Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - BBC admits, "Ummm ok, we ARE biased." NYT admits they were wrong!

Lanny_MacDonald · 10-24-2006, 06:55 AM

Wow, what a load of spin doctored crap. The article about the BBC is a joke. It quotes NO ONE and provides no support to the claim what so ever, other than a "leaked memo" that is not even quoted in the article itself. No statement from the BBC that could be cooberated at all. This article does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny what so ever. How does this get fact checked when there is not one named source to fact check??? And shall we talk about potential bias from the site in question? Ynet? No political axe to grind there.

The article about the NYT is also overblown by HOZ (no, say it isn't so) and the "editor" (on voice in the NYT organization) does not admit any error, just openly discusses his personal conflict in regards to publishing the story. His view is that the program wasn't all that secret and wasn't all that abusive. It was a Jerry Seinfeld article, an aricle about nothing. But that didn't stop the Bush administration, and their dittohead cohorts in the RW media/propaganda organ, from pouncing on the NYT for publication of the information; information Bush himself had publicly released in speeches and press conferences. The editor admits that he was conflicted and that his motivations were strictly defensive in nature. No where does he say the story was wrong, the information contined there in was incorrect, or that the NYT was wrong in publishing it at all. His admission is his poor job done as an editor and stemming the criticism that was to come. The admission is in regards to HIS column and the ppor job he did in trying to defend HIS paper, which is part of his job.

"My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base."

Here's where he states his error.

"If one sentence down in the article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to address that wave of criticism."

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. I don't blame you HOZ, you probably haven't got to that grade 2 game tape where they taught reading comprehension. Sadly, all your dumb little dittohead buddies missed the same lesson.

10-24-2006, 06:55 AM	#3
Lanny_MacDonald Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Oct 2001 Exp:	Wow, what a load of spin doctored crap. The article about the BBC is a joke. It quotes NO ONE and provides no support to the claim what so ever, other than a "leaked memo" that is not even quoted in the article itself. No statement from the BBC that could be cooberated at all. This article does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny what so ever. How does this get fact checked when there is not one named source to fact check??? And shall we talk about potential bias from the site in question? Ynet? No political axe to grind there. The article about the NYT is also overblown by HOZ (no, say it isn't so) and the "editor" (on voice in the NYT organization) does not admit any error, just openly discusses his personal conflict in regards to publishing the story. His view is that the program wasn't all that secret and wasn't all that abusive. It was a Jerry Seinfeld article, an aricle about nothing. But that didn't stop the Bush administration, and their dittohead cohorts in the RW media/propaganda organ, from pouncing on the NYT for publication of the information; information Bush himself had publicly released in speeches and press conferences. The editor admits that he was conflicted and that his motivations were strictly defensive in nature. No where does he say the story was wrong, the information contined there in was incorrect, or that the NYT was wrong in publishing it at all. His admission is his poor job done as an editor and stemming the criticism that was to come. The admission is in regards to HIS column and the ppor job he did in trying to defend HIS paper, which is part of his job. "My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base." Here's where he states his error. "If one sentence down in the article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to address that wave of criticism." Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. I don't blame you HOZ, you probably haven't got to that grade 2 game tape where they taught reading comprehension. Sadly, all your dumb little dittohead buddies missed the same lesson.