Debunking Global Research TV

BadNews Bear said:

On Tony's list of crimes equal to or greater than PR's, there is a distinct pattern of antisemitic crimes.

Click to expand...

Wow, so this is why you believe him to be antisemitic? Do you not understand that he's listing antisemitic crimes because they are similar in nature to Pussy Riot's charges of religious hate crimes. That's the whole point of his list - crimes that are similar to Pussy Riot's that got harsher sentences in the west. That is why he lists antisemitic crimes, not because he is antisemitic himself... If someone was in fact antisemitic, I don't think they would write an article listing antisemitic crimes.

With your logic here, BadNews Bear, every single writer that has ever tackled the subject of antisemitism, is actually (in your view) antisemitic themselves. What kind of backwards brain do you need to believe that?

BadNews Bear said:

One in particular strikes me as rather harsh, the second on the list. Tony says "Unlike Pussy Riot, however, these 2 men only crammed their leaflets into the door of a synagogue – instead of bursting in. Still they received 3-4 years in prison."

Click to expand...

It's quite apparent that Tony's article clashes with your idea of western justice being superior. The point of his list is to prove that there have been lesser religious hate crimes that have been given harsher sentences in the west. Why did he write this article? Probably because after Pussy Riot got famous, the western media started pushing the idea that the girls would've gotten a lesser sentence in the west. You're obviously one of the people that blindly believes this, considering that throughout this exchange your entire argument has been based on this false assumption.

Making false accusations (especially of antisemitism) and ad hominems against an author because they don't gel with your confirmation bias on Pussy Riot, doesn't make for a good argument. I think you should reconsider your position here...

BadNews Bear said:

The leaflets in question were Holocaust denial comics. It struck me a bizarre that Tony sees this as an equal or lesser crime

Click to expand...

I would say that someone who expresses their religious contempt using flyers or leaflets, is at less fault than someone who storms a church with an entire rock band.

Before you try telling me that religious hatred had nothing to do with Pussy Riot, let's look at a verse from the song that they played in the church (which you decided to omit from your original post on Pussy Riot lyrics in this thread).

lyrics from:
http://www.freepussyriot.org/content/lyrics-songs-pussy-riot
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2012/08/pussy-riot-lyrics.html

"Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!
Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!"

Now, tell me about how there wasn't any religious hatred going on there.

BadNews Bear said:

because the whole list dealt with antisemitism I rashly assumed he was an antisemite

Click to expand...

This is the most ridiculous logic ever. He clearly titles the list as 'similar crimes' in reference to Pussy Riot's religious hate crimes. How you percieve that as him being antisemitic is beyond me.

BadNews Bear said:

and that GR must have antisemitic leanings to print it.

Click to expand...

This is even more ridiculous. Any editor with even half a brain reading that article would not come away with the idea that the author is somehow antisemitic.

kevin fairbanks said:

lyrics from:
http://www.freepussyriot.org/content/lyrics-songs-pussy-riot
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2012/08/pussy-riot-lyrics.html

"Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!
Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!"

Now, tell me about how there wasn't any religious hatred going on there.

Click to expand...

The point being that the Russian populace is largely deeply religious and 'the people' took offence to what was said and done. I think in Russia, the sentence was largely condoned by the population and was a popular sentence. Not that I agree with it, no more than I agree with 'popular stoning' in some other countries.

What people tend to forget is, it is only in the last 50 years or less that we have 'become more tolerant' of anti religious sentiment and rhetoric and non compliance to religious doctrines. Even now there is great debate and much bad feeling over it, from all sides.

Oxymoron said:

The point being that the Russian populace is largely deeply religious and 'the people' took offence to what was said and done. I think in Russia, the sentence was largely condoned by the population and was a popular sentence. Not that I agree with it, no more than I agree with 'popular stoning' in some other countries.

What people tend to forget is, it is only in the last 50 years or less that we have 'become more tolerant' of anti religious sentiment and rhetoric and non compliance to religious doctrines. Even now there is great debate and much bad feeling over it, from all sides.

Click to expand...

Great points, Oxymoron. The church is a historically touchy issue in Russia because of Stalin's brutal persecution of it. He killed so many in the infamous purges that the church basically became an extinct institution in the '30s.

I can understand why Russia's current christian dominated population don't appreciate Pussy Riot's church protest.

Badnews Bear said:

Hi Kevin, I think some of your points are quite valid, others less so.

