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

>> BTW, as a general rule never take anything I say seriously, for that way lies madness.<<

Taking you seriously might lead to madness, but wouldn't not taking you seriously be so much less fun?


kea.

>> ..wouldn't not taking you seriously be so much less fun? <<

Now thankfully, that is most likely a rhetorical question and not a direct question which I would feel obliged to answer directly.

Besides, modesty forbids my speculating on the degree of fun I might actually be capable of inflicting at any given time on any given individual. After all, Fun is the most subjective of values, and aren't we all trying to remain objective?

~jwf~

Zagreb said, "You said "follow the money" but the uncomfortable fact is that, in the West, many liberals are as filthy rich and powerful as conservatives (John Kerry, for example, is reputed to be worth more than George W Bush)."

I was referring to the OWNERS of the media outlets; presumably they have some control over the output (at least the results seem to prove the connection). There are very few "liberals" who OWN media conglomerates. That was the point I was trying to make.

I am well aware that there are many wealthy liberals; I live 6 miles NE of Hollywood, for crying out loud!

SC

Ben, without the BBC, I for one, would be bereft of much of my knowledge of the outside world! The NZ media are very American in ownership and content. The World News section in our main local newspaper is 4-6 pages focused on Australia and the USA (though they do reprint the odd article from the Independent and the Grauniad...
Long live the BBC, especially the WS radio.

i would have to agree, LLTBBC!!!

Zagreb, I didn't say that the BBC shouldn't censor its output. I am disturbingly accepting of that, these days.

I said that I was annoyed that it had a reputation for upholding freedom of speech *while* censoring its output.

Different kettle of bicycles entirely.

B

I agree that the BBC is - on balance - a Good Thing.

I am grieved because it could be so much better than it actually is, and I am angered because it has managed to convince people that it is as good as its reputation. I feel like Toto pulling the curtain back to show the real Wizard of Oz.

The reference to home made pornography is a case in point: A979004. Not to mention the removal of the phrase "How to be a perfect ..." from the title of the following entry, and replacing it with "Coping with being a ..." A878204.

These are entirely trivial examples, and the point is that I understand why the BBC took the decisions it did, and acknowledge its need to do so.

What bugs me is the *way* in which these things were done (poor process), and the fact that they are done by an organisation with a rep for fearlessly telling it like it is (misleading branding).

Ben

I just saw the movie. It's good that it was made. Funny, I find myself sitting here afraid to say anything critical of my government. I mean Rah Rah God Bless the USA and what ever George wants.
anon

I'm glad the pornography entry was removed and relieved that it didn't get into the Edited Guide. I don't know the full story with what happened in the end to remove it, but I know early on the only person who said anything critical of the entry in Peer Review was criticised for her comments to the point of silencing her. This is one situation where I saw the potential for Peer review failing. If the Eds stepped in and overruled I think that demonstrates why h2 needs editorial control.

I'm not familiar with the situation with agcB's entry being changed.

I agree that sometimes TPTB have ungainly process and I don't always agree with how they manage some of the trickier situations that arise. I don't think this undermines the BBCs reputation though (and I agree that it's not as good as it's reputation used to be). What it does is illustrate that they are a mainstream broadcasting organisation - I think within that they still show some exceptional areas of creativity, h2h2 being but one.


I think one of the reasons why the BBC is still perceived as being so good is because it is still pretty good compared to most other mainstream media. This is especially true, as Adel, said for us in NZ.

It's fine for you to pull the curtain back though Ben. Don't worry, I still see the BBC as a corporation with all the limits that places on it in the world today.

~~~

*waves to YB*

Did you get the chance to read the Gentlemen's Guide, Kea, or are you going on the title alone?

Incidentally, that particular entry was written not to titilate, but in an effort to help a couple who were having difficulties in their marriage. I know that for a fact, because I asked the author to write it.

B

Yes I did read the whole entry as it was going through Peer Review.

Do we want to get into a further conversation about that here? The things I would have to say about it are relevant to freedom and censorship issues, but probably are too off topic for this thread.


kea.

Up to you, Kea.

I wanted to be sure that your opinion was based on having read the entry, not on assumptions about the entry. You are entitled to your opinion, and almost certainly have good reasons for holding it. My issues with the entry being removed were process issues more than content issues, anyway.

FB / HVL was notable for his arrogance in putting his point across so it saddens me, but doesn't surprise me, that someone got bullied out of Peer Review.

B

Let's save it for another time.

Thanks for the acknowledgement about Peer Review. I don't remember who it was, but I made the decision at the time to not get involved because I could see it was going to be a hard slog.


'night,
kea.

Sleep well.

B

I don't get it.
YB

that's a good question

Liberal media:

At a recent Presidential press conference, the President was repeatedly asked if he felt personally responsible for the events of 9/11.
He was asked on a number of occasions whether he had any personal feelings of responsibility for all manner of terrorist and subsequent military activity.

And the President answered the questions in the way you'd expect from a politician. But he did answer.

He, and I, were therefore disagreeably surprised when he was asked more or less the same question by another Journo. And another. The expression on his face was saying the same sort of thing as I was - are these people stupid? Or just not listening? It wasn't Paxman like probing questions, it was bluntly saying the same thing...an attempt to get the President to assume personal liability for 9/11 on national TV.

Gradient I wouldn't call that liberal media, I'd call that stupid media. And that kind of behaviour happens across the political spectrum.

If it had been Liberal media they would have been asking those questions a couple of years ago like everyone else was. I think the fact that the US media wasn't able to ask such questions post 11/9 suggests that the media there isn't that free.

Sorry that should have been "If it had been liberal media..."