BBC World Ad Campaign (Pic)

[Tchocky]

http://usemycomputer.com/indeximages/2007/June/bbc_world_america_ads_2693.jpg

[robbo180265]

Incredible - not only the ad,but the fact it makes me proud to be British as well!

[Letum]

no pic?
It this some subtle statement?



And you are one post away from me demanding nudity!

[robbo180265]

no pic?
It this some subtle statement?



And you are one post away from me demanding nudity!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Tchocky]

More


http://www.adverbox.com/media/campaigns/2006/08/bbc1.jpg

http://www.adverbox.com/media/campaigns/2006/08/bbc2.jpg

http://www.adverbox.com/media/campaigns/2006/08/bbc3.jpg

http://www.adverbox.com/media/campaigns/2006/08/bbc4.jpg

[Officerpuppy]

Very cool ads.:yep:

[Boris]

Wow, what an awesome ad campaign. I love those polls as well

[Sailor Steve]

Not even knowing how good their news delivery actually is, I'll be watching just because, as already said, those ads are great.:up:

[Boris]

Not even knowing how good their news delivery actually is, I'll be watching just because, as already said, those ads are great.:up:

Don't worry, BBC World is one of the best news channels there is

[Letum]

Damm good adds!

I am more than happy to pay for the BBC to broadcast to people other than me!
The BBC run an excellent news service!



:up: < to the licence fee!

[Weigh-Man]

What great ads, I am happy to admit I am British for a change

[bookworm_020]

Very clever!:up: Nice to see some smart add's for a change. I loved the interactive signs and the ones on the conner were cool too!:rock:

[Reaves]

Pfft fox is a much more reliable news service.

:doh:

:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Pfft fox is a much more reliable news service.
True (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1554).

[TheBrauerHour]

I listen to BBC WOrld news on XM, very nice. :up:

[Boris]

Pfft fox is a much more reliable news service. True (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1554).

Yes, let's believe some woman's blog over a global news network with hundreds of highly proffessional reporters.

[joea]

Yes, let's believe some woman's blog over a global news network with hundreds of highly proffessional reporters.

Ok. :know:



Ahh no...:rotfl:

Always try to watch at least once a day or visit the website.

[The Avon Lady]

Pfft fox is a much more reliable news service. True (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1554).
Yes, let's believe some woman's blog over a global news network with hundreds of highly proffessional reporters.
Melanie Phillips is a professional journalist, commentator and author.

Are you a professional analyst of journalism? :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

What a bunch of crap! Biased polls conducted via cellphone only from a Biased news media! This just goes to show me that the BBC needs to pack up and bring its UK politics back home!

Here is how accurate and reliable the BBC is - they even admit it!:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif BBC report finds bias within corporation - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml

BBC admits: We are biased on religion and politics
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582,00.html

Here is even one from yesterday:
BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’ - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece


We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770


http://bustingbbcbias.blogspot.com/

http://biasedbbc.proboards45.com/index.cgi

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/



Need I go on?

This bastards need to get out of AMerica. We don't want them here

[Tchocky]

I wonder how many US news outlets comission investigations into their activities, looking for flaws or bias.

How are the polls biased, SUBMAN?

[DAB]

Melanie Phillips is a professional journalist, commentator and author.

Are you a professional analyst of journalism? :hmm:

Actually, shes generally considered discredited these days.

Shes denounced far too many people for apparent misdemeaners, only to retract when faced with legal action, to be taken seriously. Her main problem seems to be a tendency to take a blog entry, email or even word of mouth as proof positive and run with it.

Didn't someone once call her Britains answer to Ann Coultar?

[SUBMAN1]

I wonder how many US news outlets comission investigations into their activities, looking for flaws or bias.

How are the polls biased, SUBMAN?

I'd consider any poll based on 'cell phone only' and charges per text message flawed. It is definitely not even close to a scietific poll that is random, unbiased, has a margin of error that can be calculated.

-S

[Tchocky]

OK, so it may be flawed.

But a bias implies directed results.

How are they biased, just going on what we see here?

Here is how accurate and reliable the BBC is - they even admit it!
Well, they ordered the report and released it to the press, that's fairly accurate and reliable for something so critical.

See my news transparency thread, BBC comes in 3rd for accountability and transparency, things like this report.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm pretty sure that those polls are presented as nothing more than a clever advertising campaign, and are not going to be cited on The McLaughlin Group or Meet the Press. Let's not make too much out of this.

