BBC Critisizes FoxNews for their "Patriotic" News Coverage...

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
So, you hate fox news because they are patriotic and instead of criticising, they actually try to be nice? They try to honor our fallen soldiers and you complain? Go back to russia you piece of crap. I will never criticize someone for trying to honor a fallen soldier. You are a poor excuse for a human being.

Interesting comment(concerning: going back to Russia).

What's the difference between a Privately owned media outlet which parrots the government and a Publicly owned media outlet that parrots the government?

Uh.....dividends?

 

[edjam]

Fox is so incredibly biased. We get it over here in the UK on satellite. BBC is the most balanced news coverage around.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: XZeroII
So, you hate fox news because they are patriotic and instead of criticising, they actually try to be nice? They try to honor our fallen soldiers and you complain? Go back to russia you piece of crap. I will never criticize someone for trying to honor a fallen soldier. You are a poor excuse for a human being.

Interesting comment(concerning: going back to Russia).

What's the difference between a Privately owned media outlet which parrots the government and a Publicly owned media outlet that parrots the government?

What does your comparison have to do with FoxNews?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Staples
As I said before, I do not watch Fox news much because I am discusted with their unprofessionalism. Anyway, their one half of the story is called the conservative slant however their reporters spouting out their opinions which occupies 90% of the news cast is just downright unprofessional. When I want to watch the news, I want reporting and just reporting, not "well I thing we are great because the Iraqis love us and have been welcoming us with open hands" when in actuallity, an overwhelming number of the population that we (the US) have done out job and now it is time to get out. I don't hear the BBC reporting that we are making sure we stay for the oil money do you? Come on, that is the liberal opinion but do I hear this "far left" party reporting that? No, I don't so I guess they are not that far left after all and remain very professional at their reporting.

Yeah your bias doesn't show at all!

 

[tcsenter]

*** defended the BBC in the face of accusations -- some from the British government -- that the broadcaster had been soft on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government.

"In times of war, British governments of every persuasion have sought to use the media to manage public opinion ... it's only a problem if the BBC caves in," *** said.

lol! IOW, its not a problem when the leftwing BBC tries to manage public opinion by reporting in a way that furthers or bolsters the view of the left. Only when it is done to further or bolster views they don't like is there a problem.

 

[Snapster]

I thought the BBC had the best coverage during the war, telling things how it was. The funny thing is that with those 'embedded reporters', they could only say what they were given by the military so it's not their fault entirely lol.

 

[BAMAVOO]

blah blah blah....



Watch what you want and stfu.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Snapster
I thought the BBC had the best coverage during the war, telling things how it was. The funny thing is that with those 'embedded reporters', they could only say what they were given by the military so it's not their fault entirely lol.

What other stations did you watch during the war?

 

[Snapster]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Snapster
I thought the BBC had the best coverage during the war, telling things how it was. The funny thing is that with those 'embedded reporters', they could only say what they were given by the military so it's not their fault entirely lol.

What other stations did you watch during the war?

Sky news, ITV, Fox News and CNN. All thanks to sky digital.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: bozack
Typical Double standard. Since they are liberal then any conservative form of Media is bad because it contradicts what they are saying.

Personally I would rather have an equal balance of Liberal and conservative slanted news stations to even things out instead of the heavy liberal slant that we see now.

I'd rather have unbiased facts, thanks. Sadly, those will never win a ratings war so we're stuck with the pathetic excuses for "news" channels currently on the air.

Fausto1 that might be possible if we have robots or some form of AI reporting the news, but as long as we are dealing with human beings anything we see, hear or read will have at least a slight, if not extreme bias to it. I have yet to read, hear, or see anything that is completely objective unless you are talking about some instructions or some technical manual.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: bozack
Typical Double standard. Since they are liberal then any conservative form of Media is bad because it contradicts what they are saying.

Personally I would rather have an equal balance of Liberal and conservative slanted news stations to even things out instead of the heavy liberal slant that we see now.

