![[challenge entry]](/images/board_posticon_c.gif "Challenge Entry: Corporate Rebranding"){kind=small}
Rebranding the BBC to reflect its content
From the Corporate Rebranding challenge. See all 800 entries (closed)
(, Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:17, archived)
ZZzzzzzEDIT:
"Same with Bush. Of the Left, only those who eventually come to their senses will recognise his greatness, and the rest will never forgive him for defending democracy. But those millions he frees from tyranny will come to be grateful."
??? Yes. We wont look back at this time as one of the most insulting to our own democratic process and lack of respect of other peoples cultures.
("Same with Bush. Of the Left, only those who eventually come to their senses will recognise his greatness, and the rest will never forgive him for defending democracy. But those millions he frees from tyranny will come to be grateful."
??? Yes. We wont look back at this time as one of the most insulting to our own democratic process and lack of respect of other peoples cultures.
cupboardy,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:19,
archived)
That's right.Bush will be recognised in time as a hero, like Reagan.
(,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:30,
archived)
ah, so Reagan will be recognised as a hero in some point in the future then?
tipassoi,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:34,
archived)
No, that happened already.You must have missed it, possibly because you rely on biased news sources like the BBC.
(,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:37,
archived)
Some people recognise Beckham as a heroWe get the heroes we deserve
( tipassoi,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:38,
archived)
President Regan1-tripled US national debt.
2-supported apartheid in south africa.
3-gave financial and logistical support to saddam hussein.
4-gave financial and logistical support to dictators and death squads in central america.
5-illegally sold weapons to iran.
6-illegally gave money to right wing drug-runners in central america.
7-opened up national parks for oil and gas exploration.
8-presided over the largest banking scandal(the s&l debacle)in the history of the united states that eventually cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
The fall of communism was nothing to do with anyone else then. Peace wasn't in part to do with Europe or Gorby. No.
Nothing is black and white my friend. It's all shades of grey.
(2-supported apartheid in south africa.
3-gave financial and logistical support to saddam hussein.
4-gave financial and logistical support to dictators and death squads in central america.
5-illegally sold weapons to iran.
6-illegally gave money to right wing drug-runners in central america.
7-opened up national parks for oil and gas exploration.
8-presided over the largest banking scandal(the s&l debacle)in the history of the united states that eventually cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
The fall of communism was nothing to do with anyone else then. Peace wasn't in part to do with Europe or Gorby. No.
Nothing is black and white my friend. It's all shades of grey.
cupboardy,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:34,
archived)
You seem to havea pretty black and white view of the BBC and Reagan.
(,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:38,
archived)
There is one individual in the world that has done moreto fight AIDS in Africa can anyone else. Bush Jr. I'm sure he does some other amazing stuff too. ON BALANCE which is a concept that has clearly passed you by, he's a numpty. Same with Regan. He seemed to be a cool guy, but he wasn't all great.
( cupboardy,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:43,
archived)
pfffffffffffffft... did everyone read the ofcom report of that cunt on fox newsbasically pointed out that he was wrong and shouldn'thave been allowed to broadcast that
afternoon all
(afternoon all
lemony,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:20,
archived)
ssssshhhh!That's why he made the picture. it's all been a bit arguementative this morning.
(
magnum,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:21,
archived)
you could always write to them[email protected]
Here's a snippet of mine:
Dear Sir,
I draw your attention to the OfCom verdict on The Big Story: My Word, Fox
News, 28 January, 22:00.
www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101
As an organisation that has possibly soured relations between our two
countries by your 'frothing at the mouth' anti-Britishism is John Gibson
going to make an apology in the same 'My Word' segment? I feel the that
American people have a right to be told in the same manner as the original
broadcast, that most of Mr Gibson's statements held little or no respect for
the facts.
(Here's a snippet of mine:
Dear Sir,
I draw your attention to the OfCom verdict on The Big Story: My Word, Fox
News, 28 January, 22:00.
www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101
As an organisation that has possibly soured relations between our two
countries by your 'frothing at the mouth' anti-Britishism is John Gibson
going to make an apology in the same 'My Word' segment? I feel the that
American people have a right to be told in the same manner as the original
broadcast, that most of Mr Gibson's statements held little or no respect for
the facts.
cupboardy,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:28,
archived)
nah, i think he had the right to say itand yes, i think he had the right to say it where and when he did... but he should've been prepared to back up his statements when asked and he didn't
( lemony,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:30,
archived)
That letter fails to take into accountthe fact that Ofcom is wrong and Fox is right.
Truth comes from facts, not from the biased declarations of political appointees.
The Fox presenter, John Gibson, said in a segment entitled My Word that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest";
Correct.
that the BBC "felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives";
Correct.
that the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the US invasion, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military";
Not sure
and that "the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie - exaggerate - because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right".
