The BBC is really becoming anti-american

[Dari]

The article below seems innocuous enough, until you notice the lack of journalistic integrity and semantics that undermines this agency's bias. The part I have italicized should've at the very least been in quotation marks, if it was the interviewee's own statement. But the lack of quotation marks confirms that it was either a mistake or the BBC's own opinion. If it was the latter, then what a lot of people here have been saying about this organization is true, that of its bias against america. Not only do they forget that this was a war between The United Nations and North Korea, but it was the north koreans that were the aggressors.

Add this little tidbit to the whole controversy between the BBC and the UK Government, and I might have to find another international news outlet that is much more impartial. This is really disturbing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

link

The lonely Korean War veteran

On 27 July, the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean War, South Korean veterans will be honoured for their patriotism and sacrifice in religious services and war ceremonies.


But in Seoul, there is one war veteran who will spend the day quietly, alone in his little attic room in the south of the city.

Seventy-year-old Park Jong-lin did not fight to repel communism like the others.

In fact, he did the opposite -he served in the North Korean army fighting against the imperialist American aggressors and their South Korean accomplices.

"I was originally from the area which is now North Korea, and it was only natural for me to join the North Korean army when I was 18," said Mr Park.

"The toughest battle during the war was when we had advanced far into enemy territory.

"I was in a man-to-man combat situation with a South Korean soldier, and we literally rolled down a 600 metre mountain throwing punches at each other. When we reached the bottom, we both fainted in exhaustion," he said.

After the fighting ended in 1953 - a formal peace treaty was never signed, meaning the two Koreas are still technically at war - Mr Park lived with his family in the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.

Then in 1959 he was sent on an espionage mission into Seoul that would change his life forever.

"My job in South Korea was to help a left-wing politician win the elections and to arouse pro-North Korean sentiments," he said.

"I was a messenger to teach the North Korean communist ideology to the people in the South."

Prisoner of conscience

But that mission came to an end six months into his stay. He was arrested for spying and sentenced for breaking South Korea's national security law.

Mr Park had to spend most of his life in South Korea behind bars, in six different prisons.

"I could have gotten out in just 20 years if I declared to drop my communist beliefs, but my conscience simply wouldn't let me.

"How can one change his ideology and faith by force? It only made me more stubborn and more dedicated in believing North Korea's socialism," he said.

His ideological dedication gave him another 15 years in jail, until he was finally pardoned on Christmas Eve 1994, after a total of 35 years behind bars.

Park Jong-lin has been trying to return to the North ever since.

His big chance came in September 2000, when the Seoul Government decided to repatriate spies like Mr Park as a good will gesture, after the historic inter-Korean summit.

When the announcement was made of the 63 spies set to return to North Korea, Mr Park fell into shock.

"I couldn't find my name on the list," he said.

"Later I found there had been some mistake in the government's paperwork. The policy was to send back only former spies who refused to give up their communist beliefs. For some reason I was considered as a fully converted South Korean.

"I protested, saying I was a former spy too - and still a communist sympathiser - but it was too late."

For the time being, Mr Park has to continue to live alone in Seoul, away from his family.

He tries to keep in touch with home by surfing the internet and looking for any news about North Korea.

"Now my only hope for the future is unification of the Koreas," he said.

"But if I had to mention a personal wish, it's simply a chance to return to Pyongyang, the home of my family and the birthplace of my ideological beliefs."

 

[Fencer128]

That's right - the BBC really thinks the US were imperialist aggressors.

I'm betting it's a mistake.

Andy

 

[jjones]

You really need to get a grip. The paper was only trying to show this North Korean's POV. The writer of the article was just trying to portray for the benefit of the reader, the mindset of the North Korean soldier.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
That's right - the BBC really thinks the US were imperialist aggressors.

I'm betting it's a mistake.

Andy

but this has been a distrubing pattern for months now. care to explain that?

