More fun from FOX

zeris · 10-09-2008 11:27pm

We have gone from one person editing a Wikipedia entry to "riddled with liberal bias!".

Why don't you do a search in Google for fox news wikipedia edit. Would you agree that Fox News "is ... riddled with" GOP operatives?

Permabear · 10-09-2008 11:33pm

This post has been deleted.

zeris · 10-09-2008 11:37pm

Yes, I am saying that the BBC bears no responsibility when one of its employees uses a BBC computer and internet connection to insert profanities into the name of a world leader. It may be against IT policy to use the facilities for personal use but that doesn't mean that the BBC is responsible.

Bah. Your a troll.

Permabear · 10-09-2008 11:42pm

This post has been deleted.

Mad Finn · 11-09-2008 10:35am

No it isn't.

Arch loon Bill O'Reilly, (my opinion only, although widely shared) who shouts slogans such as "Fair and Balanced" and "No Spin" about his show which is anything but, claims that Fox reflects all viewpoints. Of course anybody with a titter of wit pretty quickly comes to the conclusion that Fox is a shill for all that is most reactionary and conservative in America. Even you have sussed that out.

And that is precisely what that report quoted above was about. How do you retain impartiality and balance in a changing world? As it said itself, for those who have read it, in the early days it was easy. You just gave equal exposure and weight to the views of all the major political parties.

But the world has moved on. There are other means of publishing, broadcasting and disseminating information. Large corporations and popular movements in particular have the capacity to establish their own message and version of the truth. How does a broadcaster with a duty to be impartial and objective cover such organisations and their activities?

In point of fact the very issue of Make Poverty History and the Live 8 events were discussed in the report as examples of powerful movements in their own right which received support from most major political parties. It was a classic test case of how to approach new realities. Under its own traditional guidelines the Beeb could just say "Well both Labour and the Conservatives support it so we've covered all sides of opinion" but in the modern world it is not so simple as that.

What was the alternative viewpoint? Who represented it? How should the Beeb cover impartially something which has such broad support?

These were not criticisms of the BBC's covering of the event, much as the Telegraph and Times may disingenuously have implied that they were. These were examples of constructive self analysis by a broadcaster keen to adhere to the spirit of its charter.

irish_bob · 11-09-2008 11:13am

donegal fella, your letting yourself down here , fox news is a propoganda machine posing as a news network , signing up for all aspects of the republican party including pledging your support for fox news makes you look shallow and one dimensional

Permabear · 11-09-2008 6:56pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 11-09-2008 7:43pm

My problem is with people who bang on and on about how disgustingly biased the BBC is, and when challenged on this, talk about a Wikipedia edit from a BBC IP address.

Permabear · 11-09-2008 7:47pm

This post has been deleted.

alastair · 11-09-2008 7:53pm

And yet you can't actually demonstrate this BBC bias with concrete instances.

Fox is noted for it's punditry, which, on a daily basis, weighs in behind conservative political figures explicitly. Sometimes it's propagandistic (as in the reporting of the 'Obama is a Muslim' nonsense), sometime simply weighted in favour of the conservative position. That's all well and good - it has no duty to balance.

The BBC does however - and generally operates well within those guidelines. There's a wide distinction to be made between the intent and consequences of how each broadcaster operates. Thatcher didn't like the BBC - felt that it was out to get her. Blair didn't like the BBC - thought it was out to get him. Brown doesn't like the BBC - feels it's out to get him. You get the same refrain over and over again - regardless of party affiliation.

oscarBravo · 11-09-2008 7:53pm

donegalfella: if you have a problem with being asked to follow rules, take it up on the Help Desk and explain to the admins why you feel you should be exempt from them.

Permabear · 11-09-2008 8:04pm

This post has been deleted.

BenjAii · 11-09-2008 8:39pm

Donegal, on what grounds do you make the claim the BBC is anti-American ?

Is your definition of anti-American, "anyone who dares criticise the Bush administration and its values", in which case you better call half the US population anti-American too.

Or is it in the sense of a total antipathy to US culture and values, in the way say fundamentalist Islamists are ?

In which case your claim looks ridiculous.

The BBC is enthusiastically full of US TV shows, films and American guests and interviews on its shows.

Martyr · 11-09-2008 8:47pm

I believe they were in every right to do this, it protects the journalists involved.

Maybe BBC just report the facts and some people don't like that?..not necessarily anti-israeli.

Although they would probably appear anti-israeli given that most news organisations are pro-israeli

BTW: Steven Sugar is pro-israeli?? ... did you check that?

