Fox News - banned in Britain?

[Bowfinger]

Wow! This is screwed up in so many ways, I don't know where to start.

Originally posted by: Corn

The FCC does'nt share your view and grants licences of the public airwaves under the condition you do not slant the news.

Really?

Previously the FCC imposed what was called "the fairness doctrine" that allowed no editorial content in news broadcasts. That "rule" was scrapped because it is unconstitutional not to allow editorial content.

The link above says nothing of the sort. It does say that one judge supported Fox's claim that the "FCC's prohibition against news distortion is merely a policy" rather than an actual law. In other words, technically speaking, in the U.S. "it's not illegal to lie on the public airwaves" according to this one judge. Fox did NOT deny it pressured the reporters to lie, merely that this was not illegal. Also from the article, three other judges and a jury rejected Fox's position.

There are biases in all forms of "news" and the site I linked above is but a prime example, even if it renders moot your previous linked article.

What self-deluding hogwash, this site isn't even a news site, let alone a broadcaster. This site is for the Organic Consumers Association. It is an organization explicitly chartered with promoting a specific point of view. Anyone with an agenda can put up a web site claiming anything. Fox News is allegedly a news organization, and an FCC-regulated broadcaster to boot. That is not a subtle difference.

If you can't support your beliefs without lying, maybe you should reconsider them.

Even though they reported the "news" regarding the $425,000 lawsuit that was thrown out by the Florida Appeals Court (and the plaintiffs having to pay the legal costs incurred by FOX), they reported strictly on their bias and editorialized this "news" to fit their biased viewpoint regarding organic foods. Just the headline alone reeks of bias.

1. See above
2. The headline is factually true and accurately reflects the content of the article: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Televison; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection". If you read the article, that's exactly what it says.

Somehow, though, I doubt I'll see you complaining about the complete one sided nature of that "news" article I linked to above even though it proves my point and refutes yours.

The only thing it proves is your dishonesty.

-

Since you brought it up, however, I did a little digging into the case. Here's a little more insight into Fox's high standards for integrity and objective reporting:

From Goldman Environmental Prize

In late 1996, journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson began investigating rBGH, the genetically modified growth hormone American dairies have been injecting into their cows. As investigative reporters for the Fox Television affiliate in Tampa, Florida, they discovered that while the hormone had been banned in Canada, Europe and most other countries, millions of Americans were unknowingly drinking milk from rBGH-treated cows. The duo documented how the hormone, which can harm cows, was approved by the government as a veterinary drug without adequately testing its effects on children and adults who drink rBGH milk. They also uncovered studies raising the possibility of its link to breast, prostate and colon cancer in humans.

The Fox affiliate widely promoted the investigative reports. But just before the broadcast, the station abruptly pulled the plug after Monsanto, the hormone manufacturer, threatened Fox News chief Roger Ailes, promising "dire consequences" if the reporters were allowed to broadcast their findings. A Fox lawyer told the journalists, "This story isn't worth a couple hundred thousand dollars to go up against Monsanto." When the reporters implored Fox's station manager to proceed with the broadcast because this was news that consumers had a right to know, he refused.

For eight months, Fox lawyers pressured the reporters to air a version of the story that would avoid conflict with Monsanto. The reporters rewrote the story more than 80 times, but no version was ever acceptable. Instead the pair was repeatedly threatened with dismissal, twice offered six-figure sums to drop their ethical objections and keep quiet, and finally suspended, locked out of their offices, and fired just before Christmas 1997.

[ ... ]

After five weeks of testimony last summer, the jury unanimously ruled that the story Fox had pressured its reporters to broadcast was indeed "a false, distorted or slanted news report." They awarded $425,000 to Akre because they concluded she was fired for no other reason than threatening to reveal Fox's misconduct.

Here's another from the Sierra Club: Silence is Golden

The television station manager turned to the two reporters in his office. He had just been brought in from corporate headquarters and he didn?t mince words. The date was April 16, 1997. "We paid three billion dollars for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."

In short, Fox bowed to corporate pressure and tried first to distort the story, then killed it outright. Fox offered "six-figure sums" to the reporters to get them to drop their objections and prevent them from taking their complaint to the FCC. Ultimately, Fox fired the reporters and tried to claim that it's not illegal to lie in their newscasts. I found no evidence in any story suggesting Fox denied the claims made by these reporters.

So, to Corn, thank you for giving us a well-documented example of how biased Fox can be. I found it most enlightening. And kudos to the reporters who were willing to stand up for their principles in spite of intense professional and financial cost. We need more reporters like them.