You really need to get a grip. The paper was only trying to show this North Korean's POV. The writer of the article was just trying to portray for the benefit of the reader, the mindset of the North Korean soldier.

try a better excuse, my friend. he either made a mistake or was subtly hinting at his own opinions. I think it may be the latter. The BBC is going down the toilet in terms of journalistic integrity.

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
That's right - the BBC really thinks the US were imperialist aggressors.

I'm betting it's a mistake.

Andy

That's a big mistake...like in 50 years someone writing an article about Gulf War I stating that the imperialist US aggressors Kuwaiti accomplices invaded Iraq, or something like that.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Fox News balances it all out.

 

[Fencer128]

I have emailed a memo to the BBC pointing out what I hope is an error. Lets see what happens.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I have emailed a memo to the BBC pointing out what I hope is an error. Lets see what happens.

Cheers,

Andy

I'm saving this page as an acrobat file in case they claimed it never happened.

 

[Fencer128]

but this has been a distrubing pattern for months now. care to explain that?

I will admit that the BBC has a left bias - but a lot less so IMHO than a lot of other media outlets. In fact, contrary to what many people are saying around here I would say that they are a more reliable source than most. There is the odd article such as this one that raises questions - but in my experience they are very rare. I would say this was a mistake that will be corrected. In no way would I say that this kind of error is indicative of the normal standard of journalism - much less that this is the sort of level of bias they regularly display.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

but this has been a distrubing pattern for months now. care to explain that?

I will admit that the BBC has a left bias - but a lot less so IMHO than a lot of other media outlets. In fact, contrary to what many people are saying around here I would say that they are a more reliable source than most. There is the odd article such as this one that raises questions - but in my experience they are very rare. I would say this was a mistake that will be corrected. In no way would I say that this kind of error is indicative of the normal standard of journalism - much less that this is the sort of level of bias they regularly display.

Cheers,

Andy

care to explain why they twisted Dr. David Kelly's word? In the end he committed suicide, you know. The BBC indirectly killed him because they were so anxious to put the UK government into a bad light.

 

[Fencer128]

care to explain why they twisted Dr. David Kelly's word? In the end he committed suicide, you know. The BBC indirectly killed him because they were so anxious to put the UK government into a bad light.

Careful with your accusations - most of the investigations into the BBC/government dossier row, along with the investigation into Dr Kelly's suicide are still ongoing.

As yet there has been no definite decision made on what you speak about.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Dari

You really need to get a grip. The paper was only trying to show this North Korean's POV. The writer of the article was just trying to portray for the benefit of the reader, the mindset of the North Korean soldier.

try a better excuse, my friend. he either made a mistake or was subtly hinting at his own opinions. I think it may be the latter. The BBC is going down the toilet in terms of journalistic integrity.

No better excuse needed but maybe you're right. I read it as the writer laying the groundwork of the mindset of the typical Korean soldier, which this article is partially about. It goes on to further describe his exploits as a spy and prisoner, which is far from typical, but it still originates with the POV of the soldier. But like I said, maybe you're right in that this seems a bit of artistic license perhaps not appropriate. I was able to see the distiction but obviously others can't.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Dari

You really need to get a grip. The paper was only trying to show this North Korean's POV. The writer of the article was just trying to portray for the benefit of the reader, the mindset of the North Korean soldier.

try a better excuse, my friend. he either made a mistake or was subtly hinting at his own opinions. I think it may be the latter. The BBC is going down the toilet in terms of journalistic integrity.

No better excuse needed but maybe you're right. I read it as the writer laying the groundwork of the mindset of the typical Korean soldier, which this article is partially about. It goes on to further describe his exploits as a spy and prisoner, which is far from typical, but it still originates with the POV of the soldier. But like I said, maybe you're right in that this seems a bit of artistic license perhaps not appropriate. I was able to see the distiction but obviously others can't.

the framework is like of other personal articles. But daily reader of any magazine should be able to discern the impartiality of the writer from that of the quoter.