[SUBMAN1]

OK, so it may be flawed.

But a bias implies directed results.

How are they biased, just going on what we see here?
Simple - you target your select group that you think will give you the proper results. This is even easier in America where most conservatives do not even answer polls like this unless asked via a random phone call.

Well, they ordered the report and released it to the press, that's fairly accurate and reliable for something so critical. If you have been following the story, it was not voluntary about a year ago, where this news broke.

See my news transparency thread, BBC comes in 3rd for accountability and transparency, things like this report.
They are actually among what the normal world would consider the worst offenders. They have even amitted as much. Not sure where you went on that thread because I didn't read it, but they are definitely profit motivated for #1 (hype and oversensationalizing things is how they sell), and they are Politically motivated #2, and they are Religiously motivated #3. This is very very very far from tranparency - espeically with what they have tried to hide, and ruins their accontability as well.

I think the kitchen knife deal was about the clincher for me when they suggested banning all kitchen knifes because they could be used for violence in the street. A police officer had to clue them in that carrying a knife around that large was already illegal! :rotfl:But they still wanted them banned anyway!!!:rotfl:They have got to be the worst news organiation on the planet!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I'm pretty sure that those polls are presented as nothing more than a clever advertising campaign, and are not going to be cited on The McLaughlin Group or Meet the Press. Let's not make too much out of this.

That about sums it up perfectly.

[The Avon Lady]

Melanie Phillips is a professional journalist, commentator and author.

Are you a professional analyst of journalism? :hmm:

Actually, shes generally considered discredited these days.
:rotfl:
Shes denounced far too many people for apparent misdemeaners, only to retract when faced with legal action, to be taken seriously.
Can you document this?
Her main problem seems to be a tendency to take a blog entry, email or even word of mouth as proof positive and run with it.
Can you document this?
Didn't someone once call her Britains answer to Ann Coultar?
The closest correlation I could find documented between the 2 is on this page (http://mpacuk.org/content/view/2121/60/) of the Muslim Public Affairs Commitee - MPACUK. Thanks for the tip. :up:

[Tchocky]

OK, so it may be flawed.

But a bias implies directed results.

How are they biased, just going on what we see here?
Simple - you target your select group that you think will give you the proper results. This is even easier in America where most conservatives do not even answer polls like this unless asked via a random phone call. So they place billboards at liberal intersections? The text numbers are only reachable from Democrat-registered voters? How do you know that they are doing this from what we see here?
You said the polls were biased, based on the images I posted (unless you have other info). Where, in the images, is this bias?

(It looks like confirmation bias, but I hope not)

Well, they ordered the report and released it to the press, that's fairly accurate and reliable for something so critical. If you have been following the story, it was not voluntary about a year ago, where this news broke. Really? Link?


See my news transparency thread, BBC comes in 3rd for accountability and transparency, things like this report.
They are actually among what the normal world would consider the worst offenders. They have even amitted as much. Not sure where you went on that thread because I didn't read it, but they are definitely profit motivated for #1 (hype and oversensationalizing things is how they sell), and they are Politically motivated #2, and they are Religiously motivated #3. This is very very very far from tranparency - espeically with what they have tried to hide, and ruins their accontability as well. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116720 - here's the thread.

How the HELL is the BBC profit motivated?

[Boris]

Pfft fox is a much more reliable news service. True (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1554). Yes, let's believe some woman's blog over a global news network with hundreds of highly proffessional reporters. Melanie Phillips is a professional journalist, commentator and author.

Are you a professional analyst of journalism? :hmm:

Well I am a Media student, so I am an analyst of journalism... but I admit my comment was hasty and I certainly did no analysing ;)

[SUBMAN1]

So they place billboards at liberal intersections? The text numbers are only reachable from Democrat-registered voters? How do you know that they are doing this from what we see here?
You said the polls were biased, based on the images I posted (unless you have other info). Where, in the images, is this bias?

(It looks like confirmation bias, but I hope not)
To get a directed result, you must know your market. They are obviously targetting a group or audience with these posters and without studying exactly where they are and what their motivations are (There is not enough data), it is hard to tell exactly what they are targetting. I can for sure tell you just from looking at it that the main target audience is probably under 40 - the tech no geeks and young adults, and even all the way down to school children. How many adults (at least not over here) over 40 even know what the hell a text message is? Not a whole lot. THis is the American Idol type mentality with a specific age range in mind coming up with the numbers.

