>here is just one example:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2009/03/05/heroes.penaflorida.three.cnn?iref=videosearch
>
>There were many shown on CNN and the local news and even the big 3 have similar stories, not just 'hero' ones. I think you are really out of touch since you don't even watch tv Dragan. Granted our coverage is not ideal, but really, unless it is a channel 24x7 committed to just any old information from just anywhere there isn't enough time to cover it all.

But there is - just remove the commercials :).

Kidding aside, there's such a heavy preference towards what news must be run repeatedly and what news will never be important enough to show. Anything published anywhere is necessarily a selection - but we have heavily digressed here. I didn't get started on this because of what I think of the news coverage. I think by now even the bird on the branch knows my opinion on that.

It was about this guy Kennedy receiving no less than a knighthood from an emperor of the former colonial master, and as of now the only ally standing... and this kind of very special relationship makes me wonder, what if, say, some other official got a similar recognition from another friendly ruler - a Saudi prince, or Belgian queen, or Jordanian king... would their programming also be on PBS?

The question was what's so special about British TV? I'm not buying it that they're the best - they probably comply to Sturgeon's law, and any country can muster something from their 10% of production which isn't stool. But who would know, that timber never made a sound here - just read the thread, everyone has seen the best of BBC's exports, and what exposure they had to other TV was the day-to-day stool which nobody expects to be any better than the homemade one.

Since the masses are uninformed of the rest of the world's production (the 10% by Sturgeon's law), why are they uninformed? I'm beginning to suspect some kind of censorship, but until I can put a finger to the possible motives and goals of it, I can only, well, suspect.

>Besides who would sit and watch it all day? I hate to get into the discussion of how our programming is 'paid for' and if there isn't a large enough audience, advertisers don't buy time, etc...ad nauseum....

BTW - It's "ad nauseam", nausea being the same nawzha word that exists in (medical) Latin, first declension, feminine gender, which we learned on our first Latin class back in 1970... doing UT search, the default period of two years brings seventy cases of this misspelling, and two correct ones (quoted three more times), both by forei... international members.