I have posted three articles to illustrate some of the current social, economic, and political debates raging in Parliament right now, more specifically, in the House of Commons. I want you to read all three articles and answer the following questions, then respond to another of your classmates answers as well, disagreeing, agreeing, or raising another question. I want these posts to take on a life of their own (don't simply respond "I agree with you" I want some real critical thinking displayed here, you're supposed to be some of the best young minds in the nation, prove it) and as always, only constructive criticism! Opinions should be backed up with facts and logic. Any nastiness will not be tolerated. Nobody likes trolls, especially the British kind!
A few more things that will apply to all future blog assignments. You must be logged in. No anonymous posting or you don't get credit. Also, post your answers with the number of the question you are answering leading the post to expedite and focus any responses. (e.g." #1. The article on tax breaks illustrated...") Do not post answers to all 4 questions in one post. In the end you should post 4 times, with each post starting with the corresponding question number. If you do not understand, email me.
1. Which of the three articles did the best job of highlighting some of the policy differences between the political parties in the UK? What were some of those policy differences?
2. Which issue (social, economic, political) should be a priority for these British lawmakers? Why?
3. What is the most interesting thing that you learned about the UK while reading these articles? What would you like to learn more about?
4. Does the fact that the BBC is a state-owned media outlet diminish the reliability of it's reporting? Why or why not? Would you generalize your answer to include all publicly owned media outlets or does context matter? Explain.
4) I do not believe that the fact that the BBC is state owned has any significant effect on its reliability as a source of information at the present time. If we were discussing a news outlet in a less developed democracy such as Nigeria (where public media has a huge, growing influence) where corruption is rampant, then I would fully expect reliability to be affected, but since there is no true "ruling class" in British politics and the fact that it has a functioning advanced democracy lends me to believe that the chances of it being truly biased are low. Will there be a little bit? Of course, no news outlet is 100% neutral, but those three articles seemed quite objective. In fact, I would suggest that privately-run news outlets would have a greater chance of unreliabilty in news reporting, since the bottom line is more of a priority than objective reporting. As the example with Nigeria would suggest, of course, I believe that context is important in analyzing these cases, because while I believe the BBC is reliable, that may not be the case in a less-developed country.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I think the only way state run media works is with a coalition government. With a system like ours, I think the news would be generally biased toward whichever group controlled the executive branch.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete3) The most interesting thing I learned was how a non two-party democracy works in getting legislation passed. Yes, the Tories and Lib Dems are the two main factions, but the third parties have a strong enough presence that they are ACTUALLY relevant in day-to-day politics. The whole concept of a "coalition government" is so foreign to us and I'm genuinely curious as to how it works, especially the one between the Tories and Lib Dems.
ReplyDeleteMeant to say Labour, not Lib Dem, my bad. Too many L names
DeleteI agree, it is such a different concept. It would be interesting to see how the political spectrum in the US would shift if the parties actually had to work together to get their legislation across. Do you think this would be beneficial in our country though, or do you prefer the system we have now?
DeleteI don't think anyone in their right mind would prefer the system we have now. Of course, I would like to study exactly what effects have a coalition-based political system and see how that would actually apply to American society, but in my opinion our current two-party system results in 10% Passing Legislation, 90% Friction across party lines. The coalition government requires that parties make concessions to get things done, while when one party has the majority they need to do no such thing. Good if your party is the one in power, bad for democracy as a whole.
DeleteI agree. This seems like a very intriguing topic to investigate and is something I actually bumped into when I wrote my extended essay on political realignments, which are massive electoral shifts in which political parties essentially reverse roles. I found that realignments not only are transformations in the demographic composition of parties but also can stimulate significant policy advancements. For example, in the New Deal Realignment the Democrats began to attract African American voters (who were historically members of the Republican Party) and eventually supporting Civil Rights and the Republican Party moved away from its advocacy of Civil Rights and began to gain more Southern Whites, a group that traditionally voted Democratic. These shifts eventually culminated in the passing of the Civil Rights Act that completed the role reversal of the parties.
DeleteAnyway, the reason I am sharing this is because I think one of the reasons we are able to make significant policy changes like the Civil Rights Act is because of the two-party system that fosters occasional shifts and transformations, which mobilize the policymakers to acquiesce to the new demands of the people. I think that with a multi-party based system, these changes would be more difficult though, because the system would be too divided with multiple perspectives and the attitude would be always to seek a compromise instead of adopt revolutionary policy. Nonetheless, with the current political gridlock it is difficult to argue the merits of our current system, which rather than producing revolutionary policy is mired in a stalemate. But I just thought I would share this other perspective on two-party vs. multi-party systems.
The economic article did the best job of explaining the issue, and that may have indeed been because it best illustrated the sides the parties have taken on this issue. The conservatives want to cut the income tax rate to 40p for those earning above 150,000£. They previously partnered with the Lib Dems to lower the tax rate to 45. In return, the Lib Dems received a raise on the amount of income earned before paying income tax. The Labour Party opposes any further cuts and would reraise the rate to 50.
ReplyDelete1) The 45p article was the one I felt best illustrated party differences because it focused mainly on the economic policy conflicts between the Tories and Lib Dems. The Tories seem to advocate for a lower tax rate, while the Lib Dems wish for the tax rate to remain near the rate it is now. From my own research, this makes sense, as the Tories appear to be more business-oriented and economically right while the Lib Dems are focused on more socialist policies while maintaining a strong free-market and individual liberties. The Labour party seems to cater mostly to the working class (thus the name) and views the government as a tool to be used to create equal opportunity in British society. While the Labour and Lib Dems are more socially progressive (more so than Democrats) the Tories are not quite as right as Republicans. Another of the largest issues I found was the idea of joining the European Union. On this issue the Labour and Lib Dems are more for the idea than the Euro-skeptical Tories, which seemed to suggest to me that in Britain the political debates are much more heavily economic-centered than the United States, and for the most part British parties, while they don't all completely agree, are not quite as divided as the US.
