• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Liberal bias on BBC news

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think there is a definitly a liberal bias when it comes to news in UK most preverlently the BBC it was against the Iraq war from the start and clearly aims to show it was right.

This is proberly because there people are all based in west london and think collectively about every issue going.They never give a tough time to anti war people even GEORGE GALLOWAY FOR ****S SAKE.

Also its obvous sideing with palastine over Israel as the BBC like liberal thought often does blames the rich world for or the developing worlds problems.

The bbc also has partial exemptions from the freedom of infomation act in terms of it can hold back from publishing some of production methods of its output. I wouldnt actually mind but this is public funded television.

If you dont believe my words i think the bbcs actions speak louder they have currently spent £200,000 of public funded money blocking the Balen report a report alledging an anti Israel bias in its reporting.If The BBC is so impartial as it claims why the need?
 
This is proberly because there people are all based in west london and think collectively about every issue going.They never give a tough time to anti war people even GEORGE GALLOWAY FOR ****S SAKE.

What, sure they do.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5tunBGmDQ[/YOUTUBE]

Everyone hates Galloway!
 
I think there is a definitly a liberal bias when it comes to news in UK most preverlently the BBC it was against the Iraq war from the start and clearly aims to show it was right.

Well as I can see it, BBC 24 goes after both sides of the political divide if they screw up. Thats not bias, thats doing thier job. If Blair screws up then they go after him, and if Cameron screws up then they go after thim.

As for the Iraq war.

Justin Lewis: Facts in the line of fire | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

Granted the report was commissioned by the BBC, but unless you can prove some kind of bias by the Cardiff University and the people involved in the report.. well.

This is proberly because there people are all based in west london and think collectively about every issue going.They never give a tough time to anti war people even GEORGE GALLOWAY FOR ****S SAKE.

LOL they grilled George Galloway several times, not to mention others that were "anti war". And their stance might have something to do with their investigative resources. It was the BBC who sent the documentary of the former Iraqi head of the WMD program that defected (and later returned only to be killed by Saddam.. the guy was married to Saddams daughter). The BBC has a long history of going "deep" into stories.. unlike other news organisations. Look at thier recent investigation into Scientology.

Also its obvous sideing with palastine over Israel as the BBC like liberal thought often does blames the rich world for or the developing worlds problems.

Yep the BBC has been accused and once or twice "convicted" for bias in the Palestinian vs Isreal question. However unlike American news organisatons, they do go to both sides of the conflict and one has to expect such flack. At the moment its a BBC reporter thats being held in Gaza for over a month, not a Fox News or other US reporter.. mostly because they probally dont have a reporter there. The Isreali lobby groups in the UK and outside have for years slammed the BBC for bias against the state of Isreal but have yet to prove a consistant bias. Oddly enought, they do same against any news organisation that reports from both sides of the conflict.

As for blaming the rich countries. That is fact, so hardly bias. They also blame the 3rd world for its own problems, such as political instability, corruption and so on.

The bbc also has partial exemptions from the freedom of infomation act in terms of it can hold back from publishing some of production methods of its output. I wouldnt actually mind but this is public funded television.

What about the other news organisations? Are they under the Freedom of Information act? If not, then its only fair that the BBC has an excemption, as the BBC would not be able to function without having confidential sources.. no news organisation could.

If you dont believe my words i think the bbcs actions speak louder they have currently spent £200,000 of public funded money blocking the Balen report a report alledging an anti Israel bias in its reporting.If The BBC is so impartial as it claims why the need?

Got proof of this? And the report basicly sided with the BBC on almost all counts.. much to the displeasure of the Isreal lobby and its allies.

While I am not advocating the BBC as totaly unbiased, they are by far the the least biased on the world stage. As for the UK market.. thanks to your media laws, out right bias like Fox News is not allowed in news reporting, so the media there are pretty even on reporting. I would say ITV news is probally the most "anti war, anti American", with Sky News (Murdochs baby) following right behind and then the BBC.. but thats from personal observation only.
 
