I report, you decide.
Is this in response the the perceived FOX bias?
just trying to be fair and balanced. if search was working, I could find multiple fox threads, yet little or no bbc threads.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Is this in response the the perceived FOX bias?
OMG! 2 video shorts, one from a conservative Fox Wannabe news channel bashing the BBC, and another claiming mysterious evidence that Israel is getting bashed and that they don't want to blow their ME credibility by displaying a Koran in a trashcan and reporting bad things done by Israel.
And which reporter wouldn't want to interview Osama? That would make your career.
Its a pretty big stretch.
Here, have fun:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 3434902428
And which reporter wouldn't want to interview Osama? That would make your career.
Its a pretty big stretch.
Here, have fun:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 3434902428
All sources are biased - bias is part of human nature and it is impossible to be truly objective.
Hahah interesting u posted these videos... the 2nd one has an extremely obvious anti-bbc bias. so many reports about the bbc being bad yet no time at all was given to any sort of defence etc by bbc.
also the 1st video... i dont think having a poster of bush as hitler in their office has any comparison to FOX news bias ON AIR.
a poster in their office (probably an inside joke or something taken out of context) compared to fox blatant bias on air.
obviously the BBC is going to have some bias as well... be please dont try to say its more bias than FOX.
But hey watever.
also the 1st video... i dont think having a poster of bush as hitler in their office has any comparison to FOX news bias ON AIR.
a poster in their office (probably an inside joke or something taken out of context) compared to fox blatant bias on air.
obviously the BBC is going to have some bias as well... be please dont try to say its more bias than FOX.
But hey watever.
Well, the reason that the arguement is slanted in my opinion is because Conservatives will generally only watch FOX news, because it is the most representitive of their tastes. While the Liberals on the other hand, avoid it because they see it as the only biased news source available.
The Liberals are clearly wrong, because to them it's much easier to pick out the bias in the FOX media than the format they are used to, and so they will often miss the underlying bias of the more independant media.
So that while the Liberals expect bias from the FOX network, it's actually the Conservatives who are more surprised when they see bias on another network, because they are more used to the single FOX administered point of view, it's harder to find.
The tactics employed by the FOX network will often include shock and\or attention grabbing details, to appeal to this fanbase making it easier to deliver a message. The more Liberal media has to be more discreet though, because their target audience wants a wide ranging opinion piece from a few different sources, for example. But the bias in the Liberal media comes from the fact that the audience never really look into the sources very deeply and can be steered around by it.
It's just easier to pick on the Conservative media, because of the way they address the audience.
The Liberals are clearly wrong, because to them it's much easier to pick out the bias in the FOX media than the format they are used to, and so they will often miss the underlying bias of the more independant media.
So that while the Liberals expect bias from the FOX network, it's actually the Conservatives who are more surprised when they see bias on another network, because they are more used to the single FOX administered point of view, it's harder to find.
The tactics employed by the FOX network will often include shock and\or attention grabbing details, to appeal to this fanbase making it easier to deliver a message. The more Liberal media has to be more discreet though, because their target audience wants a wide ranging opinion piece from a few different sources, for example. But the bias in the Liberal media comes from the fact that the audience never really look into the sources very deeply and can be steered around by it.
It's just easier to pick on the Conservative media, because of the way they address the audience.
Coming from you? Wooow. Atleast i admit i am biased you just sugarcoat it and make yourself look innocent and play it down.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
All sources are biased - bias is part of human nature and it is impossible to be truly objective.
here a little interesting video i think you should all watch.. just for interests sake.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4wsBeNNBGjE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4wsBeNNBGjE
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2008-04-09 22:18:39)
the Washington Times? gimme a break, Im not even American and I know it's one of the most biased sources in your country.
What are you on about?David.P wrote:
Coming from you? Wooow. Atleast i admit i am biased you just sugarcoat it and make yourself look innocent and play it down.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
All sources are biased - bias is part of human nature and it is impossible to be truly objective.