 

[drewshin]

the use of a dash usually signifies the mark of a change in tone of a sentence, or a dramatic break.

when i read the article, i could definitely tell that this sentence was in the north korean person's POV.

if you look at the sentence before:

Seventy-year-old Park Jong-lin did not fight to repel communism like the others.

then it says, "In fact, he did the opposite". The word "opposite" automatically tells you that what's coming next is going to be the opposing view of what was said before. I'm pretty sure the North Korean guy didn't even say "imperialist Korean aggressors/South Korean accomplices" so that's why the guy COULDN'T quote him, but he wrote that (it became justfied to do so with the "-") because it showed the view of the opposing side.

there's always two sides to a war, with each side thinking the other the "bad guys". To us, Americans were patriots, to the British, we were traitors.

hopefully we can all read a little more critically, and a little less biased.

 

[Alistar7]

The bias by the BBC has been well discussed here and is still ongoing....

Britain's press rounds on BBC after death of weapons expert


London's newspapers rounded on the BBC after it owned up that the dead British arms expert, David Kelly, was the sole source of its report that the government had "sexed up" evidence to justify war on Iraq.

The BBC's defence of Gilligan's story and insistence that Kelly was its sole source means the corporation is effectively accusing the dead weapons expert of lying, The Daily Mirror said.

"Either Dr Kelly lied to MPs when he said he was not the main source or Mr Gilligan exaggerated his own report," the tabloid said.

The Sun, Britain's biggest-selling tabloid, also blasted Gilligan, labelling him a rat above the headline "BBC man sinks to new low by calling dead doc a liar."

The Financial Times said that the BBC's concession that the scientist had been its principal source will help Blair to contain the worst political crisis of his career.

"Britain also deserves a more respectful political culture and a more mature standard of political reporting," Cook said.



How many times do we have to see Britians own population and press blast the BBC before people stop listing them as a credible source......

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: drewshin
the use of a dash usually signifies the mark of a change in tone of a sentence, or a dramatic break.

when i read the article, i could definitely tell that this sentence was in the north korean person's POV.

if you look at the sentence before:

Seventy-year-old Park Jong-lin did not fight to repel communism like the others.

then it says, "In fact, he did the opposite". The word "opposite" automatically tells you that what's coming next is going to be the opposing view of what was said before. I'm pretty sure the North Korean guy didn't even say "imperialist Korean aggressors/South Korean accomplices" so that's why the guy COULDN'T quote him, but he wrote that (it became justfied to do so with the "-") because it showed the view of the opposing side.

there's always two sides to a war, with each side thinking the other the "bad guys". To us, Americans were patriots, to the British, we were traitors.

hopefully we can all read a little more critically, and a little less biased.

you must be in the author's head, cause no one could've guessed this came from the interviewee without him explicitly saying so.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: drewshin
the use of a dash usually signifies the mark of a change in tone of a sentence, or a dramatic break.

when i read the article, i could definitely tell that this sentence was in the north korean person's POV.

if you look at the sentence before:

Seventy-year-old Park Jong-lin did not fight to repel communism like the others.

then it says, "In fact, he did the opposite". The word "opposite" automatically tells you that what's coming next is going to be the opposing view of what was said before. I'm pretty sure the North Korean guy didn't even say "imperialist Korean aggressors/South Korean accomplices" so that's why the guy COULDN'T quote him, but he wrote that (it became justfied to do so with the "-") because it showed the view of the opposing side.

there's always two sides to a war, with each side thinking the other the "bad guys". To us, Americans were patriots, to the British, we were traitors.

hopefully we can all read a little more critically, and a little less biased.

you must be in the author's head, cause no one could've guessed this came from the interviewee without him explicitly saying so.

as i stated above, the north korean that was interviewed DID NOT say "imperialist American aggresors/South Korean accomplices", that is why the reporter could not use quotes. that is why the reporter made use of the dash, for dramatic effect, and to serve as a contrast, which is why he states "In fact, he did the opposite DASH (signifies a dramatic change, no longer in the author's words) - .....

