Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bias At The BBC.  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1626 times:

Those who continue to deny that much of the mainstream media is actively working to ensure that we lose this war might want to read this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

'The Daily Telegraph is traditionally politically Conservative. The combination of personal links between the paper's editorial team and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, results in the paper often being jokingly referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph

It is a pretty one sided article with no accurate sources for the decision made by the BBC.

'A spokesman for the BBC admitted that it had abandoned the VC project but refused to elaborate.'


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

If the only things you believe to be standing between yourself and final defeat are a few journalists criticizing you, you must have made many fatal errors much earlier in the campaign.

Want to guess what they may have been?  eyebrow 


User currently offlineGSM763 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Oh for gods sake not this again! Yes all media is biased regardless of wherther that media is Fox News or Al Jazeera. In this case however I don't think it is fair to accuse the BBC of bias without further information. Maybe the cost spiraled or something, after all if this had cost £5M or something the same people would have been complaining about the cost. Also why does only the BBC get it in the neck for these things, yes I know it is publicly funded but if say Channel 4 had dropped it no-one would have cared!

[Edited 2007-04-09 22:54:55]

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1544 times:

Sorry, the people accusing the BBC of being bias to the left are the decidedly right-wing Torygraph?

The BBC recieves criticism in almost equal amounts from all sides - usually a sign they're doing it right. To see that the BBC isn't a sychophant for the government, see the David Kelly affair.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1492 times:

The Telegraph may lean right, but it is still a very respectable newspaper. They are not the National Enquirer. Their standards of reporting are just as high as The Times or any other mainstream, serious paper.

The purpose of war, and of the military, is to cause the enemy to lose the will to fight. Victory is achieved when one side gives up, either because they are beaten militarily, or because the political will to fight is destroyed.

Political will is manufactured through the media - always has been, always will. In the old days, governments used propoganda (e.g. boiling babies for soap in WWI). That sort of thing is now virtually impossible in a democracy with a free press, and that would be OK as long as the media is generally fair (and remember what nationality they belong to.). But when the press themselves start to advocate defeat by squashing stories that they might feel are encouraging and promoting those that demoralize the nation, then they are doing what used to be done by enemy propoganda.

The media must be fair, because they are society's watchdogs. They are the only ones capable of policing the leadership. But who watches the watchers?

If the US and UK withdraw from Iraq next year, after being forced to by a rabid alliance between the press and the political left, and shortly after that a nuke goes off in London, and/or the body-count in Iraq goes through the roof, you do realize that The Press and the Left will bear much of the blame (not that they will ever acknowledge it, of course).


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):

If the US and UK withdraw from Iraq next year, after being forced to by a rabid alliance between the press and the political left, and shortly after that a nuke goes off in London, and/or the body-count in Iraq goes through the roof, you do realize that The Press and the Left will bear much of the blame (not that they will ever acknowledge it, of course).

Absolute nonsense. Ignoring the fact that it's the Left with a capital L that were the government in power who took the UK to war in Iraq and was governing when the terrorist attacks in London happened, the press bears no blame for the attacks or what happens in Iraq.

The BBC post-Kelly is perhaps the most stringently self-regulating news outlet in the world (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/). Despite the advent of the internet, newspaper sales are still strong and represent a wide range of political opinion, from the liberal left Indy to the socialist left Guardian to the right-wing Telegraph. Even in the tabloid papers the range spreads the political spectrum. In fact, the most read tabloid in the UK is the distinctly right-wing Sun.

That not enough? Well BBC News 24 and Sky News are both available on Freeview, Cable and Satellite, and often have largely constrasting editorial stand-points. Christ, on Sky you can watch news channels as diverse as Fox News to Al Jazeera.

Bear in mind that unlike the US, Ofcom requires news channels to show no bias. Whilst of course this is pretty subjective and almost impossible to measure, as mentioned before a good judge of how well any news outlet is doing is by the number of complaints recieved. The BBC is often chastised in equal amounts by people on all points on the political spectrum for being biased.


User currently offlineOlegShv From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1455 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
If the US and UK withdraw from Iraq next year, after being forced to by a rabid alliance between the press and the political left, and shortly after that a nuke goes off in London, and/or the body-count in Iraq goes through the roof, you do realize that The Press and the Left will bear much of the blame (not that they will ever acknowledge it, of course).

