What The Liberal Media Hides

[Duke]

And has nothing to do with mis-information, with-holding information etc. propagated not only by news agencies but governments and other influential bodies?

And the magic BBC is immune to this, how ?!

 

[Flame-returns]

Back when daddy bush was pres he told iraq to disarm, they said give us time. time went by and the clinton entered the scene.

So saddam still wanted more time and clinton is like oh yea take all the time u need, cuz he wanted the popular vote, so he didnt do much else but say ok fine.

time goes by then bush jr enters and saddam says he still hasnt disarmed, so bush was like oh well forget that either disarm or its on. thats just what i heard, i dont have any fancy links or wtv to back me up

Incompetence with dealing with multiple facts seems to be a failing of most American networks. Here is the issue in the UK its not any more about if saddam did disarm (he evidently had no WMDs) but rather about was the war legal???

Legality seems to be a subject which fox news are unconcerned by, over here we hear that the Attorney General was very iffy about the war and thought that it was under international laws illegal. Looking through the American news stations I see nothing about the legality of the war but rather "Our boys are doing great out there, the Iraqis love them" or "Car bomb in Fallujah, they hate us run for the hills."

Surly international law applies to both countrys not just the UK, or do the US have a moral visa where you can just do whatever the hell you want and a few conservative news stations will just back you up.

Edit- i wrote this post before going out, I'm still suffering the results of a week long headache and have just realised this post is slightly off topic and rather anti- American, I apoligise but dont have the the will to alter the general tone of this post to reflect my real opinions. Please bear this in mind before flaming me.

 

[sicbeing]

Incompetence with dealing with multiple facts seems to be a failing of most American networks. Here is the issue in the UK its not any more about if saddam did disarm (he evidently had no WMDs) but rather about was the war legal???

Legality seems to be a subject which fox news are unconcerned by, over here we hear that the Attorney General was very iffy about the war and thought that it was under international laws illegal. Looking through the American news stations I see nothing about the legality of the war but rather "Our boys are doing great out there, the Iraqis love them" or "Car bomb in Fallujah, they hate us run for the hills."

Surly international law applies to both countrys not just the UK, or do the US have a moral visa where you can just do whatever the hell you want and a few conservative news stations will just back you up.

Well the UN origionally didnt give us the thumbs up, dunno if that makes the war internationally illegal, but they did cover that part.

 

[///M-Spec]

Now who's putting words in someone elses mouth?

I said that the BBC was an unbiased news agency, true. What of it?

And I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that news agencies which are owned by companies have their own agenda.

Based on what you're written in this thread, the reason you think BBC is a more objective, trustworthy news source is because it is publicly funded rather than private. Right?

In other words, you think private companies, free from governement influence and control cannot be trusted to provide objective news. Where as government owned and operated news agencies can be more trusted to provide objective news, because they lack a profit motive. True?

In other words, a government is more likely to tell the truth than a private company. Would you say this is correct?

You wouldn't consider this statement (besides being fairly perposterous) an oversimplification on a grand, huge, notorious B.I.G. scale? (har har... see, I can lay the stinkers on too)


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Yeah, that's really true. I think it's one of two things really. Either you have the people that have their minds made up and are not easily if at all swayed by outside information(I'm probably this one) or you have the John Kerry like people that just flow with what's easiests. Now matter what the believe is right.

If I had a choice, I'd rather have people of the first type. At least they have integrity.

I think both types of people you describe are dangerous. One has morals, but no intelligence. The other has neither.

EDIT: I just realised that may be taken poorly. I'm sorry, Swift. I'm not trying to imply you're dumb at all. A person excessively devoted to a cause despite information which contradicts his very premise is a zealot. Zealots are dangerous.


M

 

[Swift]

I think both types of people you describe are dangerous. One has morals, but no intelligence. The other has neither.

EDIT: I just realised that may be taken poorly. I'm sorry, Swift. I'm not trying to imply you're dumb at all. A person excessively devoted to a cause despite information which contradicts his very premise is a zealot. Zealots are dangerous.


M

That is very true my friend. Outside of the realm of spirituality. I do my best to hear all sides of the argument. Generally speaking it doesn't change my mind, but I do at least listen.

 

[Danoff]

Que?

The BBC is a publicly funded news agency, with a charter (which they are legally obliged to follow) that states all news reporting must be unbiased.

Of course there are exceptions, but only under a D-note, when it would affect public or national safety.

Corporations have less reason for bias than government. A publicly funded news agency is inherently biased. There is no truly non-biased news source in the world - that it is run by human beings indicates that it is biased.

So don't claim that the BBC is unbaised - you can't back it up.

 

[Swift]

All news programs are generally biased one way or another. It's just the nature of media. So get used to it and get over it.

 

[Flame-returns]

Corporations have less reason for bias than government. A publicly funded news agency is inherently biased. There is no truly non-biased news source in the world - that it is run by human beings indicates that it is biased.

So don't claim that the BBC is unbaised - you can't back it up.

Untrue, people such as Rupert Murdoch (who runs the times conicidentally) have their own agenda, the general taxpayer does not because there are so many of us the BBC can not cater to n individual and so must cater for the truth.