Richard Miron, a well known BBC radio and TV correspondent who had served several years reporting from Israel. Richard is Jewish and certainly not anti Israel

irish_bob · 11-09-2008 9:57pm

israel like fox news is a sacred cow to the hard right , there are many sacred cows on the left too of course , so what if the bbc takes a critical stance towards israel sometimes , none of the networks in the usa do , its the one area where fox is no different

btw donegal fella , you would have done well to have caught a report on newsnight on bbc2 last night , the reporter followed a bunch of american soldiers in bagdhad around for a month , he showed them in battle , eating and drinking , playing football during break times and even playing guitar durring a bit of a sing song ,it also showed them breaking down doors of houses looking for terrorists , one solider who we eventually discover is killed during the reporters stay takes part in a video diary , he speaks of how he was only a month married when he got had to return to iraq for another tour of duty , he spoke of how he doesnt believe that the iraqis want him and his colleagues there anymore , he spoke of how he hates it over there , hates that people he gets to know often end up dead , he especially hates the heat , none of what he spoke of was political , he was just an ordinary guy who missed his wife and family and wanted to be back home , it was a very moving report and not once did the bbc reporter personally ad lib any of his own views on the situation , when is the last time you saw a report on fox news which spoke to disilusioned american soldiers who were sick of being overseas and didnt believe they were accomplishing anything over there , never, instead we get oliver north talking to a young marine who is all too keen to tell us that he is so proud to be spreading democrocy in the mid east and wants to continue to defend america over seas

Permabear · 12-09-2008 12:01am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 12-09-2008 12:11am

This post has been deleted.

BenjAii · 12-09-2008 12:59am

Donegal - what you are putting forward as evidence for your claims about the BBC is totally insubstantial.

Most Americans are sick of their country being in Iraq and want out, so I can only imagine that sentiment is shared amongst the soldiers; if not to an even stronger degree considering what they have to put up with.

As for using the "Daily Mail" for your 2 examples. The Daily Mail, routinely twists logic & facts to support claims that appeal to its readers dearly held beliefs & prejudices. Any student of "Critical Thinking 101" can see all their little tricks miles off, its a tragedy the same can't be said of their poor readers.

It would be very Daily Mail thinking that the 2 puffed up pieces of insinuation & empty rhetoric you presented are adequate evidence to support your claims that the BBC is an anti-American liberal monoculture, but they are not.

You need FACTS to support these claims, something you have failed to produce.

Permabear · 12-09-2008 1:18am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 12-09-2008 1:19am

This post has been deleted.

BenjAii · 12-09-2008 1:52am

Donegal, the term "liberal" as you are using it is a word that only exists in American political vocabulary, where it used by the right to describe everybody to the left of them. In European terms they are referring not only to the progressives/left but also the mainstream. These Americans regard mainstream centrist European political views as "liberal". To be as rightwing as them in European terms makes you part of a right wing minority, maybe 25% at most of political opinion.

What you appear to be advocating for your idealised BBC is that it addresses people by scrupulously never reflecting any of the majority of peoples opinion or culture, but live in some culture and value free vacuum where every view must rigorously be presented on a strictly 50:50 basis, with minority views (the type of Americans who don't like "liberals").

But where is the logic in this ?

By your argument to be truly non-biased, it should be value free and also equally present the opinions of the minority of people who are very left wing, with the centrist majority in between never having a voice.

But I don't think that would make you happy either.

And your claims on "Anti-Americanism" are just silly.

We know anti-Americanism when we see it. Its Islamic fanatics burning flags against the Great Satan. Trying to say that is the BBC is ridiculous.

What you are railing against is it sometimes presenting views that offend the American right. In other words daring to critically question the War in Iraq or any of Israels actions.

Apparently true lack of bias to you means always unquestioningly acting as a mouthpiece for right-wing opinion. Somehow I doubt the British people would like it if you had your wish and the BBC became FOX News.

Permabear · 12-09-2008 2:46am

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard · 12-09-2008 9:02am

I don't remember ever hearing Palestinian suicide bombers be called freedom fighters, would it be too much to ask for a recent clip?

Mad Finn · 12-09-2008 10:02am

I will stand corrected but I challenge you to find an instance of a BBC report referring to Palestinian guerillas as "freedom fighters". They may call them "fighters" or "militias" and fall short of calling them "terrorists" but that's only an example of non-partisan reporting.