How do you know what's going to happen in London? I guess you could be of interest to FBI, CIA, and others.  mischievous 

On a serious note though, I wish they would air the film. I think it will only emphasize the brutality of war and point out the suffering of those soldiers that was caused by unprofessional governments. I don't see the reason why media (either left or right) has to support deceiving leadership and unjust wars.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
The Telegraph may lean right, but it is still a very respectable newspaper. They are not the National Enquirer. Their standards of reporting are just as high as The Times or any other mainstream, serious paper

They are, but the Telegraph has had a campaign against the BBC going for years and years, constantly sniping at them. That's not to say that they aren't correct, because it's always possible that they are; but you cannot use a right-wing paper accusing the BBC of bias as evidence that it is the case, any more than you would call a Democrat attack on Republicans evidence. It's politically motivated.

It always puzzles me that people get so hot under the collar about the BBC. It isn't perfect, it never has been and it never will be. The difference with them is that they try to be perfect; they try to achieve the impossible. As has been pointed out, governments of all political hues accuse them of being biased against them. And they listen, and they look to see if they have a point. When the BBC received criticism over their coverage of the Middle East, they instituted an independent enquiry to see if those making the complaints had a point or not, not something most media organisations would do.

The point is that an independent, investigative news organisation is bound to piss off just about everyone at different times, and the BBC does exactly that. That's why everyone says they're biased against them. There will be instances where they have a point, undoubtedly, but the accusation of systematic bias doesn't hold water, because there are too many people within the organisation utterly paranoid about the possibility. It isn't ever going to be the last word on the subject, it's staffed by human beings, but it remains the best option out there because it is the only media organisation to go to such lengths to try to be that last word.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 8):
but it remains the best option out there because it is the only media organisation to go to such lengths to try to be that last word.

To which I would add that the fallout from the Kelly case might well be the worst recent stain on the BBC's escutcheon and that stain is but a pale shadow of that on the Blair government over the same issue.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
To which I would add that the fallout from the Kelly case might well be the worst recent stain on the BBC's escutcheon and that stain is but a pale shadow of that on the Blair government over the same issue.

Not least because as it turned out, the BBC were a damn sight nearer the truth than the government ever were.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1355 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 10):
Not least because as it turned out, the BBC were a damn sight nearer the truth than the government ever were.

Perhaps we should start the shortest ever thread on:
"The difference between the truth and what Gilligan said".  Wow!
I can remember listening to a BEEB report on the day's proceeding in the Hutton enquiry while parking in Lyme Regis. Cannot remember which specific bit of evidence but the selective running of the enquiry by Hutton had me wanting to throw a nodule full of ammonites through something - anything!! And I love ammonites!

It was awful listening to that travesty day after day. And then the, "well it is official so it must be correct" was just too much, but IIRC by the time that happened I had flown out of LHR. It was bad enough here as Little Johnny took great heart from this demonstration of UK justice. Grrrrrrrr.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1345 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
Perhaps we should start the shortest ever thread on:
"The difference between the truth and what Gilligan said". Wow!
I can remember listening to a BEEB report on the day's proceeding in the Hutton enquiry while parking in Lyme Regis. Cannot remember which specific bit of evidence but the selective running of the enquiry by Hutton had me wanting to throw a nodule full of ammonites through something - anything!! And I love ammonites!

It was awful listening to that travesty day after day. And then the, "well it is official so it must be correct" was just too much, but IIRC by the time that happened I had flown out of LHR. It was bad enough here as Little Johnny took great heart from this demonstration of UK justice. Grrrrrrrr.

The government certainly didn't act honourable about David Kelly, and the Hutton report was a bit of a whitewash, but don't forget that Gillian did make significant mistakes in the original report.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 12):
The government certainly didn't act honourable about David Kelly, and the Hutton report was a bit of a whitewash, but don't forget that Gillian did make significant mistakes in the original report.

Ho hum, when Hutton rep is mentioned I try to let my brain go neutral. Remind me what Gilly got wrong.  Smile Well apart from offending Alistair whatsis name. There you go, knock knock, whos there, Alistair, Alistair who? De dah!


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1332 times:

From the Hutton report:

* "Mr Gilligan accepted that he had made errors" about the 45 minute claim; specifically, his report that the government "probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable", and his report that intelligence officers were unhappy with the insertion of the claim in the dossier, or only inserted it at the insistence of the government, were erroneous.
* Hutton was "satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan" certain dramatic statements about the 45 minute claim, which Gilligan had reported as direct quotations.
* That only one person (Dr. Jones) had expressed any reservations about the 45 minute claim, and that was about the strength of the wording, not its inclusion.