 

[Swift]

Untrue, people such as Rupert Murdoch (who runs the times conicidentally) have their own agenda, the general taxpayer does not because there are so many of us the BBC can not cater to n individual and so must cater for the truth.

Or what they consider the truth.

I'll say it again. All news presentations are biased in one way or another. Maybe not to an extreme, but certainly biased.

Wow, I can't believe I agree with Danoff about something.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, I can't believe I agree with Danoff about something.

I'd like to think I'm a reasonable guy.

Untrue, people such as Rupert Murdoch (who runs the times conicidentally) have their own agenda, the general taxpayer does not because there are so many of us the BBC can not cater to n individual and so must cater for the truth.

The general taxpayer does have an agenda and they're not the ones running the show anyway. I don't know how the BBC works but I'm guessing that the stories aren't picked democratically.

However even if they were it would still be biased - so don't claim it isn't.

 

[///M-Spec]

Untrue, people such as Rupert Murdoch (who runs the times conicidentally) have their own agenda, the general taxpayer does not because there are so many of us the BBC can not cater to n individual and so must cater for the truth.

I think it is --forgive me-- very naive of you to think that government is immune from corruption and is completely free from alterior motives. Governments and corporations have one thing in common: they are run by people. And there is nothing that says people who run large companies are any less or more likely to screw you over than someone who runs for office. In fact, I'd say the likelyhood is even greater for politicians to plunder profit in the name of 'the common good'... since governments are signifigantly more powerful than even the largest multinational corporations.

The people in charge of your country must be very grateful there are people like you so willing to place such unequivocable trust upon them. If I ever implement my insidious plan for world conquest, I will be sure to begin it in the UK.


M

 

[Flame-returns]

we dont trust government nor does the bbc "the Hutton report", "The Butler report" they keep sueing each other. Get your facts right before you criticise others.

 

[Danoff]

we dont trust government nor does the bbc "the Hutton report", "The Butler report" they keep sueing each other. Get your facts right before you criticise others.

Dude, take a deep breath, admit that you were wrong and that the BBC is indeed biased and move on.

 

[///M-Spec]

we dont trust government nor does the bbc "the Hutton report", "The Butler report" they keep sueing each other. Get your facts right before you criticise others.

You said you trusted the BBC to offer the truth. Fact? I think so. Every BBC proponent in this thread has touted the BBC's infallible integrity due it being publicly funded. Fact? I think so.

All I said was just because the funds come from government tax revenue, it is no guarantee the government exerts no influence on the objectivity of the news being covered. I think it would be naive to make that assumption. Sorry. If you're cynical and suspicious enough to think that CNN's journalistic integrity can be bought and sold, then there is no reason not to think the BBC's journalistic integrity can't be up for sale in the same vein.

That is... unless you simply believe what you want to believe. Which sorta brings me full circle to my original post.

For the record: am I implying BBC reporting is biased? No. I have no problem with the news reporting I read from BBC, when I can get it. But then again, I don't have any problems with Reuters or the Associated Press either.


M

 

[Swift]

Dude, take a deep breath, admit that you were wrong and that the BBC is indeed biased and move on.

Wow, that's what I was going to say.

Let me put it to you another way. When money is involved, people are going to cater where it comes from. It's not even really the reports fault since they rarely pick th stories. So, don't take it personally. I know every single news report here from Dateline to the 700 club is biased in one way or another.

 

[Famine]

Every BBC proponent in this thread has touted the BBC's infallible integrity due it being publicly funded. Fact? I think so.

I haven't.

 

[ledhed]

Try to remember that people put the news together and people edit it ..all after observing through their own " filters " as it may be. The news editor has more influence over how the story will be presented . Also an international or foriegn news service will tend to look at things much differently than a national news service. BIAS is a natural element of reporting and should be taken into account when you choose the news service you want to use . it would be a problem if there was only one source for news. Since there are a multitude of sources for news , how exactly is bias a problem again ? a story seldom if ever has only one side to it.

 

[///M-Spec]

I haven't.

But you've not colored yourself a proponent nor have you offered a reason as to why it may be infallible; not that I've noticed, anyway.


M

 

[Famine]

I prefer BBC news to Sky News, CNN, Fox, Al-Jazheera (yes, really) or ITN. That might make me a proponent.

As for infallibility, do me a lemon!

 

[///M-Spec]

I prefer BBC news to Sky News, CNN, Fox, Al-Jazheera (yes, really) or ITN. That might make me a proponent.

I use several different sources depending on what I'm looking for. I sometimes catch the BBC radio broadcasts here on NPR.

As for infallibility, do me a lemon!

Come again


M

 

[Famine]

BBC News - in fact any news gathering company - cannot be infallible. They're reliable, but they can still screw up.

 

[ledhed]

ABC world news at 6:30 pm ( est) led off their Iraq segment with the story of the bombing attack and the child the soldier and his family. They devoted about 6 minutes to it and IMO they did a very good job.

 

[Velocity]

Oh yah, Americans 8 year/two term rule. Gotcha.

