The BBC is an independent broadcasting corporation that is largely, but not solely, funded by tax-payers money. That's not the same as it being state run.Kmarion wrote:
I thought that was supposed to be the benefit of state run media. News couldn't be influenced by money.
A threat
They also removed "probably associated with another episode of El Nino.". The removal of "probably" is significant in the fact that it removes uncertainty and question.
The next email from BBC:I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.
I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution,
unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your
comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to
happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be
said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.
Original:But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years, probably associated with another episode of El Nino.Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:28 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"
Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier
We have changed headline and more
They also removed "probably associated with another episode of El Nino.". The removal of "probably" is significant in the fact that it removes uncertainty and question.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The only place the word "probably" appears anywhere in the page you linked to is in one of the comments.Kmarion wrote:
A threatThe next email from BBC:I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.
I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution,
unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your
comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to
happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be
said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.Original:But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years, probably associated with another episode of El Nino.Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:28 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"
Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier
We have changed headline and more
They also removed "probably associated with another episode of El Nino.". The removal of "probably" is significant in the fact that it removes uncertainty and question.
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The only place the word "probably" appears anywhere in the page you linked to is in one of the comments.Kmarion wrote:
A threatThe next email from BBC:I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.
I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution,
unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your
comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to
happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be
said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.Original:But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years, probably associated with another episode of El Nino.Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:28 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"
Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier
We have changed headline and more
They also removed "probably associated with another episode of El Nino.". The removal of "probably" is significant in the fact that it removes uncertainty and question.
That would be part of the "and more" change he did.We have changed headline and more.
Even on their victory page people with the same common goal are "disgraced".
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2089#comment-1925I have to concur 100% with Tim Jankowski, the behaviour of this activist brings shame to the whole enviromental lobby group.
Behaviour such as that exibited by Jo will only cause more people to question anything said by the green lobby, I find her email threatening and judging from the comments on many other blogs my opinion is the majority view.
For this person to then gloat about her behaviour on a blog has turned her so called victory into one big own goal for ALL enviromental activists.
Coming from the Netherlands we have a history of allowing freedom of speech and behaviour from this activist would be highlighted and treated with the contempt it deserves.
Joseph
Maastricht
The Netherlands
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Maybe he checked again with his original source and his original source said "no, it's definitely El Nino" - we can't tell.Kmarion wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The only place the word "probably" appears anywhere in the page you linked to is in one of the comments.Kmarion wrote:
A threatThe next email from BBC:I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.
I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution,
unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your
comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to
happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be
said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.
Original:But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years, probably associated with another episode of El Nino.
They also removed "probably associated with another episode of El Nino.". The removal of "probably" is significant in the fact that it removes uncertainty and question.That would be part of the "and more" change he did.We have changed headline and more.
Good.Kmarion wrote:
Even on their victory page people with the same common goal are "disgraced".http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2089#comment-1925I have to concur 100% with Tim Jankowski, the behaviour of this activist brings shame to the whole enviromental lobby group.
Behaviour such as that exibited by Jo will only cause more people to question anything said by the green lobby, I find her email threatening and judging from the comments on many other blogs my opinion is the majority view.
For this person to then gloat about her behaviour on a blog has turned her so called victory into one big own goal for ALL enviromental activists.
Coming from the Netherlands we have a history of allowing freedom of speech and behaviour from this activist would be highlighted and treated with the contempt it deserves.
Joseph
Maastricht
The Netherlands
You'd have to be pretty naive to think that considering his apparent desire to please the activist. "Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier".Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Maybe he checked again with his original source and his original source said "no, it's definitely El Nino" - we can't tell.Kmarion wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The only place the word "probably" appears anywhere in the page you linked to is in one of the comments.That would be part of the "and more" change he did.We have changed headline and more.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Proper comments about the BBC include - Mass subervience to the government and a lack of ability to report accurately on the Bosnia/Serbia region and general crimes comitted by the UK.
The BBC is biased, but are they liberally biased? Listen To John Pilger mock the BBC.
The BBC is biased, but are they liberally biased? Listen To John Pilger mock the BBC.
I'd like to see the actual report, not two opinion items.
If you believe the Telegraph anyone who doesn't believe the Palestinians should already have been gassed is anti-semitic and biased against Israel.
The last time the BBC was accused of bias was over the inteliigence dossier on Iraq, as it turned out the BBC was right and the govt was FOS.
I think the BBC well represents its shareholders, in that it does have a centre left position which is usually more fair and less hysterical than the alternatives.
Since the UK has had a right wing govt since Thatcher (1975-now = 30+ years) its useful to have some balance. (I count Blair as right wing).
If you believe the Telegraph anyone who doesn't believe the Palestinians should already have been gassed is anti-semitic and biased against Israel.
The last time the BBC was accused of bias was over the inteliigence dossier on Iraq, as it turned out the BBC was right and the govt was FOS.
I think the BBC well represents its shareholders, in that it does have a centre left position which is usually more fair and less hysterical than the alternatives.
Since the UK has had a right wing govt since Thatcher (1975-now = 30+ years) its useful to have some balance. (I count Blair as right wing).
Fuck Israel
Grow up marine, retaliation threads are childish.
Yeah but it's not as bad as CNN or Fox, besides BBC has acknowledged its bias and will try to stamp it out, I remember reading that somewhere a few months ago.
You know, some people say that 100/5 may not actually equal 20. You need to be fair and present BOTH sides of the arguement. Your example is just rife with liberal bias and I for one think its not even patriotic. You may think you can do math, but can you do "The Math"? If you can't open your mind to the fact that 100 / 5 just may not be 20, Al Qaeda has already won.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
(100 / 5 = 20) is definitely liberal.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
It sucks that facts have a well-know liberal bias. Truthiness is better.