I never said the west is superiour, only that PR would not have been jailed for what they did. However in some ways I suspect Russian courts are more openly corrupt than even the US. Upon reading the transcripts of the Pussy Riot (henceforth "PR") case, some very questionable events occurred during the trial which I doubt would fly in the US. For example, security guard Sergei Beloglazov did not return to work in the Church for for 2 months because of 'trauma' from the incident. But the problem goes beyond one individual exaggerating trauma:

19:49 The testimonies of two of the aggrieved parties are carbon copies of one another: they have identical paragraphs and even identical spelling errors, one of which was found by Alyokhina. Violetta Volkova believes it might be the reason to hold one of them liable for perjury.

But my main reason for bringing this up is that I have no interest in demonizing Putin, but rather the Church for [likely] encouraging false witness, the court for being one-sided and draconian, and apologists for the Church and Court like Juan and Tony.

Click to expand...

This type of thing?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9326232/Pepper-spray-cops-trauma-payout

A former University of California policeman who stirred public outrage by pepper-spraying peaceful student protesters has been awarded US$38,000 (NZ$45,536) in worker's compensation - more than the US$30,000 awarded to the 21 students for the trauma they suffered in the vent.

The ex-policeman was compensated for psychiatric damage he claimed to have suffered from the 2011 incident, the university said on Wednesday (local time).

In June of this year, Pike himself filed a worker's compensation claim with UC Davis over the incident, saying he suffered unspecified psychiatric and nervous system damage, though the document did not explain how he claimed to have been harmed, records show.

Then-campus police Lieutenant John Pike came to symbolise law enforcement aggression against anti-Wall Street protests at the time when video footage widely aired on TV and the internet showed him casually dousing demonstrators in the face with a can of pepper spray as they sat on the ground.

But its not only aggression against the people, U.S leaders seem to think war is good economically.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...evitalising-the-countrys-economy-2119325.html

Kirchner said he had suggested to Bush that a kind of Marshall Plan was necessary to South America's economic problems of the time. "Hey, the best way to revitalise the economy is through war," Bush replied, according to Kirchner. "The US has grown stronger with war."
"He said it very clearly," Kirchner told Stone, who immediately replied to Kirchner: "I hope he didn't ask you to go to war."

Just after 53.00



I suppose it is if you are one of the elite profiteering from it but not so much as a nation which is trillions in debt or one of the 'regular Joe's' suffering by high taxes to pay the interest and have nothing to show from it except lost loved ones or PTSD.

Jay Reynolds said:

Globalresearch.ca gets popular by telling a small segment of people what they want to hear

Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense...Please explain how a publication is popular, if they only have a small readership? What does this "small segment of people" want to hear, and what is this publication telling them? Just glancing at the front page of GR, I see titles covering diverse topics, such as campaign financing, dronestrikes in yemen and international law, Dick Cheney's war crimes, the Saudi state and Libya, mainstream media disinformation, JP Morgan settlement/scandal, and japans environmental/economic crisis. So it's hardly the narrow focused force you portray them as, but obviously on the left side of the political spectrum - which is probably why the OP of this thread, ModerateGOP, doesn't take too kindly to them. Of course, if we were all moderate republicans and bias against left news sources - making broad brush stroke generalizations about them - then we'd probably have to reject all of the Edward Snowden/Glenn Greenwald NSA revelations (since they were of course published in the leftist Guardian).

So, unless if you honestly consider the left to be a "small segment" of the population, then I don't quite understand your argument about GR catering to a small select group of people...

Jay Reynolds said:

regardless if it is true or not.

Click to expand...

You can say that for basically any publication out there. Some of the most respected journalistic outlets have published untrue pieces in the past. That's just a part of the press that will probably never change. This is especially true when covering geopolitical issues, because information in conflicts is notoriously uncertain. Remember, "the first casualty of War is Truth."

Jay Reynolds said:

Certainly not always accurate or objective,

Click to expand...

If you believe in "objective" journalism, Jay, then you don't fully understand journalism, or only understand mainstream media (which constantly claims to be "objective"). The idea of objectivity in journalism is merely a fantasy. It's impossible to escape our inherent subjectivity, despite public lay person perception of pure objectivity in fields like science and journalism. Many well regarded and award winning independent journalists reject the notion of "objectivity" entirely. As Glenn Greenwald puts it, "Human beings are not objectivity-driven machines. We all intrinsically perceive and process the world through subjective prisms. What is the value in pretending otherwise? The relevant distinction is not between journalists who have opinions and those who do not, because the latter category is mythical. The relevant distinction is between journalists who honestly disclose their subjective assumptions and political values and those who dishonestly pretend they have none or conceal them from their readers. Moreover, all journalism is a form of activism. Every journalistic choice necessarily embraces highly subjective assumptions — cultural, political or nationalistic — and serves the interests of one faction or another."