Now, however much the Hutton report was a whitewash in its wording, the actual evidence uncovered was accurate.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1314 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
his report that the government "probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable", and his report that intelligence officers were unhappy with the insertion of the claim in the dossier, or only inserted it at the insistence of the government, were erroneous.

Ah yes, knew there was a reason I did not want to remember it. But you give a nice summary, in the old fashioned sense of nice!

Did anyone check the number of Gilligans toes before and after?

1. It is far from clear that the government probably new that the 45 mins claim was wrong or questionable.

I mean we do KNOW, but KNOW, it was totally wrong. It beggars my belief that the UK Govt believed it was true.

2. The insertion bit. This is clouded by the guy who was promoted and it seems that he was used as a cover for others who probably did object to the way the dossier was dodged, if I may use a verb!!

3. Kelly was the only objector. Ho hum, the others probably lost a toe or two as well. But since Kelly "died", he is not going to tell us, and if his death was half as suspicious as it appeared, the others would have another good reason to keep stumm.

Old Gilly may well have made errors, who does not, but compared with the travesties in that para, Gilly was perfect.

As you say, Hutton was a whitewash, and I just do not think that para is accurate. When you have the state weighed against you, life is difficult. Even with Alistair (still it is Alistair X*) gone, Blair still holds his sway. Once he is gone, you might find that the evidence for that para rather tends to melt a bit.

*Found him eventually, a disgrace to the Campbells.

I wonder if Campbell's and Scarlett's computers will ever be examined to see what they changed!!! Scarletts would be especially interesting.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8974 posts, RR: 39
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1291 times:

Quote:
The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minuterndrama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because itrnfeared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war inrnIraq.

I'm a fan of the BBC, and this is not an attack onrnthem, but private media is often accused of going for ratings andrnprofits and thus being inherently bias. This should put things into perspective.

As for the politics, it's nearly impossible to prove one way or the other. . . generally speaking the BBC does a decent job IMO.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

Well, the Telegraph is NOT a respectable paper now on defence coverage, in fact they are a joke.
You'd think that many service people would admire it's constant attacks on the government in this area, but no, because any case is damaged by them talking total crap too often.
Such as last year's article on how a militarily resurgent Argentina could re-take the Falklands in a cake walk, a simple google to get the strength/equipment of their forces, would have quickly dispelled this.

But that was not the point was it? It was 'we could not do another task force now.'..etc, forgetting that with small but well equipped forces there, with a long airfield for rapid reinforcement, you don't need to repeat 1982, that's the whole point!
Tory Defence spokesman Liam Fox (I've met Natalie Imbruglia y'know'), made a fool of himself by using this reporting, really, Chris Morris of 'Brass Eye' fame could not have done better.

Then the 2003 Iraq war, equal flak for the BBC from both the Neo-Con side, and the Anti War people.
If anyone made a fool of themselves there, it was Sky News. Their correspondent was on a RN nuclear sub, he did a piece on an actual firing of a Tomahawk missile on Iraq. Trouble was, this had been filmed previously, while the sub was still at Gibraltar-well outside Tomahawk range for Iraq. Worse, the piece had showed a sailor using a red button to 'fire'.
The crew had been playing with the journo, they faked it up, in fact a mouse click fires the weapon.
Don't laugh too much though, the correspondent, after being exposed, was sacked, then committed suicide, leaving a young family.

The real problem with the BBC, often it's reporting is too in depth, goes to places others do not, thus reporting on what many would rather not be reported.

The idea that any news organisation could 'lose' Iraq is nonsense, it was lost after the invasion, the lack of US troops, the many and varied sheer ignorant stupidity based decisions-when they bothered to make any, principally by Rumsfeld and Cheney.
The media did NOT lose Vietnam either, neither did a bunch of protesting hippies, the draft starting to suck up too many of the young men of middle America, with the obvious lack of progress, did that.
Nixon won in '68 to get the US out, a right wing Conservative, go figure.


User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

The Telegraph? Isn't that the one that used to be owned by Conrad Black, the media-criminal-in-chief? They have 0 credibility now.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

Let's see how many people attempt to trash the reputation of William F Buckley, IMHO one of the most intelligent writers in the newspaper business.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucwb/20070406/cm_ucwb/goodnewscanbegood

Quote:

...

but the point to raise is that optimistic reports on Iraq are simply rejected by critical quarters. There are people who seem to be saying that anything other than dire news about our cause there amounts to a ratification of the entire enterprise, plus also (one sometimes infers) a valentine to George W. Bush.

...

