I'm assuming that Edukator's claim that the BBC "demonised" Saddam is an attempt to indicate that he was not guilty as charged.
No, is means that the BBC were biased and didn't highlight any of his good points. A typically leftie tactic.
Chat Forum
News of the World RIP
-
Posted 10 months ago #
-
Ah! As in - "He was a vegetarian who liked dogs".
Thanks, earnest. Now I see.
Posted 10 months ago # -
there is absolutely no balance or context in his writing.
Glass houses and all that.Posted 10 months ago # -
A BBC jounalist demonising Saddam for Deadly.
How is that 'demonising' Saddam Hussein? He was, let's face it, a bit of a nasty man. Read up about his treatment of Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
Much as I disagreed with his kangaroo court 'trial' and subsequent execution, he was particularly unpleasant.
Yes, we know the West steamed into Iraq on the back of a load of lies and fabrication, but there's no getting away from the fact that Saddam Hussein was a very naughty boy...
Posted 10 months ago # -
I loved your link Edukator, specially the first thing I read at the top of the article :
"The Iraqi army may be the key to avoiding chaos after Saddam"
Which of course was completely at odds with the British government's view on the matter. And therefore also completely demolishes your argument that the BBC was just a propaganda tool of the government.
Well done, mate.
Posted 10 months ago # -
You'd have to do a lot better than that article to convince me that the BBC is a government propaganda machine.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The plan would allow the US forces full control over Iraq while they find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.
You'll note that there is absolutely no doubt expressed by the journalist about Saddam having WMDs. There is no mention of Hans Blix or his team. There is no mention of the increasing cooperation being shown and the unlimited acces to sites being accorded by mid February. The BBC consistently reported the WMD threat and gave little if no credibility to the results being presented by Hans Blix. That's why the BBC was propaganda and TF1 and Eins Extra can be congratulated on balanced reporting.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The BBC has a clear right of centre establishment bias
Posted 10 months ago # -
And and a left of centre social and economic bias.
With a royal charter as the constitutional basis for the Beeb you would expect it to have a right of centre establishment bias.
Posted 10 months ago # -
In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson
"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality
Or how about the BBC's own Impartiality report?
‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society’, said The Daily Telegraph’s Jeff Randall about his time as Business Editor of the BBC. ‘As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.’
Andrew Marr, former Political Editor, said that the BBC is ‘a publicly- funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people’ compared with the population at large.’ All this, he said, ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
Michael Buerk said he believed the problem lay with an insufficiently diverse employment policy. ‘Most of the people working for the BBC are middle- class, well-educated, young metropolitan people.’ He said that, although the BBC had made great efforts to widen ethnic and gender diversity, ‘the actual intake of those people has narrowed quite appreciably in terms of age, social category, and education’.
Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, thought that ‘the BBC has in the past been too closed to a wide range of views and we’ve had too narrow an agenda. And I have some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda at times.’
At the seminar, David Jordan cited capital punishment. ‘I challenge anybody in here to mention the last time that the Today programme did capital punishment and didn’t sound as if they were completely against it in principle – or, even in a non British/American context, had somebody on who was in favour of it.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Like I said, quite good, really...
Posted 10 months ago # -
The BBC consistently reported the WMD threat and gave little if no credibility to the results being presented by Hans Blix.
You don't watch the BBC very much do you Edukator ?
And presumably it wasn't reported in France, by your unbiased media, about the stick which the BBC received for daring to suggest that the WMD threat in the dodgy dossier had been "sexed up" by the government ?
Of course Rupert Murdoch's media empire fell neatly into line with New Labour's false claims, and didn't dare to challenge the government's position.
But hey, let's give Rupert a big round of applause and let's slag off the BBC.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Of course Rupert Murdoch's media empire fell neatly into line with New Labour's false claims, and didn't dare to challenge the government's position.
Ernie - Yesterday, you said:
Have you ever read the Sun ? In those 12 years barely a day passed without the Sun criticising, attacking, and slagging off the Labour government, Labour ministers, and the Labour Party in general. The usual stuff of course - political correctness gone mad, the EU, soft on criminals, treatment of Our Boys, incompetent ministers, human rights for terrorists, etc, etc. As well as more all-embracing issues such as the economy, taxation, immigration, education, etc.