Here's a short video of Noam Chomsky talking about how "objectivity" in journalism is used as a facade for propagating different government, corporate, and other establishment opinions.

Jay Reynolds said:

it has articles footnoted as if the sources had true validity, while many of them are chock-full of bunk.

Click to expand...

Let's test this claim, Jay. Here's the first article on the GR site for today: http://www.globalresearch.ca/japans...mics-cope-with-environmental-disaster/5355862

Now, looking through it's 48 footnotes, I find peer-reviewed scientific papers, academic journal sources, as well as popular science publications. All of these are legitimate sources from what I can see. As far as bunk goes, I just counted ten total graphs and charts of data included in the article as evidence.

So, tell me more about all of the invalid sources and bunk.

Jay Reynolds said:

The end result is the appearance of scholarly work on a fairly large scale, while deeper in they are simply an outlet for people who can't get published elsewhere because they are plenty stupid.

Click to expand...

Yet another broad brush stroke generalization! You and BadNews Bear would make a great team with his assumptions and your generalizations! Let's test this claim as well, using the same article from before [*]. Scholarly means that the writer should be an authority in the field, include footnotes/citations, and data/graphs. This is aside from the fact that there's a big difference between scholarly academic research publishing, and regular media outlets.

If we look at the author of this article, on Japan's economic and environmental crisis, published today in GR. It says: Andrew DeWit is Professor in the School of Policy Studies at Rikkyo University and an Asia-Pacific Journal coordinator. With Iida Tetsunari and Kaneko Masaru, he is coauthor of “Fukushima and the Political Economy of Power Policy in Japan,” in Jeff Kingston (ed.) Natural Disaster and Nuclear Crisis in Japan (forthcoming).

Sounds like an authority on this subject to me. How about you?

As far as foot notes go, remember that this author includes 48.

As far as data/graphs go, remember that this author has 10.

I think it's fair to say that this is scholarly work.

So, tell me more about how Global Research doesn't publish scholarly work, but rather writers who can't get published anywhere else. Before you do that, please read this article about how five different GR writers were given the 2012-13 Project Censored Award earlier this month.

You're so disparaging towards people that are really respected in the journalism community. Your ignorant opinions of them mean nothing to me, and hopefully not to anyone else.

You can always choose one or two of his points and discuss them. Or you can admit that he debunked your points. Leaving implies the second.

Solastalgia said:

I'm sorry, BadNews Bear, but your post is a bit too disheveled and incoherent for me. I'm going to have to respectfully decline debating with you any further here.

Click to expand...

it does have an ADHD vibe to it and was mostly redundant, I may as well delete it in case people want to read this whole thread in the future.

Cairenn said:

You can always choose one or two of his points and discuss them. Or you can admit that he debunked your points. Leaving implies the second.

Click to expand...

How am I supposed to discuss incoherent points? How is my decision to not waste my time, an admission of defeat? If that's the case, then I guess you've already admitted defeat to Oxy Moron, who you've not responded to from post #40, Cairenn. At least I told BadNews Bear why I can't take the time to reply to his post, and he agreed it was incoherent and deleted it. You, on the other hand, don't even acknowledge Oxy Moron's post for you, and instead tell me that if I don't reply to someone, then I must be wrong. How ironic and hypocritical of you, Cairenn. Why don't you worry about your own debates? It just sounds like you're still salty about our earlier exchange...

BadNews Bear said:

it does have an ADHD vibe to it and was mostly redundant, I may as well delete it in case people want to read this whole thread in the future.

Click to expand...

No worries man, we all have our writing mishaps. I deleted my reply to that post, so consider it a clean slate. I'd be happy to debate with you more on this, but just take your time with it - don't rush it. Better yet, let's try to steer this back on topic by "debunking" Global Research. I personally don't understand how this can be done, but am open to all debate.

Solastalgia said:

... let's try to steer this back on topic by "debunking" Global Research. I personally don't understand how this can be done, but am open to all debate.

Click to expand...