See where I'm coming from yet?



Really? Link?
Dunno right now. Google is your friend though, or if you care searching Subsim forums, its on here too in the General section. We had a big discussion on it back in like 2005 or 2006 - not sure the exact time.

I bet you could find it rather quickly if you visit some of the blog links from the above post though.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116720 - here's the thread.

How the HELL is the BBC profit motivated?
Most news agencies are these days - CNN is another that is profit motivated. I took a class on this a while back for fun. The BBC used to get trashed every now and then in that class. So did CNN though. Basically it comes down to how you present your media. You over hype or over sensationalize typical stories in an effort for ratings. It banks on the rubber necker syndrome type mentality as you see in auto accidents.

If it makes you feel any better, CNN is biased pretty badly too, but they are a bit more in tune with the American phycie, so they can get away with it better. The BBC however has ideas that are still foreign over here, so they stand out as biased a bit more easily.

-S

PS. I think it is impossible to be compeltely un-biased in a news agency, but as close as you are going to get is from publically funded stations. We have several in the US.

[Tchocky]

Hmm, CNN is hard news for idiots. It's designed to make the viewer feel like they're developing ADD. Argh, 'nother thread.

What I meant was, how can a publicly-funded organisation that does not run advertisements be profit-motivated?

[XabbaRus]

Quite clever. subman what is your problem? All news organisations are biased one way or another. That's why I try to get info from several outlets and compare.

On the whole BBC reporting is pretty good. They do a few things that annoy me but generally I'm happy with them. You think Fox aren't biased?

Funny how it seems they're biased but hey when they report about Russia and how mean she is it's OK.

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm, CNN is hard news for idiots. It's designed to make the viewer feel like they're developing ADD. Argh, 'nother thread.

What I meant was, how can a publicly-funded organisation that does not run advertisements be profit-motivated?

Good question. I am not sure of their entire funding - is it purely govermental funding? I used to know this years ago when I took my classes on it, but I don't remember. Take that #1 out of the equation then if it is not, but that also deeply troubles me if they are politaclly and religiously motivated and purely public funded! That means they are a propoganda engine for the government. Ouch! This just gets better by the minute. Thought police hammering governmental ideas into your head until you accept them. 1984.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Quite clever. subman what is your problem? All news organisations are biased one way or another. That's why I try to get info from several outlets and compare.

On the whole BBC reporting is pretty good. They do a few things that annoy me but generally I'm happy with them. You think Fox aren't biased?

Funny how it seems they're biased but hey when they report about Russia and how mean she is it's OK.

Problem? What is that supposed to mean because I take a bit of offense to it? Fox was also not brought up. CNN was. Besides, Russia may be doing well, but probably what ticks Fox off (I don't know because I haven't seen anything from them in over a year) is that Russia still has the cold war on, yet everyone is turning a blind eye.

If there is a problem on BBC or other news outlets, I'm dying to find a news outlet that reports news for what it is, presents 2 sides to the story equally (the way it should be done) and lets me make up my mind. Frequently what I see coming out of the BBC is anti UK, Pro foreign terorists, and pro PC'ness. This is not what I or anyone else I know would want in the US. Is that a problem?

-S

[XabbaRus]

I think the kitchen knife deal was about the clincher for me when they suggested banning all kitchen knifes because they could be used for violence in the street. A police officer had to clue them in that carrying a knife around that large was already illegal! :rotfl:But they still wanted them banned anyway!!!:rotfl:They have got to be the worst news organiation on the planet!

I seem to remember they were reporting on some people wanting kitchen knives banned not calling for them to be banned. Then they ran one of their have your say things, which isn't the same as calling for kitchen knives to be banned.

Is this the article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm or this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4817974.stm

Can't see the BBC calling for a ban here.

Also How can the BBC be profit oriented? It is paid for by a license fee. We all pay £130 pounds a year and this is used to fund it. The BBC doesn't have advertising in its programs. It doesn't get revenue from advertisers based on how many viewers they pull in. Yes they can and do sell production services and programmes but that isn't the same thing.

[Tchocky]

Good question. I am not sure of their entire funding - is it purely govermental funding? Totally public-funded.