Correct.
Three out of four ain't bad.
(,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:31,
archived)
Truth comes from facts, not from the biased declarations of political appointees.
The Fox presenter, John Gibson, said in a segment entitled My Word that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest";
Correct.
that the BBC "felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives";
Correct.
that the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the US invasion, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military";
Not sure
and that "the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie - exaggerate - because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right".
Correct.
Three out of four ain't bad.
wow... that's an incredibly black and white viewof the world
( lemony,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:34,
archived)
Becausethe BBC did, in fact, do the three things I have marked as "correct" above.
(,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:39,
archived)
But you haven't actuallygot any proof have you? And without proof, the facts that you set so much store by are merely opinion and conjecture.
(
GR33DY,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:41,
archived)
The Hutton report states that the BBCis frothingly anti-american? The Hutton report states that the BBC felt entitled to lie? The Hutton report states that "the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right"?
No it doesn't, and I have read it cover to cover.
(No it doesn't, and I have read it cover to cover.
GR33DY,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:45,
archived)
I think there's only as much anti-merkinism in middle-to-left mediaas there is in the centre-to-left populace, as let's face it, labour went right.
The bbc defended a journalist who calimed he was right. He got caught on a technicality - and despite what he believed, he was technically wrong. This did not change the alleged 'rearranging' of the dossier, or the reasons why it was being edited to sell it to the british popluace.
Gilligan did not deify Iraqi resistance or attack american forces.
And the BBC defended one of their own against an irrationaly pro-war government.
So the facts (those that can be considered correct without your exaggerating them) still do not fullly match up to your beliefs...
:)
(The bbc defended a journalist who calimed he was right. He got caught on a technicality - and despite what he believed, he was technically wrong. This did not change the alleged 'rearranging' of the dossier, or the reasons why it was being edited to sell it to the british popluace.
Gilligan did not deify Iraqi resistance or attack american forces.
And the BBC defended one of their own against an irrationaly pro-war government.
So the facts (those that can be considered correct without your exaggerating them) still do not fullly match up to your beliefs...
:)
WhoElse I'm what Willis was talking about,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:44,
archived)
there's a couple of neo-cons aboutwho are accusing anyone who was interested in the actual events of having listened to the bbc's version of events solely because it matched the political views, rather than the small technical details that actually meant the journalist was wrong and the amazing ability of labour to ignore the facts stacked against them.
In essence I think he's accusing others of what he himself has done, a sort of defense by attack.
(In essence I think he's accusing others of what he himself has done, a sort of defense by attack.
WhoElse I'm what Willis was talking about,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:34,
archived)
There's a couple of critical thinkers aboutwho are challenging the mindless herd-mentality of the BBC and its ignorant supporters.
(,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:36,
archived)
You're not a critical thinker.You're a troll, and you're getting very, very boring.
(,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:39,
archived)
Then don't reply.I find the constant left-wing politics here very, very boring. So I liven it up with a bit of dissent.
If you don't like dissent, just press the ignore button and remain in your happy little coccoon of like-minded ideas.
(,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:40,
archived)
If you don't like dissent, just press the ignore button and remain in your happy little coccoon of like-minded ideas.
ahhhh....oh such a common tactic in political debates it seems
( lemony,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:37,
archived)
ahhhh*keeps out of it*
*knows full well which side he's stood on*
*realises it's silly to in herently trust any source*
*decides to have coffee and a pork pie instead*
(*knows full well which side he's stood on*
*realises it's silly to in herently trust any source*
*decides to have coffee and a pork pie instead*
lemony,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:28,
archived)
Oh indeed.Trust no-one. Take nothing on face value. But when you get this same rhetoric - you have to argue the other corner.
( cupboardy,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:37,
archived)
My word!What a load of old wank. BBC a government news agency? FOX News unbiased? Have I accidentally strayed into a playground for the hard of understanding?
( GR33DY,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 12:32,
archived)
You again?The BBC did not lie: one reporter drew incorrect assumptions, the BBC automatically defended the reporter before discovering their mistake, which they then apologised for.
BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies and Director-General Greg Dyke also retired, due to their hasty backing of the reporter.
Dispite this one hiccup, the BBC remains one of the most balanced news sources in the world, unlike Fox News which you hold high as an example, apparently with neither irony nor a clue.
Please
1) go back to your master Rupert Murdock and tell him your astroturfing failed
2) stop trolling
(BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies and Director-General Greg Dyke also retired, due to their hasty backing of the reporter.
Dispite this one hiccup, the BBC remains one of the most balanced news sources in the world, unlike Fox News which you hold high as an example, apparently with neither irony nor a clue.
Please
1) go back to your master Rupert Murdock and tell him your astroturfing failed
2) stop trolling
Deebster,
Tue 15 Jun 2004, 13:47,
archived)