I don't see how it can be done either. I noticed that Mick in another thread offered a rebuke for an attempt to debunk a claim, advising that we stick to debunking the evidence given to support that claim. At first his distinction went over my head, but then I got it. So, if we're going to deal with global research, then what we need to focus on is a claim made by that site and then debunk the evidence given to support that claim.

That should be enough to keep personal feelings about the content out of the mix. It seems to me that this thread began emotionally, with a responses based on personal feelings, and sort of veered off after that.

Alhazred The Sane said:

So, if we're going to deal with global research, then what we need to focus on is a claim made by that site and then debunk the evidence given to support that claim.

Click to expand...

I don't think that "debunks" the entire outlet, but rather a specific claim in a specific article ran there. If this is the criteria needed for "debunking" an entire outlet, then literally every single publication in media history has already been "debunked." It's virtually impossible to find a "pure" publication that has never run bunk articles before. To think otherwise would be delusional.

Besides, Global Research (like many other outlets) has a disclaimer [*] on this exact issue:

"Disclaimer

The views expressed in Global Research articles are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be held responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in Global Research articles. Global Research reserves the right to remove articles from the website."

Alhazred The Sane said:

That should be enough to keep personal feelings about the content out of the mix. It seems to me that this thread began emotionally, with a responses based on personal feelings, and sort of veered off after that.

Click to expand...

I don't think an endless debate on articles would keep personal feelings about the content out of the mix, whatsoever. In fact, it would do the exact opposite, as evident in BadNews Bear's Pussy Riot bias, or the OP moderate republican's likely bias against leftist media like Global Research.

The only way to "debunk" an entire media organization would be to expose upper management (owners, editorial, etc) and/or their source of funding.

Alhazred The Sane said:

I don't see how it can be done either. I noticed that Mick in another thread offered a rebuke for an attempt to debunk a claim, advising that we stick to debunking the evidence given to support that claim. At first his distinction went over my head, but then I got it. So, if we're going to deal with global research, then what we need to focus on is a claim made by that site and then debunk the evidence given to support that claim.

That should be enough to keep personal feelings about the content out of the mix. It seems to me that this thread began emotionally, with a responses based on personal feelings, and sort of veered off after that.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and should probably be moved to rambles.

If GRTV have said things that are bunk, then debunk them. Gather enough debunks (in individual threads), and you can do a "GRTV debunked" thread with some real substance. i.e. establishing a pattern of falsehoods.

But separate claims to seperate threads please. That way your debunks can actually be useful.

Solastalgia said:

...
The only way to "debunk" an entire media organization would be to expose upper management (owners, editorial, etc) and/or their source of funding.

Click to expand...

How would their funding sources debunk them?
If that funding was proved to come with a conditional 'you may only report x...', then yes, but many enterprises need funding - that doesn't make the end product worthless.

Pete Tar said:

How would their funding sources debunk them?
If that funding was proved to come with a conditional 'you may only report x...', then yes

Click to expand...

You just answered your own question.

Pete Tar said:

but many enterprises need funding - that doesn't make the end product worthless.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. Of course most media organizations operate with outside funding (be it donations or large corporations), and of course that doesn't make their end product worthless.

okay.
Just challenging the idea of someone being debunked because they receive funding from 'x' source.
Most entities or corporations that have large profits also have some kind of funding/philanthropy program - it doesn't make the recipients beholden to them or their philosophy.

Pete Tar said:

okay.
Just challenging the idea of someone being debunked because they receive funding from 'x' source.
Most entities or corporations that have large profits also have some kind of funding/philanthropy program - it doesn't make the recipients beholden to them or their philosophy.

Click to expand...

Not to mention advertisers, which are generally the main source of income for most media outlets.

If a media outlet gets MOST of its money from one source, then it might be reasonable to infer that it's biased towards that source.

RT gets it's money from the Russian government. But then the BBC (kind of) gets its from the UK government.

Funding is a good way or understanding an organization, but it it does not necessarily say anything about the factual content of a site. Often it indicates a bias.

Pete Tar said:

Just challenging the idea of someone being debunked because they receive funding from 'x' source.

Click to expand...

I understand, man.

Pete Tar said:

Most entities or corporations that have large profits also have some kind of funding/philanthropy program - it doesn't make the recipients beholden to them or their philosophy.

Click to expand...

It most certainly can!

Alhazred The Sane said:

Not to mention advertisers, which are generally the main source of income for most media outlets.