Slainte that was brilliant! The most complete deconstruction of this allegation of kindness to GG. Not something you see often. Well done.

Look forward to your next effort on the board. God knows there's many a muppet on this site in need of a reality check.

PeteEU I was going to contribute to this debate but you've pretty much covered all the bases.

The BBC gives all news organisations a lesson in news, excepting perhaps ITV and Al Jezeera.
 
Slainte that was brilliant! The most complete deconstruction of this allegation of kindness to GG. Not something you see often. Well done.

Look forward to your next effort on the board. God knows there's many a muppet on this site in need of a reality check.

first off **** you

PeteEU I was going to contribute to this debate but you've pretty much covered all the bases.

The BBC gives all news organisations a lesson in news, excepting perhaps ITV and Al Jezeera.

Yea we can see where you bias when it comes to news
 
Hey wait a minute youve just quoted yourself. :-).

However, I see your point on bias re Al Jezeera. I guess Im just a fan because it takes a slant youll never find on any other channel and generally pulls no punches.

Actually I watch Fox too, for as long as I can stand the gibbering. I cant see much BBC bias what there is of it. And essentially I tend to give more time to channels that try harder to examine the issues, spending more time on analysis. The channels Ive mentioned, including Al Jezeera come out very well on this. But maybe thats just because theyre not based in insular America.
 
Hey wait a minute youve just quoted yourself. :-).

However, I see your point on bias re Al Jezeera. I guess Im just a fan because it takes a slant youll never find on any other channel and generally pulls no punches.

Actually I watch Fox too, for as long as I can stand the gibbering. I cant see much BBC bias what there is of it. And essentially I tend to give more time to channels that try harder to examine the issues, spending more time on analysis. The channels Ive mentioned, including Al Jezeera come out very well on this. But maybe thats just because theyre not based in insular America.

I would guess it does.Howeve i cant see how you could the bbc doesent have a liberal bias. It bothers me because its public funded.

I think american news is more entertaining i dont see fox news as a real news channel more entertainment(the no spin zone).I dont think sky news has the same attitude as fox even though they are both owned by murdochs evil empire.
 
I would guess it does.Howeve i cant see how you could the bbc doesent have a liberal bias. It bothers me because its public funded.


Well lets try to clear my clouded vision. What would the Beeb be like if it wasnt bias?

BTW Im off to work now so I cant respond to later on this evening. Thats assuming Ive got anything worth saying. :)
 
First

I would guess it does.Howeve i cant see how you could the bbc doesent have a liberal bias.

then this

It bothers me because its public funded.

two different issues.

It bothers me too to have a public funded massive media outlet, but I also see the need for such an outlet. For example, in Denmark we have DR (Danish Radio), the iconic BBC of the country. Its public funded (1 main TV channel, regional TV and 3 radio channels) but has been over spending like mad the last year and now has to cut down drasticly. Now being the institution it is, they of course cut down on the only programing that people actually watch... sports and home made tv series. Granted these are the most expensive parts of TV programing these days but still. But they also have a second channel, which only 65% of the population can see via arial and only sends 6 to 8 hours a day. Why not ditch that? Such things piss me off..

But I do understand the need for a tax funded national media outlet.. else we would be in the same situation as in the US.. not something most Europeans would like.

But just because its public funded does not mean it has to have a bias to one or the other side. Yes 20 to 40 years ago, one could pretty much be sure that the public funded media outlet (usually the only media outlet in Europe) was "biased" to the sitting party. And because most of the political scene in Europe since WW2 was rooted in "left wing" policies, then its only natural to say that today the BBC or DR (danish equlivant of the BBC) are "left wing". However in most countries there are very air tight media laws that gaurd against not only bias but also poltical interfearance. The British laws are especially harsh if you ask me.

I think american news is more entertaining i dont see fox news as a real news channel more entertainment(the no spin zone).

What you see as entertainment, many other people see as serious news and fact.. and that is dangerous... very dangerous.

I dont think sky news has the same attitude as fox even though they are both owned by murdochs evil empire.

They dont.. Murdoch is a whore frankly. He will do anything for a buck. In China he is best buddies with the communist party because they allow him to expand his empire. In the UK he follows the rules with Sky News, not going too much to one side or the other in the political landscape. But in the US, where there are no rules, there he does anything to have power. If it meant backing Clinton instead of some right wing wacko.. then fine. Its after all a pretty well known fact that Fox News and the Murdoch empire did not go after Clinton, before the Clinton administration began going after Murdoch and his ownership issues.
 
However, I see your point on bias re Al Jezeera. I guess Im just a fan because it takes a slant youll never find on any other channel and generally pulls no punches.

.

A slant? You mean like the way they call terrorists "freedom fighters"?

No wonder you like them.
 
A slant? You mean like the way they call terrorists "freedom fighters"?

Actually not heard Al Jazerra in English call them "freedom fighters" and I watch it a few times a week at least.

As for the arabic version one, sure but I dont understand arabic.. do you? Or do you rely on pro Isreali sites to "translate" for you? Thats the problem with the american "hatred" for Al Jazerra, its rarely backed up with any facts.

But thats not saying that Al Jazerra in arabic aint biased.. but compared to the other channels in the region they are hardly hardcore biased. Its funny how Al Jazerra is hated by both sides.. they must be doing something right sometimes.
 
I think there is a definitly a liberal bias when it comes to news in UK most preverlently the BBC it was against the Iraq war from the start and clearly aims to show it was right.

It was. Also, isn't the middle gound of England's news very liberal compared to any American news channel?
 
It was. Also, isn't the middle gound of England's news very liberal compared to any American news channel?


Excellent point Edify. The mainstream for the UK is somewhat to the left of the US. So the BBC would perhaps appear biased to the unthinking observer when they're actually following the line of the public.
 
It was. Also, isn't the middle gound of England's news very liberal compared to any American news channel?

Everything in Europe is leftwing if you do it by American standards.. even our conservative parties are leftwing nutso..
 
I think there is a definitly a liberal bias when it comes to news in UK


If you dont believe my words i think the bbcs actions speak louder they have currently spent £200,000 of public funded money blocking the Balen report a report alledging an anti Israel bias in its reporting.If The BBC is so impartial as it claims why the need?



I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I disagree with you strongly as well. I agree that the BBC has an obvious bias, but that bias isn't actually liberal. Rather, it is just a dogmatic Eurabian bias which supports the antithesis of liberality.

If the BBC were liberal, which people would it champion -- THe society where women are scientists and laywers and engineers, or the society where women are brutalized into submission to male ego and murdered for "honor"? Would it support the people who can hold a gay pride parade, or those for whom such would be a death sentence? If the BBC were liberal, would it support those whose hatred is such that murderers are held in highest esteem and where Mein Kampf is a bestseller? If it were liberal, would it persecute the minority in favor of supporting the majority?


THe BBC is decidedly biased, but this bias is not a liberal bias. THe term liberal may have been perverted by many mindless Eurabians who have simply accepted and embraced their indoctrination so fully that they now endorse the antithesis of liberality, but this promoting of backwardness and barbarity is not the sign of an actual liberal.
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I disagree with you strongly as well. I agree that the BBC has an obvious bias, but that bias isn't actually liberal. Rather, it is just a dogmatic Eurabian bias which supports the antithesis of liberality.

If the BBC were liberal, which people would it champion -- THe society where women are scientists and laywers and engineers, or the society where women are brutalized into submission to male ego and murdered for "honor"? Would it support the people who can hold a gay pride parade, or those for whom such would be a death sentence? If the BBC were liberal, would it support those whose hatred is such that murderers are held in highest esteem and where Mein Kampf is a bestseller? If it were liberal, would it persecute the minority in favor of supporting the majority?


THe BBC is decidedly biased, but this bias is not a liberal bias. THe term liberal may have been perverted by many mindless Eurabians who have simply accepted and embraced their indoctrination so fully that they now endorse the antithesis of liberality, but this promoting of backwardness and barbarity is not the sign of an actual liberal.

