to be fair, today's BBC would also have buckled in three seconds. after blair got the beeb's head during the doctor kelly/'sexed-up dossier' affair, the BBC has been positively american in its establishment mouthpieceness.

In the past decade I've noticed a convergence of elite media. I see no discernible difference among PBSNPRNYTBBC.

It's a single medium preaching (in one version of the English language or another) the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon iteration of Neo-Liberalism.

The same "pundits" appear on this dreary PBSNPRNYTBBC merry-go-round.

Whee.....

They wouldn't be priveleged unless God wanted them to be priveleged, and the rest wouldn't be poor for the same reason, don't you know. My fabulous new 150 foot yacht is God's way of saying "Attaboy!" Divine rights and all that, what?

Dumpster diving at closing time behind the KFC, hoping the line ain't too long. What a world! Crazy sure, but the kids get hungry and gotta eat.

Margaret Thatcher did not come into office as PM until 1979. If the Age of Uncertainly originated as a BBC show and came out in 1977, it would be hard for her to prevent its being shown. Is there more to the chronology that i'm missing?

Margaret Thatcher did not come into office as PM until 1979. If the Age of Uncertainly originated as a BBC show and came out in 1977, it would be hard for her to prevent its being shown. Is there more to the chronology that i'm missing?

Margaret Thatcher did not come into office as PM until 1979. If the Age of Uncertainly originated as a BBC show and came out in 1977, it would be hard for her to prevent its being shown. Is there more to the chronology that i'm missing?

Margaret Thatcher was the leader of the opposition party in 1977, as Labour was in power at that time. Per Wikipedia, "The leader of the British Conservative Party, Margaret Thatcher, and Keith Joseph objected to the screening of the series by the BBC as they perceived it too biased for a state-run TV station."

logorrhea,

You responded to one of derek's questions, but what about the other two?

I'm struck by this line, "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." Although it is off topic, this is what I've been saying for some time about global warming: isn't even a small risk of catastrophe worth cutting today's profits by the smallest amount?

I had thought that this was a good argument for conservatives, but I'm afraid Galbraith's quote is too true.

a number of episodes or episode segments of the bbc show are listed as available on youtube

PBS did, actually, decide not to pick up a similar show, Moyers & Company, just last year.

While Bill Moyers is again on many PBS stations, his show is not being distributed by the network. They reportedly didn't have an available time slot for it. That's a nice way of saying, take your commie ideas and get stuffed.

Agreed that Auntie Beeb is a pale shadow of her former great self. And it is the fault of craven scum in both the Tory and 'Labour' parties -- and most of all the utterly despicable gobshite, Tony Blaire.

specifically,

"Anything that is disagreeable must surely have beneficial economic effects."

if it is disagreeable to people other than themselves and their families. in a (masochistic) way, it's kind of comforting to know that the 1% are exactly the same, the world over. the same people who happily support wars, that other people are actually fighting and dying in.

keep banging this drum. It will be heard.

The late 70s, yes, I remember it well. That's when PBS gave us the wonderful series Free To Choose, hosted by Milton Friedman and his Shit-Eating Grin.

If money is life force, and the politician/capitalist is the ego/nervous system/christ figure... what am I?

They wouldn't be privileged unless they were hardwired to be privileged! It's in their genes!

Duncan, where does he say that? You seem to be responding still to that stupid post from like two years ago where he generalized about male behavior in terms of a genetic imperative to reproduce. I agreed with you about that one, but I don't see any of that here.

StO, I didn't mean that Jon was saying it. But as you know, belief in the genetic superiority of the privileged is widespread, especially among the privileged. I was just saying it before someone else said it.

Actually, I was thinking of a stupid post (by someone else, as I recall) even longer ago which argued that human beings are hardwired for imperialism or something. Not that there's anything wrong with having a long memory.

Its just GREED for power and money. Nothing to do with genetics or much of anything else other than the stupidity that goes with it. Nothing more, nothing less. GREED always harms society in general, just as much as Stupid. Those less lucky PAY the most and SUFFER the most.

Duncan, I misread you. I guess when I saw "hardwired" I jumped to the description of their "behavior," rather than thinking you were joking that the social relationship of privilege itself is hardwired, which is, I think, an even harder sell in this day and age. After all, this great nation is a meritocracy, where the deserving pull themselves up by their bootstraps to rightfully oppress others.

StO, you might also notice that I was reacting not to anything Jon wrote, but to a comment by Leo DeGrance.

Thanks for passing that on. La plus ca change, etc.

"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage."

This is why, when they act this way (it's not actually *universal*, merely 99% of the elite), they need to be completely destroyed.