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

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

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.

But we should trust sources like Ynet? Wow.

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.

Criticized by who, and for what? Was the criticism out of the ordinary, or just the routine scrutiny that the paper of record normally receives? And what about the winderkinds at FauxNews? What has been the level of criticism leveled at them, and how does it compare?

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.

Uh huh. And that doesn't stink of nothing but politics now does it? The other two outlets that did exposes on the same content were completely ignored. The Bush admin attacked ONLY the NYT. THAT is nothing but political wrangling.

[HOZ]

And now the Guardian with a interview with the former BBC Business Chief.

BBC

You"ll have to read half way dow before the topic of the BBC comes up.

Former BBC business chief Jeff Randall

On the BBC... 'It was a real challenge not to screw up in front of millions. I loved it'
'On many days I'd be up at 5.20am and I'd still be broadcasting on the 10 'o' Clock News. In the end it starts to wreck your life'
...and its alleged bias 'It's not a conspiracy. It's visceral. They think they are on the middle ground'

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

And now the Guardian with a interview with the former BBC Business Chief.

BBC

You"ll have to read half way dow before the topic of the BBC comes up.

Former BBC business chief Jeff Randall

On the BBC... '
'It's not a conspiracy. It's visceral. They think they are on the middle ground'

Whereas Faux News is a conspiracy.
Now you tell me which is worse?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Whereas Faux News is a conspiracy.
Now you tell me which is worse?

I know it is seen as the height if intellectualism by some on this board to belittle FoxNews (with juvy names now). To come on and say that "I never watch FoxNews" yet wax poetically about how bad the news is from Fox. Hmmmm....

It seems that slashing FoxNews is a way to get your intellectual stripes in this forum. Ad hominem attacks on sources and especially people disagreeable to your position is the obvious path to intelectual superiority.

Of the six times I have watched Foxnews in my lifetime I have never seen anything that would make believe that it is a bad news source. No worse or better than CNN and BBC which I watch daily or the NYT and Reuters which I read daily. They have plenty of excellent veteran new reporters, news chiefs, and news casters on their payroll.

Now the point of this thread....which I again am amazed that I need to explain. NYT and the BBC have been under criticism for some time now. NYT for, wrongly IMO, exposing a LEGAL covert-op bank surveilance. The BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority. NYT have since day one been backpedalling and now this from their ombudsman. BBC as well getting exposed for their biases.

I know, I know...I am part of the great NEO-con conspiracy to cover GW's complicity in whatever world domination scheme Dole has thought of this week.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I know it is seen as the height if intellectualism by some on this board to belittle FoxNews (with juvy names now). To come on and say that "I never watch FoxNews" yet wax poetically about how bad the news is from Fox. Hmmmm....

It seems that slashing FoxNews is a way to get your intellectual stripes in this forum. Ad hominem attacks on sources and especially people disagreeable to your position is the obvious path to intelectual superiority.

Of the six times I have watched Foxnews in my lifetime I have never seen anything that would make believe that it is a bad news source. No worse or better than CNN and BBC which I watch daily or the NYT and Reuters which I read daily. They have plenty of excellent veteran new reporters, news chiefs, and news casters on their payroll.

Now the point of this thread....which I again am amazed that I need to explain. NYT and the BBC have been under criticism for some time now. NYT for, wrongly IMO, exposing a LEGAL covert-op bank surveilance. The BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority. NYT have since day one been backpedalling and now this from their ombudsman. BBC as well getting exposed for their biases.

I know, I know...I am part of the great NEO-con conspiracy to cover GW's complicity in whatever world domination scheme Dole has thought of this week.

Hoz don't ya know that the Republicans have cloned the DNA of Joseph Goebells and he is secretly controlling the world's media. The coverup of the issuance of jack boots to the Secret Service has been one of his more brillant campaigns so far. I wish we could get a side by side picture of Bush and Hitler -- Are they the same guy?

The political arguments on this board aren't much more farfetched than above and have precious little substance to them. I love the BSer's who say well "I've done my research". HO HO HO which amounts to reading a couple of websites and googling a few quotes -- Wow so impressive.

I'm waiting for the day when there is a political topic which has some real substance to it rather than just the pathetic rantings of those who support one party/guy or the other based on the most biased crap that is out there.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I know it is seen as the height if intellectualism by some on this board to belittle FoxNews (with juvy names now). To come on and say that "I never watch FoxNews" yet wax poetically about how bad the news is from Fox. Hmmmm....

It seems that slashing FoxNews is a way to get your intellectual stripes in this forum. Ad hominem attacks on sources and especially people disagreeable to your position is the obvious path to intelectual superiority.

Of the six times I have watched Foxnews in my lifetime I have never seen anything that would make believe that it is a bad news source. No worse or better than CNN and BBC which I watch daily or the NYT and Reuters which I read daily. They have plenty of excellent veteran new reporters, news chiefs, and news casters on their payroll.

Now the point of this thread....which I again am amazed that I need to explain. NYT and the BBC have been under criticism for some time now. NYT for, wrongly IMO, exposing a LEGAL covert-op bank surveilance. The BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority. NYT have since day one been backpedalling and now this from their ombudsman. BBC as well getting exposed for their biases.

I know, I know...I am part of the great NEO-con conspiracy to cover GW's complicity in whatever world domination scheme Dole has thought of this week.

You're defending the "same" Fox News that ran information claiming that sex predator and Republican politican Foley was in actuality a Democrat? And never a word about an apology. Yeah, that's an organization who is filled with "excellence".

You know why people use FoxNews to make fun of the garbage you post? Its because it adheres to the same intellectual level and follows the same simplistic thought process. FauxNews twists stories to the point where they no longer resemble the facts or the truth. They attack the messenger, not the message. The content is less important that the presentation. That is you in a nutshell. People rip your theories to pieces and wait for a response, but you make a lame drive by or post something unsupportive or irrelevant in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Its the exact same M.O. that FauxNews follows. Just take this thread.

You're going on and on about this "covert-op bank surveilance", and how the NYT made a transgression by somehow covering it. I gotta question what you're thinking, if you are thinking at all. First, there were two other independent media outlets that covered the exact same story. Where is your faux outrage about them? Secondly, it has been repeatedly PROVEN that Bush himself openly spoke of this program since 2002. Not very "covert" when President Screwup is talking about the program in pressers and speeches. This is common knowledge now. Jesus, the Daily Show did bits on this for a WEEK just to show what a load of petty politiking it is. So it would seem that your focus on this is lame. The NYT admits nothing that you suggest. The program was not some super secret covert operation. The only thing you're doing is embarassing yourself and exposing the fact that you don't know what you're talking about (surprise surprise).

Next, "the BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority" is also ludicrous. They are a news agency. They are not supposed to represent the views of the majority, they are to report the news and inform the people. The fact that you think they SHOULD be representative of the majority speaks volumes of your failure to understand the function of the media and the importance of their role in our democracy. The news is not supposed to be about ratings and appealing to the majority, it is supposed to be about providing oversight and uncovering the truth.

I've read posts where people intellectually fall on their swords, but this one is a classic. You not only fall on it once, but pick yourself up and throw yourself on the instrument repeatedly. The display of ignorance is beyond belief.

[JohnnyFlame]

Next, "the BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority" is also ludicrous. They are a news agency. They are not supposed to represent the views of the majority, they are to report the news and inform the people.

YOU are incredibly naive if you think the CBC reports news in an unbiased manner. In fact if you watch news programs(any of them) or read newspapers and don't see how they have their own agenda you are not much of a intellect.

Your argument is atypical of those on this board. You attack the poster repeatedly acting like you are some part of the intelligensia -- Funny how after many years of reading your stuff I've never noticed you were any smarter than JOE DUFUS off the street.

You describe FoxNews of attacking the messenger and not the message but fart that's your MO in these arguments to a tee.

The news media hasn't reported the news without a bias in ages --- Wakeup already. They have long since either gone with an agenda that pleases those that tune into their broadcast or gone with the standard overblow anything to create news.

An intelligent person would take what they hear/read with a grain of salt no matter where they hear and read it. An intelligent rationally thinking person would look at the current state of politics with an extremetly skeptical view of all parties/politicians.

You want something you can back up with facts. That politics is increasing bankrupt is something you could backup with facts that would take you generations to type. Example after example after example involving politicians of all stripes.

As long as I read/hear one side painting the other as Hitler or some other such unbelievably stupid ignorant way over the top lame brained rubbish then that the whole thing is about BS and not actual policy is beyond refute.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Next, "the BBC, much like the CBC, for not representing the views of the majority" is also ludicrous. They are a news agency. They are not supposed to represent the views of the majority, they are to report the news and inform the people.

YOU are incredibly naive if you think the CBC reports news in an unbiased manner. In fact if you watch news programs(any of them) or read newspapers and don't see how they have their own agenda you are not much of a intellect.