Finally, for anyone who wants more information, Google is your friend. You can also go to this site, set up by the reporters who lost their jobs. Please note that this is a site with an explicit agenda; it is not a news broadcaster. As such, you cannot expect it to be completely objective and unbiased. Just wanted to make that clear for people with a deficient grasp of the incredibly obvious.

 

[Lynx516]

Never heard about the BBC being accused of bein biased from inside. But from what I have read the BBC takes impartiality very seriously and have had a few bust ups with the Government over stuff they have shown that makes the Government look bad. Fox News I doubt is watched much in the UK. The main channels for news woudl be BBC and Sky News. The BBC news is impartial as any nes service can be. They are independant of the Government and are not owned by anyone chould you ask for more

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech
Liberal talk shows have a history of poor ratings.

It seems no one wants to listen to the left whine any more than they already have to listen to them.

U.S.: MSNBC Axes Liberal Phil Donahue Talk Show

Having Rosie O'Donnell as a guest to give her views on Iraq probably contributed to the lack of interest in the show.

Donahue had the highest or was tied for the highest ratings on MSNBC. The replacement for his timeslot draws significantly less viewership than Donahue did.
That said, care to name two or three liberal commentators on TV??

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
Liberal talk shows have a history of poor ratings.

It seems no one wants to listen to the left whine any more than they already have to listen to them.

U.S.: MSNBC Axes Liberal Phil Donahue Talk Show

Having Rosie O'Donnell as a guest to give her views on Iraq probably contributed to the lack of interest in the show.

Donahue had the highest or was tied for the highest ratings on MSNBC. The replacement for his timeslot draws significantly less viewership than Donahue did.
That said, care to name two or three liberal commentators on TV??

Donahue has had two shows on TV. The first did well but it was not a politcal talk show. When he attempted to come back and be the host of a liberal political talk show it failed with poor ratings as have most if not all of the liberal talk shows.

Would you care to name two or three liberal commentators of TV? I really don't watch the talking heads shows very much if at all.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

The FCC does'nt share your view and grants licences of the public airwaves under the condition you do not slant the news.

Really?

Previously the FCC imposed what was called "the fairness doctrine" that allowed no editorial content in news broadcasts. That "rule" was scrapped because it is unconstitutional not to allow editorial content. There are biases in all forms of "news" and the site I linked above is but a prime example, even if it renders moot your previous linked article. Even though they reported the "news" regarding the $425,000 lawsuit that was thrown out by the Florida Appeals Court (and the plaintiffs having to pay the legal costs incurred by FOX), they reported strictly on their bias and editorialized this "news" to fit their biased viewpoint regarding organic foods. Just the headline alone reeks of bias.

Somehow, though, I doubt I'll see you complaining about the complete one sided nature of that "news" article I linked to above even though it proves my point and refutes yours.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Did you just make all that stuff about the fairness doctrine up? Apparently so.
Fairness Doctrine

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

If the fairness doctrine was still around today, who would be in violation the most?? hmmm....

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech
Liberal talk shows have a history of poor ratings.

It seems no one wants to listen to the left whine any more than they already have to listen to them.

U.S.: MSNBC Axes Liberal Phil Donahue Talk Show

Having Rosie O'Donnell as a guest to give her views on Iraq probably contributed to the lack of interest in the show.

Donahue had the highest or was tied for the highest ratings on MSNBC. The replacement for his timeslot draws significantly less viewership than Donahue did.
That said, care to name two or three liberal commentators on TV??

Donahue has had two shows on TV. The first did well but it was not a politcal talk show. When he attempted to come back and be the host of a liberal political talk show it failed with poor ratings as have most if not all of the liberal talk shows.

Would you care to name two or three liberal commentators of TV? I really don't watch the talking heads shows very much if at all.

I'm talking about the same political show that he had on MSNBC (not the daytime show on NBC). His ratings were bad, but his show often got the most viewers on MSNBC (more than Hardball, it its still around), and the show that replaced his has significantly less viewership.

Other than Begala and Carville who get 30 minutes on Crossfire, I can't name any liberal commentators on TV. That's the problem.

 

[etech]

I'm talking about the same political show that he had on MSNBC (not the daytime show on NBC). His ratings were bad, but his show often got the most viewers on MSNBC (more than Hardball, it its still around), and the show that replaced his has significantly less viewership.

Other than Begala and Carville who get 30 minutes on Crossfire, I can't name any liberal commentators on TV. That's the problem.

Donahue ratings grim for MSNBC

"The mood at MSNBC has turned from hopeful to grim over the last four weeks, insiders said, as Donahue's ratings spiralled down, last week falling to 393,000 viewers from a start of 660,000 viewers. For the month, Chung beat Donahue by 44%. Both shows still lag far behind Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor."