ReplyDeleteI kind of disagree about the parties not being as divided. I think they are still just as divided, just over issues that are not as big a topic in the US. With a democratic history as long as theirs, I still think it would be hard to them to get along if one side fundamentally disagrees with the others view.
Delete3.) One of the best things I learned was that British politicians are wonderfully sarcastic. But on a serious note, I find the most interesting feature of these articles is that British politicians are not above many of the petty tactics common to U.S. Congressmen. In much the same way that a representative will take a photo-op with kids right before launching an educational bill, MP Milliband surrounded himself with women before charging PM Cameron about the lack of women in Parliament.
ReplyDeleteAs far as what I would like to learn more about, I would be greatly interested in learning more about Britain's current foreign policy now that they don't own half the world.
My first answer was to #1. Writing on iPhones is hard
ReplyDelete4. I think Matt made some good points about the BBC as a reliable news source. Personally, I think that state owned agencies (in an advanced democracy) would limit the political bias the company would express, because they are responsible for the impartial reporting of news for all individuals. Privately owned companies are more inclined to have independent agendas. This is evident in many American news agencies, like FOX, which are accused of political bias. However, I think that not ALL publicly owned companies would be so impartial to reporting. it depends on the political ideology the country follows, Chinese news agencies would not be unbiased in their presentation of events. The 3 articles effectively explained the political situation and showed no inclination towards a view point.
ReplyDeleteYou argument is very valid Maryam. The fact that he political ideology of the country that owns the agency must be considered is something I did not consider. But even more than ideology must be considered the degree to which the country is submersed in that ideology must be considered. It makes sense that BBC would try and be as impartial as possible in order to allow the people/ readers to make their own judgments, an occurrence that would be limited in under-developed democratic countries like Nigeria where corrupt leaders are expected to foster partial presentations of the news.
Delete1) I think that the economics article does the best job at showing the differences between the different parties in the UK. One of the largest areas that political parties will likely have widely varying views on is economics. Similar to how it is here in the United States, their conservative party wants to see the tax rate lowered, at least to the point where it is closer to the levels of other European countries. The Labor party, having the opposite view of the Tories, wants to increase the tax rate to 50p for people who make at least £150,000 per year. According to the article, the Liberal Democrats were not happy with the previous move from 50p to 45p last year. The Liberal Democrats’ unhappiness with this result as well as Labor’s desire to raise the tax rate shows how the two groups want to have a larger government involvement with the people and other events that occur in the country. If they have a larger budget, then they can do more with it. On the other hand, the Tory’s desire to lower the tax rate shows how they want the government to have less involvement in the daily life of a normal British person.
ReplyDelete2) I think that the union changes should be a priority for the British lawmakers. According to my understanding of the article, it looks like what Ed Miliband is trying to accomplish would benefit the common people of Britain. In the article, he says: “For too long politics has been out of touch with working people and people from all walks of life. These changes will help bridge the gap between Westminster and the rest of Britain.” I think that if they can get more people to participate in their government, then they can have more voters who know what they are voting for. Having a population that knows what is going on in their government is a good thing because then the people can make more informed decisions when they vote, and they can more easily hold the politicians accountable when they do not follow through with what they said they would do.
ReplyDeleteI agree to an extent, but we have the electoral college in our country and justify it through saying we still need a few people to finish the voting. If the people are directly in charge of their party it's not an issue, but in a system where the government elects its leader, I think it's best that the average people still have the buffer from being able to directly elect their party members.
DeleteThe problem with their current system is that trade unions get a third of the say in electing party leadership. This is disproportionate as it gives unions (American examples of the Teamsters, AFL-CIO) as strong say in party leadership. It would be great if the MPs voted on their own for their leader (like the U.S. Speaker of the House), but this system allows unions to get a huge say in the leadership.
Delete3) What I found most interesting is that the tax rate in Britain is 45%. To me, that seems like a high number. I don’t have a job right now so I don’t know how high the taxes are here, but I would not like to give up about half of the money I would make to the government. I think I would like to learn more about where all of that money goes. I don’t live in the UK so I don’ know where all of the money goes that they pay in taxes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on that Tim. I do have a job and I don't like having the tax cut, especially since I don't file my own taxes because my parents still claim me. The 45% is relatively high, but you have to remember that Britain is a welfare state, so there is a reason the taxes can be so high - the healthcare is all completely state run. There is also the funding for schools, police, fire, museums, parks, roadways, etc. The taxes pretty much go into a pot and are used for whatever, which I do not completely agree with- as I think each part of the budget should be balanced separately.
Delete4) I think that the fact that the BBC is stated owned has little to do with the reliability of its reporting. If the people who are in power in the government have any control over what is and is not said on BBC, then I would feel it to be less reliable, but I really don’t think this is the case here . In fact, I think a state owned media outlet could work very well. If they do not need to worry about simply getting views like if they were private, then the reporters can worry about reporting important stories that would actually benefit the people viewing them. Here in the United States, I feel that some news stations say things just to get more views to make more money without really doing any research to back things up. All of this being said, I do not believe that all publicly owned media outlets have the same reliability as the BBC. I know that in North Korea, the media is very strictly controlled. Any reporting done in North Korea must praise the leader, anything else is prohibited. This has led to no freedom of speech in the country, and the people do not even know what is happening elsewhere in their own country.
ReplyDelete4.) I agree with Matt's points about the level of bias in state owned media. There is no way to eliminate bias in media, but a publicly sponsored news station does eliminate the bias that is attributed to a privately owned news station, where the news has to advertise to advertisers as much as viewers.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, a state run news agency in an authoritarian country is bound to have bias, much like a public army in an authoritarian country will be much more aggressive in enforcing the governments agenda. However, in a moderate democracy, a news state agency is nowhere near as aggressive and is somewhat effective at revealing the uglier side of the government as seen in the social article.
2. I’m honestly not sure which policy the British law makers should focus on, but the union article seems to be very important to the political structure of the UK. The "one member, one vote" system would really help to bring individual union members, rather than entire unions, into policy making. I personally think that a reform like that is really radical, but also beneficial to the common man, and also non-members.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think the changes are radical, but if the political system is as polarized/discriminatory as the Labour Party claims it is, I think the change is an admirable goal to work towards. I just think that maybe the members will have to take the time to consider what is most important to them - being part of the group's effort, or their own. If they want individual representation, maybe they should stop fighting as a unit.
