BBC admits, "Ummm ok, we ARE biased." NYT admits they were wrong!

[HOZ]

BBC Biases

One senior BBC executive admitted to the ‘Daily Express’, "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."




NYT

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.
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. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.



Now if only Reuters and AP could jump on board and see the errors of their ways.

[Flame On]

And then The Sun, Faux, MSNBC news etc.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

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.

[White Doors]

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.

I have to agree with Lanny here. I mean, he threw out so many insults, it's gotta be true right?

[mykalberta]

While I am sure the leftists will pile on to this one - where is WildRoseFan (not actual name cause I dont want to get banned) when you need a good dose of left.

The website is based on values centred in the ME, while those particular values of the website dont want to suidside bomb me in a Tim Hortons, it is still flawed and this site is not even close to being fair and balanced

When you are on the right side of the fence you have to pick and choose your battles carefully when arguing with the left, unfortunately this site is no where close to being credible.

I dont believe any news organization is completely down the middle - right or left media - thats like saying there is a perfect 10 woman out there - it just doesnt exist and never will.

MYK

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I have to agree with Lanny here. I mean, he threw out so many insults, it's gotta be true right?

So why don't you respond to the points he did make then?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

NYT

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.
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. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.



Now if only Reuters and AP could jump on board and see the errors of their ways.

Did Reuters and AP even cover that story?

I'm kind of surprised you think this inconsequential little article is worth posting here. These kinds of things are written all the time in the newspaper. It's certainly nothing like an overarching admission of bias or serious flaws, as your title implies.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Sigh.

When a paper, television station or news service admits to an error, that's a GOOD thing. It means that they make an effort to report the news in an even-handed manner.

Can you see FoxNews saying "well, looks like we were wrong to do all that hand-waving and finger-pointing during the early stages of that debacle we call the Iraq war. Those talking points we got from the White House turned out to be wrong, and we apologize."

It would be a good sign for the organization if they did--but that will never happen. Real media outlets think carefully about what they will publish and what they have published, and try to do so in a way that's fair. Fake news organizations make all of those decisions in ways that are blindly ideological.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sigh.

When a paper, television station or news service admits to an error, that's a GOOD thing. It means that they make an effort to report the news in an even-handed manner.

Can you see FoxNews saying "well, looks like we were wrong to do all that hand-waving and finger-pointing during the early stages of that debacle we call the Iraq war. Those talking points we got from the White House turned out to be wrong, and we apologize."

It would be a good sign for the organization if they did--but that will never happen. Real media outlets think carefully about what they will publish and what they have published, and try to do so in a way that's fair. Fake news organizations make all of those decisions in ways that are blindly ideological.

True, but I don't see Fox news as blindly ideological.
Has the NYT apologized for implicating Bush, Cheney et al. in the CIA agent exposure scandal?
Not sure if they did, but they certainly should.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

True, but I don't see Fox news as blindly ideological.
Has the NYT apologized for implicating Bush, Cheney et al. in the CIA agent exposure scandal?
Not sure if they did, but they certainly should.

Well, "libel" is only when it isn't actually true. As far as I know, all indications are that these folks in all likelihood WERE involved in the Valerie Plame incident. At least Rove was, and either Bush and Cheney were involved, or they're idiots for not being able to figure it out.

Just because "Scooter" Libby agreed to take the fall for this doesn't mean he acted alone.

[arsenal]

no news agencey will ever be completely objective.
There is a culture in each and everyone of these agencies, and they are going to hire people that fit in with this culture.
Humans are naturally biased, and when someone writes on a story, even if they try to be completely and utterly objective, their biases will trickle into the story.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, "libel" is only when it isn't actually true. As far as I know, all indications are that these folks in all likelihood WERE involved in the Valerie Plame incident. At least Rove was, and either Bush and Cheney were involved, or they're idiots for not being able to figure it out.

Just because "Scooter" Libby agreed to take the fall for this doesn't mean he acted alone.

For once I am glad someone quoted White Doors. This would have slipped by otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Doors
True, but I don't see Fox news as blindly ideological.
Has the NYT apologized for implicating Bush, Cheney et al. in the CIA agent exposure scandal?
Not sure if they did, but they certainly should.



When I read that quote in your post I almost choked on my lunch. Fox is not blindly ideological? If they are not, I don't know what is. Owned by a neo-conservative, managed by a neo-conservative who tells his employees what is news, and manned by neo-conservatives who repeat nothing but neo-conservative talking points. When Bill O'Reilly is a moderate on your network, you're nothing but blindly ideological. And station that gives major air time to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, William Kristol and Brit Hume is ideological. They are so neo-conservative that when the White House went looking for a new mouthpiece to speak for thre administration that they hired Tony Snow away from Fox. Yup, not ideologues working for Fox. And this moron wonders why people consider him a troll? There is NOTHING he says that has any credability.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

True, but I don't see Fox news as blindly ideological.
Has the NYT apologized for implicating Bush, Cheney et al. in the CIA agent exposure scandal?
Not sure if they did, but they certainly should.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

For once I am glad someone quoted White Doors. This would have slipped by otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Doors
True, but I don't see Fox news as blindly ideological.
Has the NYT apologized for implicating Bush, Cheney et al. in the CIA agent exposure scandal?
Not sure if they did, but they certainly should.