So, which is it?
Hoist with your own petard Ernie, hoist with your own petard!
Posted 10 months ago # -
Edukator you are just a silly Billy. No, you really are. You find things where there are none.
See, most of us on here live here in the UK and probbly watch the BBC quite a bit. You don't, and as you've clearly shown, you're happy to put your own political slant on things and promote your own perspective as one which is objective and 'fair', but in fact you have a definite anti-BBC agenda and have just made stuff up to suit your own argument.
To suggest the BBC is 'government propaganda' the way you have is simply preposterous. Get real.
In fact successive governments have complained to the contrary, that the BBC is often 'anti-government'. Which might be why CallMeDave would like to break it up and sell it off to people like his nice mate Rupe....
You are entertaining though. Carry on...
Uh-oh,. Labby's here...
(Finds something else to do instead, knowing it's about to get really, really boring)
Oh, Women's footy's on! England V France. BBC as well. Bonus!
Posted 10 months ago # -
In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson
"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality
Posted 10 months ago # -
In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson
"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality
Or how about the BBC's own Impartiality report?
‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society’, said The Daily Telegraph’s Jeff Randall about his time as Business Editor of the BBC. ‘As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.’
Andrew Marr, former Political Editor, said that the BBC is ‘a publicly- funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people’ compared with the population at large.’ All this, he said, ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.
Michael Buerk said he believed the problem lay with an insufficiently diverse employment policy. ‘Most of the people working for the BBC are middle- class, well-educated, young metropolitan people.’ He said that, although the BBC had made great efforts to widen ethnic and gender diversity, ‘the actual intake of those people has narrowed quite appreciably in terms of age, social category, and education’.
Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, thought that ‘the BBC has in the past been too closed to a wide range of views and we’ve had too narrow an agenda. And I have some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda at times.’
At the seminar, David Jordan cited capital punishment. ‘I challenge anybody in here to mention the last time that the Today programme did capital punishment and didn’t sound as if they were completely against it in principle – or, even in a non British/American context, had somebody on who was in favour of it.
I cannot find a single reference in that which says that the BBC has a left-wing bias.
Can't you do any better than that Zulu-Eleven ?
Posted 10 months ago # -
Sure, once you've answered my question above - which is it?
Posted 10 months ago # -
j_me :
In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson
"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality
To say that people's personal politics is bias to the left and that the organisation did struggle then with impartiality is not the same as saying that impartiality was not achieved.
Journalists tend to be personally bias to the left - even on publications such as the Daily Mail. Far more so than the general population.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Ernie, i agree. My post was an attempt to highlight he was talking of the BBC in the past tense. He is saying it struggled with impartiality 30 years ago. I should have been clearer.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Zulu-Eleven - Member
Sure, once you've answered my question above - which is it ?
Yeah let's not bother - I can't be arsed with your nonsense Zulu-Eleven.
Everyone knows that Murdoch was very close to the neo-cons in Washington and lent heavily on Blair to go to war.
And by pointing out that the Sun was highly critical of Labour when it was in government, is clearly not the same as saying they opposed every policy of New Labour. It's the sort of daft conclusion that only you would come to Zulu-Eleven.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Sometimes it's what is not said that is more important than what is said. It is therefore very important to take into account what is clearly not being said when watching any news story.
I watched the BBC lots, Ernie, I was paid to use news reports and keep up to date with world events, and had a huge TV in my office. When I left that company I watched less and sometime around 2004 I became a very occasional viewer as I had lost all faith in the organisation as a reliable source.
Posted 10 months ago # -
highly critical of Labour when it was in government
didn't dare to challenge the government's position.
Mutually exclusive claims Ernie! C'mon - which is it?
Posted 10 months ago # -
Cracking debate in comparison to recent ones on here btw, I read with interest.
Bollocks, did i jinx it?
Posted 10 months ago # -
Bollocks, did i jinx it?
No, it's always a question of time.Posted 10 months ago # -
You'll note that there is absolutely no doubt expressed by the journalist about Saddam having WMDs. There is no mention of Hans Blix or his team. There is no mention of the increasing cooperation being shown and the unlimited acces to sites being accorded by mid February. The BBC consistently reported the WMD threat and gave little if no credibility to the results being presented by Hans Blix. That's why the BBC was propaganda and TF1 and Eins Extra can be congratulated on balanced reporting.