Delete2.) I believe that the political issue is the most pressing issues of the three at this time. The idea that union reps get a larger say in MP leadership selections ( if I read the article) correctly is very upsetting, as it goes against one of the tenents of democracy (equal voting ability). This is a dire issue that needs to be solved in order to purify the notion of a advanced democracy.
ReplyDelete1. I believe the economic article did the best job of highlighting policy differences. It was easy to see the two different views, that of the Conservatives wishing to lower the tax to 40p, the Labour to raise it to 50p, and the Lib Dems to keep it at 45p. The article was objective, and overall fairly easy to understand.
ReplyDelete2. I thought that the social issue is the most important one for the government to focus on. It appeared that the Labour party packed their bench to make a point of showing they had women in government, while the Conservatives had an all male bench. It is important to have both genders represented in the government, and although the Labour Party seemed to steer this in their favor, both sides seemed to have mediocre efforts at gender equality. It also seemed like the most heated exchange between the parties, and so it is probably an equally large issue to be resolved.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but to that I have the question, is it really more important than taxes? Yes, the gender equality issue is important but, as you can rad in my response, it seems to me that its just an attempt to discredit the Conservative party in a way that has nothing really to do with actual government. Shouldn't the government focus first on issues that affect the British people, and second on what goes on in the House of Commons?
DeleteI would actually say that yes, it is more important then taxes. We noticed that it was an attempt to discredit the Tories, but I think that might be missed on the vast majority of average, everyday people that make up the voting system. If they buy into the idea that "Tories are against gender equality" it could cause the Tories to lose their seats, and thus jeopardize any effort they had on focusing on taxes. It is a minor issue to us, but one I feel could be used to mislead the votes of the larger majority into choosing which party to support.
DeleteBut Matt wouldn't gender equality in the end affect the British people? If the members are of the same gender, basically same view point in this context, not all people will be well represented by them in government. Diversity is a necessity.
DeleteGender equality is important, yes, but I personally feel like the issue is being blown far out of proportion. The entire debacle with the women sitting in the front row seemed like just a political move to try to attack the Conservative party. Now, if we go on to find out that there is systematic discrimination among women throughout the House of Commons then yes, this becomes a major priority. But as it stands now it sounds like its a diversity issue that's a problem for a party, but not for the British people as a whole. Do the Tories need to address it? Yes, if they want to keep the votes coming in. However, in the end I believe people are going to vote much more based on what tax rate a party wants to set than what another party leader said about its women. In regards to what the question asked, should it be the priority for British lawmakers? No, it should be a priority for the Tories.
DeleteI disagree with this as well. I feel that this issue was merely one of appearance, rather than one that accurately reflected the status of women in the country. It explicitly states that Miliband intentionally filled his front bench with only women, anticipating to criticize the Conservative party for their "lack of women being represented." The picture described seemed to be much different than the statistics pointed to. The article stated that the Conservative party has gone from having 17 women to having 48, and is intending to expand further. Women have also been put at the forefront of aid programs and tax cuts, and there are more women working in the UK than ever before. I think that these statistics can prove that the government is actively, and successfully, working towards gender equality, and that it is not as big of an issue as Miliband made it seem.
Delete3. The most interesting thing for me was the coalition government idea. We don't have that in our country, and so it is just a very different idea. There, even a smaller party can make a difference, so it is important for the different parties to work together to get things done. I am curious as to why the Lib Dems and the Conservatives would pair up, even though the Lib Dems should have more in common with the Labour party. It is certainly something I am interested in learning more about.
ReplyDelete4. I would say it does not matter that BBC is state owned. The country has a long history of being stable, and no major group controls it. Any type of news source will have some bias, but these articles all seemed very objective, more so then most articles by private companies in the US. I would not expand this answer to other countries though, as I feel that it would be subject to significant bias in countries where there is a history of corruption or of single parties that dominate most aspects of that nations politics. I would not even recommend a system of state run news in the US, as I think it would still be significantly biased toward whichever party had control of the executive branch.
ReplyDelete2) In short, the economics issue needs to be the priority for the British government because it is the only issue that involves actual GOVERNING. Is the social issue of gender equality in the Conservative party important? Of course, we live in a time where w shouldn't be having those issues. But personally to me, seeing the positioning of the MPs on the front row and the exchanges between the PM and the minority leaders, it all was just political maneuvering. It makes for a good controversial news story, but this is just one party trying to discredit another in order to gain political advantage. The main priority for a government should be governing, not politics. The same applies to the union debate. Important? Yes, and I support the "one member one vote" system. Should it be the main priority of the government? No, no, no. The government needs to focus on ACTUAL issues that extend outside of the House of Commonsand to the people, and if there's one thing that does that well, it's taxes.
ReplyDeleteWell this is interesting, after debating with Will I think I've changed my mind (part of it is that I now understand the union issue in more detail) to the political debate. There will always be debates over tax rates among parties that have fundamentally different economic ideologies, and while it is important that they attempt to set it correctly, a fundamental flaw in the democratic process must take immediate priority. I will admit that this argument stems a bit from my own personal beliefs, but I do not like anything that is even a step away from the basic tenants of functioning democracy, and equal representation among voters is one of those basic tenants. Now, I personally think it should just be passed thorough and the government should move on to other actual priorities, I do believe now that it is the most pressing issue at the current moment.
DeleteSo take that, 3:16 PM me.
1. I believe the economic article did the best in highlighting the differences between the Lib Dems and Conservatives. The Conservatives were the party which advocated the 45p tax cut, contrasting; to the Lib Dems. At the same time, the article illustrated how the Labour party wished to increase the tax cut, this in opposition to the other parties entirely.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think either of the issues has priority over another. Each issue is in different sectors of government; which in turn means that they are for me incomparable in determining their importance. The social issue focuses on gender equality within the government/politics. The economic issues focuses on whether to cut the 45p tax rate and aiding lower and middle earners. While the political issue focuses on the enactment of "one member, one vote" which could give a voice to all walks of life in the UK. Therefore, I believe that the social, economic and political issues all weigh an equal amount of importance.
