View Full Version : BBC Madness
I have blown my top today, I am in a very angry mood that bloody PC BBC should be renamed the Muslim Political Correctness Broadcasting Corporation and here's why. :mad: :mad:
BBC bosses in PC row over newsreader's cross
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408437&in_page_id=1770
It's time to give the BBC the :/\\chop
The Noob
10-04-06, 07:10 AM
Crazy. I am against offending muslims with intent (you see what happends if you piss the Radicals off) but that is just...crazy. :nope:
The Avon Lady
10-04-06, 07:10 AM
It's time to give the BBC the :/\\chop
I could have told you that over a decade or 2 ago. :yep:
Al-Jazeera in English is simply a redundancy.
The Avon Lady
10-04-06, 07:11 AM
Crazy. I am against offending muslims with intent (you see what happends if you piss the Radicals off)
Even if it's the truth? Even if it's called for?
Do you comprehend where your attitude is heading?
It's time to give the BBC the :/\\chop
I could have told you that over a decade or 2 ago. :yep:
Al-Jazeera in English is simply a redundancy.
AL, it's much more noticeable now even I will not watch the BBC news. :nope:
Godalmighty83
10-04-06, 07:19 AM
very bad reporting, someone noticed the symbol and it was part of a decision making debate whoo-pee-doo.
i like the bbc and have yet to find a less bias source.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/images/branding/gif/bbc_logo.gif
KNIFE WIELDING MAN ARRESTED AT BBC CENTRE
A man was intercepted by police today whilst trying to forcefully enter the BBC News center carrying a knife, he was believed to have been shouting something about "PC Madness". The mans identity is yet to be revealed by police.
DON'T LOOK AT ME :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :roll: :roll:
Skybird
10-04-06, 07:59 AM
I have red BBC world for years, as well as following their Tv programs until they had been kicked out of local cable network last year. Even me feels like one year or longer that there is a very bad political shifting taking plac einside the BBC. They have lost a lot of my former respect.
I also do not like their new way of doing nature docus, wether it be about the universe, or wild animals, aor whatever. In past decades, BBC docus were very competently done, sometimes spectucular. but nowadays music and narration are doing a message drill towards a directions of sensationalism and human thoughts of competion, war and fighting that has nothing to do anymore with objective description. In earlier years/deacdes their docus described and left it to the viewer to think about what he has seen. today the thinking is pushed and manipulated into a certain directon I find hard to catch in words. The audience is no longer expected to think itself. It is given a (wanted) explaantion, and should believe in that, and feel convinced, and remain shut up - alternative thinking not welcomed.
I wonder why Britain is fighting so bitterly against the EU - if in many details it already is overtaking the folly of Brussel'S pc ambitions and programs. The story Steed is quoting is simply this: totally unacceptable.
Yesterday I saw Geroge Lucas' "THX 1138" on TV, for the second time. The parallels to the present escaped my awareness when I have seen it first time, ten or twelve years bago. Yesterday they left me speechless. Very good movie. It was depressing.
Skybird
10-04-06, 08:04 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/images/branding/gif/bbc_logo.gif
KNIFE WIELDING MAN ARRESTED AT BBC CENTRE
A man was intercepted by police today whilst trying to forcefully enter the BBC News center carrying a knife, he was believed to have been shouting something about "PC Madness". The mans identity is yet to be revealed by police.
Armer Irrer. He has my sympathy. who knows - 15 or 20 years more - and it will be me. Don't want to die in an old people'S home anyway.
Konovalov
10-04-06, 08:14 AM
From my reading of the Daily Mail article it appears that the BBC were internally debating wheather any of it's newsreaders should have the right to wear religious symbols be it a crucifix a headscarf or any other religious or politcal symbol. I can't see any indication in the article that this is as a result of the BBC bowing down to Muslim anger or pressure. As the article highlights:
The BBC was debating whether a female Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf while reading the news when the issue over Ms Bruce's cross was brought up.
