of the Commonwealth have no desire for British interference in their own internal politics.

"As far as I know, many Commonwealth members such as Australia and Canada have the Queen as their Head of State simply because she is the British head of state."

Actually it's just a figurehead. The head of state is the governor general who's only power is limited abilities to uphold constitutional laws as a balance. The governor general can disolve parliment is certain conditions are met which would result in immediate general elections and the the governor general is appointed by the executive when the position becomes vacent.

The Aussies voted en mass against becomming a republic, I think, for the same reason that many people here hate the idea of a presedent.

" Commonwealth is a collection of nations who share the history of once being under British rule. This does not mean that they have any sort of right (nor I think, particular desire) to interfere in British internal politics."

The commonwealth, like the UN, is a massive charity. Each member is required to pay a certain amount which is then used to help those members in most need. Hence the name common-wealth. *I'm not saying that's all it is*

Never thought I'd be defending the Monarchy . Its like this. The only people who actually like the royal family are those who are clinging to the past, but no-one can actually be bothered to get rid of them because the only alternative is a President.

The idea is its better to have the (admittedly pretty insignificant) powers of the Head of State and the powers of the Prime Minister seperate, and a hell of a lot cheaper too.

You could elect a president and still keep his powers separate from the powers of the Prime Minister. It's been done before.

"The idea is its better to have the (admittedly pretty insignificant) powers of the Head of State and the powers of the Prime Minister seperate, and a hell of a lot cheaper too."

I remember there was a cost/benefit done here that said that a governor general was cheaper than a prez. I think that appealed to those who are scottish with money.

Much cheaper, I believe! My father said that the purpose of a Royal Family (he was from Emgland)was to foster unity and so he didn't favour Republicanism. (He was an old socialist.) (I don't mean old as in chronological age, at the time we spoke about this, he was younger than I am now - but in his views - old fashioned socialism. This was 1966 or so)