When I read that quote in your post I almost choked on my lunch. Fox is not blindly ideological? If they are not, I don't know what is. Owned by a neo-conservative, managed by a neo-conservative who tells his employees what is news, and manned by neo-conservatives who repeat nothing but neo-conservative talking points. When Bill O'Reilly is a moderate on your network, you're nothing but blindly ideological. And station that gives major air time to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, William Kristol and Brit Hume is ideological. They are so neo-conservative that when the White House went looking for a new mouthpiece to speak for thre administration that they hired Tony Snow away from Fox. Yup, not ideologues working for Fox. And this moron wonders why people consider him a troll? There is NOTHING he says that has any credability.

Ahh.. more insults from Lanny.
just another day at Calgarypuck.
Are they to the right of CNN and NYT, for sure.

Blindly ideological, no, not in my opinion.

oh, btw - too bad about the 'almost'.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by arsenal

no news agencey will ever be completely objective.
There is a culture in each and everyone of these agencies, and they are going to hire people that fit in with this culture.
Humans are naturally biased, and when someone writes on a story, even if they try to be completely and utterly objective, their biases will trickle into the story.

Agencies not only used to try to remain impartial, but were forced to provide balance. It was law. The Fairness Doctrine made it so bothside had to have their interest represented in a story. If one side got a say, the other got equal time to respond. This was guaranteed by law. The Reagan admin was the one who killed the Fairness Doctrine. If there really was a bias in the media, and it was liberal, why would the Republicans kill the one law that guaranteed their voice? They wouldn't. Fact of the matter is that the media has always been centerist, because they were required to centerist. Only with the downfall of the Fairness Doctrine and the advent of the cable and new medias have we seen the center line (the medium political voice) shift to meet the arrival of the conservative CNN and then the extreme right wing FauxNews. The established media stayed right where they were, using the same policies and procedures they did for decades, and stradling a traditionally centerist position. Only the arrival of someone way off on the right did it make the traditional media seem biased to the left. Media bias is one of the biggest fabrications in the zeitgeist today, proof that if you repeat something enough it becomes fact in people's minds.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Agencies not only used to try to remain impartial, but were forced to provide balance. It was law. The Fairness Doctrine made it so bothside had to have their interest represented in a story. If one side got a say, the other got equal time to respond. This was guaranteed by law. The Reagan admin was the one who killed the Fairness Doctrine. If there really was a bias in the media, and it was liberal, why would the Republicans kill the one law that guaranteed their voice? They wouldn't. Fact of the matter is that the media has always been centerist, because they were required to centerist. Only with the downfall of the Fairness Doctrine and the advent of the cable and new medias have we seen the center line (the medium political voice) shift to meet the arrival of the conservative CNN and then the extreme right wing FauxNews. The established media stayed right where they were, using the same policies and procedures they did for decades, and stradling a traditionally centerist position. Only the arrival of someone way off on the right did it make the traditional media seem biased to the left. Media bias is one of the biggest fabrications in the zeitgeist today, proof that if you repeat something enough it becomes fact in people's minds.

Well the 'fairness doctrine' doesn't sound like free speech to me.

[octothorp]

So I figured I'd do a quick fact check of the first article, the one from ynet news. I searched the websites for two of the quoted sources of the story, and I'll be damned if I can find any reference to this memo on either Washington Times or on the Daily Express. Interestingly though, all the facts sited from the Times or Express infact seemed to originate in the Daily Mail... Seems like Ynet article just changes the sources to make it sound like they're gathering this story from a number of sources when infact they're just reprinting one story from a single tabloid. Not particularly good journalism.

[Flame On]

Ahhh when you add certain people to your ignore list, things just look better in the world, and certainly this thread.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by White Doors

True, but I don't see Fox news as blindly ideological.
Has the NYT apologized for implicating Bush, Cheney et al. in the CIA agent exposure scandal?
Not sure if they did, but they certainly should.

Fox news is not blindly ideological.

Fox News makes the G&M look like a carefully thought though balanced approach to news and politics.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Did Reuters and AP even cover that story?

I'm kind of surprised you think this inconsequential little article is worth posting here. These kinds of things are written all the time in the newspaper. It's certainly nothing like an overarching admission of bias or serious flaws, as your title implies.

Well first off AP and Reuters coverage of the Middle East is as bad or worse than BBC do to their Fauxtagraphy and imbedded terrorist photographers. Simply put their editorialising has been incompetant in the very least. Both have and are facing criticism for this.

Both BBC and the NYT have had severe criticism of their reporting from various sources over the past few years. BBC of course within Britain and NYT in the USA.

NYT especially for their banking surveilance scoop which was criticised widely from both Democrats and Republicans for screwing a legal covert operation to stop terrorists from their lifeline...money. NYT has been quietly backtracking for months.