Quote:
Originally posted by Flame On+Nov 12 2004, 03:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Nov 12 2004, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 12 2004, 05:52 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Flame On
|
Quote:
@Nov 12 2004, 06:48 AM
Why do we have to question their reporting (notice i didn't use the word spin)?# They are a state sponsored news organization that doesn't earn a dime in advertising revenue, supported by a government that believes in the war and is commited to it. So if they critisize the war and thus thier government and paycheck, they kinda show they have some credibility.
|
Because BBC employees have already been forced to resign for LYING about the war on the air. That's why.
|
Well US news people would never do that would they? I don't know the story you refer to, but at least they were forced to resign, unlike Dan "realed in and spew it out" Rather who, lookie lookie is still there, no acountability. Um then there's the scandal of Robert Novak (not a news man but obviously endorsed by a news station) who's not so much a liar; though he refuses to tell the whole truth, as a traitor. Still there. But then look at the President you have, he lied and is still there, guess bs flows down hill. I don't know, say what you want, I've experienced much of both and in my opinion, the BBC makes the US news look like ametuers. Albeit slightly more stiffly
[/b][/quote]
Thanks for agreeing with me. Did you even realize you just disproved your own point?