Cam would find a way.Braddock wrote:
I wouldn't try and justify this if Palestinians did it. This was just plain wrong.usmarine2005 wrote:
Sad thing is, if Palestinians did this, you would find a way to justify it.
dont get me wrong, i dont think that someone is standing over people telling them what to broadcast, but money talks.Bertster7 wrote:
The only opinions being thrown into the mix at the BBC are the journalists opinions themselves. I'm doing some work for the BBC (indirectly - I'm working on a pitch for a Horizon program about the Pentagon funding research into cyborg cockroaches and stuff, it's pretty interesting) at the moment and it really doesn't seem to be influenced by external funding.Parker wrote:
so somewhere along the line, someones opinion is being thrown into the mix @ BBC.ghettoperson wrote:
TV licenses.
i mean there is money that they use, the people that read the news dont do it out of the kindness of their hearts. whoever has money can get what they want on the air.
The BBC does show a lot of the successes in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan. There is a great range of news coverage, which is determined by the editors - not by people funding it.
How does money talk when your funding comes from the public money paid in TV licences. They do not have an agenda in the way a private station might have. All you could say is that the people at the top might have their own views which they try to push but I can't see how they would make any extra cash from doing such a thing.Parker wrote:
dont get me wrong, i dont think that someone is standing over people telling them what to broadcast, but money talks.Bertster7 wrote:
The only opinions being thrown into the mix at the BBC are the journalists opinions themselves. I'm doing some work for the BBC (indirectly - I'm working on a pitch for a Horizon program about the Pentagon funding research into cyborg cockroaches and stuff, it's pretty interesting) at the moment and it really doesn't seem to be influenced by external funding.Parker wrote:
so somewhere along the line, someones opinion is being thrown into the mix @ BBC.
i mean there is money that they use, the people that read the news dont do it out of the kindness of their hearts. whoever has money can get what they want on the air.
The BBC does show a lot of the successes in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan. There is a great range of news coverage, which is determined by the editors - not by people funding it.
And for the record I agree with Bertster7, the BBC does show examples of successes in the Middle eastern conflicts but it doesn't sugar coat everything the way other networks do (like Sky News, who have started using emotive music behind some news items ...a la FOX News, their sister station).
I couldn't find the original report from the Board of Governors so this will have to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
It is commendable that they sought to investigate themselves though. Good for them.
"On Friday 22 September 2006 the BBC's Board of Governors held an "impartiality seminar" which was streamed live on the internet."
Honestly I read them everyday but there has been a number of accusations of bias, especially towards Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
It is commendable that they sought to investigate themselves though. Good for them.
"On Friday 22 September 2006 the BBC's Board of Governors held an "impartiality seminar" which was streamed live on the internet."
Honestly I read them everyday but there has been a number of accusations of bias, especially towards Israel.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Anti semititc ...the BBC? LOLKmarion wrote:
I couldn't find the original report from the Board of Governors so this will have to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
It is commendable that they sought to investigate themselves though. Good for them.
"On Friday 22 September 2006 the BBC's Board of Governors held an "impartiality seminar" which was streamed live on the internet."
Honestly I read them everyday but there has been a number of accusations of bias, especially towards Israel.
As the legendary Keith Chegwin himself says...
More so in the US.Parker wrote:
dont get me wrong, i dont think that someone is standing over people telling them what to broadcast, but money talks.Bertster7 wrote:
The only opinions being thrown into the mix at the BBC are the journalists opinions themselves. I'm doing some work for the BBC (indirectly - I'm working on a pitch for a Horizon program about the Pentagon funding research into cyborg cockroaches and stuff, it's pretty interesting) at the moment and it really doesn't seem to be influenced by external funding.Parker wrote:
so somewhere along the line, someones opinion is being thrown into the mix @ BBC.
i mean there is money that they use, the people that read the news dont do it out of the kindness of their hearts. whoever has money can get what they want on the air.
The BBC does show a lot of the successes in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan. There is a great range of news coverage, which is determined by the editors - not by people funding it.
Which is why you may have difficulty understanding the situation over here. The BBC would not be your first stop if you wanted to promote an agenda through a media agency. ITV would. ITV is a crap channel with very little integrity and loads of adverts, that is entirely oriented around money. If the BBC need more money, they ask the government (who do have some influence over the BBC, if you recall the Andrew Gilligan affair in which Greg Dyke lost his job) or they increase license fees (which they do all the damn time - it's around $300 a year to have TV in the UK).
