BBC- Director general slates 'gung-ho' war reports (ie Fox)

[Zipp]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Seeing that the BRITISH military boycotted the BBC during the war because of THEIR slanted coverage and one of BBC's reporters was pissed off that the BBC was bias against the war, id say the BBC is as fair and balenced as Hitler's propaganda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Can we have some links - Here in the UK, I've seen or heard of no big negative reaction to the BBC's coverage from any source (TV, radio or newspaper) via the British Armed Forces.

Yeah, the BBC and Hitler's propaganda machine are quite similar

Andy

Here's one

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I think the real trouble that most liberals have with FOX is the ratings. I'm not argueing that they're unbiased, but I think most of America understands that when they turn it on and they watch it because they probably agree with it more, that's the real fear that liberals have of FOX. The world isn't exactly lacking in news coverage on any medium, but people will probably get more of their news from a channel that they agree with more often.

It's not the ratings per se, it's that so many in the US unquestioningly absorb the attitudes and opinions expressed on FOX "news" and spend most of their waking hours regurgitating them. This thread is actually an excellent example of this; half the rebuttals from those on the right side of the spectrum are just sound-bites they've retained from Fox via sheer repetition.

See that's where I think you are wrong. I don't think they UNQUESTIONINGLY ABSORB them. This is an assumption that is dangerous because it generally insults those that disagree with you. Of course there are many on either side of the fence that will regurgitate anything, but to assume that the majority does is pessimistic in my opinion. I would rather think that people in general questioningly accept things that they agree with as I do. If the majority disagrees with me I'm not going to take an elitist approach and just think they are stupid, or fooled, or taking it from the spoon.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Seeing that the BRITISH military boycotted the BBC during the war because of THEIR slanted coverage and one of BBC's reporters was pissed off that the BBC was bias against the war, id say the BBC is as fair and balenced as Hitler's propaganda.

Can we have some links - Here in the UK, I've seen or heard of no big negative reaction to the BBC's coverage from any source (TV, radio or newspaper) via the British Armed Forces.

Yeah, the BBC and Hitler's propaganda machine are quite similar

Andy

BBC's history of being bias
BBC viewers realize their anti-war/anti-American stance
BBC reporter is pissed off by BBC's bias

The BBC, whose broadcasts are heard and seen worldwide, has been accused of being anti-war, but now that criticism has come from its own frontline defense correspondent. The Sun reports that Paul Adams has written an internal memo calling his network's war coverage "one-sided." He wrote, "I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering significant casualties.... This is simply not true." He continues, "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 the costs are relatively low." No comment from BBC management.

Can't find a link to the military boycott, might have been a rumor, but at least i'll admit that, but the BBC has proved where their biasness.

 

[BeeVo]

konichiwa,

What station do you watch that provides a fair and balanced picture?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I think the real trouble that most liberals have with FOX is the ratings. I'm not argueing that they're unbiased, but I think most of America understands that when they turn it on and they watch it because they probably agree with it more, that's the real fear that liberals have of FOX. The world isn't exactly lacking in news coverage on any medium, but people will probably get more of their news from a channel that they agree with more often.

It's not the ratings per se, it's that so many in the US unquestioningly absorb the attitudes and opinions expressed on FOX "news" and spend most of their waking hours regurgitating them. This thread is actually an excellent example of this; half the rebuttals from those on the right side of the spectrum are just sound-bites they've retained from Fox via sheer repetition.

See that's where I think you are wrong. I don't think they UNQUESTIONINGLY ABSORB them. This is an assumption that is dangerous because it generally insults those that disagree with you. Of course there are many on either side of the fence that will regurgitate anything, but to assume that the majority does is pessimistic in my opinion. I would rather think that people in general questioningly accept things that they agree with as I do. If the majority disagrees with me I'm not going to take an elitist approach and just think they are stupid, or fooled, or taking it from the spoon.

I guess I'm pessimistic then. I think most people would rather pop an opinion in the microwave than actually bother to consult a variety of news sources regarding a particular issue.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: BeeVo
konichiwa,

What station do you watch that provides a fair and balanced picture?

Good question! I've been looking for one too. I bet we could make a lot of money off of one.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Ornery
Someone who represents the agenda and ideas of the Fox News corporation.

Where's the links you keep weaseling out of providing to the BIASED NEWS REPORTS? I'm beginning to get the impression there aren't any! Is that possible? A simple yes or no will do!

LOL!!! Colmes is the worst liberal on tv, radio, whatever. He is the biggest pushover in the history of media (ok that may be a bit of hyperbole). Other than him, do you want to name another liberal or two on Fox??

Geraldo Rivera Reports

Eleanor Clift

Susan Estrich

Geraldine Ferraro

David Horowitz

...more

None of those people have any kind of regular gig on Fox.
David Horowitz is more like a bigot conservative.

 

[Mill]

I would say I don't care for BBC's biased coverage either, but that is just me.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: BeeVo
konichiwa,

What station do you watch that provides a fair and balanced picture?