But is it liberal to denny those in the OT anything close to human rights?
 
But is it liberal to denny those in the OT anything close to human rights?

If the Palestinians embraced liberal principles, they would have all the human rights in the world. It is THEIR responsibility to stop their murderous ways, not the Israelis. If the Palestinians wanted peace and prosperity, they would have had it long ago. Good grief -- they receive more aid per capita than any other people in the world.

You must think that murdering Jews is some sort of human right. It isn't. Murder is not a human right despite the way you have been hoodwinked into blaming the Jews for everything that is preventing these Arab Palestinians from forming a society that respects human rights. If Arab Palestinians would devote themselves to building a society based upon liberal values and respect for human rights there would be absolutely no need to curtail their movements for security reasons, now would there?

You place no responsibilty upon the Arab Palestinians for their own behavior and value systems, but lay all the responsibility upon the Jewish Israelis, instead. That has nothing to do with iberality or conservatism, but is merely the stuff of buying in to propaganda -- a propaganda based upon the relentless vilification of the Jewish side and the knee jerk apologia for the Arab.

Palestinians deny THEMSELVES human rights.
 
Biased?

“Hamas:
— won the Palestinian Authority's general legislative elections in January 2006, defeating Fatah, the party of the PA’s president, Mahmoud Abbas.
— is believed to have killed more than 500 people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273254,00.html

Not biased?

“Who are Hamas?”

“In February and March 1996, it carried out several suicide bus bombings, killing nearly 60 Israelis, in retaliation for the assassination in December 1995 of Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash.”
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Who are Hamas?

Any questions?
 
Biased?

“Hamas:
— won the Palestinian Authority's general legislative elections in January 2006, defeating Fatah, the party of the PA’s president, Mahmoud Abbas.
— is believed to have killed more than 500 people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993.”
FOXNews.com - FOX Facts: Fatah and Hamas - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

Not biased?

“Who are Hamas?”

“In February and March 1996, it carried out several suicide bus bombings, killing nearly 60 Israelis, in retaliation for the assassination in December 1995 of Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash.”
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Who are Hamas?

Any questions?

Yes.. what are you trying to prove exactly?
 
Yes.. what are you trying to prove exactly?


Now let me see, it is “who, wwaaa,” no wait, it is “who, uh, when, where…”

The BBC needs this:

Free Content Registration TeacherVision.com

Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How

“Suicide bombing” is the "how," where is the “what” in the BBC example I quoted in my first post to this topic?

hsc1842l.jpg


Any more questions?


*****

Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How

“H32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

“Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,” CNN.com - Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq - Nov. 8, 2002

February 6, 2003: “Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.” (Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation)
CNN.com - Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation - Feb. 6, 2003

“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” PROUD OF MY SON: Mahmoud Hamdan Kwasma, the Haifa bomber (Allah predicted 9/11 1400 years ago)

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ Palestinians Get Saddam Charity Checks, Family Of Suicide Bomber Among Those Given $10,000 By His Charity - CBS News

“Howard Dean has said that Hamas’ soldiers—no one has ever called Hamas soldiers before. Howard Dean has said we don’t take sides in the Middle East. We took sides in 1948. Israel’s our ally. We always knew that. We can’t have a president who is conducting American foreign policy by press release clarification, and we’re certainly not going to beat George Bush that way.” (John Kerry Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 11, 2004)

Carter.JPG


Sunday, March 25, 2007:
“The ‘war on terror‘ has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.
The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski) {bold emphasis mine}
Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com

The last one explains the “how” of why liberals got so screwed up on the “what,” which you need to know to get to the “why.”
 
Now let me see, it is “who, wwaaa,” no wait, it is “who, uh, when, where…”

The BBC needs this:

Free Content Registration TeacherVision.com

Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How

“Suicide bombing” is the "how," where is the “what” in the BBC example I quoted in my first post to this topic?

hsc1842l.jpg


Any more questions?