The ratings were falling. That's why he was canceled before it got even more grim.

The problem is that not enough people want to listen to liberal commentators on TV. No audience, no show. It is not a grand conspriacy, it's business.

 

[jahawkin]

.ra

Originally posted by: etech

I'm talking about the same political show that he had on MSNBC (not the daytime show on NBC). His ratings were bad, but his show often got the most viewers on MSNBC (more than Hardball, it its still around), and the show that replaced his has significantly less viewership.

Other than Begala and Carville who get 30 minutes on Crossfire, I can't name any liberal commentators on TV. That's the problem.

Donahue ratings grim for MSNBC

"The mood at MSNBC has turned from hopeful to grim over the last four weeks, insiders said, as Donahue's ratings spiralled down, last week falling to 393,000 viewers from a start of 660,000 viewers. For the month, Chung beat Donahue by 44%. Both shows still lag far behind Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor."

The ratings were falling. That's why he was canceled before it got even more grim.

The problem is that not enough people want to listen to liberal commentators on TV. No audience, no show. It is not a grand conspriacy, it's business.

But none of those numbers are in context with other MSNBC shows. Sure, Donahue might have been getting clobbered by o'reilly, but if hes pulling the best numbers for the network, why axe him?
And yes, liberal shows do have a market. I believe Randi Rhodes (not the ozzy guitarist) has the highest rated talk show in her area, but for some reason she can't get syndicated. Wonder why?

 

[etech]

Would you mind sharing the link that shows Donahue's shows ratings in contrast to other shows on MSNBC?

Also why was Donahue's show put on the air in the first place and did it suceed in that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Keerist, like Donahue was a liberal or anything or delt with real issues.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech
Would you mind sharing the link that shows Donahue's shows ratings in contrast to other shows on MSNBC?

Also why was Donahue's show put on the air in the first place and did it suceed in that?

Link

Ironically, Donahue's viewership was the largest of any program on the network, including "Hardball With Chris Matthews."

 

[Corn]

If you can't support your beliefs without lying, maybe you should reconsider them.

You know, it's interesting that you say that since you completely misrepresented everything stated in my previous post. Nowhere did I claim that was a "news" site, nor a broadcaster, only that they had reported on a newsworthy event.

Fox did NOT deny it pressured the reporters to lie, merely that this was not illegal.

From the Iowa State Saily dated Feb 28, 2003: (you're free to look it up, I pulled it from nexis)

WTVT's response is that "The station categorically denies that it ever asked Wilson or Akre to include false information in the piece. The reporters were not willing to be objective in the story."

The evidence points to a lie or two in this discussion, however, the finger is pointing at you, not me.

The only thing it proves is your dishonesty.

No Bowfinger, you have not proven a single dishonest word came from my keyboard. You have managed to prove that you can put words into my mouth that I never said. Mercy me, a documented liar calls me dishonest, how will I ever manage to get through my day.

 

[Corn]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Did you just make all that stuff about the fairness doctrine up? Apparently so.

I love how the morons post links that support what I had already said. Jaw, evidently you have a short attention span and didn't bother to read the entire contents of your link. Here ya go:

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

The case against the fairness doctrine.

Yeah Jaw, I made it up.

 

[Corn]

Sure, Donahue might have been getting clobbered by o'reilly, but if hes pulling the best numbers for the network, why axe him?

Perhaps it cost more to air the show than it was taking in? Donahue was making $1 million/year, with only 330k viewers, that ain't gonna even come close to paying his salary.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn
You know, it's interesting that you say that since you completely misrepresented everything stated in my previous post.

Riiight.

I am quite comfortable that anyone reading my response will find I accurately represented everything you said. I note that you completely avoided every single specific issue and fact I provided. You're just embarrassed that your post was irrelevant nonsense.

Mercy me, a documented liar calls me dishonest, how will I ever manage to get through my day.

Aside from the childish name-calling, I challenge you to document where and when I have been a "liar".

I'm not perfect by any means, but I have been most careful to find and accurately represent articles that I found germane to the discussion at hand. I have always tried to acknowledge mistakes when I've made them. Your record, on the other hand, has been rife with misinformation and personal attacks - in my opinion, of course.

 

[Corn]

Aside from the childish name-calling, I challenge you to document where and when I have been a "liar".

I already did in my previous post. But since you're a little thick, here goes again.

You said:

Fox did NOT deny it pressured the reporters to lie, merely that this was not illegal.

The Fox affiliate said:

WTVT's response is that "The station categorically denies that it ever asked Wilson or Akre to include false information in the piece. The reporters were not willing to be objective in the story."

