What is so wrong with being right wing?

[BBSA]

In other words, they keep interviewing right wingers...

I think most of the conspiracy theorist nutjobs came from the left.

 

[semiautomatix]

An ultra-right party may consider a simple right-wing party left of its position (relative to it’s posture). A moderate party would consider the simple right-wing party, right. It can be both left and right at the same time. Besides, it would be right relative to the government benchmark (which defines centre). You don’t have to be fascist to be right and communist to be left.

Where would the Northern European countries fall in your absolute definition? They have a socialistic dimension but they are not communist. They have a fascist dimension but they are not fascist.

No, you are either right or left (or possibly central) as defined by your policies. It is not relative to the ruling party at all, ever. It is a method of classification, not relative position.

The left wing isn't communist, but communism is a left wing ideology. The right wing isn't fascist, but fascism is a right wing ideology. There are many, many scales on each side ranging from centre to far, but it's much like saying France is in the Northern Hemisphere, and Britain is in the Northern Hemisphere but just because you're standing in Britain doesn't put France, which is south of your current position, in the Southern Hemisphere.

Well, the right wing tends to be associated more with 'conservative' values (with a small 'c')... the status quo and tradition. They tend to be me tougher on law and order than the left, and emphasise the importance of free trade and low taxation policies, often cutting tax when in power. A welfare state may be seen as important, but not the extent as for a more left wing society.

The right essentially plays up the role of the individual, and in an extreme right wing view, like atomism, there may be no society, but only a collection of individuals. Extreme right wing views are those such as fascism. Most governments these days move away from the right to the centre.

The left wing, on the other hand, is associated much more with what may be termed more liberal values, the role of society, and the community as a whole. Law and order policies tend to be more relaxed, taxation is increased by large amounts as they look to create a safety net and look after the poorer members of society through a more robust healthcare system etc.

The autonomy and role of the individual is undermined much more in such a system, and the state plays a larger role in people's lives. Many governments of today occupy a centre-left position. These governments are more likely to experience poor law and order records, and declining success of businesses, due to the taxation policies and more relaxed approach to law and order.

An extreme left wing view is something like communism, which looks exclusively at the community as a whole, to the detriment of the individuals that constitute that community. Both extremes lead to very unpleasant systems under which to live.

 

[Palimino]

BBC is the most politically correct of them all. They've been caught out lying and defrauding so many times it's a joke.

I reached this conclusion when Al Jazeera hosted a media debate. French TV, BBC and others were all there tearing into one another like wolves. The BBC representative mentioned that his station (BBC) was the most objective. I expected his throat to be torn-out. There was no argument from the other representatives. He said this twice (at different points). Smoke? Fire?

As for SKY being Republican...

Check-out the ownership maps.

RT is the worst. They regularly interview conspiracy theorist nutjobs basically anybody no matter how insane.

I never found this.

 

[Alan]

I reached this conclusion when Al Jazeera hosted a media debate. French TV, BBC and others were all there tearing into one another like wolves. The BBC representative mentioned that his station (BBC) was the most objective. I expected his throat to be torn-out. There was no argument from the other representatives. He said this twice (at different points). Smoke? Fire?

From those at the BBC themselves

Confessions of a BBC liberal

But in the longer term I believe that the second change is even more significant. It started with the BBC’s own report on impartiality that effectively admitted to an institutional “liberal” bias among programme makers. Previously these accusations had been dismissed as a right-wing rant, but since the report was published even the BBC’s allies seem to accept it.

But we were not just anti-Macmil-lan; we were antiindustry, anti-capital-ism, antiadvertising, antiselling, antiprofit, antipatriotism, antimonarchy, antiempire, antipolice, antiarmed forces, antibomb, antiauthority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place – you name it, we were anti it.

Former United States Editor and an Assistant Editor of The Times who worked at the BBC.....

Its Middle East coverage is notoriously one-sided. Its pro-Palestinian bias is so marked that recently the London bureau chief of the Jerusalem Post refused to take part in any more BBC news programs because he believed the corporation was actually fomenting anti-Semitism. If anti-Americanism is on the rise in the world, the BBC can take a fair share of the credit; much of its U.S. coverage depicts a cartoonish image of a nation of obese, Bible-wielding halfwits, blissfully dedicated to shooting or suing each other.

Its suppositions are recognizable as those of self-appointed liberal elites everywhere: American power is bad; European multilateralism is good; organized religion is a weird vestige of unenlightened barbarism; atheism is rational man's highest intellectual achievement; Israel (especially Ariel Sharon) is evil; Palestinians (especially Yasser Arafat) are innocent victims; business is essentially corrupt, or at best simply boring; poverty is the result of government failure; economic success is the product of exploitation or crookedness. And so on.

This will be familiar to consumers of news in much of the United States. Liberal media bias is by now, fortunately, increasingly widely recognized. But the difference is that BBC bias is so much more powerful and much more pernicious because the BBC is still seen by viewers and listeners, in Britain and around the world, as objective. And when the BBC conveys its slanted views of the world, there is very little means of checking and correcting it.

When is a terrorist not a terrorist? When he is on the BBC, of course. Where - according to the corporation's editorial guidelines - "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding".

Bomber, attacker, insurgent, militant - all are fine by the Beeb because they carry no "emotional or value judgments". And heaven forbid anyone get emotional about the deaths of at least 52 people in the London bombings last week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3618339/BBC-language-that-Labour-loves-to-hear.html


I could go on and on. Perhaps include there doctoring of film of the queen and defrauding viewers with fake phone in competitions.....

Check-out the ownership maps.

So? It doesn't explain how Rubin got his own prime time show

I never found this.

Russia Today has aired many reports during the last year on the 9/11 truth movement’s activities and news, from a Niels Harrit interview on nanothermite (see below), to covering some Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth historic events, to this protest on the day of the 8th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

http://world911truth.org/911-truth-movement-demands-answers-by-russia-today/

'9/11 was an inside job' - US poet Jerry Mazza tells RussiaToday

 

[Palimino]

From those at the BBC themselves

My post was also “From those at the BBC themselves”.

Previously these accusations had been dismissed as a right-wing rant, but since the report was published even the BBC’s allies seem to accept it.

It sounds like a ‘right-wing rant’. In the debate I watched, even the BBC’s opposition seem to accept their reputation for objectivity.

...the BBC can take a fair share of the credit; much of its U.S. coverage depicts a cartoonish image of a nation of obese, Bible-wielding halfwits, blissfully dedicated to shooting or suing each other.

<snicker> Sounds accurate.

 

[Maximus]

Very interesting discussion at the Hudson Institute about the book Liberal Fascism here: http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Jonah_Goldberg_on_Liberal_Fascism

 

[Palimino]

<snicker> Sounds accurate.

...the BBC can take a fair share of the credit; much of its U.S. coverage depicts a cartoonish image of a nation of obese, Bible-wielding halfwits, blissfully dedicated to shooting or suing each other.

This is how mature nations conduct themselves. The English cast aspersions on French sexual habits and hygiene. The French make derogatory observations about English cooking and character. This has been going on for centuries. The English also lampoon the Irish. They return the favour by putting the boot into the English. The French consider themselves superior to all European Francophone countries. The French French and the Swiss French both look down on the Belgian French. The English reduce the Germans to stuttering rage by continually reminding them who won WW2.

No-one seriously thinks that Muslims carry bombs in their turbans (massive humour failure here [probably cultural]). Blondes of all nations have a hard time. Etc.

 

[WilD_CaT]

it's democracy that counts and that will not be taken away by either side.

Hitler was initially democratically elected. Majority rule is not the answer.

 

[SmartKit]

Hitler was initially democratically elected. Majority rule is not the answer.

Not as the Greeks envisioned. Essentially 49% of the population can be forced to do something that is against their choice. How is this fair?