It sucks that facts have a well-know liberal bias. Truthiness is better.
Nevermind, Even if i point things out noone listens.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
What are you on about?David.P wrote:
Coming from you? Wooow. Atleast i admit i am biased you just sugarcoat it and make yourself look innocent and play it down.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
All sources are biased - bias is part of human nature and it is impossible to be truly objective.
No, not never mind, what are you on about?David.P wrote:
Nevermind, Even if i point things out noone listens.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
What are you on about?David.P wrote:
Coming from you? Wooow. Atleast i admit i am biased you just sugarcoat it and make yourself look innocent and play it down.
You say I sugarcoat things, what have I sugarcoated and when?
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-09 22:24:21)
(100 / 5 = 20) is definitely liberal.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
It sucks that facts have a well-know liberal bias. Truthiness is better.
/thread
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-09 22:34:46)
Global Warming Activist Pressures BBC to Significantly Alter Article... they did
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ar … 02906.html
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ar … 02906.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Did you (or the original emailee) actually read the two versions of the article?Kmarion wrote:
Global Warming Activist Pressures BBC to Significantly Alter Article... they did
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ar … 02906.html
The essentially say exactly the same thing.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-09 22:45:46)
It was changed three times. Why did they change it at all?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Did you (or the original emailee) actually read the two versions of the article?Kmarion wrote:
Global Warming Activist Pressures BBC to Significantly Alter Article... they did
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ar … 02906.html
The essentially say exactly the same thing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
To get some moany bint to leave them alone, without actually changing the essential content of the article, perchance?Kmarion wrote:
It was changed three times. Why did they change it at all?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Did you (or the original emailee) actually read the two versions of the article?Kmarion wrote:
Global Warming Activist Pressures BBC to Significantly Alter Article... they did
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ar … 02906.html
The essentially say exactly the same thing.
Damn, where's the backbone? It didn't take much for them to fold.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
To get some moany bint to leave them alone, without actually changing the essential content of the article, perchance?Kmarion wrote:
It was changed three times. Why did they change it at all?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Did you (or the original emailee) actually read the two versions of the article?
The essentially say exactly the same thing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
They probably get loads of emails everyday from people like that in lobby groups.Kmarion wrote:
Damn, where's the backbone. It didn't take much for them to fold.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
To get some moany bint to leave them alone, without actually changing the essential content of the article, perchance?Kmarion wrote:
It was changed three times. Why did they change it at all?
How much time and UK citizens money should they spend telling idiots fuck the hell off when they can just shut them up with a couple of paragraphs that make no overall difference to an article?
It's called integrity. You are making usmarine point. Obviously they didn't originally want to change the article. All you need to do is read the email exchange to see that. It wasn't a simple case of appeasement. I good journalist will stand by their story once it has been published.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
They probably get loads of emails everyday from people like that in lobby groups.Kmarion wrote:
Damn, where's the backbone. It didn't take much for them to fold.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
To get some moany bint to leave them alone, without actually changing the essential content of the article, perchance?
How much time and UK citizens money should they spend telling idiots fuck the hell off when they can just shut them up with a couple of paragraphs that make no overall difference to an article?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Like I said - they're spending UK tax-payers money - I'd much rather they spent it getting on with their jobs than arguing with some moany bint.Kmarion wrote:
It's called integrity. You are making usmarine point. Obviously they didn't originally want to change the article. All you need to do is read the email exchange to see that. It wasn't a simple case of appeasement. I good journalist will stand by their story once it has been published.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
They probably get loads of emails everyday from people like that in lobby groups.Kmarion wrote:
Damn, where's the backbone. It didn't take much for them to fold.
How much time and UK citizens money should they spend telling idiots fuck the hell off when they can just shut them up with a couple of paragraphs that make no overall difference to an article?
If the change had radically altered the meaning of the article, that would be a different matter, but it didn't.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-09 23:10:06)
I thought that was supposed to be the benefit of state run media. News couldn't be influenced by money.
Xbone Stormsurgezz