I think it was lying.The BBC has a very definite political agenda, and the story fit into that. It has become intoxicated by its own power. Most B3tans have similar views, so it's not all that apparent.
It's not the place of the BBC to promote political viewpoints, as I have seen it do on many occasions. It should be reporting the facts, and it has failed to do that.
The whole organisation needs a cultural change. Maybe this event will start that - but I don't think the BBC is capable of reforming itself. That pressure has to come from the outside.
(,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 15:36,
archived)
It's not the place of the BBC to promote political viewpoints, as I have seen it do on many occasions. It should be reporting the facts, and it has failed to do that.
The whole organisation needs a cultural change. Maybe this event will start that - but I don't think the BBC is capable of reforming itself. That pressure has to come from the outside.
i disagree entirelythe bbc does not have anything like a single political viewpoint, let alone allowing it to skew the bias of their reports.
every serious political party attacks the bbc as being biased against them, which is indicative of being spiky and investigative, but ultimately unbiased.
i listen to radio4 almost non-stop, and i can definitely say that they made every effort to be fair to the govt over the iraq war, it's just that the case for war was so flimsy and so obviously a tissue of lies, half-truths and exaggerations, that no responsible journalist could do anything but expose them.
frankly anything short of a 10-minute john humphreys monolgue ranting against government sending young men overseas to die and to kill thousands of Iraqis in order to prop-up a man who wasn't elected and is the most discredited US president since Nixon would be fair and balanced.
(every serious political party attacks the bbc as being biased against them, which is indicative of being spiky and investigative, but ultimately unbiased.
i listen to radio4 almost non-stop, and i can definitely say that they made every effort to be fair to the govt over the iraq war, it's just that the case for war was so flimsy and so obviously a tissue of lies, half-truths and exaggerations, that no responsible journalist could do anything but expose them.
frankly anything short of a 10-minute john humphreys monolgue ranting against government sending young men overseas to die and to kill thousands of Iraqis in order to prop-up a man who wasn't elected and is the most discredited US president since Nixon would be fair and balanced.
atomboy,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 15:46,
archived)
clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapwell sayed, sir!
(
Manic can teach you the secret of fire,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 15:52,
archived)
Does it occur to youthat listening to the BBC almost non-stop may result in some bias to your own viewpoint?
(,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 15:56,
archived)
!Now IreallyloveWogan you're IreallyloveWogan just IreallyloveWogan reaching.
( Manic can teach you the secret of fire,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 15:58,
archived)
admittedlysaying almost non-stop was something of an exaggeration, however I do use a number of different news sources, but for english language news, radio 4 is the very best there is.
your point is a fair one, but it's a cause and effect difference here - i mostly listen to it 'cos it's the best, i don't think it's the best 'cos i listen to it all the time, if you see what i mean
(your point is a fair one, but it's a cause and effect difference here - i mostly listen to it 'cos it's the best, i don't think it's the best 'cos i listen to it all the time, if you see what i mean
atomboy,
Wed 28 Jan 2004, 15:58,
archived)