But one reflects on the Vietnam parallel. Toward the end of 1973 and into 1974, the South Vietnamese army was holding well against the communists. There were grounds for genuine strategic optimism, but supplies were needed, and could only be had from Washington.

But there, only a single concern governed political attention, and that was -- Watergate. President Nixon was for all intents and purposes immobilized, and Congress, dragged down by an executive sinking under the weight of vanity and stupidity, gave up on any effort to act on the news of the revitalization of the Saigon government. The United States did nothing -- and very soon suffered the consequence: a disastrous defeat.

The analogy today is to Congress' apparent indifference to the continuing demands of the Iraqi enterprise. In Vietnam, by 1973, there was near unanimity in regretting our involvement. As much might be said about Iraq today.

...


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1146 times:

Cfalk, I've seen plenty of news reports from Iraq-not just 30 second pieces either, on the BBC.
If you are covering a mass casualty bombing, it's very hard to put a good spin on it.
Ditto for an incident say, where British forces are killed.
But I've also seen plenty with troops training the Iraqis, or repairing infrastructure, or Iraqis voting.

The whole idea that the media are 'losing' Iraq smells of the lame excuses put out about Vietnam, people fundamentally are not stupid, you cannot polish a turd, not for long anyway.
(And claims from Washington prior to the invasion of expected carpets of flowers, cheering crowds etc, just made this worse. Reality bit, and bit hard).


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
But who watches the watchers

The BBC is managed by a trust and Executive Board with a fair, open, public and transparent process for determining trust and board membership. Please tell us how CNN, FOX and Al Jazeera are superior because they are managed by purely private interests with nothing like public oversight at all?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
a nuke goes off in London, and/or the body-count in Iraq goes through the roof, you do realize that The Press and the Left will bear much of the blame (not that they will ever acknowledge it, of course).

Fine, then, if in one year no nuke goes off in London, and the Iraqi body count stays in the same range as it has for the last four years - you and the rest of the war mongers can take the blame for killing 3200 Americans, 20000+ Iraqis, and ruining America's moral reputation worldwide, while accomplishing the greatest wish of Iran - eliminating Saddam.

Terrorists attacks against the US, (or the UK), are brought about by US policies in the Middle East that kill Arabs and Muslims everyday, and killed 1000s before 9/11.

Don't want Islamic terrorism in your country? Get out of Islamic countries. End the Palestinian problem and remove foreign troops from the Middle East.

There is no left or right to blame here if terrorism happens again, terrorists don't look at this - they get their support at a grassroots level because of the Muslim people killed by the US (and allies) in the middle east almost every day. US policy causes terrorism against America - and the left, right or whoever created the policy are the ones who helped bring on the terrorism.

Cairo


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1082 times:

I can see how the news for 12 Apr 2007 is not good, losing a bridge and a cafe in the parliament inside the most heavily guarded zone in Baghdad seems very unfortunate. Still there must be plenty of offsetting stories about girls going to school, and electricity systems being restored, sewage systems working again, fresh water being supplied.

I heard that Petraeus interview. It would be surprising if it was not possible to build on resentment to Al Q. Todays news suggests that some benefits may come from there, but the balance in the news today can only go one way, and it goes that way not from prejudice but because of relative importance.

Bring on the water, electricity and sewerage stories CFalk. I think you will have to write them yourself, and alas, most will be fiction it seems at this time. I for one am happy to read. But I watch the oil production - still pretty dismal AFAIK.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
2+ Computer Monitors At The Same Time... posted Sat Apr 7 2007 02:43:45 by Piercey
Shooting At The CNN Center In ATL posted Tue Apr 3 2007 20:07:04 by JetBlueGuy2006
Bias In The Media Once Again... posted Mon Apr 2 2007 14:58:13 by UALPHLCS
Hot Women At The Airshow (with Pics) posted Sun Apr 1 2007 06:02:45 by TedTAce
Mario And Sonic Meet At The Olympics posted Wed Mar 28 2007 14:43:26 by KaiGywer
Owned At The Rodeo posted Thu Feb 1 2007 01:11:09 by Luv2fly
A Day At The Shooting Range posted Mon Jan 22 2007 05:16:12 by KaiGywer
Balkan Primitivism At The Australian Open posted Tue Jan 16 2007 15:58:32 by JoKeR
UK Weather - Who's Got A Gale At The Moment? posted Thu Jan 11 2007 13:19:34 by Oly720man
Songs You Are Listening To At The Moment posted Wed Jan 3 2007 12:34:55 by CPH813