The BBC is really becoming anti-american

[Lonyo]

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.

Umm, actually I pretty much agree it does seem like the reporter is saying the NK's sentiments, and not his own.
So, Mr. Dari, maybe you need to read less critically and not try to find stupid faults, and to not assume everyone else sees things as you do, and actually read what is written in the manner that other people might, and that was it was most probably intended.

 

[AnImuS]

down with the BBC!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

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.

Umm, actually I pretty much agree it does seem like the reporter is saying the NK's sentiments, and not his own.
So, Mr. Dari, maybe you need to read less critically and not try to find stupid faults, and to not assume everyone else sees things as you do, and actually read what is written in the manner that other people might, and that was it was most probably intended.

if that is what he's doing, then he should state it as such. journalists not writing an opinionated article should be more impartial.

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: Dari

if that is what he's doing, then he should state it as such. journalists not writing an opinionated article should be more impartial.

Sometimes I weep for the future...

This article was very well written, and obviously an opinion piece about how a North Korean views the war, fifty years later.

do we need to use words with just one sill a bull so you can know what the write guy means?

It is possible to write a convincing article with an alternate point of view like this guy has done without one bit of bias. It's like critical thinking and reading skills are becoming pointless in this 'sound bite fox news' world

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: 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).

The difference between Fox news and the BBC is one is publicly funded, do you think PBS should take a political stance, maybe go conservative and mimic Fox?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you read the entire piece it is clear from the context that this was the POV of the soldier. There is no ambiguity, unless that is what you want to see.

 

[LunarRay]

Jeepers creepers... the article seems clear to me... and considering the BBC is right leaning Politically... from where I sit... I see no problem with the pointing out the POV of the Soldier.... I do think, however, that the Neon Cons are setting the stage for what is to come regarding the "Investigation" and "Blair lies too" .... we'll see ....

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: drewshin


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.

Pretty much sums it up. You really have to stretch to try and make this into BBC bias against the US. But I guess if you're really looking for any little morsel than this will have to do.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: drewshin


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.

Pretty much sums it up. You really have to stretch to try and make this into BBC bias against the US. But I guess if you're really looking for any little morsel than this will have to do.

I have to agree. This is a big stretch, Alistair, even for you.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually you really need some historical context to properly evaluate bias on this point. No one contests the North was the aggressor in invading the South. The problem is the US troops (under UN mandate but essentially an American operation) had a decision point once they repelled NK troops. We could negotiate for peace or push forwards with the goal of taking the peninsula. You can certainly argue many points for the need for pre-emption of future problems by crushing the North but it only works if you can win. There was no way we could win if China joined the conflict and there's no way China would allow US troops to march up to the Chinese border through the Korean peninsula.

So from historical reading:

1) Sneaky bastards from North invade.
2) South (and its American allies) force the aggressor back across the 38th parallel.
3) MacArthur convinces the civilians to push on.
4) The North (and its Chinese allies) force the aggressor back across the 38th parallel.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fear is the source of paranoid delusions. Enough fear and you have a psychotic break. Fear is the suppression of all feeling. It's being without heart. The enemy is everywhere.

You are all fools, you need to listen to me. There's danger everywhere I tell you. We must be strong, we must act, we must use reason to see. Look, you see don't you, danger everywhere. Oh my God, who isn't, everything rots from within.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Fear is the source of paranoid delusions. Enough fear and you have a psychotic break. Fear is the suppression of all feeling. It's being without heart. The enemy is everywhere.

You are all fools, you need to listen to me. There's danger everywhere I tell you. We must be strong, we must act, we must use reason to see. Look, you see don't you, danger everywhere. Oh my God, who isn't, everything rots from within.

No... I keep my eyes closed ... what I don't see can't hurt me.. right? ... Only those who look will see and those who see will fear... and only those who fear will act... I see no evil for I look for no evil... I hear no evil for I do not listen for evil... and I speak no evil for I know not evil..

 

[JellyBaby]

In all sincere honesty America is becoming anti-American (at least its government is).

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
In all sincere honesty America is becoming anti-American (at least its government is).

I think it was a mistake to let the Soviet Union fall apart... They were so good to have there to hate and all... we could focus on them and be at peace with the rest.... I say... Lets let the Soviets re up and get back to hating them..

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: 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).

obviously you've never worked for an international company before. i work for an american company that has offices in about 30 countries. we have vice presidents in the company that can speak almost no ENGLISH at all. do you think that we would have an american in charge in each country? no. just like the bbc, yes it is the BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION, but not all of their reporters are BRITISH, most likely in their Asia/Pacific branches, a british person might not ever see it, but you can be sure that a person pretty fluent in the English language will take a look at it, but there are always slip ups and miscommunications that get past editors.

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.

 

[alphatarget1]

i don't sense any anti-americanism in this article.

 

[Fencer128]

UPDATE

Hi,

BBC has corrected the article by putting "imperialist agressor" comments in quotes. You can see it here.

I hope now everyone who was affronted can see this was a mistake and that the system works. If you (Dari) would consider revising your title in light of this to something containing the word "mistake", that might be appropriate?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
UPDATE

Hi,

BBC has corrected the article by putting "imperialist agressor" comments in quotes. You can see it here.

I hope now everyone who was affronted can see this was a mistake and that the system works. If you (Dari) would consider revising your title in light of this to something containing the word "mistake", that might be appropriate?

Cheers,

Andy

I am sure that makes Dari all warm and fuzzy now