Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-12-27 15:34:14
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

So I guess the discussion should be:
Do you believe the BBC is biased or that it promotes a leftist agenda?
I certainly can't see any sort of significant left wing slant to the BBC's reporting and believe they are quite possibly the most unbiased news broadcaster in the world. Reuters are right up there as well, the AP I'm not so sure about (I'm not accusing them of being biased, I'm just not sure).

It is much easier to accuse the BBC of bias than any of the other contenders for the least biased broadcasters crown, because of the amount of independent news related content they broadcast.

I have to say that John Simpson is the Middle East correspondent I have the most faith in.

I also think that accusing the BBC of promoting a leftist agenda is inappropriate, since they have been found to strive for unbiased reporting of the facts, as every published report on this topic seems to suggest.
2006-12-27 15:40:55
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Can't say that I am suprised.....look at the people on this forum who ALWAYS quote the BBC.
Who are these people who always quote the BBC?  Which is your preferred News source?  And you believe that BBC is anti-American just because it appeared in some biased News site.
QFE - the word of some unknown biased website is enough to confirm to usmarine that the BBC should be dismissed as biased. That's says something about his bias.
Just because you two jerk off at the BBC homepage and use links from it as fact to support an argument....don't get mad at me.
2006-12-27 15:40:59
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7191|UK

Kmarion wrote:

I think the lesson here is to not accept "one".
Ofcourse. I normally watch 4-5 different news reports. However hypotetical, which "one" would it be?
2006-12-27 15:43:14
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7191|UK

usmarine2007 wrote:

Just because you two jerk off at the BBC homepage and use links from it as fact to support an argument....don't get mad at me.
Whereas eg to prove that guns dont hurt people you quote from the NGA. I dont know whether you have done that, but i know from other posts you do pick extremely bias sources.
2006-12-27 15:46:01
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

Vilham wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Just because you two jerk off at the BBC homepage and use links from it as fact to support an argument....don't get mad at me.
Whereas eg to prove that guns dont hurt people you quote from the NGA. I dont know whether you have done that, but i know from other posts you do pick extremely bias sources.
Nope. I never use any news source and pass it off as absolute fact.  I am smart enough to know I know what they (the govt) wants me to know.
2006-12-27 15:48:46
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Notice that the only people here defending BBC are those who are anti-US and extreme liberals. People just don't get it. Just because a news source's bias is aligned to your own, it doesn't mean it's no longer biased.
Thats a totally biased post, assuming anyone defending BBC is anti-american...
You have a reading comprehension problem. I said the only people here defending BBC are anti-American. I have access to their post history and can prove it if you really want me to. I did not say "anyone defending BBC is anti-American." Calm down, kiddo.
I defend the BBC, prove me anti-American.
2006-12-27 15:49:01
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
Soo what they want you to know is pure facts then usmarine? Goverment never lies? lol....
2006-12-27 15:51:16
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Soo what they want you to know is pure facts then usmarine? Goverment never lies? lol....
No you tool, I did not say that. ALL governments lie, ALL politicians lie.  You think a news reporter is going to find actual facts?  I know they lie.  I am smarter to get wrapped up in conspiracy theories.
2006-12-27 15:53:00
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Just because you two jerk off at the BBC homepage and use links from it as fact to support an argument....don't get mad at me.
Whereas eg to prove that guns dont hurt people you quote from the NGA. I dont know whether you have done that, but i know from other posts you do pick extremely bias sources.
Nope. I never use any news source and pass it off as absolute fact.  I am smart enough to know I know what they (the govt) wants me to know.
So, you are smarter than the BBC, you know things they don't know.  You must be the head of the CIA.  Oh, wait aren't those asshats the ones that gave bad information about Iraq and WMD's?
2006-12-27 15:54:18
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Vilham wrote:


Whereas eg to prove that guns dont hurt people you quote from the NGA. I dont know whether you have done that, but i know from other posts you do pick extremely bias sources.
Nope. I never use any news source and pass it off as absolute fact.  I am smart enough to know I know what they (the govt) wants me to know.
So, you are smarter than the BBC, you know things they don't know.  You must be the head of the CIA.  Oh, wait aren't those asshats the ones that gave bad information about Iraq and WMD's?
Oui.  I know that I will never know the absolute truth about anything, so I think all news is pure horse poop.
2006-12-27 15:55:51
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Nope. I never use any news source and pass it off as absolute fact.  I am smart enough to know I know what they (the govt) wants me to know.
So, you are smarter than the BBC, you know things they don't know.  You must be the head of the CIA.  Oh, wait aren't those asshats the ones that gave bad information about Iraq and WMD's?
Oui.  I know that I will never know the absolute truth about anything, so I think all news is pure horse poop.
And how do you know wtf is going on out there?

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-12-27 15:56:22)

2006-12-27 15:57:18
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


So, you are smarter than the BBC, you know things they don't know.  You must be the head of the CIA.  Oh, wait aren't those asshats the ones that gave bad information about Iraq and WMD's?
Oui.  I know that I will never know the absolute truth about anything, so I think all news is pure horse poop.
And how do you know wtf is going on out there?
I listen and read various news sources, but I do not beleive any of them as fact at all.
2006-12-27 15:57:51
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|7134|England. Stoke
At the end of the day I admit that the BBC is biased but I would still trust a report I see on the BBC more than any report on any another network. The bias of the BBC only reflects the sad rise of liberalism and political correctness that I and all other people living in the UK have had to endure over the past few years...
2006-12-27 16:30:06
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
usmarine... and still you trust them enough to know what you should know and not? strange.

and i might be a tool...but.....atleast im not someone elses tool.
2006-12-27 16:32:22
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

usmarine... and still you trust them enough to know what you should know and not? strange.

and i might be a tool...but.....atleast im not someone elses tool.
No I do not trust them.  I know that I do not the truth about anything, and never will, nor will you.  You guys can play conspiracy theory all you want, but I don't play that game.
2006-12-27 16:33:20
SwampDog
Member
+12|6895|Luton, England
Just to lighten the mood
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/hat+show/
It`s better than the BBC

Last edited by SwampDog (2006-12-27 16:42:27)

2006-12-27 16:36:35
Onidax
Member
+41|6918
No, BBC, just like every news org, is big business.....not accurate news.

Its not a business.. tis funded by the public sector.
2006-12-27 16:40:29
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
You said earlier you know everything they want to know.....how about what you want to know? Not buying their information = conspiracy theory?

I might not know the truth...but atleast i´m not buying facts that are clearly biased for defending unjust causes. Ofcourse the goverment lies...that´s a fact....what i´m worried about is that is´s acceptable they do.
2006-12-27 16:41:35
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

You said earlier you know everything they want to know.....how about what you want to know? Not buying their information = conspiracy theory?

I might not know the truth...but atleast i´m not buying facts that are clearly biased for defending unjust causes. Ofcourse the goverment lies...that´s a fact....what i´m worried about is that is´s acceptable they do.
I said we know what they want us to know.  That means I do not trust them, nor do I trust the news as absolute fact.  Why can't you understand what I am saying?
2006-12-27 16:45:48
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

usmarine2007 wrote:

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

You said earlier you know everything they want to know.....how about what you want to know? Not buying their information = conspiracy theory?

I might not know the truth...but atleast i´m not buying facts that are clearly biased for defending unjust causes. Ofcourse the goverment lies...that´s a fact....what i´m worried about is that is´s acceptable they do.
I said we know what they want us to know.  That means I do not trust them, nor do I trust the news as absolute fact.  Why can't you understand what I am saying?
Of course.

This is exactly (one of the reasons) why I like the BBC. They have lots of interviewers who really put their guests under a lot of pressure in an attempt to get the truth, or as close to the truth as the guest is prepared to let slip, out of them. John Humphrys is one example of a BBC interviewer I like because of his intelligently aggressive interviewing technique.
2006-12-27 16:48:12
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

You said earlier you know everything they want to know.....how about what you want to know? Not buying their information = conspiracy theory?

I might not know the truth...but atleast i´m not buying facts that are clearly biased for defending unjust causes. Ofcourse the goverment lies...that´s a fact....what i´m worried about is that is´s acceptable they do.
I said we know what they want us to know.  That means I do not trust them, nor do I trust the news as absolute fact.  Why can't you understand what I am saying?
Of course.

This is exactly (one of the reasons) why I like the BBC. They have lots of interviewers who really put their guests under a lot of pressure in an attempt to get the truth, or as close to the truth as the guest is prepared to let slip, out of them. John Humphrys is one example of a BBC interviewer I like because of his intelligently aggressive interviewing technique.
Meh...purely talking heads.
2006-12-27 16:55:02
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

usmarine2007 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:


I said we know what they want us to know.  That means I do not trust them, nor do I trust the news as absolute fact.  Why can't you understand what I am saying?
Of course.

This is exactly (one of the reasons) why I like the BBC. They have lots of interviewers who really put their guests under a lot of pressure in an attempt to get the truth, or as close to the truth as the guest is prepared to let slip, out of them. John Humphrys is one example of a BBC interviewer I like because of his intelligently aggressive interviewing technique.
Meh...purely talking heads.
Not at all. A good interviewer knows how to make his guest give away stuff they didn't want to. Very rarely is anything interesting said explicitly but a lot of stuff gets implied by mistake which gives away the interviewees true feelings. Quality interviewing is an artform and the BBC are probably the best at it.
2006-12-27 16:56:42
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7167|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
I find C4 news/documentary's are the Daddy for leftist media in the UK - not the BBC by a long shot..
2006-12-27 16:59:00
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

IG-Calibre wrote:

I find C4 news/documentary's are the Daddy for leftist media in the UK - not the BBC by a long shot..
Yup. I like C4 News. But it is very obviously biased and I don't think Jon Snow is quite as good an interviewer as a lot the BBC have. Radio 4 have the best interviewers, although they often get overshadowed by the ones on Newsnight, like Paxman.
2006-12-27 17:01:31
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
Well if you wanted me to unerstand that "we" know what they want us to know you should have used the term "we" not "i", sorry for beeing a grammar-nazi.

And why not try to get to know what you want to know...instead of just knowing what they want you to know? Information goes two ways....always two sides...often the truth is to be found somewhere in between.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard