Cat killer spreads panic in US
Is anyone panicking?
The story doesn't even mention any "panic" so why the sensationlist headline?
Is anyone panicking?
The story doesn't even mention any "panic" so why the sensationlist headline?
Alistair7 is a dumbo
A couple of weeks back he was bashing (once again) the French in this congo thread and he didn't even knew the difference between the Democratic Republic Congo (former Zaire and a former Belgian colony) and the neigbouring Republic Congo (or congo-brazzaville, the former french colony).
I know that geography is not the strongest point of most americans (see the thread about the National Geographics study) but mixing up two different countries in a pathetic attempt to bash on the French is pretty lame.
At least Piablemoose had the guts to admit he was wrong in this thread
A couple of weeks back he was bashing (once again) the French in this congo thread and he didn't even knew the difference between the Democratic Republic Congo (former Zaire and a former Belgian colony) and the neigbouring Republic Congo (or congo-brazzaville, the former french colony).
I know that geography is not the strongest point of most americans (see the thread about the National Geographics study) but mixing up two different countries in a pathetic attempt to bash on the French is pretty lame.
At least Piablemoose had the guts to admit he was wrong in this thread
I most certainly know the difference, I don't recall anyone else even offering the material for discussion to begin with...
I see the BBC is now under attack with more bias clainms from it's own govt. and others, how nice...
Why not bash the French, their actions deserve that and much more.
I see the BBC is now under attack with more bias clainms from it's own govt. and others, how nice...
Why not bash the French, their actions deserve that and much more.
Andy your own Govt is attacking them over the way they have handled their "factual reporting"....
Why is it Fox generated 9 complaints of pro-US bias and was shut down, the BBC recieved over 400 calls from UK residents complaining of obvious anti-US bias and nothing was done? The same group that banned Fox created the poll the BBC used that was widely criticized as well. Seems to me there is a major conflict there, a double standard to say the least. The Guardian is also connected to the BBC so they are hardly an appropriate source.
Add the Govt. of Israel to the list of those recently complaining about the BBC along with the poeple of the UK and their govt.
Why is it Fox generated 9 complaints of pro-US bias and was shut down, the BBC recieved over 400 calls from UK residents complaining of obvious anti-US bias and nothing was done? The same group that banned Fox created the poll the BBC used that was widely criticized as well. Seems to me there is a major conflict there, a double standard to say the least. The Guardian is also connected to the BBC so they are hardly an appropriate source.
Add the Govt. of Israel to the list of those recently complaining about the BBC along with the poeple of the UK and their govt.
Wow, what a surprise!! Blair's govt attacking the BBC!! Perhaps the BBC should start acting more like the mindless, ass-kissing media in the US.
Another article on how the BBC is defending itself. This ones from
UK Telegraph
Thank God for the British media.
Maybe it's because the BBC is the only mainstream news organization left with the balls required to question the US Gov't and the Israeli Gov't. I'm sorry you don't like it when the news media doesn't kiss the government's ass, but I thought the entire point of news media was to do exactly the opposite.
They are being attacked because the government refute the allegations made against them by the anonymous source that the BBC quoted. The BBC followed it's own guidelines for reporting anonymous sources - guidelines that have been followed many times previously without a problem for the government. The issue here is the subject that has been tackled. It's very sensitive to the government. Currently no less than 3 enquiries are ongoing to decide if their is any truth in the BBC's source's allegations. Most (inc. the government as of a couple of days ago) are awaiting these verdicts before deciding their next course of action.
Well, firstly, Fox wasn't shut down as far as I know. Secondly if the people complained to the appropriate body (the broadcasting complaints commission) then their cases will be investigated and the results published in due course. Usual turn around for these sorts of complaints is around 6 months. More credence is given to complaints where the complainant is directly effected by the issue or is immediately concerned with it (ie it's a slander against an individual who complains).
The Guardian is connected to the BBC in the same way as the Times, Telegraph, Sun, News of the World, etc. They are British News agencies.
They are complaining about a re-broadcast of a program that investigates the fact that they have nuclear weapon technology, which they always ambiguously deny. I don't see a problem with this program given that.
Here is hte push to get Fox banned by the ITC
I also found this though..
The debate, organised by the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom and held at the headquarters of the National Union of Journalists, on June 23, could hardly have been more topical. The Independent Television Commission had just given the pro-war Fox News the all-clear after British viewers complained about bias in its coverage of the conflict in Iraq. The ITC rejected nine complaints, saying that Fox News, which holds a British licence, had not breached the programme code on "due impartiality" because the regulations did not require broadcasters to be "absolutely neutral on every controversial issue."