If you are insisting on them referring to any Palestinian militant as a "terrorist" then you are actually DEMANDING that they become biased.

It's not an incontrovertible fact that the Israelis are the good guys and the Arabs the baddies. It might be your opinion but it's certainly not everybody's.

If you actually read the report, what they are saying is that regardless of the personal opinions that employees may have it is important for the culture, procedures and policies of the organisation to provide an impartial and balanced information service. This is especially challenging if many people in the organisation are of like mind but it must be addressed anyway.

The example of Live 8 and Make Poverty History was held up as the classic conundrum: "How do you provide a balanced report of something that gains support from so many people across traditional divides?"

That was the basic gist of the report's reference to those events but it was twisted by the Times and Telegraph into being a classic example of BBC bias.

The issue isn't: "What are the personal opinions of everybody in the BBC?" It's "How do we ensure that a balanced picture is presented, despite people's personal opinions?"

alastair · 12-09-2008 11:59am

Again - you've provided no concrete evidence. Sorry but that's the reality.

BenjAii · 12-09-2008 12:32pm

I would have to agree with this as well Donegal, all you are presenting are your opinions. While you are as entitled to these as much as anyone else they are not facts.

Your claims are fairly full on & you need fairly extraordinary evidence to back them - where you supply facts, these are misrepresentation and fallacy.

Some reporter supposedly crying about Yasser Arafat is a classic logical fallacy. ( A Traveler stole my wallet, therefore all Travelers are thieves). My experience of BBC reporting is that it will also counter the usual bad thing happening to the Palestinians by giving airtime to the Israeli point of view. I could equally as validly as you have plucked an example of an Israeli Government official giving the official point of view to say the BBC is always pro-Israel. Your logic is not stronger than this.

You are also relying on misrepresentation of facts. The BBC did not go to court as it it was so desperate to keep its bias about Israel secret.

Under the FIA for some years it has been challenged repeatedly by various people and bodies to release internal documents. In fact over 400 times and as a matter of principle it always refuses. The case you mention made it to the courts because the person in question took his case there.

What the BBC is defending is the principle that it doesn't have to reveal all its private information, unless its charter compels it. Thats what it was defending, of the 400 cases, this one that went to court just happened to be about its Israeli reporting.

This is a completely different issue then how you misrepresent it.

Your latest claim that the BBC is now anti-capitalist along with everything else is another wild and pointless accusation. I won't bother asking you to produce facts, anyone with an iota of common sense knows you are talking rubbish.

Anyone who sees the BBC, RTE, CNN (!!!) as far-left has to be in a tiny little far-right citadel of their own in which 80% of the rest of us are all the far-left.

norbert64 · 15-09-2008 7:34pm

Everyone look out your windows and see if there are any pigs flying.

Fox actually taking McCain to task for once :eek:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sign_of_the_times.php

Mad Finn · 18-09-2008 8:21am

Just on this whole slur about the BBC, or indeed RTE or anybody else, referring to the likes of Hamas and Hizbollah as "freedom fighters". I don't think I have ever heard any of these organisations use this term to describe anybody as it is so obviously loaded.

In fact, the first person I remember introducing that term to public discourse was the lovely Colonel Oliver North, he of Iran-Contra fame back in the 1980s. He insisted on referring to the American backed mercenaries who fought against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in those terms. For the younger members here, the Sandinistas were left-wing rebels who overthrew one of the nastiest and most repressive right-wing dictatorships in Central America (and that's up against some stiff competition) led by Anastasio Somoza.

That indigenous "regime change" was not one the Americans were too pleased with. So they got the bould Ollie to launder money from the proceeds of illegal arms sales to the Iranian government (you know, the predecessors of the one now labelled a key component of the Axis of Evil) to the Contra rebels, fans of Somoza, so that they could buy arms for their terrorist campaign to overthrow the Sandinistas.

It sort of worked, with the Sandinistas being voted out of power in 1990. But their leader Daniel Ortega won the presidential election again last year.

IRISH RAIL · 24-09-2008 8:51pm

here you go. heres two links, i could be here all night and post more but frankly ive better things to do than listen to the anti Israeli tones being pumped out by certain people on boards all the time I sometimes wonder what there real motives are ???????

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/terrorismlondonisrael660708.html

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/dishonest.asp

kmart6 · 24-09-2008 9:08pm

Sorry is it just me or has this gone totally off topic! The arguments people are havin here over the BBC in a thread about FOX in the US Elcetion thread seem's to be in the totally wrong place!

More fun from FOX

Comments