Considering that they have one of the biggest and most accessible news
web sites, and have all their major articles translated into all major
languages, this is hard to fathom.
In fact, I call bull****. You are just plain wrong here... about 180 off.
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
No - you just want to argue. It's the truth. The last time I was in
South Africa, it was CNN and the other cable outlets on in the
consulates - not World Service.
And that somehow makes their web site less informative? That somehow
makes them biased?
Why are you not answering the question here, Tom?
Let's review- I said the BBC was in fact unbiased with respect to
American politics, if anything they tend to flatter resident Bush.
You said no, they're highly biased.
I asked for examples, and failing that, provided an article which covers
a fairly sensitive U.S. political issue, and asked for examples of this
bias.
You then launch a long rant about how they're foreign, they're losing
market share, and they're on NPR. Nothing whatever about thier bias,
unless one happens to accept *your* bias that foreigners & NPR listeners
are fag-loving libby-rull traitors.
Now you accuse me of "just wanting to argue"
I guess 'Car Talk' is libby-rull biased too?
Ever met the Dynamic Duo, Click and Clack? I have - they couldn't be
more left wing in their politics.
And do they portray their bias on the air? Other than bashing people for
driving SUVs, I mean?
You make comments on science based on your religious leanings, and try
to pretend that you know the science. You try to make even-handed
political comments, but it's clear than any criticism of President
Bush... no matter how delicately phrased or how well deserved... makes
you angry. You've lashed out at me many times because of this. It's
transparent.
Now who's lashing out?
???
How is this "lashing out?"
Did I call you names?
Did I threaten you?
I've watched the world scene as long as you and I know what I'm
talking about. You can't refute any point without getting personal
and insulting.
???
When did I get "personal and insulting?"
Did I call you names?
Did I threaten you?
.... Which means that you don't know what you are talking
about and can't base anything in fact.
If *I'm* the one that doesn't know what I'm talking about, how *you're*
the one calling names, making threats, and failing to answer the question?
And now, for an attempted answer from a very unexpected quarter...
P Fritz wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...3/09/09/do0901
.xml
On the whole, the BBC is careful to fulfil its obligations to balance
air-time for different parties.
If it weren't coming from the Telegraph, itself a rather biased bit of
fluff, this might be substantive...
... Indeed, if it were only a party dispute,
there would be little reason why we, the general public, should worry
ourselves too much about it.
No, BBC bias is not a piece of partisan trickery - it is a state of mind. So
strong is the state of mind that a great many of the acts of bias, perhaps
the majority of them, are quite unconscious.
So in other words, they can't point to specific examples, so they just
smear the whole.
Hey, these guys must be liberals, they can't provide any facts!
The BBC's mental assumptions are those of the fairly soft Left. They are
that American power is a bad thing, whereas the UN is good, that the
Palestinians are in the right and Israel isn't,
Well, this is no more incorrect than the rest, but it's a long list.
There are plenty of BBC articles showing Palestinian and UN corruption,
among others.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4316774.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4550859.stm
And would you call this "anti-Israeli"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4160026.stm
So this attempt to show bias falls on it's face pretty much immediately.
Can't you do any better than this? But hey P-Fritz, we'll give you
points for trying. At least this wasn't one of your "me too" posts.
DSK