I used to know this years ago when I took my classes on it, but I don't remember. Take that #1 out of the equation then if it is not, but that also deeply troubles me if they are politaclly and religiously motivated and purely public funded! yeah, you've said they are politically and religiously motivated, but only posted links to reports that show undue influence from staff members personal beliefs. that's not motivated.
That means they are a propoganda engine for the government. Ouch! This just gets better by the minute. Thought police hammering governmental ideas into your head until you accept them. 1984. Is that you, STEED?

You can't make that kind of assertion without reading/watching/listening to the BBC and its news. It smacks of the same venom that was in your very first post.
I read the BBC every day, and it is certainly not a government mouthpiece. A good barometer is the abuse it gets from both the government and the opposition, for being loyal to the other. A good sign, I think.

This bastards need to get out of AMerica. We don't want them here Maybe not.

[SUBMAN1]

I seem to remember they were reporting on some people wanting kitchen knives banned not calling for them to be banned. Then they ran one of their have your say things, which isn't the same as calling for kitchen knives to be banned.

Is this the article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm or this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4817974.stm

Can't see the BBC calling for a ban here.

Its in the reporting and choice of reporting. That is the kind of crap you are wasting your $$$ on for them to report. That wouldn't even get on the back side of a Times paper over here! Point proven - thank you.

Here is a classic given its own paragraph:

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

Also How can the BBC be profit oriented? It is paid for by a license fee. We all pay £130 pounds a year and this is used to fund it. The BBC doesn't have advertising in its programs. It doesn't get revenue from advertisers based on how many viewers they pull in. Yes they can and do sell production services and programmes but that isn't the same thing.
Read above - that is what I asked.

[Tchocky]

Re the knives thing, it's soft news. At least half of US local TV news is this kind of stuff.

This single story isn't representative of the entire output.

Point proven - thank you.

....nope. the report is about a study, it's natural that elements of the study be mentioned.

You claimed the BBC suggested banning knives. nothing like that transpired. yet you claim to have proven it by quoting a news report about a study.

.........

[SUBMAN1]

Re the knives thing, it's soft news. At least half of US local TV news is this kind of stuff.

This single story isn't representative of the entire output.

Where? I live here and don't see this. Over here, you get the story about guns and such, but this knife garbage would make it into anything i have read in the last 3 or 4 years.

....nope. the report is about a study, it's natural that elements of the study be mentioned.

You claimed the BBC suggested banning knives. nothing like that transpired. yet you claim to have proven it by quoting a news report about a study.

.........

It is the way it is reported and the choice of stories. The BBC is filled with this kind of crap. That is the point. We don't need this over here. They can pack up and go and I won't shed a tear.

-S

[Tchocky]

Re the knives thing, it's soft news. At least half of US local TV news is this kind of stuff.

This single story isn't representative of the entire output.
Where? I live here and don't see this. Over here, you get the story about guns and such, but this knife garbage would make it into anything i have read in the last 3 or 4 years. Human interest, cats up trees, Paris Hilton. Soft news is all over the place, on all outlets in all countries. though.

It is the way it is reported and the choice of stories. Want to go through it? Your previous example wasn't very convincing (read - not at all). And why is it OK for you to misrepresent the BBC?

The BBC is filled with this kind of crap. That is the point. We don't need this over here. They can pack up and go and I won't shed a tear. You have this crap over here, you probably don't watch it.

There is lots of excellent content on the BBC News website. Poke around for a few minutes, Features & Analysis is worth a look, Matt Frei's column is great, also the Editor's Blog.

[SUBMAN1]

Let's study further what I don't want over here:

BBC News endorsement of illegal immigrants rights protestors

Matt Frei’s diary on the subject (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4857134.stm) was bad enough (http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2006/03/immigration-battle-over-us-soul.html).

In Immigrants find strength in numbers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4898432.stm), one can read the following endorsement of illegal immigrants rights protestors:Anywhere else and you might have expected to see vast numbers of police.


But not here and not with these people.

It is downtown Los Angeles and once again thousands of Latinos have marched, in peace, to claim the right for illegal immigrants to stay here.

…

They do not want confrontation. Instead they want to influence politicians.The protestors marched “in peace” (hitting one counter-demonstrator on the head (http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/10/ap2660618.html) doing so) and “do not want confrontation”, and their slogans are “inclusive and non-confrontational”. How lovely.
Santa Ana in Orange County is a more conservative place. Hispanics marched here as well but their numbers were in the hundreds, not thousands.“A more conservative place”? Hispanics are right to be afraid of those conservative types; to which lengths could they go in order to impede protestors?
Bravely, some might say foolishly, one woman stepped up to confront them. It happened right in front of us.

