chem1st Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Propaganda you pay for. Makes the communists look like Saints! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Examples of that? I admire how the BBC stood up to the Bliar Administration on the sexed up dossier. The BBC should have stood their ground but didn't. Why not? Why did Greg Dyke stand down and not Bliar and his cronies? What would cause the BBC to capitulate on such an important matter? I suspect it had something to do with future funding from the license fee, but I cannot tell... And things have gone downhill since the new change in management. Nowadays, the BBC daren't even show images of civilian destruction caused by the Israeli army in Palestine a couple of years ago, lest it be accused of not being impartial. It didn't matter that this was news and people needed to be made aware of what was going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selphie Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Having peronally been on the pooey end of Robert Peston's stick I can catergorically agree that the BBC choose to report their very own variation of the truth on most occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I admire how the BBC stood up to the Bliar Administration on the sexed up dossier. The BBC should have stood their ground but didn't. Why not? Why did Greg Dyke stand down and not Bliar and his cronies? What would cause the BBC to capitulate on such an important matter? I suspect it had something to do with future funding from the license fee, but I cannot tell... And things have gone downhill since the new change in management. Nowadays, the BBC daren't even show images of civilian destruction caused by the Israeli army in Palestine a couple of years ago, lest it be accused of not being impartial. It didn't matter that this was news and people needed to be made aware of what was going on. That is all true but was there not controversy about Gilligan's methods? It is worth remembering that even if they felt pressured to back down the trouble started with them telling an inconvenient truth. The idiots who made the decision re Israeli army must have felt the Israeli extremist pressure groups were too powerful. Like you say, weaklings terrified of pressure groups have taken over. However unlike Fox or Berlusconi TV I would not expect them to make stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 shouldnt believe ANYTHING you read and see in the media as instant 100% truths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 What a loaded question - I don't think anyone tells the truth 100% of the time. But seeing as this seems to have come from the 7/7 thread shouldn't the question be "do you trust the BBC more than amateur you tube videos"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 What a loaded question - I don't think anyone tells the truth 100% of the time. But seeing as this seems to have come from the 7/7 thread shouldn't the question be "do you trust the BBC more than amateur you tube videos"? indeed, i trust large news corperations more than anonymous amateur videos on youtube that you cant even know arent doctored, edited or made to portray something completely different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 In these days of moral relativism the truth is very subjective. The BBC does have professional standards in which it's journalists are supposed to have at least 2 sources, is not subject to advertisers and has impartiality written into it's charter. The last two criteria make it unique or rare and means it has no motive to lie. No doubt some will have examples of it having told lies but please remember that news articles with which an individual disagrees does not constitute a deliberate lie. The only knowledge I have of a deliberate BBC lie concerns the Battle of Orgreave in 1984. I doubt this would be possible in today's climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 indeed, i trust large news corperations more than anonymous amateur videos on youtube that you cant even know arent doctored, edited or made to portray something completely different Well both are open to accusation but that bloke 'Guido Fawkes' is often trumpeted as the best independent news source. I watched one of his video clips which appeared to show Gordon Brown being snubbed by a soldier who refused to shake his hand. Other footage on youtube exposed the full clip in which the soldier did shake his hand. Trendy Guido had cut it early expecting the average plum would not look anywhere else for the same footage. In other words those dishing out opinions and scandal is not the same as thorough journalism that has met independent standards such as those of the universities in which the relevant degrees were issued. Bloggers don't have employers either who can punish liars for breaking professional codes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Well both are open to accusation but that bloke 'Guido Fawkes' is often trumpeted as the best independent news source. I watched one of his video clips which appeared to show Gordon Brown being snubbed by a soldier who refused to shake his hand. Other footage on youtube exposed the full clip in which the soldier did shake his hand. Trendy Guido had cut it early expecting the average plum would not look anywhere else for the same footage. In other words those dishing out opinions and scandal is not the same as thorough journalism that has met independent standards such as those of the universities in which the relevant degrees were issued. Bloggers don't have employers either who can punish liars for breaking professional codes. yeah so it all comes down in the end to accountabillity? all news can dr, change things to suit their own political ends BUT generally news services like the BBC are accountable to other people, if they get found out they get bollocked if on the other hand a youtube user isnt really accountable to anybody, an offending video may get removed, thats about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.