Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Considering the amount of pies the US has its fingers in, I couldn't really see a problem with non-US citizens discussing the most powerful nation on the planet and putting it on the Internet.
But many in the US hate the UN.
The fanatical Right - represented by people like the Oklahoma bomber - think the UN is a conspiracy to create a world government and destroy America's freedom.
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
I suspect that when the license fee is scrapped, and Rupert Murdoch buys out the BBC, "BBC Fox News" will be "liberated" of the "liberal media bias" that you clearly dislike.
Originally posted by Simon Lee:
I can't wait for the day. The BBC has got to be on this list of "Top 10 things wrong with the UK"
Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
"....bigmouth strikes again, and I've got no right to take my place with the human race...."<p>SCJP 1.4
Originally posted by Steven Broadbent:
If it's criticised by everyone it must be doing something right!
Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
If from Jason's links he is trying to infer that the BBC has some kind of political bias, then Id agree with that as well. As a payer of the license fee and having watched and listened to the BBC's output for most of my life, I agree that the BBC has leanings to the left. However I dont believe that the BBC are bunch of "tree-hugging hippies", nor do I believe that the BBC's bias is as strong as Jason would have you believe.
The Media Resource Center is quite an interesting link on media bias in the US because gosh blimey, it looks like right wing media bias is non existent in the US! Thank goodness that Fox News represents the political middle of the road in the US!!
At the end of the day Jason, if you dont like the BBC, dont go to the BBC News site, stay away from the World Service, and choose the media that suits you best.
I suspect that when the license fee is scrapped, and Rupert Murdoch buys out the BBC, "BBC Fox News" will be "liberated" of the "liberal media bias" that you clearly dislike.
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Can you imagine any US news organization bothering to host a 1 or 2 hour televised debate about "What the US thinks of France" or whatever? Nobody would waste their time.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Honestly it's not their liberal bias I find distasteful, it's their obsessive seemingly anti-American leanings that I find distasteful. (see here for a piece about one of the most glaring examples)
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
I don't know if they do it on purpose or not, but often when there is somebody being interviewd on Fox who represents one of the anti-war/protest organizations, they come off looking like nut cases. Now that could be because Fox specifically looks for those people, or that the ones representing these organizations that I've seen interviewed really were nut cases.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I read the story and couldn't find anything anti-American. Maybe you can point something out that I missed?
The basic allegation is that the US military took a bungled operation in which troops who should have been nowhere near the danger zone were ambushed and either killed or captured and turned it into a PR triumph by manipulating the facts and stage-managing an unnecessary rescue to boost morale at home. One BBC presenter, Nik Gowing, claimed that the media had fallen for a piece of "gross manipulation" and that no-one would ever trust the Pentagon again.
The BBC�s Correspondent programme branded the rescue "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived". It questioned the nature of her injuries, cast doubt on the claim that there had been Iraqi forces guarding the hospital when the US troops went in, suggested that the rescuers were firing blank ammunition and concluded that she had been well-treated by Iraqi doctors.
The columnist Brian Sewell demanded to know: "Would so many men and so much expensive machinery have been risked for the rescue of a jar-head marine of 19, a black boy of 19, a homosexual boy of 19 or a poor white boy of 19 from the same incestuous hills of West Virginia among which Jessica was born?"
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Ha. And I remember that you, Jason, in a weak moment have posted before the no-politics-moratorium during the war the following:
its here: Truth about Fox by Jason... :mrgreen:
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
What a bunch of unfounded speculative crap. Is this what passes as journalism at the BBC? Maybe it's just me, but that final paragraph seems particularly gratuitous and insulting.
- US forces do not use blank ammunition in combat zones. To intimate otherwise is laughable to anyone with even half a clue. There was video of this incident. Despite the absurdity of carrying a rifle full of blanks while combat is possible, if they had used blanks, the muzzle plugs that are used with blank ammunition would have stuck out on film.
- US forces going into such situations use overwhelming force to maintain their advantage. This is what was done in this case and is textbook.
- The US never stated there were Iraqi forces in the hospital at the time the troops went in. A diversionary raid was being staged in another part of the town in order to draw off enemy combatants.
- The sources for the story are Iraqi doctors. It should be kept in mind that it is this educated class that was privileged under Saddam's rule, and there is no love lost between them and those who have stripped them of this status. What does anyone think they would say? That they treated her like crap? That the US forces were totally justified in their forceful attempts to secure the hospital?
Again though, I'm talking about general editorial tendencies of the BBC. There is a section on their web page called Have Your Say where viewers of the site can send in their thoughts on a particular topic. The responses are screened by BBC staff, who choose which ones get posted. If you were to take the responses just from Americans as representative of the attitudes in this country, you would be led to believe that GW is extremely unpopular, the people here can't stand him, and that most of us are in lockstep with the Europeans on every issue from Isreal/Palestine to Iraq. I've been following this section for quite some time and it never ceases to amaze me. I've even sent in my own responses on several occasions although none have ever made it past their editorial purview.
God Save the Blokes (Google cached version)
BBC apologises to envoy for anti-American abuse
BBC viewers vent their anger at 'anti-US' bias of Iraq coverage
Trying America: The closest British media gets to “fair and balanced.”
BBC Rabble Rousing
Reporter hits out at BBC war coverage
andrewsullivan.com (some good stuff in here if you scroll through it, including mention of BBC journalist taking on job as editor for Al-Jazeera's English language web site)
This could go on forever, but you get the point.
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater. |