Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 11:31:28 GMT -5
' The Times' leads today with some editorial comment that the BBC has become a state-funded publisher, giving it an unfair advantage. The Times - LeviathanOf course, as The Times is part of the BBC's principal competitor, it would complain, along with most of the rest of the industry, but it is difficult to compete! Where all this leaves BBC Radio (3), and The Third, I am not sure. Leviathan?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 2:41:33 GMT -5
'the BBC has become a state- funded publisher, giving it an unfair advantage.' The correct situation kc would be: 1) that there is only one 'state' in this world 2) that that single state "funds" (to use a quaint soon to be old-fashioned term) absolutely every activity 3) that every person and/or publisher must be equal, so there can no longer be question of "fairness" or "advantage" Of course, as The Times is part of the BBC's principal competitor, it would complain, along with most of the rest of the industry, but it is difficult to compete! Where all this leaves BBC Radio (3), and The Third, I am not sure. Locking all of them up would be best would it not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 9:36:43 GMT -5
Whilst I admire your attempts to create a Eutopia here in The Third, Sydney, I am not sure that a single state is correct.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 4, 2015 11:33:54 GMT -5
'the BBC has become a state- funded publisher, giving it an unfair advantage.' The correct situation kc would be: 1) that there is only one 'state' in this world There may be only one BBC in this world but it is funded by only one of the world's 190 or so states, as I feel sure you are aware. 2) that that single state "funds" (to use a quaint soon to be old-fashioned term) absolutely every activity See above; there's no such single state and the word "funds", where as a noun or a verb as used here, is neither "quaint" nor "soon to be old-fashioned"; where is the evidence in support of your contention? 3) that every person and/or publisher must be equal, so there can no longer be question of "fairness" or "advantage" As Sorabji would have said "equal to what or to whom - and how?"; "fairness" and "advantage" exist in many walks of life and what kc refers to here is in any case quite clearly the immediate past and the present, not some personal fantasy Utopian vision of the future! Of course, as The Times is part of the BBC's principal competitor, it would complain, along with most of the rest of the industry, but it is difficult to compete! Where all this leaves BBC Radio (3), and The Third, I am not sure. Locking all of them up would be best would it not. All of whom? The BBC, The Times and "most of the rest of the industry"? Where, how, on what specific legal grounds and by whom might all of that be "locked up"?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 2:53:19 GMT -5
There may be only one BBC in this world but it is funded by only one of the world's 190 or so states, as I feel sure you are aware. Not for long, that is my meaning, as a little thought must have made clear. Mr. H has oddly no conception of the Future. He does not realize that very soon his garden will be full of people from abroad. Twentieth-century men like him really must become accustomed to the preparation of youths born in the twenty-first-century for life in the twenty-second must they not.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 5, 2015 4:05:10 GMT -5
There may be only one BBC in this world but it is funded by only one of the world's 190 or so states, as I feel sure you are aware. Not for long, that is my meaning, as a little thought must have made clear. "Not for long" in the sense that the very future of the BBC hangs in the balance, undoubtedly, but that's not whqat you meant (which is still wrong-headed). Mr. H has oddly no conception of the Future. Conception is one thing, ability to predict with accuracy is quite another. The importance of recognising and appreciating the fundamental difference between the two cannot be overstressed. He does not realize that very soon his garden will be full of people from abroad. I have no idea about that one way or the other, but they're welcome to tend it if they do (and if I'm still where I am now, which I hope will not be the case); however, I have suggested nothing of the kind, so you are making it up on a whim of your own devising. What of it in any case? What does that have to do with the finding or future existence of BBC? Twentieth-century men like him really must become accustomed to the preparation of youths born in the twenty-first-century for life in the twenty-second must they not. Up to a point, no doubt, but what about 20th century women? - you know, those people who give and will presumably continue to give birth to the people of the 21st century. Again, however, the connection between this and BBC's funding and future is far from apparent...
|
|