View Full Version : More BBC Bias
vampireuk
09-22-04, 05:09 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3675640.stm
What the BBC has failed to notice is that Bush is not even making a deal out of his military record, this is all coming from the left.
They also reported on the fake doccuments but have not printed a followup regarding the fact that they are fake.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 10:46 AM
this was kind the main point as far as I could see
Did George W Bush do his duty as a member of the Texas Air National Guard - and even if he did, was that a less honourable course than going to Vietnam?
Did John Kerry deserve the five medals he won as a Naval lieutenant in south-east Asia?
Amid all the discussion, the candidates and the media seem to have missed one thing: The voters don't care.
More than three out of five people in Tennessee say the issue is "not important" in how they will vote, a survey by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research reported in mid-September.
and the bbc story about the CBS document admission.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3674486.stm
and a previous story about doubts over the documents
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3662668.stm
vampireuk
09-22-04, 10:49 AM
The BBC wants its readers to think both sides have been making a huge deal out of this.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 10:53 AM
what makes you think that? looks to me like they are trying to avoid saying anything too strong untill the full story has come out.
The story has come out. The documents are fake and the isn't any one who has said he didn't serve or not fulfill his duties. The records are there. Now what is not know is how involved is the DNC. Bush is in the clear here.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 11:48 AM
yes, but whats that got to do with the BBC?
sytaylor
09-22-04, 11:54 AM
They push the sensational story, and then don't retract it, which for a state owned and "fair" organisation isn't very fair. They've been like this for decades though, they hated maggie and 80% of journos are lefties or closet lefties.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 12:02 PM
They push the sensational story, and then don't retract it, which for a state owned and "fair" organisation isn't very fair.
where did they "push" a sensational story?
Oh please, you give me a head ache.
sytaylor
09-22-04, 12:32 PM
where did they "push" a sensational story?
When it makes headlines, its what we call a "big" story, we could also say they are "pushing it" or giving it a "push". Thats a statement that is quite often used under these circumstances, and is pertinant in this situation also. Sensationalising is doing said "pushing" with a story that was risky to start with (based on flimsy evidence).
When the story turns out to be fake, not making an equal sized retraction completes the sensationalised story by not reaching as many people as the original story which was "pushed" or given a "push".
Say I made a story in which I claimed "Tony Blair denies Iraq war ever happened", and put it all over my front page. I would be "pushing" that story by making it a fore runner, or giving it a "push". If the story then turned out to be that Tony Blair had made a statement saying "The Iraq war would have never happened had saddam complied" and my publication then decided to not "push" the story or go about "pushing it" then I would have completed a full sensationlised story.
I don't have to define "pushing" a story again do I?
Drumphil
09-22-04, 01:15 PM
When the story turns out to be fake, not making an equal sized retraction completes the sensationalised story by not reaching as many people as the original story which was "pushed" or given a "push"
they didn't make the claims, they just reported that CBS made the claims, and then reported the response to the CBS story.
Say I made a story in which I claimed "Tony Blair denies Iraq war ever happened", and put it all over my front page. I would be "pushing" that story by making it a fore runner, or giving it a "push". If the story then turned out to be that Tony Blair had made a statement saying "The Iraq war would have never happened had saddam complied" and my publication then decided to not "push" the story or go about "pushing it" then I would have completed a full sensationlised story.
It would depend on wether they reported the story as if they knew for a fact that it was true, or simply stated that you had made the claim that tony blair denies the Iraq war ever happened. Feel free to provide some quotes to show which you think it is.
Your posts show that you don't know much about this story Drum. I'm not trying to slam you. It is just a point of fact by your posts. I know that we here in the States have the latest scoop and have it on TV all day every day but come on it is all over the web.
vampireuk
09-22-04, 03:29 PM
I've been reading the BBC news site for around 3 years now, they were not too bad before but now they are terrible and their bias is clear. They are highly anti bush. You can also tell by the writing style it's clear they are trying to give you more than just the news.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 10:13 PM
Your posts show that you don't know much about this story Drum. I'm not trying to slam you. It is just a point of fact by your posts. I know that we here in the States have the latest scoop and have it on TV all day every day but come on it is all over the web.
Er, are you talking about the same thing as us?? ok, so show me some quotes from the BBC that show whatever you are trying to say.. you do realise that this thread is about the BBC, not the whole kerry/bush argument thing?? I know whats happening with the CBS story, but again this thread isn't about that.. What is it you think this thread is about exactly?? we're not debating what happened in the US, that all seems pretty clear now, we're debating wether or not the BBC is biased on this issue. Do you have anything to say thats relevant to this discussion?
The story has come out. The documents are fake and the isn't any one who has said he didn't serve or not fulfill his duties. The records are there. Now what is not know is how involved is the DNC. Bush is in the clear here.
About here I said "Yes, but whats that got to do with this thread??"
Oh please, you give me a head ache.
so far that is your only answer to my question: what does your previous post have to do with the discussion in this thread?? Either you are dropping random posts without really reading the thread, or you are having comprehension issues, its gotta be one of the two.
I've been reading the BBC news site for around 3 years now, they were not too bad before but now they are terrible and their bias is clear. They are highly anti bush. You can also tell by the writing style it's clear they are trying to give you more than just the news.
ok, so show me some quotes to back this up, or did you start this thread with the intention of saying "the BBC is biased, now its good night from me, and goodnight from him". You could maybee even point out what you think is bad in the story you linked to.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 11:21 PM
wow, nice excuse for not actually having to say what you mean.. If I'm missing something in this discussion, point it out. If not, answer my questions. It looks like you didn't read the thread before posting, and are now bluffing your way out. What was your point with your posts about how Bush is innocent and the documents are false??
wow, nice excuse for not actually having to say what you mean.. If I'm missing something in this discussion, point it out. If not, answer my questions.
You use this same confortational way to discuss everything. It makes you look ignorant. It you don't agree with what is said move on don't think you can bully people into believing what you do.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 11:46 PM
er, so do you have a take on the discussion about the BBC?? Who am I disagreeing with here.. I just think someone has missed the point of this thread.. the question is "is the BBC biased"
It you don't agree with what is said move on don't think you can bully people into believing what you do.
and this would have what to do with me and this discussion.. This isn't a clash of ideas, its a clash of offtopic vs ontopic.
Then say that and move on don't drag it out. I don't need you to police my forums.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 11:52 PM
hey, no prob, consider me mooved on.. You might wanna tell your real forum police (udawg) what this thread is about tho, assuming you can restrain your feelings against me long enough to take an objective look at this thread.
hey, no prob, consider me mooved on.. You might wanna tell your real forum police what this thread is about tho, assuming you can restrain your feelings against me long enough to take an objective look at this thread.
My REAL forum police are not here tonight. I am the moderator in here tonight.
Drumphil
09-22-04, 11:56 PM
yay, well I guess this thread will be back on track and on topic then now that you're here.. I look forward to reading the discussion of these (BBC related) issues now.
We're a little short handed tonight so I read your posts Drump (kicking and screaming all the way).
I must say that you're clearly doing what you always do which is to portray a silly "who me" attitude. You seem to question how the BBC is being biased here. Have you not read what Vamp said in his first post? Read it, read it again...now read it again. How do you not understand that the BBC is clearly being biased (or at least feigning convenient memory loss) with this story? Have you not read their previous stories that are related to these topics? This is not about isolating this single story on an island...surely you are bright enough to realize that. Have you not read what sytaylor and UDawg have stated here as well? Apparently not. You whine about people getting off topic when you are the one who is getting off topic by not comprehending what is so easily understood by everyone else. Why don't you explain how the BBC is not being biased here? Please back up your opinion with facts, examples, track records, etc as others here have already done (that's kinda how a these wacky debates work by the way). Otherwise, you're just coming across as someone trying to cause an off topic argument as usual.
Drumphil
09-23-04, 12:32 AM
blergh, double post.
Drumphil
09-23-04, 12:36 AM
I simply asked for a quote or two that back up claims that the BBC is biased, or some explanation of what was suppose to be bad in the article that was linked too in the first post. I wasn't making the claims about the BBC so the burden of proof isn't on me. re Udawgs posts, how is it that you think they are relevant exactly? was I disputing that these documents were fake?
How do you not understand that the BBC is clearly being biased (or at least feigning convenient memory loss) with this story? Have you not read their previous stories that are related to these topics? This is not about isolating this single story on an island...surely you are bright enough to realize that.
OK, yet again you have posted your opinion. Thats fine, but I was just asking for some links to the BBC that show this bias. oh right, you don't have to show it because according to you its ovbious, so I have to show that the claim is false.. Is that it?? right, from now on, any claims I make, I'll just claim they're ovbious and ask for proof that they aren't whenever anyone questions what I say.
Have you not read what sytaylor and UDawg have stated here as well? Apparently not. You whine about people getting off topic when you are the one who is getting off topic by not comprehending what is so easily understood by everyone else.
All Udawg stated was the ovbious about the situation in America, which was not being disputed by me anway. Heck, I might even agree that the BBC is biased if presented with evidence that suggests that, but given the article linked to in the original post, I think its reasonable to ask for some more information.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.