|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Latent racism in the republican party? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronestar Member  Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Unlike mine, your aluminum cap must have quick release snaps for easy removal.
 1. ??? Since you ALREADY have CONCEDED the BBC is NOT a paragon of non-bias, how do you flatly declare I am wrong about BBC's ethics? 2. I am also sure at least SOME WWII German soldiers were just as young (ish), highly educated, middle class, articulate and relatively idealistic as your acquaintances at the BBC. Hardly a compelling argument for anything. 3. Regarding the BBC world service vision statement you provided: Yeah, it's a very nice and warm and fuzzy vision statement, . . . but ultimately circular argument: "We are ethical because we say we are ethical"? Not sure why you bothered to include this filler material. 4. From your link: BBC World Service | Inside BBC Journalism | Independence
Of course, no individual programme can capture every relevant shade of opinion, but the output, as a whole, must strive to do so; that way, the audience can make up its own mind about who it believes and why. Oh brother, such BBC BS. The evidence shows otherwise . . . Here is a specific rebuttal about their false claim of non-bias (please read entire link for full context, too long to post here):
It is fine to report claims of benevolent intent - it is something else to report those claims as obvious fact. Whereas the BBC would never dream of delivering bin Laden's claims this way, it is second nature with regard to Bush and Blair. Oil For The Killing Machine - The BBC On Iraqzcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information. CONCLUSION: OK, ultimately, It seems we may have a case of nuance/grey . . . Yeah, I admit, like America's New York Times who also sometimes reports honest exposes, so too does the BBC. I declare I watch the BBC on PBS everyday for its international news, something which is severely lacking in US news. But the BBC, "NOT being a paragon of non-bias", should at least make one SOMEWHAT skeptical of everything they report. Yet, from your two posts, you seem quite trusting about the BBC. I (while not quite an Oregon anarchist extremist) am less trusting. Compare yours and my levels of trust to Britney Spears quote:
"I think we should just trust our president (Bush II) in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens." Finally, please read another example below to support my argument. Perhaps then, as a supposed co-wearer of aluminum cap attire, you can see both sides and declare a more reasonable stalemate of opinions instead of victory:
"Our job should not be to quarrel with the purpose of policy, but to question its implementation", the BBC's Newsnight editor, Peter Horrocks, told staff in 1997. The problem with this kind of thinking is that, like Jeremy Hunt's contemptuous statement above, it completely ignores the majority of the population who are questioning the very foundations of the Government's policy, rather than making ineffective criticisms of its implementation." The BBC, Afghanistan and the limits of acceptable criticismhttp://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22316
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Hey Straggler,
I think your Message 29 initially confused me. You started in agreement, "I get what your saying . . . " and agreed the BBC is not completely without bias. But ended with a flat-out declaration that I was wrong. Huh?
straggler writes: What exactly are we disagreeing on here? HA!!! Since Message 29, we amended/clarified our statements to include positions from both sides of the "argument". So I think we are now, evidently, somewhat in agreement (sorry). If you want to abandon our now rather flaccid "debate", that's fine with me. if not . . . I dislike when posters do not respond to my specific questions. Therefore I try my best to be as complete as possible. Yet, you believe I didn't fully and specifically answer all your questions. Maybe. Please allow me to try again: 1.
straggler writes: Who is BBC serving? You're still asking the wrong question. As I paraphrased to you in another thread, the question SHOULD be "who is the BBC NOT serving?" ANSWER: Iraqi, Falujah victims of war and hegemony; Israel, Palestinian women and children of oppression and war profits; Kosovo victims of expanding NATO and the "credibility" of NATO; history's truth; etc (see below for supporting links). How I wish people would consider the victims FIRST. 2.
straggler writes: "You have not acknowledged my links detailing conflict between the BBC and the UK government over the Iraq war." Yes, I did (indirectly). . .
dronester writes:
Err, good job supporting your argument with supporting links, Straggler. "Yeah, I admit, like America's New York Times who also sometimes reports honest exposes, so too does the BBC." 3.
straggler writes: And why do those (yes some of them people I know personally) making the programming content not seem to realise that this is their true purpose and role in life? C'mon Straggler, . . . you know this is a loaded question based on your speculation/imagination. AND, it WAS already indirectly answered by my WWII German Soldiers hypothetical (Message 36). 4.
straggler writes: "The BBC is probably about the most trusted international news source in the world. Listened to by millions, especially at times of conflict and war." You're not using arguments from popularity, are you? Anyways, I'll now use links about BBC's complicity in the Falujah massacre to contest your "most trusted" assertion:
BBC correspondent Paul Wood told anchor Jeremy Paxman on the BBC's Newsnight programme that same evening: "Many in the Arab world, some here [in the UK] who campaigned against the war on Iraq, believe that a massacre of civilians took place inside Fallujah. I didn't see evidence of that myself. The Tragic Blindness Of The Embedded BBChttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/...edded_BBC_Fallujah.html NOTE: The BBC uses embedded reporters fully ensuring a biased report.
In the case of Iraq, it is of course vital that domestic audiences in the US and UK be persuaded that their governments are killing Iraqis with the support of, even on behalf of, Iraqis themselves. The possibility that Iraqis might be dying in their tens of thousands for Western power and profit must, of course, be kept so far out of sight that it is barely even thinkable. The BBC’s lunchtime news anchor, Anna Ford, opened today’s news with this solemn announcement: Iraq’s prime minister, Iyad Allawi, has said he has given American and Iraqi forces the authority to clear Fallujah of terrorists. Almost everything in this statement is false. Thus, on seven occasions, the BBC gave the impression that Allawi was the real authority in Iraq, so promoting the lethal myth that the assault on Fallujah is essentially an Iraqi operation against terrorists and mugs, thugs, murderers and intimidators, to be cleaned and cleared. There were no balancing words from commentators opposed to the US waging an illegal high-tech war against city slums. BBC Legitimises Mass Slaughter in FallujahBBC Legitimises Mass Slaughter in Fallujah - Occupation Woes on the World Crisis Web The BBC's refusal to handle an advertisement for Palestinian aid was highly instructive. It was the BBC's ‘impartiality’ that might be called into question. In other words, the protection of an institution was more important than the lives of children. The BBC, Impartiality, and the Hidden Logic of Massacarehttp://www.atlanticfreepress.com/...of-massacare-part-i.html The BBC bought the exclusive rights to Cameron's film, then suppressed it; just as it suppressed The War Game, Peter Watkins's brilliant recreation of Britain under nuclear attack Thomas was ordered by BBC chiefs to cut a scene which showed a gravestone that read, "Murdered by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday." He refused, and resigned. a recent German survey of the world's leading broadcasters' coverage of Iraq found that the BBC gave just 2 per cent to demonstrations of anti-war dissent - less than even American broadcasters The BBC RigourOutlook India Magazine Online- Read News India, Latest News Analysis, World, Sports, Entertainment | Best Online Magazine India In addition to these supportive links to my argument, I don't believe you specifically/fully acknowleged MY previous links in Message 36: Oil For The Killing Machine - The BBC On Iraqzcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information. The BBC, Afghanistan and the limits of acceptable criticismhttp://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22316 Bottom line, you think the BBC is a highly trusted source, I don't. Seems like a debate hardly worthy of its time or bare fists that Oni has been scratching for. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)