…

When the woman had taken on everyone in sight the crowd duly booed her and moved off.She was “duly” booed off — she got her comeuppance!

Of course, the puff piece also includes an example of those poor victims of the legal system, immigrants themselves:It is drawing people like Freddie and Maria. Freddie lives here legally but Maria, his wife, does not.

They fear she will be deported at any time. She dreads separation from her husband and her two daughters.

They never leave the state of California, believing that crossing state lines puts them at risk of exposure.

They hardly go out. Freddie admits it is no way to live.She could be deported at anytime and dreads separation from her two daughters and her husband, who “admits” that “it is no way to live”, all this because she has no rights as an illegal immigrant — darn American legal system!

As Peter Lanteri, director of New York’s chapter of the Minutemen, a volunteer border watch group, says: “Illegal is illegal (http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/NEWS10/604110323/1024), and they break our laws to come here”. Tell that to the BBC.

BBC News attempts to pass Palestinian militant deaths off as civilian deaths

In 'Israel to step up Gaza shelling' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4900796.stm), one can read the following:She was the 16th Palestinian to die in Israeli air and artillery attacks on Gaza in the past four days.A sentence much like the following (from memory) was removed from the article:Israel says it will step up Gaza shelling despite the deaths of 16 Palestinians in the past four days.The bias by omission is nothing less than outraging: BBC News wishes to have the reader believe that the 16 Palestinians killed were civilians, quite obviously, or it would state that of those 16 killed, 13 were militants:
Friday: six Palestinians killed (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3237483,00.html), that is, five militants and a five-year-old human shield (total: five militants out of six killed)
Saturday: two gunmen killed (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3237602,00.html) as well as six other militants (http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/International/2006/04/09/1526466-sun.html) (total: 13 militants out of 14 killed)
Sunday: one Palestinian civilian killed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4892744.stm) (total: 13 militants out of 15 killed)
Monday: one Palestinian girl killed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4896900.stm) (total: 13 militants out of 16 killed)I feel sorry for those who have to pay for this “news” service.

Or how about this?

British media could swing the next US election

[I]By Tim Montgomerie, Editor of BritainAndAmerica.com.

http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/05/british_media_c.html


But of course, the BBC is a quality BIAS!:
http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/05/bbc.html

I dunno. Too many people share the same believe about how messed up this news org is. I mean, what other news org makes the news about howscrewed up they are all the time? I don't understand how you can pay for a service like this. If I lived in the UK, I'd probably be hammering my Representatives about cleaning them up and getting them back on track.

Just my 2 cents.

-S

PS. How many posts do you want on the subject? I can keep posting all day about their mess ups or opinions, or whatever. Try that even with CNN - you can't! It doesn't exist to this degree!

[Tchocky]

Not really your two cents, copied and pasted from bustingbbcbias. Not conducive to a flowing discussion.

How many posts do you want on the subject? I can keep posting all day about their mess ups or opinions, or whatever. Try that even with CNN - you can't! It doesn't exist to this degree! I don't care about CNN. I barely care about this discussion. How many posts do i want? Jesus, I don't know. It's not a numbers basis here.

Look, you complained vociferously about the knives article after you thoroughly misrepresented it, and when called on to back up your criticism, you didn't. I asked again, and I got this random crap from a blog with a foregone conclusion.

What do I want? Maybe some answers to my questions, and not copypastes from blogs.

[SUBMAN1]

Not really your two cents, copied and pasted from bustingbbcbias. Not conducive to a flowing discussion.
Hardly. Just some examples I pulled off the site and weren't addressed to you directly, so what is your problem? And why should I argue with you about something they can say it better like this from here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"
There ya go - exactly what I am complaining about. Bias in the max. Why do I want this in my country exactly?

I don't care about CNN. I barely care about this discussion. How many posts do i want? Jesus, I don't know. It's not a numbers basis here.

Look, you complained vociferously about the knives article after you thouroughly misrepresented it, and when called on to back up your criticism, you didn't. I asked again, and I got this random crap from a blog with a foregone conclusion.
Lost me here. By the way - excuse me for not remembering exactly from something 2 years ago! I did pretty good I think without reading it right then and there! It was the reporting that I questioned.

