Conditions improving in Kandahar

[lord of the mark]

This from the BBC - yes, the BBC.

Conditions in Kandahar

Note among other things, the drive to Kabul, which used to take 2 days, now takes 12 hours.

[FrustratedPoet]

In what way is it significant that it's from the BBC?

[Defiant]

In an age of FED EX, FAX, CEL Phone, everything appears to be done immediately, but some things, like I said before takes time, can't be done overnight.
This article is an example of that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
In what way is it significant that it's from the BBC?

Its not from a source that could be accused of trying to make US actions in the world appear successful.

[FrustratedPoet]

The state-sponsored television station of their biggest allies could very easily be accused of wanting to make the US appear successful.

[C0ckney]

no they couldn't considering recent events.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
The state-sponsored television station of their biggest allies could very easily be accused of wanting to make the US appear successful.

are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy? I guess Tony Blair would be surprised to hear that.

[C0ckney]

and btw, it's nice to see things improving for these people

[FrustratedPoet]

are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy?

Yes.

Despite what Alistair Campbell *****es and whines about I haven't seen any anti-government propaganda coming from the BBC. Just because they're not bending over and waiting for Tony and Alistair to **** them in the ass every time the news comes on doesn't mean they are anti-government.

[C0ckney]

the whole david kelly affair seems to suggest otherwise...

[FrustratedPoet]

Only if you believe the BBC misrepresented Kelly's comments, which has yet to be proven.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy?

Yes.

Despite what Alistair Campbell *****es and whines about I haven't seen any anti-government propaganda coming from the BBC. Just because they're not bending over and waiting for Tony and Alistair to **** them in the ass every time the news comes on doesn't mean they are anti-government.

well ive been checking the BBC website for a couple of years now, and i also get to see BBC world tonight on a local public tv station. And id say that their bias regarding US foreign policy, and Brit foreign policy to the extent it supports US for policy, is blatant. But i could see it if you tried to defend them and said they are unbiased, and not anti-government. But to say they are biased pro-govt????? Please cite some examples.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy?

Yes.

Despite what Alistair Campbell *****es and whines about I haven't seen any anti-government propaganda coming from the BBC. Just because they're not bending over and waiting for Tony and Alistair to **** them in the ass every time the news comes on doesn't mean they are anti-government.

from the weekly Standard

"For example, on April 3, after U.S. troops had taken control of the Baghdad airport, Andrew Gilligan (remember that name) reported on the BBC World Service and on the BBC website, "Within the last 90 minutes I've been at the airport. There is simply no truth in the claims that American troops are surrounding it. We could drive up to it quite easily. The airport is under full Iraqi control." That was Gilligan's story, and the BBC was sticking to it--until another correspondent pointed out that Gilligan was not, in fact, at the airport, but U.S. troops quite clearly were.

Two days later, on April 5, Gilligan reported, "I'm in the center of Baghdad, and I don't see anything. But then the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements." At roughly the same time, CNN was broadcasting pictures of the 3rd Infantry driving through the center of Baghdad. By April 11, even the intrepid Gilligan could no longer maintain that the coalition was not in control of Baghdad. So instead he argued that Baghdadis were experiencing their "first days of freedom in more fear than they have ever known before"--that is, that they felt less safe than they had under Saddam. The prime minister's office shot back, "Try telling that to people put in shredders or getting their tongues cut out."

[FrustratedPoet]

But to say they are biased pro-govt?????

I didn't say that.

I said I agreed with the sentiment that they "tend to support UK foreign policy". Which means that, more often than not, (but not all the time), they're news reports present UK foreign policy in a good light. (note: I'm talking about news programmes here, not the discussion programs, which are a bigger playground of trolling and BAMs than even here).

You'd be hard pressed to find any state-sponsored television that was anti-government.

[Dinner]

I watch BBC America on the local Public Broadcasting System channel and they don't seem to be very pro or anti government. Though some times they seem to gloss over important details.