The news article continues with:
A source who attended the meeting said: "It was argued that BBC staff on screen should not wear anything which hints or directly points to a political or religious leaning and that the cross contravened this and should not be allowed."
Stephen Whittle, a former controller of editorial policy at the BBC said that the fact that Fiona Bruce had worn a cross while reading the news was a mistake.
"A newsreader should not let themselves get in the way of a story by wearing things that make the audience wonder about the newsreader's own position on a story," said Whittle.
It is understood, however, that Ms Bruce has not been asked to remove the necklace, and that the BBC does not have any official guidelines on the wearing of religious symbols.
Again, I can't see anything in the article to suggest that there has been a Muslim uproar or a raft of complaints into the BBC from British Muslims. And for the record I don't agree with the BBC if it did change it's policy to one where by it's newsreaders could not appear wearing an item of jewellery or clothing such as a crucifix or headscarfe. I would have hoped that BBC management had better and more important things to deal with at the Beeb.
The Avon Lady
10-04-06, 08:15 AM
We don't need no education (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22788_British_Insanity_Watch)! :nope:
DanCanovas
10-04-06, 08:20 AM
the BBC is a pathetic, openly anti-american, anti-israeli, pro-palestinian militant, pro-hezbollah pathetic organisation and Im ashamed to call it British! Hey us Brits have to pay £130 a year for this crap else we are taken to court! the corporation is a disgrace and id find porn channels more informative. :p
the trouble with getting rid of something you have to worry about what will replace it....if in the current pathetic climate of PC the BBC is having paranoid delusions regarding the necklaces of their presenters ....in that climate what do you suppose would be proposed as an alternative????
ultimately if you want to influence what is shown and how it is shown on telly the only thing that would work would be to switch it of entirely and throw it in a skip.....now then if half the country did that you see changes over night..telly is not just telly it's the principal tool of propoganda and population control available to the powers that be (or that don't be that is the question :rotfl: ).....
looking for big brother...look no further than the exact spot in your living room that Orwell predicted it would be...same format.. same message...same purpose:hmm:
sounds over the top.....but how do we know that isn't what were supposed to think when some-one suggest the same thing...and if we do think it's over the top....try to trace exactly why the thought appears over the top. and you might get onto the trail of bread crumbs..not that it matters...
if the BBC can depict the PC version of events and allow it to affect their choices regarding even minute unimportant details such as the jewelry worn by their presenters...then the public will accept it without question as correct..or enough of them to ensure it gets woven into the general publics way of looking at the world....and who elects the government??? the public does..
The Noob
10-04-06, 09:05 AM
Crazy. I am against offending muslims with intent (you see what happends if you piss the Radicals off) Even if it's the truth? Even if it's called for?
Yes.
Do you comprehend where your attitude is heading?
Yes. It's heading thorwards Duck and Cover, thorwards saving my a**. No need to cause trouble if i can just shout up and continue in peace.
The Avon Lady
10-04-06, 09:25 AM
Crazy. I am against offending muslims with intent (you see what happends if you piss the Radicals off) Even if it's the truth? Even if it's called for?
Yes.
Do you comprehend where your attitude is heading?
Yes. It's heading thorwards Duck and Cover, thorwards saving my a**. No need to cause trouble if i can just shout up and continue in peace.
Suggested reading: While Europe Slept (http://www.brucebawer.com/).
Good luck, Europe! :nope:
Hey us Brits have to pay £130 a year for this crap else we are taken to court!
Well I stopped last year and had three red letters and a bloke representing the BBC around knocking on my door and asking do I live here, which I answered sorry can not help you don't know the person your asking for. By the way never let them in without a warrant to inspect your home without a policeman with them.
So I'm waiting for my next letter or another visit, out of interest there is a guy in the U.K. who is doing battle with the BBC though the courts he believes the licence fee is a criminal act as it has not got the permission of the government.
The Avon Lady
10-04-06, 12:06 PM
Crazy. I am against offending muslims with intent (you see what happends if you piss the Radicals off) Even if it's the truth? Even if it's called for?
Yes.
Do you comprehend where your attitude is heading?