What do I want? Maybe some answers to my questions, and not copypastes from blogs.
What question exactly that hasn't been answered already? The point of all this is, it is not just me complaining about the BBC. I also do not want its biased opinions in my country. I can post links all day from your 'own' people who don't want it in their country either - and that is a lot more powerful than me saying the same thing! Why don't you start reading what is written instead of attacking me or my posts? Did you follow some of my other links? The world speaks louder than one is the point. I've answered your question I believe with my own writting unless I missed soemthing. If so, let me know.

-S

[Tchocky]

Not really your two cents, copied and pasted from bustingbbcbias. Not conducive to a flowing discussion.
Hardly. Just some examples I pulled off the site and weren't addressed to you directly, so what is your problem? And why should I argue with you about something they can say it better like this from here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"
There ya go - exactly what I am complaining about. Bias in the max. Why do I want this in my country exactly?That's hardly "bias in the max". Well, it's already in the US to a degree, and in many places a much worse degree. Observe what happens here every time a Fox link is posted. Also you're quoting the Daily Mail, this was their opening paragraph
t was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism. Not exactly the best journalistic language.
And anyways.....surely those who work in the BBC are mostly from Britain, a secular, gay-friendly slightly-left-leaning country. Where's the shock here? Of course every outlet has its inbuilt bias and weaknesses, but that doesnt earn them the mantle of "worst news org in the world"


Lost me here. By the way - excuse me for not remembering exactly from something 2 years ago! I did pretty good I think without reading it right then and there! It was the reporting that I quest Yeah, its unreasonable to expect you to have remembered that one. Sorry.
But your criticism of the story's reporting made no sense to me. I was curious.

I also do not want its biased opinions in my country.Why? There are many biased and flawed news outlets in America, on all sides. Why this ire for the BBC (eg. "bastards" "worst news org in the world")?
I can post links all day from your 'own' people who don't want it in their country either - and that is a lot more powerful than me saying the same thing! Why don't you start reading what is written instead of attacking me or my posts? Did you follow some of my other links? Looking through the bbcbias stuff, it's reminding me more of the Daily mail every minute.
I was attacking your posts because they made little or no sense to me, natch.


from what you linked to, about Matt Frei's diary (an opinion column to begin with). This site may not be able to distinguish between editorial and news. (of course they can)

The protestors marched “in peace” (hitting one counter-demonstrator on the head (http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/10/ap2660618.html) doing so) and “do not want confrontation”, and their slogans are “inclusive and non-confrontational”. How lovely. A broken link and a snide comment. What would the writer here prefer? The banners were probably not confrontational.
I don't see the "bias" here.
Santa Ana in Orange County is a more conservative place. Hispanics marched here as well but their numbers were in the hundreds, not thousands.“A more conservative place”? Hispanics are right to be afraid of those conservative types; to which lengths could they go in order to impede protestors?

Bravely, some might say foolishly, one woman stepped up to confront them. It happened right in front of us.

…

When the woman had taken on everyone in sight the crowd duly booed her and moved off.She was “duly” booed off — she got her comeuppance! Duly booed off by a crowd she was confronting. That is neither biased nor suprising. It's accurate language in an editorial piece.


bleeghhh

[SUBMAN1]

Why? There are many biased and flawed news outlets in America, on all sides. Why this ire for the BBC (eg. "bastards" "worst news org in the world")?

Without getting into detail - just got home and Armed Assault takes precedence over this conversation (Its just the way it is! Sorry! :D ), I agree to disagree. To you, it is OK to allow one more biased news agency into this world who is biased (and doesn't plan to change it either - that's the sad part), and you would add a 100 more. But since even you say that this is biased, and in the next sentence tell me that they are accountable and transparant, is kind of what? Hypocritical? That is my problem.

I understand it is your country and they have a news agency that stands up to the garbage the US of A produces (They are almost all garbage, I agree) and you are proud of that. It is commendable. But now you must do your duty and call your representative to get them to give un-biased news, since the last time I checked, or at least this is what every reporter is supposed to strive for. This is the pinnicle of news broadcasting. It is the first thing they will teach you in any media class. To sit here and tell me that this is good stuff when they're biased (and even say they are) is just leading people down the wrong path, who all probably know better here anyway.