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from Rondai, but if you had to choose to fix one before the other what decision would you make. Personally, i would focus on the tax cut issue. I will be the first to admit that I don't know much about economics, but I know enough to know that people do not like when people mess with their money, whether it was theirs to take in the first place or not. Money issues can easily create a split between allies, hence the coalition in the UK. These two parties need to find a solution so they and the nation can move forward.
Delete3. I thought it was interesting that within the government, Miliband, gender equality was brought to the light by a man! I would like to learn more about the economic system and what goes in to levying taxes and cuts.
ReplyDelete#1 The economic article about the proposed cut in the tax rate helped emphasized the differences in economic policies between the top political parties in the UK and it accentuated the different philosophies towards taxes. Should the tax be high so the state has more capacity? Or should we lower the tax and keep to a traditional laissez-faire economy based on free trade?
ReplyDelete4. The fact that BBC is an state-owned does not diminish it's reliability. The UK is known for it's democracy and stability. This in turn, for me, implies that the reports are objective and are simply relaying information to the public. However, this view is not universal for in contexts. In a country which is more secretive about the issues, known for corruption and inequality a state-owned media outlet would have no reliability.
ReplyDelete#2 I believe the focus should be on the political policies because in order to maintain the state's legitimacy it must root out any corruption from the system. As a symbol for democracy, the UK needs to provide a fair method of election in order to be the role model for democracy in the world. They should be able to represent to people but they must also be able to prevent the people from manipulating them.
ReplyDelete1) I feel that the economic article about the tax rates shows the most about party differences. Even in our own country, one of the easiest party divides is how both sides stand on different economic platforms. In the article, the Conservatives, who want the taxes to be lower, are easily in opposition to the Lib Dems who want the 45p to remain, and some that are open to raising it to 50p.
ReplyDelete2) I think the economic issue should be a priority for these British lawmakers, because an unstable economy can easily bring a country down. Although having a higher number of females in the Conservative party would be a great thing, it is not of urgent importance. Though the "one man, one vote" is a very important thing, it is not as big of a deal to me as the economics. The economics extends past just the House of Commons, as the taxes affects ALL of the citizens, so I feel it's most important.
ReplyDelete3) The most interesting thing that I learned about the UK while reading these articles is the amount of time the parties spend arguing about things. It made me realize that it isn't just our country, which is nice to know. It is also annoying that so much time is spent concerning things such as the number of women sitting in the front row, which proves nothing as to how many women are in a particular party. I would like to learn more about the new "one man, one vote" package and the effect unions had in creating that, because I believe it wasn't just dependent on the singular event described in the article.
ReplyDelete1) The article concerning the economic debate between the parties in the UK seemed to give the best idea of the differences between the groups; the conservative party is intent on lowering taxes on the higher economic bracket, while the Labour Party is concerned with raising them to "help out" the middle and lower classes. This resonates a lot with what we see in American politics, so it is an easy way to understand UK politics as well. I think Andy makes a good point in that the two sides represent two philosophies concerning the hand of the government in the economy.
ReplyDelete2) I think that the most important of the three issues is the political one, because it stems from a fundamental right to representation, and also presents an issue of whether parties truly represent an individual's desires. There seems to be some manipulation in the structure of the union if the representatives get an unequal amount of say.
ReplyDelete3) The most interesting thing I found about British politics was the openness with which politicians criticize each other- there is a sense of wit and banter that is absent from American politics.
ReplyDelete4) I don't think the BBC being a state-owned media outlet diminishes the reliability of it's reporting. Although no news outlet will be completely reliable, I would expect the BBC to be more objective since it is state run. Context does matter; if it was in a country that was not so well-established, then I would argue that a state-run media outlet was not reliable, especially if the country had a tumultuous political climate.
ReplyDelete4) Yes- I think that most media organizations, especially ones owned by the state, ought to be questioned in terms of their goals and responsibilities. The fact that the BBC is state-owned diminishes its reliability only in political matters or matters of the state- this is where context makes a difference. If it is funded by the state, the organization could be prompted to alter information to the state's advantage. If the context of the news is unrelated to state matters, there is no need for suspicion of the organization. (what would they have to gain?)
ReplyDelete1) I think that the economic article best highlighted the differences among the political parties within the British government. The debate over taxes seems to be a universal barometer for measuring whether a political party is left or right, and the discord between the Lib Dem and the Conservative parties over tax rates clearly demonstrates there political orientation (i.e. left and right respectively).
ReplyDelete2) I think that the tax issue should certainly be the priority, for few relatively-easy political changes can have such an effect on a country's economy, and thus the country. With regard to the other issues, there is little legislatively that can/should be done to help what are anyways relatively minor issues.
ReplyDelete1) In terms of highlighting the policy differences between the political parties in the UK, the economic article in my opinion did the best job. Just by mentioning the contrasting income tax rates that both the Tories and Liberal Democrats had, I immediately grasped some idea of how different their policies were although only two numbers were given. The Liberal Democrats policy was deemed as one that wanted to keep the income tax rate the same (45p). Although the statement by the senior Lib Dem minister (where the general idea is that cuts will only happen “over his dead body”) cannot truly represent the ideology of the party, I immediately felt that the Lib Dems viewed that the income tax rate is beneficial as it is now. The Tories sought to lower the income tax rate and in relation to the EU average claim, my opinion towards which policy was better skewed towards the side of the Tories. However, my knowledge as of now for these parties is very limited.
ReplyDelete2) The word ‘priority’ within the question encouraged me to say that the political issue is of most importance to the British lawmakers. The reasoning behind this claim is that the political article suggested more issues within this particular area of the government. Some union members were signed up without knowledge and evidence of forged signatures was reported. The Political issue just seemed attention worthy in comparison to the gender equality issue and income tax rate issue which both cannot really be resolved, but instead voting will make the decision of what happens amongst the issues.
