British flooding
•
6 Sep 2008, 21:52
•
Journals
The BBC has finally written something about the flooding in the North East of England (read here). My village, Rothbury, is mentioned numerous times as it's getting quite bad.
"The town of Rothbury is almost cut off and several motorists are reported to have been caught out by the rising water."
The river has probably widened (at the point in the pictures) by three/four times, and depth wise, it's usually a couple of feet, but it's closer to 15 ft.
"The town of Rothbury is almost cut off and several motorists are reported to have been caught out by the rising water."
The river has probably widened (at the point in the pictures) by three/four times, and depth wise, it's usually a couple of feet, but it's closer to 15 ft.
If you want information on a basic level, then Reuters, Associated Press and the Press Association (UK only news agency) are probably the best bet in the West. But, they suffer from PR and a lack of funding like most news organisations. The difference is, they don't pretend that they're passing the truth on.
The BBC on the other hand, is so good at coverage (the sheer volume of subject), that it basically kills any internet only news websites in the UK. While it's also vulnerable to the same problems other organisations face, the fact that's predominately funded through a license fee means it can maintain some integrity.
As far as I know, though don't quote me on this, I believe the BBC is the biggest news agency in the world. Which, if true, is quite an achievement considering the size difference between markets.
I personally use a number of different sources to get my news; the Guardian (daily 'paper and website), the Times (website and Sunday Times 'paper) and the Independent (website).
I've just subscribed to the Guardian Weekly (newspaper) which focuses on international news and uses content from the Observer (the Guardian on Sunday basically), the Washington Post and Le Monde. I'll occasionally read the New York Times or some other American website purely out of boredom, though, not often.
The internet is great as a tool to pass information on, but there's no such thing as an internet only news agency. The likes of Yahoo or Google, generate about 95% or more of their news stories from press releases so you can trust them as far as you can throw them basically.
(Long reply ^^)
CNN has huge political backgrounds within the democratic party I think, its international yea but tends to cover up or expose where it seems fit.
b) CNN is a commercial organisation.
c) The main income for the BBC comes from the UK television license, meaning the BBC is held accountable (by the BBC Trust) for any money it spends.
In summary, because the BBC is publicly funded, it means that it's less (on paper) political and commercial "bias," and it (should) produce higher quality content. But, it means there's a heavy focus on UK coverage instead of international.
Though, when the two organisations fight on equal terms - "despite its domestic standing, CNN remains a distant second in international news coverage, reaching just over half of the audience of the older BBC World News".
:P
thing is, many people actually undermine the influence of Britain on other countries, especially former colonies. the rest have probably been wronged by the US in one way or another, and can't stand relating to anything American. Any peasant can look through the blatant propaganda of CNN; I'd really be surprised if CNN had anything close to the number of viewers the BBC gets.
i never disputed how/what/where the BBC is in relation to CNN, I only disputed the fact that you kinda narrowed down to CNN = US, BBC = UK.
Chaiten Volcano Chile 2008
P.S: more pictures on Google/images: Volacan Chaiten :D
lol xD