Yes. It's heading thorwards Duck and Cover, thorwards saving my a**. No need to cause trouble if i can just shout up and continue in peace.
Suggested reading: While Europe Slept (http://www.brucebawer.com/).
Good luck, Europe! :nope:
It's not just Europe. A taste of things to come (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqvHK2CPB4).
While we're at it, another popular Churchill quote is appropriate:
"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocidile hoping it will eat him last."
Good luck, Europe! :nope:It's not just Europe. A taste of things to come (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqvHK2CPB4).
Sounds like your tube is going down the tubes.
Sorry all for such a cheap joke. :lol:
TteFAboB
10-04-06, 12:33 PM
Are these people on Britain's side?
They could dress a presenter as a Nun as far as I care and if she talked about how wonderful North Korea is and why Britain should slowly and progressively copy the North Korean model it wouldn't be any different if they had the presenter dressed as Satan.
From my reading of the Daily Mail article it appears that the BBC were internally debating wheather any of it's newsreaders should have the right to wear religious symbols be it a crucifix a headscarf or any other religious or politcal symbol. I can't see any indication in the article that this is as a result of the BBC bowing down to Muslim anger or pressure. As the article highlights:
The BBC was debating whether a female Muslim newsreader should be allowed to wear a headscarf while reading the news when the issue over Ms Bruce's cross was brought up.
The news article continues with:
A source who attended the meeting said: "It was argued that BBC staff on screen should not wear anything which hints or directly points to a political or religious leaning and that the cross contravened this and should not be allowed."
Stephen Whittle, a former controller of editorial policy at the BBC said that the fact that Fiona Bruce had worn a cross while reading the news was a mistake.
"A newsreader should not let themselves get in the way of a story by wearing things that make the audience wonder about the newsreader's own position on a story," said Whittle.
It is understood, however, that Ms Bruce has not been asked to remove the necklace, and that the BBC does not have any official guidelines on the wearing of religious symbols.
Again, I can't see anything in the article to suggest that there has been a Muslim uproar or a raft of complaints into the BBC from British Muslims. And for the record I don't agree with the BBC if it did change it's policy to one where by it's newsreaders could not appear wearing an item of jewellery or clothing such as a crucifix or headscarfe. I would have hoped that BBC management had better and more important things to deal with at the Beeb.
Agree, newsreader's should not show a political or religieus preference.
This forum is becoming more and more authoritarian. :down:
NEON DEON
10-04-06, 01:10 PM
I can’t fault the BBC for wanting to present themselves as being objective.
The news has to be objective.
Since it must report in an objective manner it must also present in an objective manner.
Wearing of religious symbols on TV while reporting on a story of religious significance, does not project objectivity. Therefore presenters of the news must keep an appearance that displays neutrality at all times.
A reporter covering a war does not present as objective if he is doing so with a peace symbol on his helmet no more than he would present as objective reporting it with a skull and cross bones on his helmet.
If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.
Skybird
10-04-06, 01:55 PM
News speakers should present the news dressed in wide grey sacking that hides any body contours, with a shaved skull and and a mask so that no heterosexual man or woman and no lesbo and no gay can take offense from sexual discrimination. Alternatively, a burkha for both dhimmi females and dhimmi males would be an ideal alternative. Instead of necklace and neckties, news reporters could wear a decorative yellow spot on their sacking. They should also take off any rings, so that unmarried people cannot feel excluded. I agree, the news needs to be reported objectively. BBC reporters should also avoid anything that could identify Britain as part of the Christian Western European cultural sphere. -There is a rumour that the Bavarian and Austrian greeting phrase "Grüß Gott!" will be banned soon for reasons of religious discrimination. The alternative phrase being considered is "Friede sei mit dir." It is very pc by word content, for it emphasizes the importance of peace and generosity and avoids any unwanted link to the aggression of the crusaders.
I can’t fault the BBC for wanting to present themselves as being objective.
The news has to be objective.
Since it must report in an objective manner it must also present in an objective manner.