Did I say there was not a bias? No I did not. What I did say was that they are NOT supposed to be representative of the views of the majority. I also have said that certain institutions still follow given practices which make them less biased than others, which is very true. The established media does follow practices that others do not.

Your argument is atypical of those on this board. You attack the poster repeatedly acting like you are some part of the intelligensia -- Funny how after many years of reading your stuff I've never noticed you were any smarter than JOE DUFUS off the street.

Sure Johnny, no proof is ever posted. I just sit back and toss the feces with the rest of the monkeys. You have to appeal to the lowest common denominator and get into the trenches to fight the battles. Kind of like when anyone talks to you they have to sound like a demented old codger so you'll sort of get the jest of what is going on. You know Johnny, in all the years I've read you inane "fart" fill ramblimgs, I've always noticed you to be much less intelligent than JOE DUFUS on the street, and this post is just more proof of that.

You describe FoxNews of attacking the messenger and not the message but fart that's your MO in these arguments to a tee.

Uh huh. Some of these topics have been beaten to death, and are considered common knowledge by my standard. I could bury HOZ in a sea of links that would prove him completely wrong, but we've been there before. The guy just keeps on dredging up the same stuff and trying to spin it, a la FauxNews.

The news media hasn't reported the news without a bias in ages --- Wakeup already. They have long since either gone with an agenda that pleases those that tune into their broadcast or gone with the standard overblow anything to create news.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up. In other stunning news, Lance Bass is gay.

An intelligent person would take what they hear/read with a grain of salt no matter where they hear and read it. An intelligent rationally thinking person would look at the current state of politics with an extremetly skeptical view of all parties/politicians.

You want something you can back up with facts. That politics is increasing bankrupt is something you could backup with facts that would take you generations to type. Example after example after example involving politicians of all stripes.

Go Johnny, go!!! Fart! I love the statements of the obvious!!! You're on a roll!!!

As long as I read/hear one side painting the other as Hitler or some other such unbelievably stupid ignorant way over the top lame brained rubbish then that the whole thing is about BS and not actual policy is beyond refute.

And we should take your advice with a grain of salt (the size of the Great Salt Lake bed perchance)? Did you not read your own nutbar rambling post about the Larry King Show. My advice, seek some help. Others saw the exact same show and came away with a completely different interpretation. Some how you heard "Spring time for Hitler" and equated that with a comparison of Bush to Hitler and that set you off. Wow. Pot, meet kettle.

[JohnnyFlame]

I love your responses. They instantly prove what is said about you. You don't have any facts to argue with. Just BS. You are called on not being any smarter that those whom you call dumb --- Your answer --- Oh yeah well you are dumber. Wow exciting to argue with such a smart guy. Kinda reminds me of all those "smart guys" in grade two.

"You could prove him completely wrong" --- Hmm yet you never seem to be able to. Your I could drudge up so many links proving what -- like any ten year old couldn't pull up links to support anything these days.

And a parting insult --- Ahh the MO never changes.

You are in fact just like mainstream news these days --- the facts shoved to the side if even mentioned. The sound bites selectively chosen. The issues overblown. Nothing of substance to add as an alternative or for subjectivity.

Plus the SMEAR campaign always at the top of the agenda.

You would make an excellent politician -- you have all the requisite qualifications.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Oh, the irony!!!!

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=32043

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Oh, the irony!!!!

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=32043

Ahh I knew you would come up empty. When you are as bankrupt of ideas as you are then your ONE and ONLY move is "Oh yeah well you are so dumb ...

Personally I think you are incapable of orginal thought or an argument based on your own ideas or on at least a semi-unbiased thought of others ideas.

Thus you have to resort to the constant -- OH yeah well you are such an idiot and I can pull up ten links to back that up -- Oh yeah well here is a quote by ? and he is a ? -- so there. Oh yeah and did I mention you a fricken idiot!!!

Ever wonder why there is so much polarization in US politics especially these days -- Hmmm wonder if it has anything to do with people like you sitting on both sides calling the other idiots and having no real moral or political values of your own that you wouldn't change in a heartbeat to get elected or in Calpuck's case win an argument?

Yep you came up empty again and convinced noone to change their minds -- Why is that if you are presenting the so called facts in such an intelligent and coherent way? --- Oh I know it's because the other guys are ######ED!!!!

[White Doors]

Sometimes it's more fun to watch the food fight

[Azure]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Sometimes it's more fun to watch the food fight

Exactly.