NationStates Jolt Archive

Not the first time they were ever inaccurate but still....Less excuse on this one than upon the previous occasons. :(

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/02/collateral-damage.html

Perhaps Europe was too distant and foreign a continent to them for them to get it right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ha, JP should sue them under the Mclibel laws that the UK has. That'll serve the spineless quislings right.

What is it with this BBC fetish people have anyway, its news division is just another centre-left run of the mill journalism operation with some populist leanings.

And the bastards won't put the cricket on, or show Dr Who on BBC America.

Other than that, they are just fine.

Ha, JP should sue them under the Mclibel laws that the UK has. That'll serve the spineless quislings right.

What is it with this BBC fetish people have anyway, its news division is just another centre-left run of the mill journalism operation with some populist leanings.

And the bastards won't put the cricket on, or show Dr Who on BBC America.

Other than that, they are just fine.

Official Government owned TV. It's the same where every you go. Lifetime breaucrats that live off the generosity of the public, but think they are ordained to mold public opinion.

Official Government owned TV. It's the same where every you go. Lifetime breaucrats that live off the generosity of the public, but think they are ordained to mold public opinion.

Yes get rid of them and let that nice Mr Murdoch take over instead, he would never try and mould people's opinions.

Official Government owned TV. It's the same where every you go. Lifetime breaucrats that live off the generosity of the public, but think they are ordained to mold public opinion.
It's not government owned, it's government funded. There's a slight difference.

It's not government owned, it's government funded. There's a slight difference.

Nope, its not really government funded either: it is funded primarily by the licence fee, at a rate which is set by government, but privately collected and the money does not pass through government hands at any point. The rest of its funding it generates itself through sales of programmes, merchandising and the like. The world service does appear to receive some funding directly from the state, however.

Official Government owned TV. It's the same where every you go. Lifetime breaucrats that live off the generosity of the public, but think they are ordained to mold public opinion.

You idiot. A bunch of cartoons were making Muslims angry. One of them was a fraud, and the BBC didn't notice until after the story was public. That's hardly a propaganda piece. If you think that corporate media aren't trying to mold your opinion then you're out of your mind.

Not the first time they were ever inaccurate but still....Less excuse on this one than upon the previous occasons. :(

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/02/collateral-damage.html

Perhaps Europe was too distant and foreign a continent to them for them to get it right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So they made a mistake and admitted it? Oh, oh how tragic.

Yes get rid of them and let that nice Mr Murdoch take over instead, he would never try and mould people's opinions.

Heh, exactly. The BBC is generally a far better news source and TV channel than any other over here - although i'm sure the likes of those who are constantly whinging about the BBC only take what the Daily Mail or Telegraph says as "Real news for real Britons, away from bloooooooooody lefty bureucrats...in... brussels...erm...no tax and no blacks!"

I don't know....I watched an insightfull piece on Fox the other week about how Saudis are lazy, and can't be trusted with money, because the have no income tax.

Fair and Balanced. You're watching Fox.

Nothing new for BBC there..
;)
http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/937/Double_Standards_Slipping.html

So they made a mistake and admitted it? So?

If that image is being used to stir people up we still ought to know about it, as long as they get it right from hereon in.

There's only so accurate you can be and the BBC is generally as good as it gets.

And how the hell is it 'lefty' unless compared to Fox?

Nothing new for BBC there..
;)
http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/937/Double_Standards_Slipping.html

I hardly think that means much. I have my own objections to the BBC, I am by no means "pro-BBC," yet the most likely explaination for those criticisms is that the Islam page was probably written by a Muslim, whilst the Christianity page wasn't.

Even though it is a fairly large and popular religion in the west, I don't think many non-Muslims know a lot about it, and it was probably easier for the BBC to get one of its Muslim employee to write.

The different between a corporate media outlet that propagates its own agenda and a government-run/managed/directed/whatever media outlet that propagates its own agenda is that individuals willingly subscribe to the corporate media outlet and are free to cancel the service (and not pay any money anymore) at any time. By contrast, even if you stop watching the government media channel, they still collect the fees from you. Individuals should not be charged for services they do not use.

Here is one of the complaints posted on the blog site provided by the initial poster.

If the complaint shown below is true, then my view of the BBC has sunk even lower.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
EURSOC asks: Has the BBC converted to Islam?

.
.
the BBC notes that "Jesus Christ believed and taught that he was Son of God", that "Jesus claimed that he spoke with the authority of God " and that accounts of His resurrection were "put about by his believers."

Nowhere does the BBC use the tradition honorific capitalisation of pronouns referring to Christ, as we did above. The broadcaster uses plain old "his" and "he" rather than stuffy, god-bothering "His" and "He." Why indulge the idiosyncrasies of a few religious nuts?

Why indeed - until you click on the BBC's Islam page.

This time, the BBC doesn't talk about Mohammed, or even The Prophet Mohammad, as numerous UK media outlets have taken to calling the founder of Islam since the Cartoon War began. The BBC gives him his full title: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Indeed, every time the Prophet is mentioned in the BBC's supposedly neutral text, his name is followed with the abbreviation "(pbuh)" - as if, as Wyatt notes, "the corporation itself were Muslim."

There's no "Muslims believe" or "it was reported" in this section. Instead, the Beeb claims that "Allah is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent... Allah has always existed and will always exist" and so on. Doubtless true, and it continues into the BBC's Life of Muhammad section too, where angelic visitations and the people's realisation that "God had chosen him as his messenger " are reported as fact.

Why these double standards? If the BBC is to indulge religions, should it not indulge all religions equally? Or if the corporation claims to have an objective and historical approach to religions, why not apply the same scepticism it applies to Christianity to Islam?

Or is Wyatt right - and the BBC has converted to Islam?
.
.
www.eursoc.com

You idiot. A bunch of cartoons were making Muslims angry. One of them was a fraud, and the BBC didn't notice until after the story was public. That's hardly a propaganda piece. If you think that corporate media aren't trying to mold your opinion then you're out of your mind.

No Domici, you are the idiot. You prove it every single time your batshit crazy little fingers hit the keyboard. You read every sort of inconciveable nonsense into everything you address. Increase your meds you flamebaiting little bitch.

By contrast, even if you stop watching the government media channel, they still collect the fees from you. Individuals should not be charged for services they do not use.

Indeed, even if you don't watch TV they still try and get fees from and threaten you with home visits to make sure you are not watching TV.

Or is Wyatt right - and the BBC has converted to Islam?

No, they probably just grabbed the closest Muslim employee and asked him to write about Islam.