BBC castigated in Hutton report. Article from their own website. Looks like some of their allegations against the British government were flat out false and contributed to the ultimate suicide of Dr. David Kelly. Way to go BBC!
BBC the least biased news source? Think again.
- Thread starter AndrewR
- Start date
I agree that bbc has gone down a bit but look at it this way. They post a news story on the frontpage that says they are at fault, they list everything in the news story and dont try to hide anything in the report. Just have to say I doubt many other news agiencies would do the same.
"It was possible Tony Blair's wish for the dossier to make a persuasive case might have influenced Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett to put the document in stronger words than usual intelligence reports."
Not a word about none of the intelligence being true? Tsk, tsk.
How surprising that a Prime Minister or President would pressure an intelligence agency.
Furthermore, how much evidence has Blair covered up? Who will come out of the woodwork next and further implicate Blair? Hmmm.... I'd have an ulcer worrying about all that if I were Blair.
We'll see if Bush was smart enough to do the same thing, i.e. cover his tracks. The difference here is our Director of the CIA may squeel.
-Robert
Not a word about none of the intelligence being true? Tsk, tsk.
How surprising that a Prime Minister or President would pressure an intelligence agency.
Furthermore, how much evidence has Blair covered up? Who will come out of the woodwork next and further implicate Blair? Hmmm.... I'd have an ulcer worrying about all that if I were Blair.
We'll see if Bush was smart enough to do the same thing, i.e. cover his tracks. The difference here is our Director of the CIA may squeel.
-Robert
Despite having his nose firmly planted in Bush' derriere, Blair is not a Bushie or a Neocon. The BBC is responsible for it's poor oversight and allowing bias to affect how they report events . . . so essentially they sux almost as much as FOX. I'm not surprised Blair was cleared of charges that he intentionally misled the public. But there's still a credibility gap unless he's willing to hang the JIC out to dry. My understanding of Hutton's report is that Blair didn't "sex up" the dossier but the intelligence service did. Apparently, Blair did not question the 45 minute claim or any of the "most salacious" elements of the dossier. I believe some call that "plausible deniability". Hutton agreed,
Curiously, Hutton missed this tidbit from the Independent
Guardian
Curiously, Hutton missed this tidbit from the Independent
Guardian
Hmm, it takes Iraqis 45 minutes to unpack a crate . . . must be union labor.
It always amuses me how the neocons try so hard to discredit the BBC, as though they have something to prove. Perhaps taking most of your information from such a news source as FNC makes you a bit uneasy when faced with a rival, much less biased news source.
Orsum, I wouldn't disagree with your criticism of the Neocon harpies but let's be honest. The BBC essentially committed the same offense they accused Blair, Bush, et al. Gilligan had a story but he "sexed it up".
and absolutely the right thing to do, wonder who will be next to resign for overstating and not checking out sources
This story is far from over. It is too, too juicy to be over. Someone's gonna' squeel and the rats will go down with the ship. It always happens. Every team has a John Dean....
-Robert
-Robert
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
Without intergity we are all lost. We just can't do everything alone. Life is a fellowship of the ring and the BBC wanted it for itself. So sad.
Poor Czar, where will he turn to for "impartial", but anti-american news? I think he's already found one in commondreams.org. With a name like "commondreams", you'd think one would know to stay away. But not czar. He's determine to dig for dirt.
By the way, has anyone else noticed that the conservatives have taken over the television (Fox, MSNBC, CBS...) broadcast and radio stations (talk radio in America. The only liberal redoubt is now in print. How long until those become conservative?
IMO, heads should've rolled over the intel/Iraq/WMD issue a long time ago. I can't believe everyone still has their job.
Originally posted by: Dari
Poor Czar, where will he turn to for "impartial", but anti-american news? I think he's already found one in commondreams.org. With a name like "commondreams", you'd think one would know to stay away. But not czar. He's determine to dig for dirt.