So, what's the truth, something you made up, or Fox's documented denial that you said never happened?

Your record, on the other hand, has been rife with misinformation and personal attacks - in my opinion, of course.

Your turn.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Did you just make all that stuff about the fairness doctrine up? Apparently so.

I love how the morons post links that support what I had already said. Jaw, evidently you have a short attention span and didn't bother to read the entire contents of your link. Here ya go:

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

The case against the fairness doctrine.

Yeah Jaw, I made it up.

You said that the fairness doctrine stated that you can't editoralize. The fairness doctrine said nothing of the sort (if you editoralize, you have to present both sides of the issue), and was not struck down because unconstitutional, as you also stated.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Aside from the childish name-calling, I challenge you to document where and when I have been a "liar".

I already did in my previous post. But since you're a little thick, here goes again.

You said:

Fox did NOT deny it pressured the reporters to lie, merely that this was not illegal.

The Fox affiliate said:

WTVT's response is that "The station categorically denies that it ever asked Wilson or Akre to include false information in the piece. The reporters were not willing to be objective in the story."

So, what's the truth, something you made up, or Fox's documented denial that you said never happened?

Three points:

1. You conveniently omit the context of the comment - Fox's defense in this court case. The article you linked includes no mention of a denial by Fox, nor did any of the half-dozen or so other links I found and read. The statement is factually true within this context.
2. You claim that some student newspaper "documented" Fox's denial, but you provide no links to support this. Do you have any links from established sources?
3. You conveniently left out the part where I said, "I found no evidence in any story suggesting Fox denied the claims made by these reporters." That is also factually true.

In short, if Fox did deny the claims, it doesn't seem to have been well-reported. Try again.

-

I also said:

I am quite comfortable that anyone reading my response will find I accurately represented everything you said. I note that you completely avoided every single specific issue and fact I provided. You're just embarrassed that your post was irrelevant nonsense.

I stand by this, and note you still avoided the points I raised.

 

[Corn]

You said that the fairness doctrine stated that you can't editoralize. The fairness doctrine said nothing of the sort (if you editoralize, you have to present both sides of the issue).....

Evidently you didn't read my link entitled "the case against the fairness doctrine" very carefully. Had you done so, you might not have missed this very important point:

For one thing, very few issues have just two sides.

Simply put, the fairness doctrine allowed no editorialization unless "all sides" were "represented". At what lengths should a broadcaster go to insure "all sides" are represented for every issue they wish to opine? Following this rule to the letter would essentially disallow any editorialization as the research required to allow every voice equal time would have been prohibitive.

......and was not struck down because unconstitutional, as you also stated.

I never said it was "struck down", only that it was scrapped. The FCC had lost several key lawsuits regarding the fairness doctrine (also refrenced in my previous link) and had the foresight to quit emposing that draconian rule upon a single media to the exclusion of all others (print).

Now onto Bowfinger:

You conveniently omit the context of the comment - Fox's defense in this court case. The article you linked includes no mention of a denial by Fox, nor did any of the half-dozen or so other links I found and read.

Let's take a trip down memory lane again:

Fox did NOT deny it pressured the reporters to lie, merely that this was not illegal.

They did indeed deny it, evidently you didn't read your dozen or so links very carefully. The fact is that the basis for the appeal had nothing to do with whether or not Fox has asked these reporters to lie, only that no such law existed that would prohibit a broadcaster from doing so. You mistakenly assumed that Fox didn't deny it for this reason. I'm not going to handicap myself suit the context of your ignorance. As if, LOL!

You claim that some student newspaper "documented" Fox's denial, but you provide no links to support this. Do you have any links from established sources?

Are you implying that an article written in support of the plaintiffs in the case against Fox would lie?

Would the Austin Chronicle lie too?

Google, it's not that difficult, really.

I stand by this, and note you still avoided the points I raised.

About Fox and thier supposed bad behavior? I assume you've simply given in to the temptation of the stereotype.

Hey, I watched Fox News a total of 2 nights of war coverage and was embarrassed by Sheppard Smith's patriotic pandering. I clicked the channel without any help from speech hating liberal fascists.

I wouldn't say that was glowing praise. I didn't argue against your "points" for a multitude or reasons, the 2 most prominent being that; a) I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion regarding the lack of balance to their reporting, and b) I really could not care less about it.

In short, if Fox did deny the claims, it doesn't seem to have been well-reported. Try again.

Oh the irony! Yes, a perfect example regarding the lack of even handed news coverage!