ReplyDelete3) For me personally, I have no political savvy, especially with foreign politics. However, when I viewed the video of Ed Milliband attacking David Cameron for his role in failing to improve gender equality, I noticed an upheaval of thoughts that came from both benches. It was interesting to see how communication between the parties took place. It was also quite interesting to see how strategic moves like placing a good amount of women on your bench (Miliband) can take effect. I was intrigued with the discussion over gender equality and at times even amused, and because of this I would want to learn more about the way politicians present themselves in such discussions and how these strategies gain more party members.
ReplyDelete4) The fact that BBC is a state-owned media outlet does to a certain extent diminish some of its reliability because I knew view it as an extension of the government. It is therefore faithful to the government first instead of the general public. It also has the capability of censoring content that could manipulate the public. However, because the information presented two sides within government, for these specific articles, BBC being a state-owned media outlet did not necessarily matter. In general though, state-owned media outlets should be questioned in regards to reliability, but not to the extreme where everything should be considered false.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the fact that the BBC is government-owned certainly does effect its reliability, but would go further and argue that even in these articles, or even, in general, when two sides are portrayed, bias is still possible. For instance, the article on taxes ended with a quote expressing an opinion opposed to that of David Cameron. Even though both sides were portrayed, the reader is most likely to take the "last word" in the article to be the proper conclusion to make from the situation.
DeleteI understand your point, but I do have an issue with the statement 'It is therefore faithful to the government first instead of the public," which I do not believe is true. From what I've read the BBC is in fact often accused of being biased against the mostly-Conservative government.
Deletehttp://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/19/iain-duncan-smith-bias-bbc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9890162/Conservatives-go-to-war-on-bias-at-the-BBC.html
Now, I need to research into this more to refine my position on the BBC's reliability, as it sees like they hold a left-of-center viewpoint, but while one would think that being state-run would make a network loyal to the government, it does not seem like that is the case in practice.
I agree with Mendel but would like to add, even though the state-owned component of the BBC affects its reliability- the BBC is still rather reputable and reliable. The media outlet is not ruled by the state and is not actually censored, the individuals who write for the BBC tend to be left-of-center and disposed to a more left viewpoint. Although the three articles provided have rather objective reporting, I would have to agree that there are slight hints at bias throughout all three of the articles, due to human influence. The BBC as a whole is relatively reliable and since the UK is not authoritarian, as of now, and does not control the media, does not censor free speech, and does not have overarching clutches in many sectors of the nation- the BBC can be held as relatively reputable and reliable as most articles are relatively objective and without obstreperous bias.
Delete3) It stood out to me from the article on gender representation that a large amount of meaningless political posturing occurs in the Parliament. Purposefully packing a bench and then making such a comment to the prime minister would be unheard of in the United States (i.e. a congressman to the president), and has little to do with policy. It was not clear from the article, however, just how often such confrontations occur.
ReplyDelete4) The fact that the BBC is state-owned certainly diminishes the value of its reporting, for it doesn't make sense that a government organization, in the event of a scandal, would be as vigilante in exposing the scandal as a private news network, particularly one of the opposite end of the political spectrum. This idea would certainly hold true for any state-owned media.
ReplyDeleteBut does being 'vigilante' make a private new network any more reliable? The question is not necessarily how biased the news network is to the government, but how credible they are. While in theory a state-run network would try to keep political scandals/issues hush, private networks that are fighting for advertizing dollars would try to hype it up and exaggerate in order to be 'juicy'. Is that any better?
Delete1) The economic issue was the most effective in differentiating between the political parties in the UK. The economics issue delineated the two political parties most actively involved: liberal democrats (lib dems) and conservatives, along with the individuals's economic views, varying quotes, and information regarding the background and nature of the issue. Lib Dems, in accordance with their econo-political views, would stop the cut in the 45% highest marginal tax rate. The Tories advocate the tax cute, arguing the highest bracket tax rate is too high.
ReplyDelete2) Economic, without a doubt. Although social and political issues are highly important to a functioning, first world country, economic issues are essential to the functioning of a country. While a modern society as the UK is, should have gender equality, which is not particularly challenged and the debate is purely politics, not real lawmaking. Political is another important topic but due to the gravity of economics, specifically taxation, is a priority over social and political “issues.” Furthermore, taxation is a major component of economic policy and a major contention between differing political views.
ReplyDelete3) The concept of a coalition government is probably the most interesting aspect of UK lawkmaking/ governing, along with the style of debate/ argument in the lawkmaking and political process.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that the article that showed the biggest difference between the two parties was the economic article. the social article was not very informative toward policy because it was just summarizing an attack and rebuttal by two competing members eager to win a spot in parliament. both obviously said they support women so it showed no policy difference. the economic was all about taxation policy which is a big concern everywhere in every country. it was clear that each party was trying to attract different social classes. this shows that their policies and political strategy are two very different things and they have different tactics to gain power in government.
ReplyDelete2. I firmly believe economic policy should dictate the government. in a free, democratic and capitalist state, it is not the government's concern about social issues. the government needs to only be involved in the case of unfair treatment or criminal activity. the economy of the nation affects everyone, in all social classes, and the party in power needs to be sure that it is running smoothly and that the people are generally happy. the political issues are important because the people want to be heard, but if they are content with their financial situation and economic status then they will leave the government how it is and not try to fix something that works.
ReplyDelete4) There is no such thing as a media outlet or even an individual without partiality or with neutrality. The fact that the BBC is state-owned media outlet does not diminish the reliability of its reporting but rather, must be viewed with an active mind. Even though the BBC is a state-owned media outlet, most articles, with the exception of certain ones, are relatively objective with obvious unavoidable bias, as the individuals who write the articles are predisposed to bias. Since it is state-owned, the BBC can report and skew audiences to sway opinion or perspectives. Context can matter, as politically-affiliated stories with obvious partiality leads to unreliability of the oulet's reporting. However, if stories are unrelated to any political affiliations, although bias may still exist, the BBC's media outlet can be considered reliable, for the most part. As aforementioned and as with all types of reporting of news (especially of a political nature), one must view the information with an active mind, not just an open, accepting mind.