Click to expand...

It depends on what type of media you're talking about. If it's TV broadcast, then that's the case, but the digital era is definitely different. While this was the case for print media, it's not anymore for digital counterparts. The guys with the biggest advertising revenues right now are search engines like Google. This is the main reason why journalism has gone down hill financially since the dawn of digital. Trust me, you'd understand this if you tried freelancing - where many people get paid with "exposure" instead of actual money. If only digital media had half of the advertising revenue that print had or TV has - things would be just great. But that's not the case, so now you see freelancers getting paid 70 bucks an article, risking their lives in warzones that well-paid corespondents should be in. Prof. Robert McChesney covers all of this in his book, The Death and Life of American Journalism, which I highly recommend.

I frequent a lot of different online outlets, and most of them don't have any advertising at all.

Mick West said:

RT gets it's money from the Russian government. But then the BBC (kind of) gets its from the UK government.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by the BBC kind of get's funded by the UK govt? They get most of their funding from there. Don't forget PBS and NPR, which were both started by the state and remain largely funded by it. Of course, all of these entities will claim editorial independence, but you've got to wonder when RT only embeds with the Syrian army, and PBS only embeds with the rebels. It's quite obvious that all of these publications tend to toe their prospective govt's line on certain issues.

I personally believe that public funding of journalism is better than private funding. Like Prof. Robert McChesney, I think we should be allowed to allocate a certain amount of our taxes toward our media outlet of choice. This, as well as breaking up the media monopoly in which 90% of US media is owned by just 6 corporations.

Mick West said:

Funding is a good way or understanding an organization, but it it does not necessarily say anything about the factual content of a site.

Click to expand...

Funding certainly can say a lot about the factual content! Just look at all of Murdoch's minions...

Solastalgia said:

What do you mean by the BBC kind of get's funded by the UK govt? They get most of their funding from there.

Click to expand...

I mean they are directly funded by a license fee - a specific tax on anyone who owns a television. It's not exactly the same as being funded from the general budget.

Funding sources afford a case for scrutiny of how the facts are arranged and presented, and what leading questions are asked and for what purpose, and what questions are *not* asked.

Sometimes funding equals a specific view of the world to be presented - but to determine real deception one should look to whether the facts reported are true or selectively misleading.

Solastalgia said:

Don't forget PBS and NPR, which were both started by the state and remain largely funded by it.

Click to expand...

I do not think that is an apt description.

PBS gets about 15% of its total revenue from the government (via the Corp for Public Broadcasting)

Between 15 and 20 percent of the aggregate revenues of all public broadcasting stations have been funded from federal sources, principally through the CPB.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting

NPR even less- about 2%:

In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships.[19] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.[19] Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[19][30] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR’s overall revenues.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

Solastalgia said:

This, as well as breaking up the media monopoly in which 90% of US media is owned by just 6 corporations.

Click to expand...

you are no doubt referring to this handy graphic:

http://www.storyleak.com/graphic-6-corporations-own-90-percent-of-media/

Alas, not only is it factually wrong: GE doesn't own Comcast OR NBC, Time doesn't own Huffington Post, NFL.com is not owned by CBS-and there are more than 6 radios (15) stations in Minot, ND. There likely other errors and liberties taken with that graphic...

...but misleading as well- its claim of that "90% of what we read, watch or listen to" is controlled by those 6 companies is simply outlandish hyperbole not based in fact.

(how many US newspapers are included?)

(the graphic is probably deserved of its own thread)

SR1419 said:

I do not think that is an apt description. PBS gets about 15% of its total revenue from the government (via the Corp for Public Broadcasting)

Click to expand...

Yes, PBS gets 15% of it's total annual revenue from the government - their single largest financial backer. That's exactly what I was getting at before. Of course, there's the other 85% from all of the viewers and other organizations, etc. But none of them single handedly account for 15% of PBS's annual funding, the way that the CPB does. 15% of an entire organization's annual funding is a lot larger than what you seemingly imagine, SR1419.

SR1419 said:

NPR even less- about 2%:

Click to expand...

What's with all of the wikipedia? You should already know that it's an entirely unreliable source. You could've just gone to NPR's website, and not have to deal with dated or outright fallacious material.

On NPR's finances page for 2013 [*], it says that they get 11.4% annually from the CPB (fed govt fund) and 4.6% from other federal/state/local govt funding. Now, again, the largest percentage of their funding is from the listeners and other organizations. But no one, most certainly, is single handedly forking over 11.4% of NPR's annual funding. So, while it does get less than the 15% CPB for PBS; the govt is still their single largest financial backer.

PBS and NPR would have a hard time operating if it weren't for federal funding. As NPR says themselves on their financial page, "Federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public....The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thus weakening NPR."

There's a reason why they're called National Public Radio, and Public Broadcasting Service. They were originally established by the US government through congress and the CPB, and get a great amount of funding from it annually. That's all that I was saying before.

SR1419 said:

you are no doubt referring to this handy graphic:

http://www.storyleak.com/graphic-6-corporations-own-90-percent-of-media/

Alas, not only is it factually wrong: GE doesn't own Comcast OR NBC, Time doesn't own Huffington Post, NFL.com is not owned by CBS-and there are more than 6 radios (15) stations in Minot, ND. There likely other errors and liberties taken with that graphic...

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to that graphic, but rather Ben Bagdikian; a Pea Body Award winning investigative journalist/influential media critic, former dean of UCB's graduate journalism program, and former Washington Post national editor involved in the Pentagon Papers scandle. He's published six editions of his Media Monopoly book, which is where I got my information from.

It looks like the guy who made that graphic was trying to do his own updated version (2010-11) of what Bagdikian has documented since the early '80s (the monopolization of US media ownership by a handful of corporations).

I'll try to tackle your issues with this graphic the best that I can...

First off, the graphic doesn't say that Time Warner owns Huffington Post (as you say) (it says HBO, which is true), and I'm not seeing anything about radio stations in Minot, ND (where did you get that from?). As far as the rest goes; you do see that that this is dated from 2010-11, right? During that time period, there was, in fact, a big merger between GE and Comcast on NBC, which was entirely owned by GE before that (since 1986). Now, since March of this year, Comcast owns NBC in it's entirety. As far as CBS and the NFL goes, I do know that they've done a bunch of deals in the past. So I'd like you to verify that there wasn't anything happening there before 2011. Other than that, I'd probably agree with you on the graphic's validity. Especially b/c it's from 2010/11, and there's undoubtedly been some splits, mergers, and acquisitions, since then.

Mick West said:

I mean they are directly funded by a license fee - a specific tax on anyone who owns a television. It's not exactly the same as being funded from the general budget.

Click to expand...

Domestically, BBC TV is funded through the TV license fee (which the UK govt sets BTW, and might be cutting as of recently). But BBC Worldwide (what the rest of us non-Brits get) is mostly funded by UK government grants from their foreign interests department. The BBC got around 270 million pounds from the UK govt for 2012-13; as listed in their annual financial statements [*].

Pete Tar said:

Funding sources afford a case for scrutiny of how the facts are arranged and presented, and what leading questions are asked and for what purpose, and what questions are *not* asked.

Sometimes funding equals a specific view of the world to be presented - but to determine real deception one should look to whether the facts reported are true or selectively misleading.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more Pete; we're on the same page here. What I was getting at before - with "debunking" through funding - is more along the lines of the recent Mint Press funding scandal. I think a better word to use, would be 'exposed.'

Solastalgia said:

Yes, PBS gets 15% of it's total annual revenue from the government - their single largest financial backer. That's exactly what I was getting at before. Of course, there's the other 85% from all of the viewers and other organizations, etc. But none of them single handedly account for 15% of PBS's annual funding, the way that the CPB does. 15% of an entire organization's annual funding is a lot larger than what you seemingly imagine, SR1419.

Click to expand...

Not to make it about semantics - but your initial post said that NPR and PBS were "largely funded by the state". To me, and indeed to most standard dictionaries, that means the majority of their funding would come from the government- which obviously isn't the case. Indeed, their funding largely comes from other sources.

SR1419 said:

Not to make it about semantics - but your initial post said that NPR and PBS were "largely funded by the state". To me, and indeed to most standard dictionaries, that means the majority of their funding would come from the government

Click to expand...

I apologize for my poor choice of wording there. What I meant was the single largest funding source, when I said "largely funded by." I thought I cleared that up within the first couple sentences of the reply. Remember:

Solastalgia said:

their single largest financial backer. That's exactly what I was getting at before.

Click to expand...

SR1419 said:

which obviously isn't the case. Indeed, their funding largely comes from other sources.

Click to expand...

I covered that twice in the post. Remember?