Today's headlines tell me exactly why we DO need an alternative to Sky.
Just look a the sensationalist tabloid journalism they have churned out to go with the vote on hybrid stem cell research in the House of Commons this evening.
Whereas ITN went for the factually accurate
And the BBC
Shame on Sky. I think their own journalists bias has overcome their objectivity here.
3 comments:
Sky news, and ITN both show why we don't need a tax funded news channel.
I very much doubt that anyone arguing for privatising the BBC would argue for giving Sky a monopoly.
What you have shown is not that we need the BBC, but that we need competition. Given that we have several private sources of news (and there's no tax funded newspaper) we would have that without the BBC (we'd probably have even more competition given the BBC is not subject to competing for custom to fund itself)
Tristan. I believe that if it moves you'd sell it and if it sat still you'fd put a price tag on it.
I have to wonder why you campaign for anyone to be elected when clearly we could leave the job of running everything to Tesco and Rupert Murdoch.
In short, I strongly disagree with you.
The state has a role, I beleive, in setting minium standards and in some cases raising the bar. If you want TV like the Italians have or the French, then you'd see what having a toothless natioanl broadcaster does for their broadcasting standards.
You just dont like anyone that has a different opinion to you. You would like state control it appears to me. I salute Sky for having their opinion so we have something to compare with rather than the left wing BBC that I object to funding when and does not keep to its charter.
Post a Comment