*****

Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How

“H32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

“Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,” CNN.com - Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq - Nov. 8, 2002

February 6, 2003: “Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.” (Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation)
CNN.com - Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation - Feb. 6, 2003

“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” PROUD OF MY SON: Mahmoud Hamdan Kwasma, the Haifa bomber (Allah predicted 9/11 1400 years ago)

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ Palestinians Get Saddam Charity Checks, Family Of Suicide Bomber Among Those Given $10,000 By His Charity - CBS News

“Howard Dean has said that Hamas’ soldiers—no one has ever called Hamas soldiers before. Howard Dean has said we don’t take sides in the Middle East. We took sides in 1948. Israel’s our ally. We always knew that. We can’t have a president who is conducting American foreign policy by press release clarification, and we’re certainly not going to beat George Bush that way.” (John Kerry Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 11, 2004)

Carter.JPG


Sunday, March 25, 2007:
“The ‘war on terror‘ has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.
The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski) {bold emphasis mine}
Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com

The last one explains the “how” of why liberals got so screwed up on the “what,” which you need to know to get to the “why.”

Still dont understand what you are on about.

You link Fox News website about Hamas. Its very very short and very biased in its informaiton. Then you link the BBC website on the same thing, which has loads more information not to mention balanced.

Then you provide loads of links from US media, most of which are from one side of the conflict. Not to mention quite a few come from a period in US media history where patriotism and backing the President was more important than journalism.

So what is your point?
 
You link Fox News website about Hamas. Its very very short and very biased in its informaiton. Then you link the BBC website on the same thing, which has loads more information not to mention balanced.


Here is some music for you to listen to while you read and contemplate; live and let die:

YouTube - Guns N Roses - Live And Let Die

The BBC did not report the news, or give pertinent information, because the news must include the “what” something is and not just the how.

If you believe the suicide bombings (the “how“) mentioned in the BBC example I posted is not terrorism (the “what”) then you are not with civilian status. If I am wrong about that, either there was not enough information provided to me by the BBC or the BBC did not tell you what the “what“ was. And if the BBC deliberately left out information or did not tell you what the “what“ was, they were biased. The “what” was terrorism. Leaving that out of the so-called “information,” is bias.

“Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski)

Atta_in_airport.jpg


300px-Terrorist-child-hussam-abdu01.jpg


child_suicide_bomber.jpg


To those who think Zbigniew Brzezinski is right, I say we included them in the “bug hunt,“ as they are aliens to us; if our Marines are forced to retreat from the bug hunt…

You are either with civilian status, or you are against civilian status.

Who?, What?, When?, Where?, Why?, and How?; those are the questions.
 
I dont know what you're on about either. No wonder no one replies to your posts.
 
If you believe the suicide bombings (the “how“) mentioned in the BBC example I posted is not terrorism (the “what”) then you are not with civilian status. If I am wrong about that, either there was not enough information provided to me by the BBC or the BBC did not tell you what the “what“ was. And if the BBC deliberately left out information or did not tell you what the “what“ was, they were biased. The “what” was terrorism. Leaving that out of the so-called “information,” is bias.

Oh so thats what you are babbeling about.

There are 2 sides to every story. You say that not calling Hamas suicide bombings terrorism in one article (which is informational, not news btw), is bias... not to mention you are wrong about the article. I would say in principle that putting labels for political purposes on people, countries or organisations is bias.

The role of media is to avoid bias, so calling a person an terrorist puts the reader in a certain mindset and hence is biased against the alleged terrorist. If the media organisation avoided putting labels on the "terroirst" by calling him sucide bomber (which he is, being factual), then its up to the reader to make his or her mind up if that person is a terrorist or a freedom fighter or just a moron.

In fact I would charge that your bias against arabs and your (on the face of it) pro Isreali stance is clouding your objectivity and creating a bias in your reporting.

For example, the BBC link you provided states the following.

Branded a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and the EU, it is seen by its supporters as a legitimate fighting force defending Palestinians from a brutal military occupation.

Thats a fact, and both sides of the equation are mentioned. One side thinks they are freedom fighters, the other terrorists.