You've never seen this done before? I most commonly see them in interviews and op-ed pieces about a particular person.

Plus, if you look at the BBC's Asia/Pacific page, the link to the piece is titled "On the Wrong Side", with a picture of the guy, which clearly shows that the author thinks that the NK guy on the wrong side to fight with, but in the article he just portrays him as a man who stuck with his ideals and his own point of view and what he thinks is right, even if it is wrong.

Sorry, but you're pulling at straws here.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: drewshin

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: drewshin
the use of a dash usually signifies the mark of a change in tone of a sentence, or a dramatic break.

when i read the article, i could definitely tell that this sentence was in the north korean person's POV.

if you look at the sentence before:

Seventy-year-old Park Jong-lin did not fight to repel communism like the others.

then it says, "In fact, he did the opposite". The word "opposite" automatically tells you that what's coming next is going to be the opposing view of what was said before. I'm pretty sure the North Korean guy didn't even say "imperialist Korean aggressors/South Korean accomplices" so that's why the guy COULDN'T quote him, but he wrote that (it became justfied to do so with the "-") because it showed the view of the opposing side.

there's always two sides to a war, with each side thinking the other the "bad guys". To us, Americans were patriots, to the British, we were traitors.

hopefully we can all read a little more critically, and a little less biased.

you must be in the author's head, cause no one could've guessed this came from the interviewee without him explicitly saying so.

as i stated above, the north korean that was interviewed DID NOT say "imperialist American aggresors/South Korean accomplices", that is why the reporter could not use quotes. that is why the reporter made use of the dash, for dramatic effect, and to serve as a contrast, which is why he states "In fact, he did the opposite DASH (signifies a dramatic change, no longer in the author's words) - .....

You've never seen this done before? I most commonly see them in interviews and op-ed pieces about a particular person.

you're trying hard but failing at defending this utter bias. even fencer admitted that this was either bias or a mistake. fact is, if this was the reporter's own words, it was a grave mistake, to say the least. and no, I HAVE NEVER seen this before (where the author was implicitely referring to the interviewee).

 

[drewshin]

Look at the BBC's Asia/Pacific page, the link to the piece is titled "ON THE WRONG SIDE", with a picture of the guy, which clearly shows that the author thinks that the NK guy on the wrong side to fight with, but in the article he just portrays him as a man who stuck with his ideals and his own point of view and what he thinks is right, even if it is wrong.

Sorry, but you're pulling at straws here.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: drewshin
Look at the BBC's Asia/Pacific page, the link to the piece is titled "ON THE WRONG SIDE", with a picture of the guy, which clearly shows that the author thinks that the NK guy on the wrong side to fight with, but in the article he just portrays him as a man who stuck with his ideals and his own point of view and what he thinks is right, even if it is wrong.

Sorry, but you're pulling at straws here.

its a north Korean stuck in south Korea, he is on the wrong side

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: drewshin
Look at the BBC's Asia/Pacific page, the link to the piece is titled "ON THE WRONG SIDE", with a picture of the guy, which clearly shows that the author thinks that the NK guy on the wrong side to fight with, but in the article he just portrays him as a man who stuck with his ideals and his own point of view and what he thinks is right, even if it is wrong.

Sorry, but you're pulling at straws here.

again, how do you know the author's thoughts? Could "wrong side" be in reference to the fact that he was caught and is being held in SK? Plus, how am I pulling at straws when the proof is right there? you seem to be trying to explain what the author is writing when his article is clearily not opinionated, except for the aforementioned part.

 

[Phokus]

Dari, i've heard Fox News *REPORTERS* refer to Saddam as the 'butcher of bagdad" like a year ago.