I could not get any info onthe 400 compalints about the BBC though, maybe someone else can find out how those were handled.
This is the show and ( ITC) poll the BBC produced
Among its findings, the survey found that 70 per cent of international respondents felt the US military had failed to do enough to minimise civilian casualties.
(as opposed to what war in which more care was taken and the number so low, the esitmates beforehand went from the 100,000s to millions possibly, more would have died under sanctions in the same amount of time compared to the amount actually killed by the war itself)
Fencer I do not know why your own Govt. is attacking a public broadcasting company or why your own residents feel they have this bias or even why Israel feels the same, I just think that as more and more complaints get levied you have to start to wonder....
I also found this though..
The debate, organised by the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom and held at the headquarters of the National Union of Journalists, on June 23, could hardly have been more topical. The Independent Television Commission had just given the pro-war Fox News the all-clear after British viewers complained about bias in its coverage of the conflict in Iraq. The ITC rejected nine complaints, saying that Fox News, which holds a British licence, had not breached the programme code on "due impartiality" because the regulations did not require broadcasters to be "absolutely neutral on every controversial issue."
I could not get any info onthe 400 compalints about the BBC though, maybe someone else can find out how those were handled.
This is the show and ( ITC) poll the BBC produced
Among its findings, the survey found that 70 per cent of international respondents felt the US military had failed to do enough to minimise civilian casualties.
(as opposed to what war in which more care was taken and the number so low, the esitmates beforehand went from the 100,000s to millions possibly, more would have died under sanctions in the same amount of time compared to the amount actually killed by the war itself)
Fencer I do not know why your own Govt. is attacking a public broadcasting company or why your own residents feel they have this bias or even why Israel feels the same, I just think that as more and more complaints get levied you have to start to wonder....
Alistar7, didn't you say Fox was shut down? Are you just playing fast and loose with the facts?
So - let me get this straight - you're complaining even though the Fox ban was rejected, and viewers of the Fox network had their complaints thrown out by the ITC? It seems the system is working?
I'm sure you have round about the right number. I'm also sure that a volume like that will take a little time to be processed.
True. But you can't not report public opinion. This is their view, what they believe, as opposed to the gospel truth.
I think the climate at the moment is one of defense. The government is under pressure to produce WMD in order to justify the war to a good majority of it's citizens. The last thing it wants to hear right now is that a senior member of it's intelligence services is accusing them of deliberately fudging evidence in the Iraq dossier to make it look convincing.
Cheers,
Andy
Alistar7 keeps making the claims that there were only 9 complaints against Fox, but 400 against the BBC. What he/she seems to fail to grasp is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the British public watches BBC, a domestic broadcast channel and not Fox, a foreigh cable/satellite channel.
I'm guessing 10 people in the UK watched Fox and 9 of them complained. Well, maybe not exactly, but you catch my drift.
I'm guessing 10 people in the UK watched Fox and 9 of them complained. Well, maybe not exactly, but you catch my drift.
I was under the impression the complaints led to them being banned, I did not realize the ITC had ruled in their favor, not being loose with the facts.
I understand the market they share there respectively. I also understand the difference between the private Fox news and the public BBC.
I thought the inquiries were over in the UK Andy, didn't they find that Blair had not lied and only used the intel he was provided as opposed to "dressing" anything up?
Way back when I asked for 5 BBC articles that painted US actions in Iraq in a favorable light, or even stories that were positive themselves about anything happening there, never was given those. Is it that hard to find even one? What does that tell you..
Andy my number of @ 400 is right, as far as I know they never gave an actual one as they did with Fox, you'll notice that number was also dead on.
(yet another trivial meaningless fact I will probably always remember, 9 british viewers claim Fox news is biased to go along with my new expertise in international rice trading)
Nope. The enquiries are still ongoing. People have expressed the opinion that this may be the outcome, but the investigations are still definitely ongoing.
Well, I've certainly seen positive US articles from the BBC. On the subject of Iraq - I cannot recall, but then I hardly read Iraq articles as they depress me of recent. I will look for you.
Cheers,
Andy
EDIT: Having looked I can say this. There are very few overtly positive stories on Iraq concerning any country inc. the UK. That's not to say that all the articles are negative towards the US. Most appear to be matter of fact in their journalism. The stories that are negative appear to be centred on prominent indivduals or group's experiences of the UK, US, liberation, etc. in Iraq right now. In no way to they constitute the views of the BBC itself.
have to get back to life for now, Andy it's good to talk to you again. Keep an eye out on what's happenign over there in the investigations, your unique insight would be appreciated.
not one that shows the progress that has been made, not one that shows how brutal Saddam was and how the people of Iraq are so happy without him, nothing positive at all.....
not one that shows the progress that has been made, not one that shows how brutal Saddam was and how the people of Iraq are so happy without him, nothing positive at all.....
Thanks for writing what I was going to.Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,
Interesting colation. I have had a quick look - and the bias of this thread seems to be a problem in the same way the alleged bias of the BBC is a problem:
1. The first article linked states:
"BBC journalists have been instructed to reflect anti-war opinion in their reporting of the impending war in Iraq, under guidelines issued by the corporation."
However, it goes on to say (but not in your first post Alistar7):
"The controller of editorial policy, Stephen Whittle, has told staff that even once a war is under way, opposition voices should be given airspace, provoking concern over an anti-war bias at the BBC."
Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but to me it says "make sure that we show ALL points of view - and not just the government sponsored pro-war ones."
An interesting note is that you're using the Guardian as a source. I *guess* that's ok when it suits your views
2. With regard to the second linked article:
The author of the site is obviously not a euro-phile! More over he likens the BBC to Soviet propoganda! From reading his site - I'm not so sure that his real grievance is towards Europe and Brussels, with the BBC being some sort of symbol for him to indirectly attack/promote these views. I do not see the extremes promoted in his arguments. Maybe it's just me.
3. The 3rd linked article is from the BNP homepage - the BNP being the British racist party (ie Blacks go home). Don't really trust them as a source. They are constantly complaining that they do not get a fair say. Given all the race riots they've expertly fuelled to help get themselves into marginalised seats, and the fact that a lot of their members are thugs and idiots - I don't really care for their "analysis". Furthermore - I hope that if anyone reads your link they realise the scum whose website they're patronising.
4. The last linked article in the first post quotes the same sources as for the 2nd link. It is based back in 2000 and accuses the BBC of pro-europe bias. This is derived from the fact that out of 54 episodes of a particular BBC programme about twice as many pro-europe speakers got air time as opposed to anti-europe speakers. This shouls (and hopefully has been addressed). Furthermore I don't see it as "huge" bias. A worthy point to be made - hardly digging it's own grave with that though.
All in all, as compared to its peers, I still see the BBC as a relatively unbiassed source in the media sphere.
Cheers,
Andy
As someone who was on both sides of the Atlantic several times this spring / summer, the BBC has had quite a bit more impartiality in it's reporting.
The "wag the dog" episode of Saving Private Lynch was given an extensive overview on BBC tv, as opposed to the short play it received here.
Now, when I hear someone say "Liberal Media Bias" I just laugh as they (the media) have proven themselves to be Tools Of the Administration.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,098
- 5,639
- 126
The BBC is a conundrum for many. It is Publicly funded, which means that it is the tool of the government, in their mind. They assume bias, because of that and erroneously assume that a Privately funded news organization must be unbiased. With all those assumptions in play they hear charges of bias and don't bother critically examining those charges. Imagine the shock when those charges are discovered to be by the same government that funds it.
The problem is one of simply not understanding what "unbiased" means. Too much focus is put on where the funding comes from and not on the What and the How things are actually reported. A news organization can be completely fiscally free to report whatever it wants and still be biased towards the government, while another can be completely fiscally dependent on the government and be completely unbiased towards the government. This can be for a simple reason, Journalistic Ethics. Some people adhere to them, some people don't. Some News Organizations adhere to them, others don't. If the Consumers want real news, they'll find the Ethical reporters/organizations. If they want to be lied to, listen to the Unethical.
The problem is one of simply not understanding what "unbiased" means. Too much focus is put on where the funding comes from and not on the What and the How things are actually reported. A news organization can be completely fiscally free to report whatever it wants and still be biased towards the government, while another can be completely fiscally dependent on the government and be completely unbiased towards the government. This can be for a simple reason, Journalistic Ethics. Some people adhere to them, some people don't. Some News Organizations adhere to them, others don't. If the Consumers want real news, they'll find the Ethical reporters/organizations. If they want to be lied to, listen to the Unethical.
flavio
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 6,823
- 1
- 76
What that tells you is that you that since you were going first and couldn't come up with 5 of the required articles from Fox that you're not worth the time.
You failed miserably in your mission and still act is if you made a point. What does that tell you?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter