Ena is crazy, but I too wouldn't trust the BBC--there were way too many instances of obvious bias on their part over the last few months. Even NPR has a better record.
Well, nothing examples of shady behavior by the BBC, but I remember people in *here* crying wolf about CNN.com not mentioning the explosion that killed several dozen people in an Baghdad marketplace, and then using a BBC link for reference.
It turned out that CNN.com did mention it just one click off the front-page. After that was cleared up, the same eople claimed the story too abbreviated and vague, but they neglected the fact that the BBC link was equally short and uninformative.
In fact, the bastion of American conservatism that is FOXNews.com had the most detailed report on its main page since they elected to post the entire AP report.
Most political threads on this board seem to degenerate into conspiracy, paranoia mudfights.
I already hate myself for saying what I'm about to say.
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Besides that, their coverage of US sports, even hockey and basketball which are fairly popular international sports
No they're not. Cricket is more of an international sport than basketball: they play it all over Africa, and they're obsessed by it in Australia and India. Outside of North America, no-one gives a stuff about basketball.
Likewise hockey. They play it in Scandinavia, in Eastern Europe and North America, but it's not 'popular' anywhere else.
Football, on the other hand, with a round ball you kick with your feet, is played everywhere. Everyone loves it. MILLIONS more people watch the World Cup on this planet than they do the Olympics. The one country that doesn't 'get' football is the United States. And I think Canada and Cuba. Who can at least play each-other at baseball, another sport he world couldn't give a monkey's pizzle about. Apart from Japan.
Blanks are only ever mentioned by one of the Iraqi doctors...when CNN ask about this, Kampfner responded: he avoids saying whether he found this contention to be credible.
Edit: Bad spelling. Bad, naughty, disgusting spelling.
So reporters should say if they think something is not credible?
"And George Bush still claims that WMD will be found in Iraq, which is not clearly not credible"
Be happy to see that?
Or just stuff you like?
It WAS his contention. To report this is NEWSGATHERING. Not fucikng bias.
So reporters should say if they think something is not credible?
I didn't say that. I indicated that Kampfner was not making claims one way or the other about the Iraqi doctor's story (which seems to me to be pretty much the same point you were making?), even when pressed to do so by the CNN interviewer.
Hassan, in about five hours when I get home from work I will let loose my kangaroo and he will give you the most floscous bitch-slapping you've ever received in your life.
Hassan, in about five hours when I get home from work I will let loose my kangaroo and he will give you the most floscous bitch-slapping you've ever received in your life.
Did I mention that my Kangaroo is from Argentina? Which means that not only can he kick the shit out of you with his legs but as an Argentinan (?) kangaroo he is also eligible to use his hands as well, especially seeing as how you are in England. I guess it is some sort of Argentinan tradition of how they deal best with the English or something. Although he doesn't follow all of the traditions, for example he isn't coked up like other Argentinan Kangaroos and he isn't native to any of the outlying islands where invasive British species have taken over.
He reports what people on the ground said happened.
This has until recently been the job of reporters.
NOT true. The original article presented the Jessica Lynch story as "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived..." He didn't just give us the assertions of the doctors. They were part of an argument he was making. Which is to say he was editorializing rather than reporting.
NOT true. The original article presented the Jessica Lynch story as "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived..." He didn't just give us the assertions of the doctors. They were part of an argument he was making. Which is to say he was editorializing rather than reporting.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article. The rescue was filmed and edited before it was shown to the rest of the world. The Pentagon has declined to release any of the raw footage. Initial reports of torture, gunshot and stab wounds have proven to be speculative...yet the events became a HUGE story all over the US (to the extent that - the Iraqi who provided her location - was offered asylum in the US and a book deal with a reported $300,000 to $500,000 value). The story undeniably stirred up patriotic feelings all over the US. How is describing this as news management editorializing? Is describing a chair as 'a chair' editorializing?
Perhaps you need to re-read the article. The rescue was filmed and edited before it was shown to the rest of the world...
I saw the film - green and grainy. So? What DOESN'T get edited before it goes on the air? I don't need to re-read the article. I tuned out the story when it got hyped the first time around. I'm going to suddenly interest myself in THIS disinformation campaign? I repeat: our people did NOT go into that hospital with blanks in their guns. That people would swallow this nonsense uncritically is just flat out retarded.
Zaphod, the point is the military edited the footage, not the media.A old friend of mine is a news film editor for the BBC and his job is look at the raw footage and somehow show the horror of life whilst still maintaining our stomachs. I can tell you it's an appalling job, the stuff he's told me curdles the brain and everything else.
Zaphod, the point is the military edited the footage, not the media....
No, the point is the story has big freaking holes in it and yet people blindly buy it. It was supposed to be a staged rescue with the soldiers firing blanks and then the film carefully edited afterwards. Where's the film? How do they KNOW the military edited it? Do they have the original film? Where was all this shooting that was supposed to be in the film? They went to all this bother to fake combat and then THEY DIDN?T EVEN SHOW IT? This story just doesn't make sense.
Comments
Originally posted by mrmister
Ena is crazy, but I too wouldn't trust the BBC--there were way too many instances of obvious bias on their part over the last few months. Even NPR has a better record.
Have to call you on that.
Examples?
ena said:
*leaves thread before boss takes computer away*
and then this:
*leaves thread*
and then this ...
*yawns as he dons jetpack and leaves thread*
Is there a pattern emerging?
*leaves thread in exasperation*
It would seem so ...