I don't watch television for news.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: BeeVo
konichiwa,

What station do you watch that provides a fair and balanced picture?

I don't watch television for news.

Than why do you care what FOX does?

 

[konichiwa]

Just because I don't watch television news doesn't mean that I can't be appalled at their biased and fervently jingoistic (seems to be the catchphrase nowadays) practices.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Just because I don't watch television news doesn't mean that I can't be appalled at their biased and fervently jingoistic (seems to be the catchphrase nowadays) practices.

You don't watch it but you just know that they are biased and fervently jinoistic.

Uh huh, sure you do.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Just because I don't watch television news doesn't mean that I can't be appalled at their biased and fervently jingoistic (seems to be the catchphrase nowadays) practices.

you dont watch them but call them bias

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Just because I don't watch television news doesn't mean that I can't be appalled at their biased and fervently jingoistic (seems to be the catchphrase nowadays) practices.

You don't watch it but you just know that they are biased and fervently jinoistic.

Uh huh, sure you do.

Now now, don't be so hard on the poor fella. He has his opinions based on good authority. Hilary told him so.

 

[konichiwa]

Excellent argument, boys. The three of you gang up and the best thing you can come up with is that I must not know what I'm talking about because I don't watch american TV news? I'd say that gies me the best possible perspective on Fox, as I haev, unlike most on this forum, experienced a variety of other news sources which lets me compare Fox news to what I deem to be an unbiased news source.

And of course I have watched Fox news, but I am so sickened by the constant ferver of self-aggrandizement that I can't turn it on without being disgusted.

 

[etech]

I haev, unlike most on this forum, experienced a variety of other news sources

I can see why you would not want any competion in self-aggrandizement.

 

[Tiger]

Bah,
Sour grapes from the BBC and CNN.
The one overiding fact is that amongst the broadcast elite and the cable/sat channels Fox's reporting was right and the others were wrong. Fox's experts and commentators were right and the others were just plain wrong either through ignorance or politics.
Remember after the war started when all the doom and gloomers started sprouting up? "We need to restart the war", "Thousands will die", "The plan is wrong" (Barry McAfrey eat my shorts), etc.... You heard none of that from Fox.

If the coverage of the war by the BBC was so objective and truthful why did the sailors and marines abouard HMS Ark Royal change the channel for the duration? The BBC can be dismayed all they want. They got their asses kicked and if they weren't a government supported monopoly they'd be in advertiser hell right now.

I did get a chuckle out of ole Ted Turner the other night.
"Ratings don't mean anything".
Riiiiiiiiiiiight!!
Ted needs to put the tin foil back on and STFU. He's embarassing.

 

[Red Dawn]

I watched both Fox and CNN during the war. Fox to help allieve my anxiety over this war and CNN to get the truth. Of course both were doing their fair share of Flag waving , but Fox in it's attempt to win the rating war did a much better job at it. Did I mind? No not at all. Like I said the Fox News Station's Pro American Cheer Leading was just what the Doctor Ordered when it came to making this war seem a little more antiseptic.

BTW, I like O'Rielly and Shepard Smith, America's version of a Sarcastic Baghdad Bob. Cavuto is cool too. I think his Slams against the French were the best in the business. I can't stand the Hysterical Republican Lapdog Sean Hannity or those 3 goofs they have for their morning show though.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Seems Ted Turner and CNN don't care much for Rupert Murcoch either

 

[Martin]

As promised, a link to a news report that shows FoxNews' bias.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78698,00.html

The part that I am talking about:

A Monday meeting of the European Union will be the first opportunity to gauge readiness on the continent to negotiate. On Tuesday, the Security Council is to hold an open meeting on Iraq, designed mostly to embarrass the United States by providing a forum for non-council members to air their opposition to war.

You see, that is what I am talking about. The bold part is not news, but the opinion of FoxNews, which has been casually inserted in the middle of a news report.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I just got this from the BBC site:

BBC director general slates 'gung-ho' war reporting

I only paid a passing visit to Fox news during the war - but I have heard from several sources of its "sensationalist" journalism. Is it a well watched news channel? and is this anything new, or "old news" (no pun intended!).

I must say that I used the BBC for Iraq coverage almost exclusively as opposed to some other news sites it seemed to be the most objective and also the most cautious about releasing possibly inaccurate and propogandist information.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Andy

Fox News mostly uses sensationalism to keep their viewers tuned in and to attract new ones, it has worked very well so far. The problems I have with Fox is not what is being presented but how it is being presented, which is more through opinionated talk than actual reporting. I watch a little bit of American news, Canadian news and news from Eastern Europe (where I come from) and I can clearly see that Fox is biased even compared to CNN with which I also have problems with.

For instance, the biggest cheerleader of all, Bill O'Reilly, is the worst in this regard. Not only he interviews more people that agree with his views but the ones that do not agree with him are being cut off, muted or even called as "not a very deep-thinking person" in case of Jeff Paterson (a soldier who chose not to take part in Iraq war).