Now back to Armed Assault. I need to check out this new sound patch!

-S

[DAB]

Melanie Phillips is a professional journalist, commentator and author.

Are you a professional analyst of journalism? :hmm:
Actually, shes generally considered discredited these days. :rotfl:
Shes denounced far too many people for apparent misdemeaners, only to retract when faced with legal action, to be taken seriously. Can you document this?
Her main problem seems to be a tendency to take a blog entry, email or even word of mouth as proof positive and run with it. Can you document this?
Didn't someone once call her Britains answer to Ann Coultar? The closest correlation I could find documented between the 2 is on this page (http://mpacuk.org/content/view/2121/60/) of the Muslim Public Affairs Commitee - MPACUK. Thanks for the tip. :up:

Maybe it was MPACUK that said it. I don't see why their opinion is any less relevant then yours and mine

And yes to your further question. (Actually I can speak from personal experence)

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?m=200504&paged=2

The part where names are mentioned has actually since been removed because Legal Action was threatened. But it does include in the entry called "Running the Campus Gauntlet", the following

‘Our “Guild of Students” (for some reason we don’t have a union) ha
been filled with rabid Amnesty International types. I find the ideal
that Amnesty was set up with admirable. However, it seems to have been hijacked by those that oppose the state of Israel. There have been a rash of frankly laughable and ridiculous activities to show support for the oppressed Palestinian victims; we have had a “Stop the Wall” evening, conducted with university approval. This evening featured collections for some rather dubious charities, and interpretive dance and drama to “show solidarity and resistance”.

Well the only guild official from the time who was active in Amnesty International was me. And I wasn't even at the event that evening, heck I wasn't even in Europe at the time. Melenie Philips is actually accusing myself and others of partaking in an "Anti Jewish Witch hunt" (thats anti-semitism I believe) on the basis of a letter she recieved from one person. No one at the University or Guild was contacted to confirm the events had actually taken place, nor were we informed the article had actually taken place

The University threatened a lawsuit, the guild threatened a lawsuit, and I and ten other people eventually got written apologies from Miss Philips and our names removed from the website.

Now that is what I call sloppy journalism.

[DAB]

Actually there was a humourous postscript to this story.

Nine Months ago, there was a Friends of Israel event in Westminster which I attended. Miss Philips was actually one of the guest speakers and I made a couple of points about the security problems Israel faced.

At the reception afterwards, she told me how nice it was to meet a "young person" who was pro-Israeli for a change :rotfl:

[joea]

Ah yes press freedom and freedom of speech. :up:

[Tchocky]

To you, it is OK to allow one more biased news agency into this world who is biased (and doesn't plan to change it either - that's the sad part), and you would add a 100 more. But since even you say that this is biased, and in the next sentence tell me that they are accountable and transparant, is kind of what? Hypocritical? That is my problem. Well, a biased agency can still be accountable and transperent. So hypocritical, no. The Guardian has definiitely got a culturally liberal editorial bias, and many of the feature articles and investigative reportage cover issues common to the left, and the editorials often take positions common to the left. However, they are the only newspaper to employ a readers editor, and submit to a rigorous annual ethical audit. I find the BBC to be similiar, fair in receiving and responding to criticism, but not perfect or wholly neutral in reporting.

I understand it is your country and they have a news agency that stands up to the garbage the US of A produces (They are almost all garbage, I agree) and you are proud of that. It is commendable. But now you must do your duty and call your representative to get them to give un-biased news, since the last time I checked, or at least this is what every reporter is supposed to strive for. I'm not British, actually. I'm very fortunate to get the BBC for free :)
Your comments here remind me of the first quote in my post. Your ire seems to be reserved for the BBC and its entry into America, and not the Amercan mainstream media, which to my mind is much more flawed. Calling it the "worst news org ever" doesn't fit (probably the reason this exchange has been quite so protracted, I just don't understand that claim). I would see BBC World beginning broadcasting in the US as raising the bar.
To sit here and tell me that this is good stuff when they're biased (and even say they are) is just leading people down the wrong path, who all probably know better here anyway. Most here would agree that there is no agency without bias. I think the BBC is at the top end, even the self-investigation is a sign of hope. i don't see many other news orgs doing the same thing.
So yeah, I think it's great stuff. This evening I watched a political history of Britain, written and presented by Andrew Marr, who has been on this thread quite a bit.