The very fact that they voluntarily have an independent impartiality commission speaks volumes. Can you imagine what would happen if FOX answered to such a commission? Do you think they'd be found to be fair and balanced.Kmarion wrote:
I couldn't find the original report from the Board of Governors so this will have to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
It is commendable that they sought to investigate themselves though. Good for them.
"On Friday 22 September 2006 the BBC's Board of Governors held an "impartiality seminar" which was streamed live on the internet."
Honestly I read them everyday but there has been a number of accusations of bias, especially towards Israel.
I think it's exceptional that the BBC do expose themselves to such external moderation. More news networks should follow their example.
It is commendable that they sought to investigate themselves though. Good for them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
its definitely something new to me. im used to having major disasters sponsored by Ford and shit like that.Bertster7 wrote:
More so in the US.Parker wrote:
dont get me wrong, i dont think that someone is standing over people telling them what to broadcast, but money talks.Bertster7 wrote:
The only opinions being thrown into the mix at the BBC are the journalists opinions themselves. I'm doing some work for the BBC (indirectly - I'm working on a pitch for a Horizon program about the Pentagon funding research into cyborg cockroaches and stuff, it's pretty interesting) at the moment and it really doesn't seem to be influenced by external funding.
The BBC does show a lot of the successes in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan. There is a great range of news coverage, which is determined by the editors - not by people funding it.
Which is why you may have difficulty understanding the situation over here. The BBC would not be your first stop if you wanted to promote an agenda through a media agency. ITV would. ITV is a crap channel with very little integrity and loads of adverts, that is entirely oriented around money. If the BBC need more money, they ask the government (who do have some influence over the BBC, if you recall the Andrew Gilligan affair in which Greg Dyke lost his job) or they increase license fees (which they do all the damn time - it's around $300 a year to have TV in the UK).
as nice as it sounds, money still talks. now i havent said in this thread that the BBC only shows negative stories, so please dont take that as my intent. but what i am saying is people might not be making more money by airing stories that are slightly wrong, but they are still getting their opinions out there.
by what i mean when i say money talks is, if an editor got told by their boss to make something happen, that person would do that out of fear of unemployment. money talks.
they might be the best at what they do, but no one can guarantee that it is all on the up and up.
"Sgt Wuterich's lawyer, Neal Puckett, said Sgt Dela Cruz's account was "false" and that he had told investigators up to five different versions of the events. "
I don't think that's the case. The editors and major correspondants are quite big personalities, I can't imagine someone like Jon Simpson, Jeremy Bowen or Andrew Marr being intimidated into running a story in a particular light.Parker wrote:
its definitely something new to me. im used to having major disasters sponsored by Ford and shit like that.Bertster7 wrote:
More so in the US.Parker wrote:
dont get me wrong, i dont think that someone is standing over people telling them what to broadcast, but money talks.
Which is why you may have difficulty understanding the situation over here. The BBC would not be your first stop if you wanted to promote an agenda through a media agency. ITV would. ITV is a crap channel with very little integrity and loads of adverts, that is entirely oriented around money. If the BBC need more money, they ask the government (who do have some influence over the BBC, if you recall the Andrew Gilligan affair in which Greg Dyke lost his job) or they increase license fees (which they do all the damn time - it's around $300 a year to have TV in the UK).
as nice as it sounds, money still talks. now i havent said in this thread that the BBC only shows negative stories, so please dont take that as my intent. but what i am saying is people might not be making more money by airing stories that are slightly wrong, but they are still getting their opinions out there.
by what i mean when i say money talks is, if an editor got told by their boss to make something happen, that person would do that out of fear of unemployment. money talks.
they might be the best at what they do, but no one can guarantee that it is all on the up and up.
I know you haven't been saying the BBC only shows negative stories, but M.O.A.B has. I was addressing his point, sorry for any confusion that may have caused.
When news institutions are concerned, bad news is good news. It gets ratings.M.O.A.B wrote:
the BBC still only ever puts out bad news like most other networks, I've yet to see something good related with US troops put out by the BBC.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
ShhhhhhhhhhhGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
"Sgt Wuterich's lawyer, Neal Puckett, said Sgt Dela Cruz's account was "false" and that he had told investigators up to five different versions of the events. "
That statement gives poeple reasonable doubt. If Wuterich didn't admit to it.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
"Sgt Wuterich's lawyer, Neal Puckett, said Sgt Dela Cruz's account was "false" and that he had told investigators up to five different versions of the events. "
Actually I do watch it, not in the mornings but I watch it at night and News 24, and have seen bias towards the Israelis numerous times, or does that not count. Not to mention the fact that they kind of put Prince Harry's life in danger by revealing almost everything about him when he goes to Iraq, like what vehicle he'll be driving, where he's going to be and so forth, media usually talks about sensitive material which they should keep out of and the BBC does this a lot.JahManRed wrote:
On every news channel even Al Jazera, daily, they show solders patrolling and doing their jobs. That is the good side.M.O.A.B wrote:
I also find it strange when all the good things they do such as those in the videos Kmarion posted are not broadcast on the BBC, strangely enough the BBC only ever shows bad stuff that's happening, guess its all profit and ratings.
