siege over in afghanistan, 124 taliban killed, BBC ignores

[lord of the mark]

The AP carried this Siege ends

124 taliban killed, to 5 government troops, province remains in govt control.


BBC ignored it naturally

Maybe they'll pick up on the negatives in the article.

[Shi Huangdi]

The Taliban was one of the most disgusting regimes in history. Its always nice to die-hard fanatics who want to bring it back defeated.

[Lord Merciless]

I can't find anything regarding that story on BBC either.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


The Taliban was one of the most disgusting regimes in history. Its always nice to die-hard fanatics who want to bring it back defeated.

and Bush was willing to let them be if they gave up bin Laden... the Northern Alliance ain't no picnic either...

[GePap]

interestingly, I could not find anything on this in the front page of the NY Times either, and have to dig into the AP news collection to see anything about it. Of the front page of CNN. Or the washington post!

Damn BBC! I mean, given that the AP seems the only news agency with this at this time, and given that, well, even though no Brits are involved whatsoever, obviuously it MUST BE the BBC's frontpage, otherwise it is a blatant show of BBC bias!!!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
interestingly, I could not find anything on this in the front page of the NY Times either, and have to dig into the AP news collection to see anything about it. Of the front page of CNN. Or the washington post!

Damn BBC! I mean, given that the AP seems the only news agency with this at this time, and given that, well, even though no Brits are involved whatsoever, obviuously it MUST BE the BBC's frontpage, otherwise it is a blatant show of BBC bias!!!

didnt have to be on the Beeb front page. Wasnt on the south asia page either. Not even in the side listings.

Of course it doesnt make CNN - CNN has only a handful of foreign stories - ditto the WaPo. CNN is to busy covering the Kobe Bryant affair, and the WaPo is busy with the commercialization of the mall.


Beeb on the other hand consistently gives extenisve, detailed coverage of LOTS of stories around the world. And plenty that have nothing to do with Britain. Hell, thats why I read them regularly. So its just a tad more significant when they dont cover something that the AP does. Like they ALWAYS manage to cover when something goes wrong in Afghanistan.

And sometimes when something goes right - but not much less often. So when they DO say something has gone right, i tend to see that as the tip of the iceberg.

[lord of the mark]

somehow the Beeb south asia page DID manage to make room for this:

"An Indian court rules that film star, Salman Khan, will not face homicide charges over a fatal car accident"

I dont think either CNN, WaPo, or the NYT covered this important case.

[GePap]

It wasn;t anywhere in the washington post either, whatsoever.

So the BBC is to be held to a higher standard than most other news orgs, and if it does not meet a determined level, it is a roof of bias?

Maybe that newsbref was given only to an AP man and none of the other news orgs have yet picked it up? It couldn;t possibly be anything so pedestrian, now could it?

[Starchild]

CNN gets off because it's covering a sports scandal yet poor Auntie Beeb gets picked on despite the fact that we are currently having a major government inquiry that's got the Prime Minister and the Director General of the BBC being called to give statements?

I'm willing to give the BBC a bit of slack right now considering all that they are involved with. Hutton Inquiry, the Charter Renewal, and beating back the usual mob up on Edinburgh that wants to tear it to pieces.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
It wasn;t anywhere in the washington post either, whatsoever.

So the BBC is to be held to a higher standard than most other news orgs, and if it does not meet a determined level, it is a roof of bias?

Maybe that newsbref was given only to an AP man and none of the other news orgs have yet picked it up? It couldn;t possibly be anything so pedestrian, now could it?

well that true of the last report of 124 taliban dead - the battles been going on for several days though, with regular reports, nothing i can see from the Beeb on it at all. ISTR seeing at least something in the deadtree WaPo on it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Starchild
CNN gets off because it's covering a sports scandal yet poor Auntie Beeb gets picked on despite the fact that we are currently having a major government inquiry that's got the Prime Minister and the Director General of the BBC being called to give statements?

I'm willing to give the BBC a bit of slack right now considering all that they are involved with. Hutton Inquiry, the Charter Renewal, and beating back the usual mob up on Edinburgh that wants to tear it to pieces.

i was being sarcastic about CNN - CNN gets off cause its international coverage is so paltry, a couple of Iraq stories, Nkor, and arafat easily displace anything else. Beeb manages to cover trials of Indian film stars on their south asia page. And regularly covers any BAD news from Afghan, no matter how minor.

[MOBIUS]

Do I detect an anti BBC bias from LotD?

Why is that - what has the BBC done to piss you off?

BTW that more Taliban have been gotten rid of, but if the US had been concentrating its efforts on finishing the Taliban off perhaps Afghanistan would be a safer country already?

Nah, why tie up the loose ends when you can f*ck up another totally unrelated country first...

[lord of the mark]

lets put it this way if Beeb covered howard Dean, and overlooked John Kerrys announcement, and CNN did the same thing, i might accuse CNN of bias, but not BBC. Considering that BBC covers US politics less extensively than CNN does. Wel BBC covers South Asia much more closely than ANY mainstream US news source - or, AFAIK, any mainstream english language source outside South Asia. So if they miss something, its not particularly relevant that CNN missed it too.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Do I detect an anti BBC bias from LotD?

Why is that - what has the BBC done to piss you off?

:

nothing - i luv the Beeb

Beeb and Foxnews, together, give balanced reporting

Its just that when using a news source its helpful to know its bias. Which i pointed out some weeks ago when linking to a BBC story about good news in afganistan - conditions improving in Kandahar, i think it was. Some didnt seem to understand what i meant - this is largely for their benefit.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
and Bush was willing to let them be if they gave up bin Laden... the Northern Alliance ain't no picnic either...

If I must choice between a really disgusting evil and a sort of bad evil guess which I will take?