At one point, the Liberals controlled Canada for 21 consecutive years.

And unfortuneatley they still are.

 

[JacktheHat]

The BBC isn't influenced by the Government and, over here in Britain at least, there was a high profile arguement between them ending up in court if I remember correctly
over when they were the first to claim they knew evidence had been exaggerated.

Does America know who David Kelly is? Have you been told about that? (that was sarcasm)


The BBC is funded something called the TV license which you must pay if you own a TV. They also get revenue from selling material to foreign markets and commercial channels (UK Gold etc.), but as far as I'm aware they're not directly funded by government in anyway.

I also think it's ridiculous to say people aren't influenced by the media. Anybody under the age of 50 born in a 'developed' country will have grown up in a world saturated by the radio, tv and newspapers.

 

[Flame-returns]

The BBC isn't influenced by the Government and, over here in Britain at least, there was a high profile arguement between them ending up in court if I remember correctly
over when they were the first to claim they knew evidence had been exaggerated.

Does America know who David Kelly is? Have you been told about that? (that was sarcasm)


The BBC is funded something called the TV license which you must pay if you own a TV. They also get revenue from selling material to foreign markets and commercial channels (UK Gold etc.), but as far as I'm aware they're not directly funded by government in anyway.

I also think it's ridiculous to say people aren't influenced by the media. Anybody under the age of 50 born in a 'developed' country will have grown up in a world saturated by the radio, tv and newspapers.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I beleive that there were two high profile arguements within the last 1 years between government and the bbc steming from war on iraq

 

[s0nny80y]

it would be more misleading if we showed pics of soldiers carrying iraqi children in their arms instead of the dead soldiers who sacrificed for their lives and the battlefield they died on. you know, communist leaders show their people pictures of victory even if they're fighting a losing war. Viper Zero, you're not a communist......... are you?????

 

[Solid Fro]

it would be more misleading if we showed pics of soldiers carrying iraqi children in their arms instead of the dead soldiers who sacrificed for their lives and the battlefield they died on. you know, communist leaders show their people pictures of victory even if they're fighting a losing war.

The photo is not about victory. It shows how inhumane our enemy is, how inhumane it is to kill an innocent child, and say it is in the name of Allah.

I would like to know what Communist leaders you are talking about? Maybe you are confused and were thinking about how Nazi Germany used propaganda to deceive its citizens that they were winning against the Allies.

Viper Zero, you're not a communist......... are you?????

Sometimes, Liberals think that anyone who opposes their views are Communists. But, in fact, it is the Liberals themselves who push for Socialistic reform, wear Viva La Revolution t-shirts, and stand in front of anti-aircraft guns in North Vietnam.

 

[Touring Mars]

The photo is not about victory. It shows how inhumane our enemy is, how inhumane it is to kill an innocent child, and say it is in the name of Allah..

Showing this sort of picture on the TV can have two purposes... 1) to inform the public, as a matter of fact, that this happened today (News).... or 2) to influence the attitude of the viewer (Propoganda)

Your comments lead me to believe that you are taking it the 2nd way... as propoganda... so you have to ask yourself, why do you watch what you watch? Because you like the message that your chosen channel gives you, because it agrees with your views? That's not news, and it's hardly objective...

Of course it is a terrible tragedy when a child is killed in a conflict zone, but to insinuiate that the only people killing children are Islamists 'in the name of Allah' (as you put it), is extremely naive and totally wrong. The Gaza Strip anyone?

Real news doesn't need to show the dead bodies of children to report the facts. War is war and people die on both sides, but the real victims are the innocent general public who live in that war zone, regardless of who is doing the firing. So if you're going to get all blurry eyed and angry at the 'inhuman' monsters who kill children in the name of Allah, just spare a thought for all the innocent children killed or maimed by our side as well.

Living in a democracy like the UK (as I do) and the US (as you do), you should realise that it is up to us who runs our countries, a fact that we would do well to remember... our leaders serve us, and their armies do their deeds in our name. The inhumanity of those whose weapons kill children, belongs on both sides. That's something that the non-liberal press, i.e. Fox News, singularly fails to point out.

 

[Solid Fro]

Showing this sort of picture on the TV can have two purposes... 1) to inform the public, as a matter of fact, that this happened today (News).... or 2) to influence the attitude of the viewer (Propaganda)

Your comments lead me to believe that you are taking it the 2nd way... as propoganda... so you have to ask yourself, why do you watch what you watch? Because you like the message that your chosen channel gives you, because it agrees with your views? That's not news, and it's hardly objective...

I doubt the photo is propaganda. The photo was released by the AP, hardly a propaganda machine.

Why do I watch Fox News? Well, because it's a cable news channel, that gives fair time to both sides.

Of course it is a terrible tragedy when a child is killed in a conflict zone, but to insinuiate that the only people killing children are Islamists 'in the name of Allah' (as you put it), is extremely naive and totally wrong. The Gaza Strip anyone?

It is a tragedy when a child is caught in the crossfire, and should never happen (wishful thinking). But, it is the Terrorists who do it on purpose, to prove a point. That is the difference.