By the way, has anyone else noticed that the conservatives have taken over the television (Fox, MSNBC, CBS...) broadcast and radio stations (talk radio in America. The only liberal redoubt is now in print. How long until those become conservative?
if you can point me to some news site that rivals the bbc then please do, I know of two or three, reuters, ap and afp, what more is there?
we all know of your hatret for bbc anyways
btw
commondreams is a leftist pos site, only thing I read there are the news which are btw news from other news orgs, the rest I ignore
Only a minor resurrection of a thread...
So I guess I'm a neocon now? Interesting. There's nothing specifically in this thread about "discredit[ing] the BBC" because all of the information is factual regarding their handling of the WMD report. I wanted to report this story here because so many people seem to believe that the BBC is the world's greatest news organization which has zero bias whatsoever. While the first statement is obviously open to debate, the second is not -- I even read in another article (online, don't remember the source however because it could have been a newspaper article) how the BBC's reputation has suffered from their biased reporting on President Bush, which has been obvious with some critical reading of their articles.
EVERY NEWS SOURCE IS BIASED. It is imperative to learn the bias to judge the accuracy of the reporting. Unfortunately, it seems that fact is lost on most people, and they cannot judge information based on the source.
Just for the record, I almost never access Fox online, and rarely see their programs on the Armed Forces Network (get most of my news from BBC, MSNBC, CNN, Le Monde, and various national newspapers).
You amuse Orsorum, neocon! Leave the BBC alone....if you aren't bashing Foxnews, then you are a "neocon."
you stupid dik puke. the hutton report was a fit up.
firstly blair lied to parliament. he chaired the meeting that authorised the naming of kelly as the source of the 45 minute claim. they said in parliament he had had no involvement with it. thats a lie, he isnt a king or something and cant lie.
second, on the one hand 45 minutes, is a reasonable claim, saddam could communtcate to the army and they could fire any bc shells they had, probably in 20 minutes if they have good communications. however today he lied again saying that he was "unware" that the claim only related to artillery and not missiles. so whats he saying? that he didnt know iraq's military cababilities and the extent and details of the threat of the pretext that we went to war on?
thirdly, one way or another its clear that blair and his cotterie did jazz up the red herring that was the wmd "dossier" which was based on a 12 year old phd thesis. the bbc reporter who admittedly had an axe to grind put out the claim that campbell, balir's chief aide, insisted that the secret intelligence service "sex up" the dossier. well all the facts are that they did jazz the thing up with more stark language after balir ordered them to - even though in britain the civil service are not supposed to be polictically biased- and that jazzing up process related to the minimum attack time, specified as 45 minutes. well cambell went on a war path about this, and judging by his legalistic language and measured attacks; words very similar to "sex up" were used by him but couldnt be proved, so he denied saying it and the bbc was criticised.
hutton was the governments defence counsel for bloody sunday, this kelly "inquiry" was an inside job!
at the end of the day no one in britain is fooled, the dork at the top of this post is someone who is clueless about these events, carry on chewing.
Judging by your thread title, AndrewR, I took your comments to indicate that the BBC was somehow more biased than comparable news sources. I did not state that the BBC was unbiased; I realize that they do have a bias, as do all news sources. It is my opinion that while the BBC is not perfect, it is significantly less biased than similar sources, and from what I have seen they have had the maturity to confront issues that have arisen.
I apologize for branding you with the term neocon; from what I have seen on these boards, rarely does a person who is not a neoconservative castigate (I love that word!) the BBC in such a manner or tone.
Cheers!
Nate
Just for the record, the grammar in that article is atrocious, not that I'm judging the article's merits on that basis.
I don't care what you think of Fox News; however, to regard the BBC as somehow more biased or worse than FNC is asinine.
Cheers!
Nate
Is this because you say it's so, or because the BBC is more in tune with your ideologies? Or, instead, are you saying that one should not try to quantify bias in news sources and compare that to other biased new sources? Are you saying both are biased, so it is "asinine" to claim one is more creditworthy than the other?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter