You can't beat the BBC for documentaries
-
Auntie Beeb doesn't tend to attack our American cousins (she knows who's holding the purse strings :) )
-
Auntie Beeb doesn't tend to attack our American cousins (she knows who's holding the purse strings :) )
You are talking about the same network that broadcast such a viciously anti-American discussion of 9/11 two days after the attack that they were forced to make a public apology? You are talking about the same network that, according to the British P.M., that, while reporting the aftermath of Katrina, it was full of hate America and "gloating" about our troubles? You are talking about the corporation that has a picture of Bush as Hitler hung up in its newsroom? (According to its own Washington correspondent who went on to say that his employer treated America with scorn and derision.) Last January criticisms of the BBC in regards to its Iraq War coverage were so damning that the chairman of the board of governors and its director general were forced to resign. Recently, Ibrahim Helal, editor in chief of al Jazeera TV was hired by the BBC World Service Trust. The job the BBC wanted him for? To advise on balance in Middle East coverage.(!) And so on and so on and so on. . . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
whiney little accusations
-
However, there are strict Editorial Guidelines that you can read here http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/[^]. Warning, it is a long in-depth read ...
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
there are strict Editorial Guidelines that you can read here
Oh please. The Beeb violates its own policies constantly. They have admitted it and the admission is documented in the Daily Mail^
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I've documented my accusations. You on the other hand have offered up nothing but a whimper. If what I say hurts your feelings, don't read it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Where have you documented Diego's preconceived notions? You haven't. Where have you documented that andy is afraid of his own shadow? You haven't. Nor have I wimpered. So get a grip. It will take a bit more that your "na-na poo-poo" insults to hurt my feelings. I am a little embarrassed for you, though.
-
You are talking about the same network that broadcast such a viciously anti-American discussion of 9/11 two days after the attack that they were forced to make a public apology? You are talking about the same network that, according to the British P.M., that, while reporting the aftermath of Katrina, it was full of hate America and "gloating" about our troubles? You are talking about the corporation that has a picture of Bush as Hitler hung up in its newsroom? (According to its own Washington correspondent who went on to say that his employer treated America with scorn and derision.) Last January criticisms of the BBC in regards to its Iraq War coverage were so damning that the chairman of the board of governors and its director general were forced to resign. Recently, Ibrahim Helal, editor in chief of al Jazeera TV was hired by the BBC World Service Trust. The job the BBC wanted him for? To advise on balance in Middle East coverage.(!) And so on and so on and so on. . . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the same network that broadcast such a viciously anti-American discussion of 9/11 two days after the attack that they were forced to make a public apology?
I don't recall... linkage?
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the same network that, according to the British P.M., that, while reporting the aftermath of Katrina, it was full of hate America and "gloating" about our troubles?
I was in the States at the time of Katrina and watched the whole thing on BBC News - I don't recall the actual broadcasts being gloating or full of hate or anything else you claim that Tony Blair attributed to them.
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the corporation that has a picture of Bush as Hitler hung up in its newsroom? (According to its own Washington correspondent who went on to say that his employer treated America with scorn and derision.)
But then I remember Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America"
Oakman wrote:
Last January criticisms of the BBC in regards to its Iraq War coverage were so damning that the chairman of the board of governors and its director general were forced to resign.
I don't recall. Are you referring to the Andrew Gilligan affair?
Oakman wrote:
Recently, Ibrahim Helal, editor in chief of al Jazeera TV was hired by the BBC World Service Trust. The job the BBC wanted him for? To advise on balance in Middle East coverage.(!)
Yes?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
there are strict Editorial Guidelines that you can read here
Oh please. The Beeb violates its own policies constantly. They have admitted it and the admission is documented in the Daily Mail^
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
HAHAHHAHAHHAHA! You use the Daily Mail as an argument HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH!
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
there are strict Editorial Guidelines that you can read here
Oh please. The Beeb violates its own policies constantly. They have admitted it and the admission is documented in the Daily Mail^
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Diego Moita wrote:
And the BBC documentaries are most of times inteligent.
Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with their unsuported attacks on the U.S. fitting in with your preconceptions about the Yanquis, would it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with their unsuported attacks on the U.S. fitting in with your preconceptions about the Yanquis, would it?
No. Read my post again. I said that I respect anyone that defends a view or agenda as long as he/she does it with intelligence. I do have preconceptions about the US. Anyone has preconceptions about the US (good or bad preconceptions). But it doesn't stop me from reading US media and respecting and reading conservative news sources (e.g: Washington Post, The Economist) or writers (George Will, Robert Samuelson). OTH there are several leftist-liberal sources that I don't read. Particularly here in South America.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Where have you documented Diego's preconceived notions? You haven't. Where have you documented that andy is afraid of his own shadow? You haven't. Nor have I wimpered. So get a grip. It will take a bit more that your "na-na poo-poo" insults to hurt my feelings. I am a little embarrassed for you, though.
BillTheCat wrote:
Where have you documented Diego's preconceived notions? You haven't. Where have you documented that andy is afraid of his own shadow? You haven't. Nor have I wimpered. So get a grip. It will take a bit more that your "na-na poo-poo" insults to hurt my feelings. I am a little embarrassed for you, though.
Read Diego's posts. Read Andy's posts - he's the one who suggests that anyone who doesn't watch his favorite documentary is afraid to do so. Pointing out that those who assume fear as a motive are likely to be afraid is sufficient counter, and needs no documentation. Sounds like it from here. na-na-poo-poo? - You continue to add nothing to the discussion.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
HAHAHHAHAHHAHA! You use the Daily Mail as an argument HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH!
martin_hughes wrote:
You use the Daily Mail as an argument HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH!
I knew you'd react that way, that's why I mentioned the Mail first. But if you are sure they didn't get it right try The Guardian^ The Buzz Machine^ Eursoc^ The Anglican Church^ And the Telegraph^ Many of the above cites credit the Mail for originally breaking the story - still laughing???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Friday, January 18, 2008 6:39:56 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the same network that broadcast such a viciously anti-American discussion of 9/11 two days after the attack that they were forced to make a public apology?
I don't recall... linkage?
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the same network that, according to the British P.M., that, while reporting the aftermath of Katrina, it was full of hate America and "gloating" about our troubles?
I was in the States at the time of Katrina and watched the whole thing on BBC News - I don't recall the actual broadcasts being gloating or full of hate or anything else you claim that Tony Blair attributed to them.
Oakman wrote:
You are talking about the corporation that has a picture of Bush as Hitler hung up in its newsroom? (According to its own Washington correspondent who went on to say that his employer treated America with scorn and derision.)
But then I remember Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America"
Oakman wrote:
Last January criticisms of the BBC in regards to its Iraq War coverage were so damning that the chairman of the board of governors and its director general were forced to resign.
I don't recall. Are you referring to the Andrew Gilligan affair?
Oakman wrote:
Recently, Ibrahim Helal, editor in chief of al Jazeera TV was hired by the BBC World Service Trust. The job the BBC wanted him for? To advise on balance in Middle East coverage.(!)
Yes?
You don't recall? My goodness, you sound like a replay of our last, unlamented, Attorney General. If you know so little about the BBC, why do you offer up any comment at all? I assure you that a tiny bit of googling on your part will bring up each and every case of anti-Americanism by the BBC. If
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with their unsuported attacks on the U.S. fitting in with your preconceptions about the Yanquis, would it?
No. Read my post again. I said that I respect anyone that defends a view or agenda as long as he/she does it with intelligence. I do have preconceptions about the US. Anyone has preconceptions about the US (good or bad preconceptions). But it doesn't stop me from reading US media and respecting and reading conservative news sources (e.g: Washington Post, The Economist) or writers (George Will, Robert Samuelson). OTH there are several leftist-liberal sources that I don't read. Particularly here in South America.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That used to be the case.
But we have your word that they are playing by the rules now, eh?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
My Word ? I neither work for the BBC nor the Regulators so my word in this case would be meaningless. However, you can have my word if you want, not that it would do you any good. UK Law and EC Directives govern all UK broadcasting organisations, and in the case of the BBC, The Board of Governors act as trustees of public interest and are overseen by the statutory OfCom.
-
You don't recall? My goodness, you sound like a replay of our last, unlamented, Attorney General. If you know so little about the BBC, why do you offer up any comment at all? I assure you that a tiny bit of googling on your part will bring up each and every case of anti-Americanism by the BBC. If
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I'm sure if you went back over the years of BBC history you would find many reports that, to a red-blooded American, would be very damning. But then, you'd also find many instances of the opposite. I'm also sure that if you wanted to go muck-raking you'd be able to find the same in American news corporations about Britain. C'est la vie.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
You use the Daily Mail as an argument HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH!
I knew you'd react that way, that's why I mentioned the Mail first. But if you are sure they didn't get it right try The Guardian^ The Buzz Machine^ Eursoc^ The Anglican Church^ And the Telegraph^ Many of the above cites credit the Mail for originally breaking the story - still laughing???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Friday, January 18, 2008 6:39:56 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with their unsuported attacks on the U.S. fitting in with your preconceptions about the Yanquis, would it?
No. Read my post again. I said that I respect anyone that defends a view or agenda as long as he/she does it with intelligence. I do have preconceptions about the US. Anyone has preconceptions about the US (good or bad preconceptions). But it doesn't stop me from reading US media and respecting and reading conservative news sources (e.g: Washington Post, The Economist) or writers (George Will, Robert Samuelson). OTH there are several leftist-liberal sources that I don't read. Particularly here in South America.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Read the BBC reply here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bias_at_the_bbc.html[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Read the BBC reply here
Amazing how many words she used to say so little about the meeting, to refute none of the allegations, and to assure us that the BBC would do better in the future. I've seen very similar damage-control releases put out by the White House, The Pet Food Industry, Walmart, all of the presidential campaigners.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
My Word ? I neither work for the BBC nor the Regulators so my word in this case would be meaningless. However, you can have my word if you want, not that it would do you any good. UK Law and EC Directives govern all UK broadcasting organisations, and in the case of the BBC, The Board of Governors act as trustees of public interest and are overseen by the statutory OfCom.