Another example is the way they refer to war in Iraq as "war of liberation" and the logo "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Isn't the phrase "Operation Removal of WMD" more appropriate to this conflict? Little things like that give people distorted view of the goals of this campaign. All you need to do is to browse through these forums to see how a lot of people view this war as being about liberating Iraq instead of the actual goal which is getting rid of WMD.

Fox keeps touting "real journalism -- fair and balanced" but I haven't seen a lot of talk on anti-war movement in US or other countries, I saw a lot of "flag waving" though. No matter which side you are on I think that in order to have an informed opinion you need to see both of those sides. Lack of coverage of civilian casualties is another major issue.
I'm pretty sure you can find bias in all of the news networks around the world, but some are worse than the others, and Fox is one of the worst I've seen so far.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: etech

I haev, unlike most on this forum, experienced a variety of other news sources

I can see why you would not want any competion in self-aggrandizement.

Your arguments get weaker and weaker by the day etech; I think you may be losing your Midas touch. You've been reduced to picking out one sentence from posts and making simplistic remarks. I am bored; I was hoping for more!

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: BigJelly
Seeing that the BRITISH military boycotted the BBC during the war because of THEIR slanted coverage and one of BBC's reporters was pissed off that the BBC was bias against the war, id say the BBC is as fair and balenced as Hitler's propaganda.

Can we have some links - Here in the UK, I've seen or heard of no big negative reaction to the BBC's coverage from any source (TV, radio or newspaper) via the British Armed Forces.

Yeah, the BBC and Hitler's propaganda machine are quite similar

Andy

BBC's history of being bias
BBC viewers realize their anti-war/anti-American stance
BBC reporter is pissed off by BBC's bias

The BBC, whose broadcasts are heard and seen worldwide, has been accused of being anti-war, but now that criticism has come from its own frontline defense correspondent. The Sun reports that Paul Adams has written an internal memo calling his network's war coverage "one-sided." He wrote, "I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering significant casualties.... This is simply not true." He continues, "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 the costs are relatively low." No comment from BBC management.

Can't find a link to the military boycott, might have been a rumor, but at least i'll admit that, but the BBC has proved where their biasness.

Thanks. The "potted history" you show of the BBC bias is interesting. The history seems to lean towards saying the BBC is biased towards putting the government's point of view across. Something which is at odds with the opinion that it is "anti-american" with regard to the war. There is certainly the point to be made that no news source is ever free from bias - but the BBC does a real good job compared to most other sources out there IMHO.

The telegraph article pointed to a massive 400 or so complaints over the war coverage - hardly a problem for a nation of 60 million IMHO.

And the "Fox News" article via "The Sun" newspaper (this almost made me turn off before I statred reading the article) talking of the BBC saying about "massive coalition casualties" seems less than believable. I never heard the BBC talk about "massive coalition casualties", if anything they frequently reported on the low coalition casualty rate.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ornery
Bill O'Reilly is not a reporter. Where's the links to NEWS REPORTS?

Does it matter? Fox hires, supports and stands by Bill O'Reilly and his opinions. That is proof enough of their motives and beliefs.

Your are comparing commentary to news reporting, there is a difference.

They don't stand by his opinion and what he believes in, LMAO, you honestly believe that??? They pay him to view HIS OPINION during COMMENTARY. I have read your other posts, guessing you will belive anything negative about the right....

From the BBC reports I had read I felt I was getting a little bias, some anti-Us sentimnet as well. Nice to see people in THEIR OWN organization CONFIRM their bias and call them on NoN-FACTUAL reporting, when the truth is known and readily available.

You have any links that show Fox did ANYTHING like that? Doubt it, American media is still the most diverse and complete group out there. You get every range of opinion, perspective, and spin on every issue, fact, or agenda.

Show me another country who provided as much truth about this conflict. Did they put over 600 independent reporters on the front lines with troops? We are going to be privy to more truth than ever offered before in the history of war, due to American media and the US govt.'s role in placing them there.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Oh by the way, some more interesting articles for you folks. I love how the standard Clinton-bashing conservative line is that he is a "draft dodger." Well it's no surprise that the words "draft dodger" have never slipped past Bill O'Reilly's lips.

WOW! I'm stunned. That was one worthless article. Basically, he's just attacking O'Reilly's character because he avoided going to Vietnam - LEGALLY, I might add. Then he parades around the fact that O'Reilly isn't a hypocrite about Clinton's draft-dodging, and tries to make that into a bad thing. My uncle was in 'Nam, and let me tell you, if he had the opportunity to avoid the war legally, he would have. And he surely wouldn't argue against anyone that was able to stay away. Let me tell you, he's a shell of his former self by any account.

I won't call you "unpatriotic" or an "America hater" just because you don't like Foxnews, so do your side of the argument a favor and don't put filth like this out to back it up.

Before you make any argument against this, tell me how this damages O'Reilly's credibility or how it makes him more conservative, especially considering that the author groups him with the "despised liberal elite."