"strangely enough the BBC only ever shows bad stuff that's happening"
I watch the BBC while I eat my breakfast and dinner and at 10pm at night do you? Obviously not, because if you did you would see the editorials they do on nation building and the good work being done by the coalition. Your claims are unfounded and hysterical. The BBC is as unbiased as you get in the media world, no sponsors or media moguls to please, just the population of the UK who pay a yearly subscription for the pleasure of having the news reported from all angles.
What they supposed to do then, ignore the bad things that happen in the world and only focus on flowers and cuddly toys.......?
And what so hysterical? I still haven't heard much other than "bomb explodes, US doesn't do their job" and just the other day when Bush mucked up his speech the BBC basically said they knew it would happen (we all did, that's not the point) but to me that's bias.
And no they shouldn't ignore the bad things, no one should, but they still put out more than anyone else on the subject.
Besides I got better things to do than let this go back and forwards all day. Opinions are opinions, you have yours, I have mine.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-05-10 11:05:18)
lol. There is not one incidence on this forum of me condoning the deliberate killing of civilians (murder). If a Palestinian pissed on the head of some guy he'd just killed I would think it fucking deplorable and rightly so.usmarine2005 wrote:
Cam would find a way.Braddock wrote:
I wouldn't try and justify this if Palestinians did it. This was just plain wrong.usmarine2005 wrote:
Sad thing is, if Palestinians did this, you would find a way to justify it.
@ BBC critics: this is just one source of many reporting the trial. Not pro-ing or con-ing BBC but if you think that the BBC are dragging an 'irrelevant' story up that no-one else is reporting then you're wrong...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-10 11:16:31)
Your such an Islamaphobe..lolCameronPoe wrote:
If a Palestinian pissed on the head of some guy he'd just killed I would think it fucking deplorable and rightly so.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You post your opinions and try to argue with people...no one's paying you.ghettoperson wrote:
For the last time, the BBC does not get any funding for adverts so it doesn't care about profit and ratings.M.O.A.B wrote:
I also find it strange when all the good things they do such as those in the videos Kmarion posted are not broadcast on the BBC, strangely enough the BBC only ever shows bad stuff that's happening, guess its all profit and ratings.
Doesn't you mean you won't voice your opinion or bring agendas into play. Good one.
Pissing, killing, human bomb, car bomb, rockets......Kmarion wrote:
Your such an Islamaphobe..lolCameronPoe wrote:
If a Palestinian pissed on the head of some guy he'd just killed I would think it fucking deplorable and rightly so.
Tell me which one is worse?
It was rhetoric. Anytime someone mentions negative stuff about the few Muslims who are evil we have four days of threads discussing racism. Obviously these guys in the OP are rare also.usmarine2005 wrote:
Pissing, killing, human bomb, car bomb, rockets......Kmarion wrote:
Your such an Islamaphobe..lolCameronPoe wrote:
If a Palestinian pissed on the head of some guy he'd just killed I would think it fucking deplorable and rightly so.
Tell me which one is worse?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Twas aimed at Cam.
It's mind boggling that soldiers can pull this shit, but then turn around and cry about "not supporting the troops". It's a give and take relationship - You take civilian lives, we give you shit. That's how it works.
No, he'd just point you to all the palestinian civillians killed by Israel that month.usmarine2005 wrote:
Cam would find a way.Braddock wrote:
I wouldn't try and justify this if Palestinians did it. This was just plain wrong.usmarine2005 wrote:
Sad thing is, if Palestinians did this, you would find a way to justify it.
Same thingjonsimon wrote:
No, he'd just point you to all the palestinian civillians killed by Israel that month.usmarine2005 wrote:
Cam would find a way.Braddock wrote:
I wouldn't try and justify this if Palestinians did it. This was just plain wrong.
Not justification, just context.usmarine2005 wrote:
Same thingjonsimon wrote:
No, he'd just point you to all the palestinian civillians killed by Israel that month.usmarine2005 wrote:
Cam would find a way.