 

[0roo0roo]

do they ban al jazerra in britain too? one reason why so many arabs were so shocked the war went so quickly, al jazerra pumped them up for iraqi resistence of insane proportion

 

[AndrewR]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Did you just make all that stuff about the fairness doctrine up? Apparently so.

Fairness Doctrine

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the fairness doctrine was still around today, who would be in violation the most?? hmmm....

You might want to read all of the webpage that you cite. He apparently did not make up what he wrote regarding the Fairness Doctrine:

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. ... By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment.

Who would be most in violation if it existed today? The Big Three evening news programs by far. If you cannot see that, then you are so far to the left already that a liberal slant appears moderate.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Did you just make all that stuff about the fairness doctrine up? Apparently so.

Fairness Doctrine

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.
This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the fairness doctrine was still around today, who would be in violation the most?? hmmm....

You might want to read all of the webpage that you cite. He apparently did not make up what he wrote regarding the Fairness Doctrine:

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. ... By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment.

Who would be most in violation if it existed today? The Big Three evening news programs by far. If you cannot see that, then you are so far to the left already that a liberal slant appears moderate.

Corn stated that the fairness doctrine got struck down because it was unconstitutional. This was not the case. A court would have to declair it unconstitutional . Saying that it might be unconstitutional after it had been around for decades does not equate to it being unconstitutional.
If you think network news is more biased than Fox......well, i don't have much to say other than you don't have a clue.

 

[Corn]

Corn stated that the fairness doctrine got struck down because it was unconstitutional.

They say that if you repeat a lie enough, eventually you'll start to believe it.

Enough of this foolishness, post where I stated "struck down". "struck down" implies a censure by a court. "scrapped" simply implies it was no longer enforced, ie: discarded (if you have trouble understanding words, you can always visit dictionary.com)

Put words into my mouth all you want, it still doesn't change what I had said.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

No, not really. The BBC as I remember it from the mid-90s while over in Europe had a bit of a leftest slant back then. Yet certainly not on the same magnitude as Fox. They are very objective, to tell you the truth. From reading their website during the war, the BBC seems to have evolved slightly more left since the mid-90s, although they maintain their objectivity.

I listen to the BBC over here in the states via the local NPR station during lunch sometimes. They still seem just as informative and in-depth on humanitarian issues now as 8 years ago. They announce just as many pro-US policy reports as negative ones, IMO. For example on a newscast last month, a Washington correspondent of the BBC was explaining in-depth why a certain, US policy issue was important to the Americans while simultaneously depised by the Europeans. He didn't just state something to the effect of "because the Americans want it". This correspondent deeply investigated the subject, accented it with interviews from various U.S. officials, and explained to the audience why the Americans wanted the policy and what the Americans expect from it. Come to think of it, the issue was about administration of Iraq and couldn't be interpreted as "anti-American", in my opinion.

Interpretations, even though we both more or less share the same language, are important when analyzing the truth from regional news. Many issues reported here are interpreted differently by the European press and vice-versa. A known fact is that a particular issue analyzed by CNN will be illustrated differently by the BBC or Germany's ZDF for the sake of their respective audience.

I consider myself conservative. However, I also consider Fox as much too right-wing and sensational even for my tastes.

I agree with you that - if anything - the BBC demonstrates a leftist stance, slight if that. I cannot having read many articles myself agree with the "anti-american" accusations levied at the BBC, but maybe some would say because of my nationality I am biased.

Cheers,

Andy

I doubt it is your nationality that makes it difficult for you to see such obvious bias, the claims of ANTI-US bias being leveled at the BBC are from it's OWN EMPLOYESS, fellow Britians, more than likely you feel it is accurate and unbiased because it mirrors what you think, or vice versa, that remains to be seen I suppose. Something interesting I will have to watch for a pattern to see if that theory flies. I know you have claimed to use them as a regualr credible source in the past Fencer, I hope at least now you are making an effort to find VARIOUS independent differing sources to help form a more balanced understanding.

I always thought I sensed it myself, but assumed I was being oversensitive due to my nationality, but once the same thoughts were coming from those WITHIN the organiziation I began to realize my observations and opinion had nothing to do with my Americanized persepctive.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: jahawkinOther than Begala and Carville who get 30 minutes on Crossfire, I can't name any liberal commentators on TV. That's the problem.

Bob Shields, Al Hunt, Eleanor Clift, George Stephanopoulos, Susan Estrich, and Margaret Carlson are certifiable right wing whackos. Brokaw and Jennings are no-brainers as well. Cokie "Boggs" Roberts and Sam Donaldson have carried the water for the right so much it makes me wanna barf. We really do need a liberal voice somewhere.