I'd rather have unbiased facts, thanks. Sadly, those will never win a ratings war so we're stuck with the pathetic excuses for "news" channels currently on the air.

Fausto1 that might be possible if we have robots or some form of AI reporting the news, but as long as we are dealing with human beings anything we see, hear or read will have at least a slight, if not extreme bias to it. I have yet to read, hear, or see anything that is completely objective unless you are talking about some instructions or some technical manual.

True, you can't ever take the human factor out of the equation, but I'd wager it's really the ratings thing driving the bias more than anything else. Tell people what they want to hear in a "hard-hitting" manner and they will watch your channel. I pretty much just stick to written sources since you can do more digging around for background on a given story rather than just relying on the news anchor's "insight" into the issue. I can only handle the vapid younger anchors ("Fresh New Insights Into the World Around You!" in TV-speak

) on Fox, CNN or wherever struggle with big words for about 10 minutes before I change the channel.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Snapster
I thought the BBC had the best coverage during the war, telling things how it was. The funny thing is that with those 'embedded reporters', they could only say what they were given by the military so it's not their fault entirely lol.

Not quite. They could report whatever they wanted with the exception of real-time locations, troop movements, and capabilities.

Being told what not to report is not the same as being told what to report.

 

[chrisms]

On the second day of the war, I cracked up watching the troops roll through the desert.

Fox News was providing a live feed of military vehicles driving through the desert. The caption? "Fox Troops travel with Coalition Troops in Southern Iraq".

Told a few people at work but most of them didn't see it.. by the time I came back they had changed it to "Fox News Crews".

 

[Snapster]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Snapster
I thought the BBC had the best coverage during the war, telling things how it was. The funny thing is that with those 'embedded reporters', they could only say what they were given by the military so it's not their fault entirely lol.

Not quite. They could report whatever they wanted with the exception of real-time locations, troop movements, and capabilities.

Being told what not to report is not the same as being told what to report.

Sorry, pure semantics. Was just trying to point out they were reliant on military giving them info on what's happened. I know they were 'screened' by the military in what they were allowed to say.

 

[numark]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
isnt fox owned by a australian company anways?

Nope, Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which does business right here in the USA.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: bozack
Typical Double standard. Since they are liberal then any conservative form of Media is bad because it contradicts what they are saying.

Personally I would rather have an equal balance of Liberal and conservative slanted news stations to even things out instead of the heavy liberal slant that we see now.

I'd rather have unbiased facts, thanks. Sadly, those will never win a ratings war so we're stuck with the pathetic excuses for "news" channels currently on the air.

You now can link to any news report from Fox News that contained "Biased Facts". Come on, let's see them...

Hah, that goes for any other morons spouting off in this topic, which belongs in the "Politics & News" forum, BTW.

There was NO news reported on Fox that wasn't also reported on CNN, MSNBC, CBS or any other US station. There was no news from any other US station that WASN'T also reported on FOX. Again, if Fox had some kind of "BIASED" news report, let's see the link or STFU.

Only thing you screw offs are bitching about is the filler between news reports. BFD! So they laughed at Baghdad Bob and cheered when Hussein's statue was ripped down. Whoop-di-sh!t.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: bozack
Typical Double standard. Since they are liberal then any conservative form of Media is bad because it contradicts what they are saying.

Personally I would rather have an equal balance of Liberal and conservative slanted news stations to even things out instead of the heavy liberal slant that we see now.

I'd rather have unbiased facts, thanks. Sadly, those will never win a ratings war so we're stuck with the pathetic excuses for "news" channels currently on the air.

You now can link to any news report from Fox News that contained "Biased Facts". Come on, let's see them...

Hah, that goes for any other morons spouting off in this topic, which belongs in the "Politics & News" forum, BTW.

There was NO news reported on Fox that wasn't also reported on CNN, MSNBC, CBS or any other US station. There was no news from any other US station that WASN'T also reported on FOX. Again, if Fox had some kind of "BIASED" news report, let's see the link or STFU.

Only thing you screw offs are bitching about is the filler between news reports. BFD! So they laughed at Baghdad Bob and cheered when Hussein's statue was ripped down. Whoop-di-sh!t.

Hey. Angry-Boy. Did I mention any specific news channel in my post? Nope, I didn't did I? They're all biased in some way or another. I said:

pathetic excuses for "news" channels currently on the air

See? Channels. With an "s". Plural, meaning all of them. "FOX" isn't even spelled with an "s".


Your vast righteous indignation has apparently impaired your reading comprehension.

 

[Ornery]

Excuse me for thinking you might have posted on topic

Let's see a link to ANY "biased" news report by a US station then...

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: dwell
Fox News plays a laugh track over the live images of bombs dropping on Baghdad.

I rather enjoyed the part in today's G-Block where they played disco music over the video of North Korean soldiers dancing in the streets...

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: edjam
Fox is so incredibly biased. We get it over here in the UK on satellite. BBC is the most balanced news coverage around.

I read KCNA all the time. They are really unbiased.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
isnt fox owned by a australian company anways?

Nope, Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which does business right here in the USA.

News Corp is an Australian media conglomerate, you moron.

And I guess no one here read about BBC reporter Paul Adams blasting his own news organization for presenting what he considered to be a distorted view of the facts on the ground.

 

[Random Variable]

The bottom line is that a group of people (mainly those who are desperate to see President Bush fail) are upset that the war did not turn out to be another Vietnam.

 

[Novgrod]

i was in europe for the duration of the war, where the main news source in english was the BBC.

they were loudly proclaiming early in the war that a) the military plan had failed outright and b) the iraqi regular troops were likely fighting the US tooth and nail because Iraq's inhabitants were steadfastly against the US. Then there was the comment that "most educated people in the US don't support the war," with the citation that 58% of people with college degrees support it, while 73% with less than a four-year degree support it.

i don't mean to defend fox news, but the only reason the BBC is complaining is that they're on the other side of the fence.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. broadcasters' coverage of the Iraq (news - web sites) war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America's electronic media, the head of the BBC said on Thursday.

America's electronic media has credibility?

Who gives a flip what the BBC thinks? Even their own reporters question the organizations credibility:

BBC man criticises 'war bias'

Jason Deans
Wednesday March 26, 2003

The BBC's coverage of the war has come under fire from one of its own correspondents in the Gulf who has fired off a furious memo claiming the corporation is misleading viewers about the conflict in Iraq.

Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent who is based at the coalition command centre in Qatar, complained that the corporation was conveying a untruthful picture of how the war was progressing.

Adams accused the BBC's coverage of exaggerating the military impact of casualties suffered by UK forces and downplaying their achievements on the battlefield during the first few days of the conflict.

"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.

"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.

"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected," Adams continued.

The memo, which has been leaked to the Sun newspaper, was sent to BBC executives including the head of TV news programmes, Roger Mosey, and his radio counterpart, Stephen Mitchell.

The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as the "worst possible news for the armed forces".

Labour MP Alice Mahon has also complained that the BBC is too pro-war and is not showing enough of the casualties inflicted on the Iraqis or the problems with humanitarian aid.

Earlier this week the BBC was forced to promise that it would no longer show footage of seriously injured British troops, after the mother of a Royal Marine watched her son set on fire during a gun battle on a BBC early evening bulletin.

A BBC spokeswoman said the corporation could not confirm the contents of what was an internal memo.

But she added that the BBC was not the only news organisation highlighting British casualties.

"This is an immensely complicated and difficult story and the big challenge for the BBC, as for other broadcasters, is getting the balance right. We are constantly monitoring the language and tone of reports to achieve this balance," the spokeswoman said.

"We think we get it right most of the time, but we know we don't always. This seems to have been an internal memo and we can't confirm its content, but this is the kind of debate about editorial tone that's going on in newsrooms all over the world about this particular story."

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. broadcasters' coverage of the Iraq (news - web sites) war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America's electronic media, the head of the BBC said on Thursday.

America's electronic media has credibility?

Can you explain why so many liberals Americans appear to hate America?