AP. Reuter, AFP, BBC - which one doesnt belong?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom
It can only be hours before lotm finds evidence the B.B.C. sponsored Saddam's sojourn in his hidey hole, and supplied him with a fibre optic cable B.B.C. World news channel link, and a massage from Peter Sissons.

And of course it's well known Osama bin Laden is on the board of governors of the B.B.C. , heavily disguised.


Makes you wonder why people who have actually lived in and fought against Third World dictatorships preferred the Beeb to other news channels. Perhaps because they were all in a socialist hegemonic world spanning conspiracy too!

Oh, i like reading the BBC too. I read it fairly regularly, and often find it quite interesting. Much better than our lame Voice of America, which (idiocy!) is being cut back!!! I could certainly understand that folks in dictatorships would listen to it.

Just that on a SELECT range of issues theyve got a definite point of view. Which is not necessarily terrible, I suppose all news outlets have a viewpoint. Just that some folks seem to think the Beeb is some kind of gold standard of objectivity which it is not, imho.

and your exageration is a not particularly interesting rhetorical trick. Obviously I dont think Osama is on the board of the Beeb. Just as you dont think, say, Ariel Sharon is on the board of say, Fox news.

[Sandman]

Any particular reason to choose these four news agencies? Or did you just select those which 'proved' your point?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Any particular reason to choose these four news agencies? Or did you just select those which 'proved' your point?

The ones i most easily check.

AP, Reuters and AFP are all easily accessed via yahoo news, and as i point out above, i look at BeeB fairly regularly - CNN and FOX didnt cover EITHER story at all


If you have any other data points feel free to add them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

What ****ing point? All four covered the same story. All four covered both opinions voiced.

They presented them in different orders, and apparently that's some sort of big deal. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you think I consider that to be? No, I'm serious. Look into that unblinking eye and tell me how important I think that is.

[Sandman]

You could at least provide links so we can judge what's 'buried' and what's not.

[uh Clem]

Wire stories are being revised constantly.

If the Iraqi FM says something, that's Story A.

Then, UN SG responds to Iraqi FM. A re-write at that point would probably put SG first, with the second or third paragraph giving a summary of what FM had said to draw this response. That's because at this point, SG's statement is new. Writer assumes that readers already have heard Story A or are aware of it.

As an anaolgy, consider Rumsfeld commenting on treatment and possible trial scenarios for Saddam Hussein, to pick something at random. It would be idiotic at this point to lead with the news that Saddam has been captured. We know that. The story would get right to Rummy's comments, and perhaps include a detail or two about the capture several paragraphs down.

So that's Story B: SG first, then Iraqi FM.

Then just to confuse things you will get summary or recap stories, typically including all details from the day. This is usually for evening news or some expanded news program. These programs include listeners who probably haven't heard any of the details from earlier, so you have to start at the beginning (usually -- but not always).

Without being able to tell when these stories were written, for whom, how frequently the sites update, and how much the writer actually knew at that point, the comparisons are meaningless. You're seeing canals on Mars, lotm.

This thread is proof of your own biases, however.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by uh Clem
This thread is proof of your own biases, however.

Give this man a cookie.

Or a biscuit, as the case may be.

Or a, *ahem*, "tittybiscuit."

[Drake Tungsten]

Get your baps out, love...

[asleepathewheel]

FM Zebari

What type of music do they play?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Wire stories are being revised constantly.

If the Iraqi FM says something, that's Story A.

Then, UN SG responds to Iraqi FM. A re-write at that point would probably put SG first, with the second or third paragraph giving a summary of what FM had said to draw this response. That's because at this point, SG's statement is new. Writer assumes that readers already have heard Story A or are aware of it.

As an anaolgy, consider Rumsfeld commenting on treatment and possible trial scenarios for Saddam Hussein, to pick something at random. It would be idiotic at this point to lead with the news that Saddam has been captured. We know that. The story would get right to Rummy's comments, and perhaps include a detail or two about the capture several paragraphs down.

So that's Story B: SG first, then Iraqi FM.

Then just to confuse things you will get summary or recap stories, typically including all details from the day. This is usually for evening news or some expanded news program. These programs include listeners who probably haven't heard any of the details from earlier, so you have to start at the beginning (usually -- but not always).

Without being able to tell when these stories were written, for whom, how frequently the sites update, and how much the writer actually knew at that point, the comparisons are meaningless. You're seeing canals on Mars, lotm.

This thread is proof of your own biases, however.

all of the above is possible - yet I assume Frozzy, contest winner, picked correctly without even looking at the sites in question. I think most of us could have. Now thats only one instance, of course, and so by itself is not statistically meaningful. Its one part of a larger pattern others have noted, however.


A logical case can of course be made that the BBC is not at all biased on these matters. IMHO such arguments are about as compelling as the case that the sun and planets revolves around the earth - sure its possible, but the simpler explanation of the planets orbits is that they revolve around the sun.

If that makes you think me biased, so be it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



and your exageration is a not particularly interesting rhetorical trick. Obviously I dont think Osama is on the board of the Beeb. Just as you dont think, say, Ariel Sharon is on the board of say, Fox news.

Ooh, don't like hyperbole? Well I'm sorry: my zeugma wasn't working yesterday, and my pleonasm burst all over the keyboard.

As for my synecdoche, it started Christmas leave on Monday. Would you care for a teeny weeny infinitesimally small amount of litotes?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Ooh, don't like hyperbole? Well I'm sorry: my zeugma wasn't working yesterday, and my pleonasm burst all over the keyboard.

As for my synecdoche, it started Christmas leave on Monday. Would you care for a teeny weeny infinitesimally small amount of litotes?

ooh geez a semioticist on the loose.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


ooh geez a semioticist on the loose.

Rhetorician:semiotician-

Differician.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Rhetorician:semiotician-

Differician.

as long as you aint a antisemiotician.