BBC spreads anti-Linux propoganda after M$ deal

[tomcat1965]

Those of you living in the USA are lucky not to have a state propoganda machine like the BBC about an hour ago I was chatting to a friend in Florida who couldn't believe we have to pay tax just to own a TV or PC able to receive TV. And that that tax $200!! funds a state controlled broadcasting corporation just like North Korea,only our commie friends dont suffer from Eastenders.
After recently signing a massive deal with Microsoft they are now broadcasting anti-Linux propoganda,and giving Microsofts line about open source=insecure because the source code is available to everyone?!!! They even had a know nothing from Christian Aid who said because they send money world-wide they couldn't use open source software because "everyone would be able to poke around in it"!!! This misrepresentation about open source went unchallenged by the program(On the world service),as did the statements that Linux was impossible for ordinary people because most hardware doesn't work and that its too hard to learn.
All very strange after signing up to M$ for another multi million $ waste of tax payers money.
Poor old OsX got dismissed out of hand!.....wonder why that was
This is the second recent BBC rant following on from the infamous M$ peice about "The real cost" of Linux. In this last program Christian aid actually went on to give a M$ advert about other M$ products!!!
Go to the BBC's technology page at the news site and listen.

[Roxoff]

Hmmm, perhaps it's time for a little chat with our MP's. I dont like the idea of my tax money being handed over to an already over-rich global monopoly. And the BBC is supposed to remain utterly neutral and ubiased. If its taking sides, then our government should be told. I dont think they need too many excuses to tell the BBC to stop relying on the License Fee.

[Roxoff]

Hmmm, so here's the link. I've not listened, but I've read the article. It looks to me like there's several issues:

- Microsoft gave Christian Aid a whopping discount to stay with Windows.
- Christian Aid dont seem to have cottoned on that community support is not only available, but is significantly better than many premium-rate commercial support services.
- They did this deal and didn't even ask me if I'd help support a Linux service, which I might well have done, had they bothered to ask.
- Christian Aid dont understand what 'peer review' means, and why it makes Open Source considerably stronger than proprietary software.

It's all summed up at the end by Bill Thompson:

"But it isn't as simple as saying, 'Linux is complicated; Windows isn't." These are all complex systems, and the key thing is generally to find something that works for you."

[tomcat1965]

I agree with you about contacting your local MP,every user of Open Source software should,did you know there are moves in France to ban,(yes ban!) free software and in the USA to kill off P2P software hidden in popularist legislation ostensibly to counter spyware. Every OS I have downloaded has been via bittorrent.
The BBC are meant to be unbiased and impartial but if I hadn't already been using Open source and Linux I would have been totally put off,especially as they claim its insecure and too hard to learn.

[fingal]

Hmm I'll check that out later this evening. With regard to the BBC: I don't own a TV, but I catch broadcasts here and there when I feel like it from friends & relatives. I could get a TV very cheaply, but the truth is I can't be bothered to watch the tired old dross churned out by the Beeb. Life without TV is actually fine. I watch films on my computer, chat online, listen to music and my time is my own.

I do write to my MP about open source from time to time, and the politicians are quite happy to reply. Once I was invited to an open political meeting to discuss open source, but I didn't go. It was clear from the literature I received that - even though I don't consider myself an expert - I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing it with people from outside the *nix community. I would have had to explain what open source actually is ...

Having said that I don't agree that the BBC is a 'state propaganda machine.' The World Service is valued across the globe for providing impartial news coverage, and is valued by countries that don't allow free speech. They are just a bit dim sometimes and get their facts wrong. The best response is to contact them and put them right.

[tomcat1965]

.

Having said that I don't agree that the BBC is a 'state propaganda machine.' The World Service is valued across the globe for providing impartial news coverage, and is valued by countries that don't allow free speech. They are just a bit dim sometimes and get their facts wrong. The best response is to contact them and put them right. [/QUOTE]

Would have to take issue with that,they lied about the Soviets butchering Poles during WW2,on Government orders,they lied about the number of Luftwaffe aircraft shot down,they lied about the existence of the V2 rocket. And today they are heavily biased against Israel. Don't trust the BBC, it has it's own agenda and forces the taxpayer to fund it,not even Microsoft makes you pay for windows whether you want it or not,although they are surely working on it!