ReplyDelete3. I was very interested in realizing that politics is as brutal and angry as it is in the US. each political figure is doing his or her best to come out on top, which can including berating and criticizing their opponent, just like in America. Both men in the social article attacked each other on the treatment of women, even though both had plenty in their party. instead of trying to focus on an issue, they focused on attacking each other. this is very similar to the US. I would like to know more about their debates and how the individuals are treated there. maybe the British people focus on the issues rather than the reputation of the person, maybe not. it must be a universal truth that making some ONE look bad is more effective than disproving their argument and if that is best for the country.
ReplyDelete4. no. as a matter of fact, I think it is more reiable. in theses days, privatlety owned media groups are out to make a profit, and will outrageously try to attract one side of the political spectrum by making their shows biased and more entertaining rather than informative. because publicly owned companies are not out for profit, they have more of a motivation to report the facts and be truthful. although their may be a small bias because the party in control manages the media outlet and may report facts to help their cause. it is still far more objective than a corporate outlet.
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't a state-run media outlet wish to at least placate the government, lest the next round of budget cuts involve BBC? You forget to mention the third player, non-profit radio. Supported by the people, it does not seek to obtain extreme profit, nor please the ruling party, making it more unbiased than either. Of course, non-profit media outlets are usually liberally oriented, but that's a different topic.
Delete1) I feel that the article on tax rates best serves to show the difference between the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the Labour party. The Conservatives, like most conservative parties, are trying to lower upper-bracket taxes in accordance to trickle-down economics. The Liberal Democrats wish to keep it the same, supporting the status quo of a relatively high tax rate. The Labour party wishes to raise taxes in order to support welfare reforms. This shows a stratified political system.
ReplyDeleteYou're right Tristan. The differences are clearly shown, unlike the social article where the conflict may not even be as serious as one would think. The article clearly states the economic positions of both groups which parallel certain politics in the USA. 40p v. 45p, clean cut and easy to understand.
Delete1. Like pretty much everyone else, I think that the article about the tax rates was most effective in highlighting the differing policies of the parties. While the social article did highlight the issue of women's rights in the more liberal parties, the comment about how the leader of the Lib Dems filled his panel with women in anticipation of the question led me to believe that it was not the most accurate representation of the party's policy. And I felt that the economic article provided a clearer contrast between the liberal and conservative than did the political article. I felt this way because the different economic beliefs between liberal and conservative, about taxes specifically, are familiar to us in the United States, so we could more easily relate and grasp the differences. I also like how the article directly compared all three parties in the same context, something the other articles did not really do.
ReplyDelete2) I feel the most important issue to tackle is a political one. In a democracy such as Britain, legitimacy is gained by the support of the people. If the people are not properly represented in the voting process, then what does it matter if social or economic reforms are passed, since the people did not have a true say in the matter.
ReplyDelete3. I enjoyed the social article the most because I was able to get a glimpse if just how catty some politicians can become just to spite each other. Miliband probably new good and well that those missing women were working. To me, work is work, and it should be appreciated whatever it may be. This incident just seemed too staged for me. I would like to learn more about how parliament interacts with each other.
ReplyDelete3) I came across the term 'Shadow Cabinet' for the first time in the article about female representation, which prompted further research. It would be interesting to learn more about the Two-and-a-Half party system, and how the Liberal Democrat's position affects British legislature.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the political article addresses the most pressing issue. At the heart of a democracy is the voice of the common man, and these reforms are fixing a part of the UK representation system that seemed to have distanced itself from the participation of the common man. I also believe that it is the most significant issue because it has the greatest implications. The changes in representation from the new voting system could alter what the Labour party stands for, causing a sort of reorganization and shift in the party. Finally, this article addresses a borderline issue of corruption with Unite trying to rig the election, and I think that leaving that unaddressed could affect the functionality and wellbeing of the government moreso than the number of women supposedly being represented or a slight change in tax rate.
ReplyDelete4) I feel the most important factor in whether the state-run media is reliable or not is how transparent and open the government is. One would not be able to claim that the Pravda during the cold war was trustworthy, because it was run by an opaque government. However, examples like BBC are rare, as most state-run media are heavily biased. The BBC itself is reliable, since it is not pressured to publish favorable stories, compared to places like North Korea.
ReplyDelete3. I would say that the most interesting thing I learned from these articles is either that the tax rate in the UK is nearly half of their income, or that the unions are so involved in the politics. I don't really know much about unions in the US, so I think that it would be cool to learn more about those and how they are involved in our government here. I also would like to learn more about the United States' tax rate, and compare the tax rates and how the governments use the money.
ReplyDelete4. I think that in the context of the British government, BBC being state-run does not limit its credibility. The articles did not seem to be written from any position of serious bias, and all sides seemed to be explored at least somewhat. I think that BBC is still credible mostly because of the nature of the coalition government- the fact that no political party is ever dominant allows for a media that is not as politically charged as a state with a dominant party such as the United States.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that the economic article, "Lib Dems 'would stop cut in 45p tax rate,'" highlighted the differences between the policies of the political parties. The other two articles just felt like attacks between the groups. I agree with Thomas that taxation is a very important concern, and that every country's representative(s) realize how important it is. The Liberal Democrats believe that the current 45p rate is perfectly fine, and that he would go as far as to veto the Conservatives, who want to cut the rate down to 40p.
ReplyDelete2. The government should be focusing mostly on political policies, because these policies reflect the representation of the people of the country, and if I'm understanding correctly, the suggested changes will be able to increase the representation of the people.
ReplyDelete3. What interests me is exactly how the political system works in Britain. After reading the articles, I wasn't sure that I fully understood their system, despite reviewing it a bit in class. The way that the parties debated with each other also sparked my interest.
ReplyDelete4. I believe that it actually makes the site more reliable, because it's getting information from the state itself, rather than an outside media source. This also may be unreliable, however, because the state could be falsifying information (I don't see a reason for this though, because it would hurt their reputation and credibility).
ReplyDeleteI1. I believe the economic article provided the clearest depiction of the differences between the political parties in Great Britain. This is because rather than referencing the political rhetoric employed by both parties to exaggerate party differences, the article focuses on the discrepancy in an actual policy stance. For example, the social article describes how the Labour Party's criticizes the Conservative Party's lack of women seated on the front row and uses this as a means to demonstrate their failure at advocating female equality. However, from the comments of David Cameron (Leader of the Conservative Party), it is evident that the Conservatives are also interested in supporting women's rights. In addition, interestingly, the percentage of MP’s leaving Parliament from both parties is identical, thus demonstrating that the issue of female equality is not one that harbors as deep divisions as other issues. The economic article on the other hand explains a policy issue in which the groups adopt opposite perspectives. While the Liberal Party supports increasing the high income tax rate to 50 percent, the Conservative Party appears inclined to lowering the current rate of 45 percent. I think the polarization on the question of tax rates provides significant insight into where the parties stand on the political spectrum. Moreover, it highlights the economic approach promoted by the two parties. By supporting a higher tax rate, the Liberal Party indicates that it believes in more government intervention in the economy as well as a more bottom-up perspective to economic growth. The Conservative Party, however, seems to favor a top-down perspective and less government intervention.
ReplyDelete2. I think the political issue should be a priority for the British lawmakers but it is difficult to make this judgment without understanding the personal impact these issues are having on the country’s citizens. Nonetheless, as an outsider, the political issue seems most pressing because corruption in the voting system threatens the stability and integrity of any democratic system. The one-person, one-vote principle is the basis of a democracy and the supposed excessive influence of the Unions on the elections tug at the roots of this core idea.
ReplyDelete3. I was fascinated with the way parliament sessions are conducted. It appears as if they are much more lively and heated than our congressional proceedings. I would be interested in learning more about the procedures that guide these sessions, how legislation is produced, and what role the third party plays in the proceedings.
ReplyDeleteI agree Inam! In my post I said that the social article about their arguments about women was interesting and I mentioned how interesting their arguments are. I like the fact that the people were seated face to face and the fact that Miliband seated the women around him (what a lady's man...jk). But yeah, actually I'm not sure if that was what you were implying as fascinating but I do agree that they were more lively in their arguments and such.
Delete4. The fact that BBC is a state-owned does not weaken the reliability of its reporting but instead may in a sense bolster it. In a world where journalistic standards have declined and media has become the property of large conglomerates such as chains, privately owned media outlets have often devolved into vehicles for advancing certain agendas. By separating itself from this trend, the BBC is able to maintain some level of independence from special interests especially the interest in making profits since it is funded by the government. Nonetheless, it can be argued that state funding fosters government influence on the reporting. However, given the divided nature of the government, its long-standing commitment to democratic ideals, and the citizen demand for high transparency, it is difficult for the government to exercise direct influence. Also, it is clear from the articles that the BBC reports are fairly balanced and offer multiple perspectives. A media outlet being state-owned does not necessarily diminish its reliability. The situation and circumstance are what determines the media outlet’s ability to maintain neutrality. For example, in China where there is no history of democratic principles, it is difficult to imagine propaganda not affecting the reliability of the reports. Nevertheless, even without a democracy some state owned media outlets can exhibit transparency as is evidenced by Al-Jazeera a credible media source actually owned by Qatar’s government.
ReplyDelete1. I think that the economic article about the tax rate cuts is the best at highlighting the differences between the parties of the UK. This is because the article basically said what the differing views on taxes that the Lib Dems, Conservatives, and Labours wanted. The Lib Dems wanted the current tax percentage to be the same (45%), The Labour Party wants this to increase, while the Conservatives want a decrease. Well that's what I interpreted the article to say....
ReplyDelete2. I think the priority of these lawmakers should be the political issue with the union changes just because it is a very radical or huge change if there is a change in to the one vote, one member system. I'm still kind of iffy or confused about the whole thing actually since I'm not an expert with the UK (though hopefully I will be by the end of the year since I am in the UK group...represent!) but from what I understand i think this is a huge split from the usual way the parliamentary system works, with the coalitions that can arise and such.
ReplyDelete3. What found most interesting about the UK is the different things that went on in their House of Commons especially with the article about the Conservatives "failing women" and "going backwards in regards to women." I just found the whole argument between Miliband and Cameron interesting though I found it a little disturbing that this kind of argument was going on. I just thought that the extent of sophistication of this argument was not to the extent that debates and arguments on the political level should be (it reminds me of Rondai's green eggs and ham RLS in her TOK presentation and for some reason Corrine Brown?). Therefore, I would like to learn more about this kind of stuff pertaining to the social aspects.
ReplyDelete4. I actually did not think that the reports I read were at all biased nor unreliable even after learning that BBC was a state owned media outlet (I just thought that BBC was from England). Therefore, I don't think that just because a media outlet is owned by the state that the reports and stories from that media outlet would try and influence the public in any way. Though the propaganda employed by Hitler and Stalin does challenge this, I would say for the most part, state owned media outlets are not trying to sway the general public. I actually think that state owned is more reliable than privately owned media outlets since they may favor one viewpoint over the other.
ReplyDelete#1: I think the economic article did the best job at highlighting policy differences. The idea that the Labour Party could promise to increase taxes at their will seemed interesting. In the United States, obviously, the ruling party has a great deal of influence, but it seems like there is more balance as to how decisions are made final. It seems like the Labour Party could sort of block new tax reforms, and create their own while others just stood back with little influence in the decision.
ReplyDelete#2: I might be a bit bias because I think feminism is revelant - but I think that social equality is important. I think by having both sexes, that there is greater perspective in the policies proposed to be passed. This is important. Many could argue that economic equality or race is important, but so is gender equality. There are fundamental differences in all of our human experiences - men don't live the lives of women - and women should have the opportunities as men as long as they are equally qualified. 40% women is not enough.
ReplyDelete#3: I think it was interesting to learn that even though it's the "welfare state" that there is still economic/political inequality that is such a prominent issue. I mean, I understand it is still a democracy, but I didn't expect the issues there to be much of the same issues as the United States. I may be idealistic, but with universal health care, I was surprised at quotes like: "They are about opening up the Labour Party so that more people from every walk of life can have more say on the issues which matter to them most like the cost-of-living crisis." But I guess no system is ideal...