/thread
Look, I'm just trying to be fair and show you both sides of the issue here. Somebody cut his mic, hurry.
*scrolling bar across bottom***** Cavuto asks: Is Unnamednewbie13 a whore? Some sources think yes. We report, you decide. ******
Firstly to usmarine...the first clip you showed looks awfully like some sort of opinion show and not an actual news segment; you've been harping on about the importance of recognising the difference between the two in the FOX thread, don't change your own rules for this thread.
I've acknowledged before that the BBC has been found to be biased in the past. It is strange though that the sheer wealth of clips that exist on YouTube for FOX bias is not matched by clips of BBC bias (I'm talking about actual examples of bias on air in a news segment, not homemade clips with quotes and opinions pasted over graphics).
To Kmarion..
As someone I would have a certain amount of respect for as a level headed moderate, would you be kind enough to give us an idea of how you yourself would get your news on a regular basis? I might be wrong here but I'd be very surprised if someone like you only watched FOX or stayed within a restricted group of conservative-biased media outlets.
I've acknowledged before that the BBC has been found to be biased in the past. It is strange though that the sheer wealth of clips that exist on YouTube for FOX bias is not matched by clips of BBC bias (I'm talking about actual examples of bias on air in a news segment, not homemade clips with quotes and opinions pasted over graphics).
To Kmarion..
As someone I would have a certain amount of respect for as a level headed moderate, would you be kind enough to give us an idea of how you yourself would get your news on a regular basis? I might be wrong here but I'd be very surprised if someone like you only watched FOX or stayed within a restricted group of conservative-biased media outlets.
Except that dude worked for the BBC for years. Kind of insider information so to speak.Braddock wrote:
Firstly to usmarine...the first clip you showed looks awfully like some sort of opinion show and not an actual news segment
Not at all. I've said before that part of staying well informed is getting your news from a variety of different media outlets. It's ok to watch FOX so long as you keep in mind the history of spin they put on their reporting. Anyone who treats any single media outlet as the gospel is setting themselves up to be manipulated. There is always a certain amount of bais (the BBC admits to it as well). Reporters/Journalist are human and it's human nature. I actually think the BBC is more credible than most. The particular story I was talking about earlier just bothered me (folding to pressure from a reader).Braddock wrote:
To Kmarion..
As someone I would have a certain amount of respect for as a level headed moderate, would you be kind enough to give us an idea of how you yourself would get your news on a regular basis? I might be wrong here but I'd be very surprised if someone like you only watched FOX or stayed within a restricted group of conservative-biased media outlets.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
As I thought, a sensible answer. I would follow the same principles you have outlined here. I'd like to think the likes of usmarine and others follow a similar mentality (despite their public displays of affection for the likes of FOX) as they are quite obviously of reasonable intelligence and capable of critical thought. You would have to be a complete drone to rely on only one variety of news outlet.Kmarion wrote:
Not at all. I've said before that part of staying well informed is getting your news from a variety of different media outlets. It's ok to watch FOX so long as you keep in mind the history of spin they put on their reporting. Anyone who treats any single media outlet as the gospel is setting themselves up to be manipulated. There is always a certain amount of bais (the BBC admits to it as well). Reporters/Journalist are human and it's human nature. I actually think the BBC is more credible than most. The particular story I was talking about earlier just bothered me (folding to pressure from a reader).Braddock wrote:
To Kmarion..
As someone I would have a certain amount of respect for as a level headed moderate, would you be kind enough to give us an idea of how you yourself would get your news on a regular basis? I might be wrong here but I'd be very surprised if someone like you only watched FOX or stayed within a restricted group of conservative-biased media outlets.
You do realise the clips I originally posted for you had interviews from ex FOX news employees don't you?usmarine wrote:
Except that dude worked for the BBC for years. Kind of insider information so to speak.Braddock wrote:
Firstly to usmarine...the first clip you showed looks awfully like some sort of opinion show and not an actual news segment
I could give a fuck about fox. I do watch it in the early afternoon sometimes for that one chick called jane skinner or something like that. Howerver...Braddock wrote:
(despite their public displays of affection for the likes of FOX)
usmarine wrote:
I watch MSNBC and read Janes.com and aljazeera.net. So you keep thinking what you want. Apparently I seem to be the only one who is being objective.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-04-10 09:35:51)
Well I always thought you were better than thatusmarine wrote:
I could give a fuck about fox. I do watch it in the early afternoon sometimes for that one chick called jane skinner or something like that. Howerver...Braddock wrote:
(despite their public displays of affection for the likes of FOX)usmarine wrote:
I watch MSNBC and read Janes.com and aljazeera.net. So you keep thinking what you want. Apparently I seem to be the only one who is being objective.
I believe I've already stated that I watch a lot of FOX along with RTÉ, BBC24 and EuroNews...does that mean I can join the objective gang too? Please?
Yeah, I know, that was a bit of a stretch, wasn't it?Kmarion wrote:
You'd have to be pretty naive to think that considering his apparent desire to please the activist. "Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier".Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Maybe he checked again with his original source and his original source said "no, it's definitely El Nino" - we can't tell.Kmarion wrote:
That would be part of the "and more" change he did.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The only place the word "probably" appears anywhere in the page you linked to is in one of the comments.
But anyhoo, my point is: so what, as I said before, it didn't substantially change the meaning of the article.
It's like when you've got some kid pestering you to do something that isn't harmful, but you just don't want them doing whatever it as at that moment and it's like:
Kid: "Can I ...?"
You: "No."
Kid: "Please?"
You: "No."
Kid: "But..."
You: "No."
Kid: "Aw but..."
You "No."
...
(and on and on and on)
...
Kid: "but..."
You: "OH FFS, ALL RIGHT THEN! JUST STOP BOTHERING ME!"