[smolloy]

Those of you living in the USA are lucky not to have a state propoganda machine like the BBC.

As someone from the UK living in the USA I realise how lucky the UK is to have the BBC. The BBC is a much more balanced (imho) news source than anything I have seen in the USA, and, since the BBC does not have advertisements, it keeps the level of advertising on the other stations to a minimum. The US has no ad-free stations, so there is no force limiting the amount of adverts people have to suffer -- and the ratio of commercials to actual programming in the US has to be seen to be believed!! The lack of good news, however, is the biggest problem in my mind.

Also, the fact that you have to pay to receive it is of no consequence. I live in San Francisco, and it is impossible for me to receive any of the "free" stations since the signals are too weak to see. I would have to pay for cable if I wanted to watch TV (which I don't).

The BBC are not flawless, but UK TV is a lot better off for their existence. Your claim that they are a "propaganda machine" is a little exaggerated and emotional, don't you think?

[eraker]

"Having said that I don't agree that the BBC is a 'state propaganda machine.' The World Service is valued across the globe for providing impartial news coverage, and is valued by countries that don't allow free speech. They are just a bit dim sometimes and get their facts wrong. The best response is to contact them and put them right."

Here in the US, I turn to BBC news exclusively for international and even domestic (US) news. I have found it to be far more unbiased than news I've encountered in the US, where bias is often based on the selection of stories more than the tone in which they are communicated, and I have found BBC correspondents much more willing to engage in what I would consider to be a journalist's mission: reasoned criticism of the status quo.

For insta,ce interviews with public officials are much more satisfying to watch when the interviewer is working for BBC news because their correspondents ask much more difficult, pertinent, and interesting questions. Journalists in the US demure and often neglect to ask obvious critical questions because it may be seen as impolite, or an attack, or a bias.

In addition to this, I find it interesting that the BBC is a government-run service that works so well. Here in the United States we have privately funded news corporations and they rely on advertising and often exclusively offer the agendas of their funders. Beyond this, they often give only two possibilities: completely safe "information" or tabloid-style sensationalism. The reason for this is obvious: they need as many viewers as possible to bring in the most advertising dollars. For this reason, they either try too hard not to offend, or they work too hard to dramatize events that become comic or ridiculous in the process. For evidence of this, consider the way in which The Daily Show has made a whole genre out of making fun of the clumsy ineptitude of American news channels that results from their dull safe news or their tabloid sensationalism. The whole style of the Daily Show is derived from taking this paradoxical position of corporate news and showing it for how ridiculous it is.

Thus, you should be thankful for what you have. I'm just happy to have the internet.

[burntfuse]

Beyond this, they often give only two possibilities: completely safe "information" or tabloid-style sensationalism.

Heh. "There's a bomb sitting in everyone's house right at this very moment, just waiting to go off. Yes, everyone's. It's YOUR REFRIGERATOR!!! Tune in at 11 when we talk about this rash of exploding 'fridge compressors. COULD YOU BE NEXT???" Seriously, that's almost what they're like (I live in the US and have seen way too much of that stuff).

About the actual article: I don't know whether the BBC is unbiased or not, but that's a really misleading article. Just more FUD - they say that "Linux can cost more in support", but they never say that it will or show ANY evidence that it will. Hardware and usability aren't problems anymore. Even an idiot could use GNOME, and the polished mainstream distros work on most hardware. If you build your computers, there are plenty of lists of supported hardware, and if you buy them premade, there are companies which sell boxes with Linux pre-installed.

Besides, how is a charity deciding NOT to go with Linux a story anyways?

[CheatMasta]

Disgusting. None of them know what they're talking about, but what do you expect, they're being paid. That's why Linux will always win for being a community rather than a faceless corporation.

Oh, and in that article, it says Linux has a lack off support? HA! What, again, is "The Linux community"? It's a HUGE support group, who actually KNOW what they're doing, rather than calling some guy half-way around the world who only knows the answers he was trained to answer. While Linux users experience first-hand. Also, a charity using windows? LOL