*leaves thread in pissy mood*
And my personal favourite ...
*leaves thread vindicated*
Originally posted by Harald
Have to call you on that.
Examples?
Well, nothing examples of shady behavior by the BBC, but I remember people in *here* crying wolf about CNN.com not mentioning the explosion that killed several dozen people in an Baghdad marketplace, and then using a BBC link for reference.
It turned out that CNN.com did mention it just one click off the front-page. After that was cleared up, the same eople claimed the story too abbreviated and vague, but they neglected the fact that the BBC link was equally short and uninformative.
In fact, the bastion of American conservatism that is FOXNews.com had the most detailed report on its main page since they elected to post the entire AP report.
Most political threads on this board seem to degenerate into conspiracy, paranoia mudfights.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...nch/index.html
here is the CNN interview with the BBC correspondent where he backtracks on his previous charges. They're pretty good with the spin.
Originally posted by mrmister
For starters,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...nch/index.html
here is the CNN interview with the BBC correspondent where he backtracks on his previous charges. They're pretty good with the spin.
How funny. You say "backtracks" and the article title is about how the correspondent "defends" the original piece.
Which is what he does.
That is, he does not "backtrack."
At all.
Neeeeeeeeext!
Originally posted by Harald
How funny. You say "backtracks" and the article title is about how the correspondent "defends" the original piece.
Which is what he does.
That is, he does not "backtrack."
At all.
Neeeeeeeeext!
Then he's not a very bright person. There simply is NO way our people went in there with blanks in their guns.
Well, that is his contention.
he avoids saying whether he found this contention to be credible.
Edit: Bad spelling. Bad, naughty, disgusting spelling.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Then he's not a very bright person. There simply is NO way our people went in there with blanks in their guns.
I fear you are not bright.
He does not say they do.
He reports what people on the ground said happened.
This has until recently been the job of reporters.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Besides that, their coverage of US sports, even hockey and basketball which are fairly popular international sports
No they're not. Cricket is more of an international sport than basketball: they play it all over Africa, and they're obsessed by it in Australia and India. Outside of North America, no-one gives a stuff about basketball.
Likewise hockey. They play it in Scandinavia, in Eastern Europe and North America, but it's not 'popular' anywhere else.
Football, on the other hand, with a round ball you kick with your feet, is played everywhere. Everyone loves it. MILLIONS more people watch the World Cup on this planet than they do the Olympics. The one country that doesn't 'get' football is the United States. And I think Canada and Cuba. Who can at least play each-other at baseball, another sport he world couldn't give a monkey's pizzle about. Apart from Japan.
Like I say, I hate myself.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Blanks are only ever mentioned by one of the Iraqi doctors...when CNN ask about this, Kampfner responded: he avoids saying whether he found this contention to be credible.
Edit: Bad spelling. Bad, naughty, disgusting spelling.
So reporters should say if they think something is not credible?
"And George Bush still claims that WMD will be found in Iraq, which is not clearly not credible"
Be happy to see that?
Or just stuff you like?
It WAS his contention. To report this is NEWSGATHERING. Not fucikng bias.
Originally posted by Harald
So reporters should say if they think something is not credible?
I didn't say that. I indicated that Kampfner was not making claims one way or the other about the Iraqi doctor's story (which seems to me to be pretty much the same point you were making?), even when pressed to do so by the CNN interviewer.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Hassan, in about five hours when I get home from work I will let loose my kangaroo and he will give you the most floscous bitch-slapping you've ever received in your life.
I deserve it.
Originally posted by Harald
I fear you are not bright.
He does not say they do.
He reports what people on the ground said happened.
This has until recently been the job of reporters.
NOT true. The original article presented the Jessica Lynch story as "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived..." He didn't just give us the assertions of the doctors. They were part of an argument he was making. Which is to say he was editorializing rather than reporting.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
NOT true. The original article presented the Jessica Lynch story as "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived..." He didn't just give us the assertions of the doctors. They were part of an argument he was making. Which is to say he was editorializing rather than reporting.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article. The rescue was filmed and edited before it was shown to the rest of the world. The Pentagon has declined to release any of the raw footage. Initial reports of torture, gunshot and stab wounds have proven to be speculative...yet the events became a HUGE story all over the US (to the extent that - the Iraqi who provided her location - was offered asylum in the US and a book deal with a reported $300,000 to $500,000 value). The story undeniably stirred up patriotic feelings all over the US. How is describing this as news management editorializing? Is describing a chair as 'a chair' editorializing?
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Perhaps you need to re-read the article. The rescue was filmed and edited before it was shown to the rest of the world...
I saw the film - green and grainy. So? What DOESN'T get edited before it goes on the air? I don't need to re-read the article. I tuned out the story when it got hyped the first time around. I'm going to suddenly interest myself in THIS disinformation campaign? I repeat: our people did NOT go into that hospital with blanks in their guns. That people would swallow this nonsense uncritically is just flat out retarded.
Originally posted by Alex London
Zaphod, the point is the military edited the footage, not the media....
No, the point is the story has big freaking holes in it and yet people blindly buy it. It was supposed to be a staged rescue with the soldiers firing blanks and then the film carefully edited afterwards. Where's the film? How do they KNOW the military edited it? Do they have the original film? Where was all this shooting that was supposed to be in the film? They went to all this bother to fake combat and then THEY DIDN?T EVEN SHOW IT? This story just doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
No, the point is the story has big freaking holes in it and yet people blindly buy it.
for a second I thought you were literate and sane until I realized which story you were referring to.