At the very least, the BBC is critical of both the British government AND ours (which they should be).

 

[drewshin]

the problem is you're going in before even reading the article with the expectation that it will be biased, so any sentence that seems out of context you are automatically reading the way you want to read it. just like the title lead-in "on the wrong side", there are many ways to read just those four words (i didnt even think of reading it the way you read it, but it makes sense just as well.)

i went into the article not expecting anything, and when i read that line i could automatically tell it was not in the author's own POV, in fact it seemed almost a little playful, like he was even making fun of the NK guy for thinking this.
i'm not sure what the reporter's command of the english language is, or "semantics" in terms of setup and sentence structure, but you see this kind of possible miscommunication of tone all the time in asian newspapers that either translate english news stories, or vice versa.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: drewshin
the problem is you're going in before even reading the article with the expectation that it will be biased, so any sentence that seems out of context you are automatically reading the way you want to read it. just like the title lead-in "on the wrong side", there are many ways to read just those four words (i didnt even think of reading it the way you read it, but it makes sense just as well.)

i went into the article not expecting anything, and when i read that line i could automatically tell it was not in the author's own POV, in fact it seemed almost a little playful, like he was even making fun of the NK guy for thinking this.
i'm not sure what the reporter's command of the english language is, or "semantics" in terms of setup and sentence structure, but you see this kind of possible miscommunication of tone all the time in asian newspapers that either translate english news stories, or vice versa.

The guy works for THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION. Last time I checked, the English invented the English language.

Dari, i've heard Fox News *REPORTERS* refer to Saddam as the 'butcher of bagdad" like a year ago.

At the very least, the BBC is critical of both the British government AND ours (which they should be).

Then hold Fox News accountable. Just because one news outlet does it doesn't make it alright. And the BBC is critical of the UK and US gov't because they both support each other.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The bias by the BBC has been well discussed here and is still ongoing....

Britain's press rounds on BBC after death of weapons expert

London's newspapers rounded on the BBC after it owned up that the dead British arms expert, David Kelly, was the sole source of its report that the government had "sexed up" evidence to justify war on Iraq.

Lots of reports only have one source - there is nothing unusual there - the questions to ask is - is this source correct?

The BBC's defence of Gilligan's story and insistence that Kelly was its sole source means the corporation is effectively accusing the dead weapons expert of lying, The Daily Mirror said.

"Either Dr Kelly lied to MPs when he said he was not the main source or Mr Gilligan exaggerated his own report," the tabloid said.

If you had ever read the daily mirror you wouldn't quote it in an article about standards of journalism.

The Sun, Britain's biggest-selling tabloid, also blasted Gilligan, labelling him a rat above the headline "BBC man sinks to new low by calling dead doc a liar."

The same goes for the sun newspaper.

The Financial Times said that the BBC's concession that the scientist had been its principal source will help Blair to contain the worst political crisis of his career.

Interesting. That may be the case. It's certainly not a ringing endorsement for the government nor does it say too much about the BBC's story. The media (ie everyone) picked this one up and ran with it. Now people say "but it wasn't what we thought".... duh! well, they should have read it more carefully in the first place then. It always, always said "a source" - ie singular.

"Britain also deserves a more respectful political culture and a more mature standard of political reporting," Cook said.

Is that Robin Cook? I think what we actually need is a more mature standard of political/journalistic debate.

How many times do we have to see Britians own population and press blast the BBC before people stop listing them as a credible source......

That is an exaggeration. Every media source gets some negative press. I see absolutely no reason that the BBC stands out above any other news organisation as far as that comparison goes. There are not many people over here who would list the BBC as incredulous.

This could run and run Alistar7. I'm not really interested in this debate as it has already played out for me. I know you think more of this than I do so can we leave it as "we'll see in the near future". I'm sure there'll be plenty more evidence on the BBC's role in Iraq/post-Iraq reporting coming out in the next month.

Cheers,

Andy