ReplyDeleteI would like to learn more about culture I suppose, and maybe youth involvement in shaping social issues. I would like to see why these systems are in place.
I don't think the articles favored one viewpoint. When I read the articles they were generally objective, and I felt that both sides of the spectrum were considered. The reports did a good job at referencing quotes made by both sides. Some words like 'Manipulate' in the third article, seemed like buzzwords in a tabloid, but generally, the articles were full of quotes from the officials, and seemed to attempt to establish valid arguments for both parties.
ReplyDeleteI think context matters - the BBC is a news outlet, and honestly, I would trust it because of "traditional legitimacy". If there exists a publicly owned tabloid, I probably would not, just because the news seems inflated with drama to "excite?" me. :)
1. I believe the economic article did the best in highlighting the policy differences within the UK because taxation is such a fundamental aspect to a government's policies and genuinely affects all of the citizens. This article about cutting the tax rate from 45p really illustrated the conflict in opinion between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives and their reasoning for why their stance was right. For example, one Conservative remarked that he does not understand why the tax should be higher than that of the EU.
ReplyDelete#1 The article that talks about the Lib Dems refusing to cut the 45% income tax shows the greatest policy difference between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. First off, this seems to be an incredibly high tax rate to impose on the entire British population regardless of salary level. The article seems to display how the two parties are bitter rivals when it comes to this matter as both sides seem refusing to budge. The other articles, such as the one on women's inclusion in the government show more of a progressive change, but at the same time the argument that Ed Miliband was using was flawed because he purposely invited women to sit on the bench to support his argument. The women on the other side are obviously not present, but as it says later in the article, they were probably hard at work in their offices.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the political issue of the union changes is most important for the British lawmakers because it has to do with voting ability and how much one's vote will count. In the article, it said that the proposed changes of to not vote as a result of your union affiliation would give each Labour supporter more of a say, and it's essential in a functioning democracy to make sure that voting is properly conducted. This will allow more people to have a say on fundamental aspects of their life, such as the cost of living crisis and will keep the common man more connected to the government.
ReplyDeleteI obviously agree with this, mainly because it is the same argument that i gave in my answer; however i think the interests of the government must be taken into account as well. If the UK wants to be less democratic and have a higher autonomy, then less representation would be beneficial.
Delete#2 The issue regarding the "one member, one vote" system should be most important for British law makers because as stated in the article, the previous method allowed for parties to attempt to rig the elections in their favor and it allowed certain people to have multiple votes. With the "one member, one vote" system, ordinary people will have the same amount of say as more important people in who leads them.
ReplyDelete3. What I found interesting in these articles is the inclusion of a third party in the political spectrum. In the United States, we're used to politics being conducted by the two-party system so it's fascinating to see a deviation from that. The idea of forming coalitions in order to get legislature past is also so different for me to think about, but I think it's a sound concept because it forces two groups to compromise and work together and it seems like more people would be satisfied that way.
ReplyDelete4. I think the fact that it is a state owned media outlet has no effect of the reporting in this case because the UK is not meant to be an oppressive regime that tries to force the ruling party's policies onto everyone. In a functioning democracy, as the UK is, the media tries to convey the news objectively without trying to sway the public one way or the other and that is what I sensed in these articles. They were written very objectively without any obvious inclusion of propaganda and equally showed the two sides of each debate. In more authoritarian regimes however, it would be more difficult to trust state owned media because they are constantly in fear of a rebellion and need to brainwash the masses.
ReplyDelete#3 I think the most interesting thing I read was probably just in general how different the political system is in the UK. The way BBC News dealt with the issue of the manipulation case with the article on "one member, one vote" just downplayed it and made it seem like it wasnt a big deal. Also the attempt at manipulation of the audience with the invitation by Ed Miliband of a women majority on his bench shows that manipulation seems to be either more acceptable or just more common in the UK. In the US, id say manipulation is used primarily at election time, but not so much after that.
ReplyDelete#4 I think that because BBC News is covering the UK government in this case, it isnt a huge deal, although it could definitely be unreliable in certain cases. When dealing with international affairs, I can see this being a problem, due to the ideals of UK being imposed on the way they present the news. Id say the same about most state run media outlets, however it is on a case to case basis.
ReplyDelete#2I believe that the Uk should focus on economic growth over political and social because most countries nowadays get hit worst with economic problems, considr greece , their economic instability resulted in riots and the like-also people are more likely to revolt due to economic problems rather than social or politcal problems-
ReplyDelete1) While it would seem that the political article would highlight the differences between the political parties, I think that the economic article showed more of the differences. It clearly gave the three viewpoints that each party had regarding taxation, which were the Liberal Democrats refused to change the tax rate and keep it at 45%, the Labour Party "pledged to raise the top rate," and the Conservative Party wished to cut it down to 40%. Because taxation is a very important policy to go about, these different views demonstrate how different the political parties are in terms of creating policies and running the government.
ReplyDelete2) Because the economic article really highlighted the differences between the political parties, I believe that the economic problem should be prioritized. While the political issue is obviously a problem to be fixed with the change in voting, I think that since the economic issue truly affects the population as a whole and that the political parties are facing conflicting issues on how to deal with it, they should prioritize it.
ReplyDelete3) I really enjoyed the social article and learning about the argument in the House of Commons. Even though US and UK governments are different in some cases, it was interesting to see how similar the House of Commons was to the House of Representatives. I also really liked reading the interesting comments from Milliband to Cameron. Overall, I would like to learn more about these social issues and the differing views from each party.
ReplyDelete4) Although BBC is a state-owned media outlet, I do not think it is unreliable. In fact, I find it more reliable because while it should appear to have some type of bias, they communicate the information in the most objective way possible to ensure that the information is laid out to the public. I think that also because it is state-owned, the information is more legitimate and trustworthy; however, state-owned media outlets that show an extreme case of bias, which can be easily differentiated from the objectivity in BBC, are less reliable.
ReplyDelete