The article (factual information still) states several times that it (refering to Hamas) carried out sucide bombings and so on. It also mentions why those bombings were carried out.

Yes it did not call it terrorists acts, as its not the job of the article or in general the media (if you ask me and for the most part the BBC and other European media outlets) to label people, organisations and so on in the news reporting part. If it was an editorial, then sure as long as the editoral is balanced.

But it does mention, as I have shown, that the US and EU and Isreal see the organisation as a terrorist organisation, which means you can make up your own mind if a sucide bombing of a bus with civilians is a terrorist act, or striking back at the enemy. This is called balance, something that many US media organisations saddly lack, especially Fox News.
 
Oh so thats what you are babbeling about.

Babbling? You are so special. {said with church lady tone}

PeteEU said: “You say that not calling Hamas suicide bombings terrorism in one article (which is informational, not news btw), is bias... not to mention you are wrong about the article. I would say in principle that putting labels for political purposes on people, countries or organisations is bias.”

I did not look at one article. In fact I looked at several in the Arab media too, I just decided that I would pick on the BBC, because I am so insidious. I called the article an “example,” look at the post you responded to, yeah, right there, the word is “example,“ learn to read and get a dictionary. Not putting labels on the acts and not saying “what” they are is bias.

PeteEU said: “The role of media is to avoid bias, so calling a person an terrorist puts the reader in a certain mindset and hence is biased against the alleged terrorist. If the media organisation avoided putting labels on the "terroirst" by calling him sucide bomber (which he is, being factual), then its up to the reader to make his or her mind up if that person is a terrorist or a freedom fighter or just a moron.”

Calling the act “what” it is allows the reader to make up their mind whether the Spanish people are morons for attacking us in a sneak attack.

If the BBC wants me to make up my own mind, as to whether or not it was a sneak attack and an act of war by Saudi Arabia, instead of some terrorist attack by someone of Saudi ancestral background that happens to be a member of the terrorist group Al Quacka…

*****

What is that Spanish guy doing on CNN?

Where was I, I was saying, like how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Spain, was it 17?


“BOOOM” A bomb has gone off.

Oh, God the buildings are falling…

What did you say?

The “boom” was an act of…by… “What?“ Did you say it was a…group of…

I told you we know already know he was Spanish you stinking…we saw him standing there on CNN like James Cagney screaming “look ma I’m on top of the world.” Then boom.

Wait, I didn’t hear what you said…our generals are programming the targeting computers.


Yes general I want a full retaliatory response…

You said stop babbling?

No general he will not tell me what weapon they used. It was powerful wasn’t it. 56 megatons! Wow.

You say we can take them all out?

It will only take how many minutes for the missiles to get to Spain? Oh, that is fast.

*****

So Hamas is on the other side, and they are no longer a terrorist group, and we are at WAR.

Sir, do you have those coordinates to the capital cities of Hamas for our targeting computers? Total unrestricted warfare, carpet bombing to begin immediately.

Are you ready to THINK now. No, I didn’t think you were…

PeteEU said: “In fact I would charge that your bias against arabs and your (on the face of it) pro Isreali stance is clouding your objectivity and creating a bias in your reporting.”

If the BBC reporting called a terrorist act what it is, identifying the journalistic “what” has happened, then maybe if Israel {spelled properly} was to commit such an act I would know about it. So any bias I have must be because the BBC has not reported “what“ the acts are that are being committed.

If you are a terrorist, or you support a terrorist, or you will not call a terrorist act a terrorist act, I could care less if you are a Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid. The lowest pond scum on earth are the terrorists. I care more about the life of the lady bug, the praying mantis, the honey bee, the wasp that stung me, the grizzly bear, the coral snake, and king snake (I saw two days ago), or an ice cube, than I care about the life of a terrorist. I cried when a gold fish died.

I am probably not going to shed a single tear when we start bombing Spain back to the stone age.

What? Did you say, it wasn’t an act of war by Spain…it was a terrorist…
 
Back
Top Bottom