FFS Edukator, you are being unusually obtuse about this.
Took me about a minute to find this report by the BBC from 3 days after the one you posted highlighting all of the work done by Blix and throwing lots of doubt on the existance of WMD.
You seem to have backed yourself into a corner and are unwilling to see the wood for the trees.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Edukator - Member
I watched the BBC lots, Ernie
But somehow you missed the "WMD claim was sexed up" story, despite the fact that it was an extremely big story. And now you claim that "the British public were being fed Blair's 45 minutes lie" by the BBC. You need to pay more attention when you're watching the telly mate
.
Zulu-Eleven - Member
Mutually exclusive claims Ernie! C'mon - which is it?
Which bit of "I can't be arsed with your nonsense Zulu-Eleven" can't you understand ?
Yep, the Sun was highly critical of Labour when it was in government, and Yep, they supported the Iraq War. Now try and figure out for yourself what that means.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Sensitive about your BBC aren't some of you, Rightplace.
"Arab press welcomes Blix report". Think a little about how that will be received by the reader. the choice of the word "Arab". They could have used "Middle East" which would have more accurately geographically placed the newspapers or are they talking about the the world over in which case "Muslim" would be more appropriate. How would a report starting "Black press welcomes... ." as a lead to the story about the DSK case be constrewed by the reader? The choice of the word Arab is poor.
Poor word choice then an insulting use of Hans Blix's name. No title, fucntion, position or Christian name. Is this a report about hans Blix or is it about his findings in a report by him in which case the headline should read "Blix's report".
A blatent lack of repstect for the the newspapes concerned and Mr Blix himself in the headline. Propaganda. Tony Blair lost the "Tony" as the media lost its love of him.
Posted 10 months ago # -
YEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSS!!!! GET IN!
Eh?
Oh, sorry- forgot you lot were still arguing.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Presumably that means papers written in by, and produced by, Arabs.
"Black press welcomes... ." as a lead to the story about the DSK case be constrewed by the reader?
Presumably, as papers that were written in by, and produced by, black people (usually promoting a "black" agenda), of which there have been examples ever since the civil marches in America in the sixties and so on....
I'm not sure I'm managing to keep a focus on your point.
What is your point, again?
Posted 10 months ago # -
bring forth the giant watermelon...
Posted 10 months ago # -
They never stopped Elfinsafety!
Posted 10 months ago # -
What din't?
I'm going to have some fish sticks.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Sensitive about your BBC aren't some of you
Well if that's how you want to describe it.
The BBC is one of those few remaining institutions which Britain can be, deservedly, very proud of. It's reputation for excellence in the whole spectrum of broadcasting, is world renowned. Contrast that with Rupert Murdoch's global media empire.
And another institution which Britain can be immensely proud of is the British police. But go on, tell us how much better the French police are.
"Arab press welcomes Blix report". Think a little about how that will be received by the reader. the choice of the word "Arab". They could have used "Middle East" which would have more accurately geographically placed the newspapers or are they talking about the the world over in which case "Muslim" would be more appropriate. How would a report starting "Black press welcomes... ." as a lead to the story about the DSK case be constrewed by the reader? The choice of the word Arab is poor.
What a pathetic attempt to castigate the BBC by darkly suggesting the term "Arab" is somehow racist. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel mate.
And since you appear to have completely missed this huge story, even though you apparently watch the BBC, have a look at this link :
No 'truce' in Iraq dossier row
Quote :
"Downing Street has denied declaring a "truce" in its row with the BBC over the government's Iraq dossier."
"The BBC has refused to apologise for its report that a senior intelligence official had said last September's Iraq dossier was "sexed up" at Downing Street's request."
"In response the BBC's head of news, Richard Sambrook, said: "The real question for the BBC is were we right to report what we actually said, when we said it? We believe the answer is 'Yes'."
For a British government "propaganda" tool in the Iraq War, the BBC were clearly left wanting. How did ITN and Sky compare in holding the government to account ?
Posted 10 months ago # -
Posted 10 months ago # -
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
