[quote=NEON DEON]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by madDdog67
Protecting the rights of the minority and letting the minority dictate what the majority can/can't do are two vastly different things.[/quote
Yes they are.
That however has nothing to do with impartial new broadcasts.
|
yes, but your basic premise that a broadcast is flawed merely because the news is read by someone with a cross around their neck is nonsensical. And, honestly, I would have expected someone who most likely reads the LA Times every day to have realized that the "news" is anything BUT impartial. Especially in the U.S., the "news" exists merely to sell advertising, and further the political agenda of the owner/editorial staff.
Isn't the BBC government owned? If you think they've destroyed their impartiality by allowing one news-reader to wear a cross, you should be absolutely apoplectic over the fact the the .gov *owns* the organization.
