Conditions improving in Kandahar

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

which is why the BBC stands out so much.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I watch BBC America

BBC America blows. It's tailored to suit American audiences, which means it's just s bad as everything else on US TV. I was so disapointed.

[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.

weekly Standard
"Of course, BBC spin usually comes in more subtle forms. The use of scare quotes on the BBC website, for example, often betrays a remarkable contempt for the coalition. When Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed by U.S. troops last month, the website blared, "Saddam sons 'dead'" and "Iraq 'deaths' will have huge effect." The next day, having come to terms with the fact of these deaths, the BBC moved on to questioning their value: "U.S. celebrates 'good' Iraq news." And, as Christopher Hitchens noted in a perceptive Slate essay, you can no longer depend on BBC journalists even for proper pronunciation. The Beeb's announcers habitually mangle Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's last name (pronounced exactly as it looks) to make it more Jewish-sounding: Vulfervitz. "

[lord of the mark]

so FP, do you really think that conditions ARE not improving in Kandahar, and that this article is BBC pro-govt spin? What parts are wrong. And whats your cite?

[FrustratedPoet]

The Beeb's announcers habitually mangle Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's last name (pronounced exactly as it looks) to make it more Jewish-sounding: Vulfervitz. "

Yes! It's all an anti-semitic plot!

When Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed by U.S. troops last month, the website blared, "Saddam sons 'dead'" and "Iraq 'deaths' will have huge effect." The next day, having come to terms with the fact of these deaths, the BBC moved on to questioning their value: "U.S. celebrates 'good' Iraq news."

I don't see how that is anti-government.

[lord of the mark]

I like checking the BBC site to see if anything has gone wrong in Iraq. If theres nothing there, it means absolutely nothing has gone wrong that day, cause if there was, it would be there, Ditto for Afghanistan. If something went well in either place, it may or may not be there.

Basically the reverse of Fox and certain right wing blogs. Between the two you tend to get a picture of whats going on.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by 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.

For instance, recovering from a region wide blackout? True.

[FrustratedPoet]

I like checking the BBC site to see if anything has gone wrong in Iraq. If theres nothing there, it means absolutely nothing has gone wrong that day, cause if there was, it would be there,

And you blame them for this? I'd be more worried if they didn't mention it.

Anyway, I'm not sure if BBC can be considered the polar opposite of Fox. It's clearly more to the left and less supportive of the war, but if you really wanted to find an anti-war news source to compare with Fox I'm sure you could find something better. Something French for instance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

I like checking the BBC site to see if anything has gone wrong in Iraq. If theres nothing there, it means absolutely nothing has gone wrong that day, cause if there was, it would be there,

And you blame them for this? I'd be more worried if they didn't mention it.

If they gave the same detail to positive things, or the negative things they mentioned were really as bad as they spun it. Its like a medical test that often gives false postives, but never false negatives. It can be quite useful, but its neither accurate nor unbiased.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

I like checking the BBC site to see if anything has gone wrong in Iraq. If theres nothing there, it means absolutely nothing has gone wrong that day, cause if there was, it would be there,

And you blame them for this? I'd be more worried if they didn't mention it.

But it does mean that when they something positive about Iraq or Afghan, its very likely to be true. If not in fact understated. Which is what we were talking about here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

The Beeb's announcers habitually mangle Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's last name (pronounced exactly as it looks) to make it more Jewish-sounding: Vulfervitz. "

Yes! It's all an anti-semitic plot!

[.

Hitchens, in Slate:

'Yes that's all very well," said the chap from the BBC World Service, "but what about this man Vulfervitz who seems to run the whole show from behind the scenes?" For the fifth time in as many days, and for the umpteenth time this year, I corrected a British interviewer's pronunciation. You see the name in print, you hear it uttered quite a lot in American discussions, you then give a highly inflected rendition of your own. ... What is this? In my young day, the BBC had a special department for the pronunciation of foreign names for the guidance of those commenting on Thailand, say, or Mongolia. But this particular name is pronounced as it is spelled. "Very well," said the BBC chap, with a hint of bad grace. "This man Wolfervitz ..."


It takes a lot, I hope, to make me feel queasy. (I had, during my appointment at the BBC offices in London, already had to pass a door with a sign reading "Male Prayer Room," which means that the British taxpayer is already funding not just religious observance on public property but the sexual segregation of same.) And this is not quite like old-line reactionaries going out of their way to say "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld." Still, I don't think I am quite wrong in suspecting that a sharpened innuendo is in play here. Why else, when the very name of Paul Wolfowitz is mentioned, do so many people bid adieu to the very notion of objectivity?'

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
[

When Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed by U.S. troops last month, the website blared, "Saddam sons 'dead'" and "Iraq 'deaths' will have huge effect." The next day, having come to terms with the fact of these deaths, the BBC moved on to questioning their value: "U.S. celebrates 'good' Iraq news."

I don't see how that is anti-government.

Andrew Sullivan, Sunday Times

"There was something wonderfully strained about how various media organisations dealt last week with the news of the deaths of Qusay and Uday Hussein.

From the BBC to Reuters, there was palpable — if sternly repressed — dismay. One of the first headlines that the Ba’athist Broadcasting Corporation put out on the news was: “US celebrates ‘good’ Iraq news”.

The quotation marks around “good” did not refer to any quote or source in the text. They were pure editorialising on behalf of the BBC, whose campaign to undermine the liberation of Iraq is now in full swing. It was not clear to the BBC that the deaths of two of the most sadistic mass murderers on the planet was in any way a good thing, especially if they redounded to the credit of Tony Blair or President George W Bush. '

[FrustratedPoet]

I still don't get your point. Unless you really ARE claiming that what you perceive as anti-war sentiment by the BBC is rooted in anti-semetism?

[FrustratedPoet]

Whoops. I spelt semitism wrong. Obviously I must hate Jews.

[FrustratedPoet]

It was not clear to the BBC that the deaths of two of the most sadistic mass murderers on the planet was in any way a good thing,

It's not clear to me either. I favour trials before executions. Perhaps their murder was unavoidable in the circumstances, and I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it, but that doesn't mean I think it was a "good thing".