Wearing of religious symbols on TV while reporting on a story of religious significance, does not project objectivity. Therefore presenters of the news must keep an appearance that displays neutrality at all times.
A reporter covering a war does not present as objective if he is doing so with a peace symbol on his helmet no more than he would present as objective reporting it with a skull and cross bones on his helmet.
If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.
The problem is banning the symbol does not eliminate the potential bias, it just camoflages it. I'd rather see newspeople and other public officials wear their religious, business and social accoutrements so i know where they are coming from.
Personally if it were up to me every politician would wear be required by law to wear their sponsors logos on their clothing and vehicles. I don't care if it made them look like nascar drivers, at least we know who they are beholding too.
can we sue the BBC for inciting religious hatred ..because they're really beginning to p*ss me off....
News speakers should present the news dressed in wide grey sacking that hides any body contours, with a shaved skull and and a mask so that no heterosexual man or woman and no lesbo and no gay can take offense from sexual discrimination. Alternatively, a burkha for both dhimmi females and dhimmi males would be an ideal alternative. Instead of necklace and neckties, news reporters could wear a decorative yellow spot on their sacking. They should also take off any rings, so that unmarried people cannot feel excluded. I agree, the news needs to be reported objectively. BBC reporters should also avoid anything that could identify Britain as part of the Christian Western European cultural sphere. -There is a rumour that the Bavarian and Austrian greeting phrase "Grüß Gott!" will be banned soon for reasons of religious discrimination. The alternative phrase being considered is "Friede sei mit dir." It is very pc by word content, for it emphasizes the importance of peace and generosity and avoids any unwanted link to the aggression of the crusaders.
Had a heavy meal? :cool:
snowsub
10-04-06, 04:23 PM
The problem is banning the symbol does not eliminate the potential bias, it just camoflages it. I'd rather see newspeople and other public officials wear their religious, business and social accoutrements so i know where they are coming from.
Personally if it were up to me every politician would wear be required by law to wear their sponsors logos on their clothing and vehicles. I don't care if it made them look like nascar drivers, at least we know who they are beholding too.
The news reader is just calling out the autoque, it's the editors bias that no-one sees that is the problem
If you want just make the presenters go like nakednews :rotfl:
NEON DEON
10-04-06, 05:24 PM
I can’t fault the BBC for wanting to present themselves as being objective.
The news has to be objective.
Since it must report in an objective manner it must also present in an objective manner.
Wearing of religious symbols on TV while reporting on a story of religious significance, does not project objectivity. Therefore presenters of the news must keep an appearance that displays neutrality at all times.
A reporter covering a war does not present as objective if he is doing so with a peace symbol on his helmet no more than he would present as objective reporting it with a skull and cross bones on his helmet.
If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.
The problem is banning the symbol does not eliminate the potential bias, it just camoflages it. I'd rather see newspeople and other public officials wear their religious, business and social accoutrements so i know where they are coming from.
Personally if it were up to me every politician would wear be required by law to wear their sponsors logos on their clothing and vehicles. I don't care if it made them look like nascar drivers, at least we know who they are beholding too.
The BBC wants to present as credible to viewers when reporting the news.
They can not do that while wearing religious symbols. That should be obvious because of the action the BBC took. We are talking about the news here. Not TV talk shows, sit coms, dramas, or variety shows.
JUST THE NEWS.
Lets look at lighter news like sports. If the sportscaster on TV is wearing a Jets uniform and says the jets are a shoe in to win the Super Bowl, the only way I am going to believe him is if I am a jets fan. He has lost his credibility.
As far as I can make from the radio reports the TV presenter had every right to wear her cross as there are no BBC rules saying newsreaders are banned. This is a clear cut case of PC loonies in the BBC raking it up and causing problems, I don't see any other TV station news in my country saying the same thing. This is a disgraceful act by the BBC and they should be a shamed of themselves for acting in this manner.
DanCanovas
10-05-06, 04:24 AM
i presume any muslim newsreaders in the BBC wont be able to wear a head scarf without an uproar. Something makes me think otherwise. If its christian it needs to be suppressed so we dont offend minorities, if its those minorities themselves then its promoting muliculturalism and learning about other people. hmmm. smacks of hypocrisy to me.
it all reminds me of a neurotic houswife franticaly cleaning her ornaments whilst there's a riot in the street out side...it's all fine as long as the royal doulton is dusted....it's just nonsense...political correctness is basicaly dishonest in nature...it acts like the truth (what ever that may be) is a stray dog that no one wants in their home in case it makes a mess on their pristine carpet...
The Avon Lady
10-05-06, 05:55 AM
it all reminds me of a neurotic houswife franticaly cleaning her ornaments whilst there's a riot in the street out side
Am I on Candid Camera?! :shifty:
:p
HunterICX
10-05-06, 11:59 AM
:down: We cant wear jewels that represend our religion anymore? in our own country on our own TV channel?
Who is that idiot that ''thinks'' wearing an cross has an insulting result against muslims? WTF!?!
now this brings on my steam lets see.
I,m Dutch and this is what I noticed, but I think that in other countries this is happening as well:
*Are allowed to represent their religion by clothing or jewelry
*They can build a lot of mosque
*On dutch televesion in the afternoon there are programs SUBTITLED IN ARABIC!
*They can insults us in many ways and get away with it.
*In holland they are planning to build a MUSLIM HOSPITAL!
*They wanted, (lucky that didnt happend) an Squar where they can express their religion, beating the wifes and stuff:stare:
We in arabic countries:
*are not allowed to express our religion in any kind (clothes or symbols)
*Cant have as many Churches there. , in some country NONE!
*If we say something that is true, but they find it insulting they create a mayor rampage about it.
Well my meaning about all this Crap is, I find it Enough already , In holland I couldnt feel safe on the streets. My friend's friend got stabbed and died of it because they wanted his mobile phone. He got arrested and the parents of the arab criminals said '' HE HAD THE FULLY RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF'' :x Now from what? for not giving his own mobile phone to him?
We in holland are putting Millions in an program to help them to Adjust in our country, but most part they refuse to adjust themself and so I call it a waste of money. And they dont even behave, they do what they want and dont give a single sh!t what we think about it, You know what I say? ''If you dont behave, Get ur ass back to your own country and to that crap you do here over there!''
Arabic Subtitles on dutch channel, I find this ridiculious, we are sending them free to learn the dutch language. here In spain there is not channel with Dutch subtitles nor English. I had to learn first before I could understand where they talked about on TV. So why ruining the screen with subtitles when they have to learn dutch.
IF someone says ''The Muslim religion is ridiculious'' is in big trouble, and the funny part about it , HE'S RIGHT , it is a Stupid religion, and they even want that we the western country must also follow the lines of the Muslim religion, WHAT!?!
just see today the day how much influence they have in our way of living , to be right , I think we are living in fear, because no one is doing something about this mayor problem. I think if we prohibited the building of mosques and people expressing the muslim religion via clother and jewelry at the beginning , they wouldnt stay long or even not even coming over here.
Now also I see on Tv those Muslim fellas , screaming on an protest to stop DISCRIMINATION, Fine by me , but You muslims first :D and Adjust in our country please? if not , I will keep calling those ALLAAAH AKBAAR screaming muslim dogs , a bunch of idiots till the end of my life.
just my thoughts though, sorry if it went OT
The Avon Lady
10-05-06, 12:15 PM
Let's call it a draw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgHfq0epSJg). :p
NEON DEON
10-05-06, 04:51 PM
As far as I can make from the radio reports the TV presenter had every right to wear her cross as there are no BBC rules saying newsreaders are banned. This is a clear cut case of PC loonies in the BBC raking it up and causing problems, I don't see any other TV station news in my country saying the same thing. This is a disgraceful act by the BBC and they should be a shamed of themselves for acting in this manner.
Yes the BBC should be ashamed of themselves for wanting to present the NEWS in an impartial manner.
I suggest you don’t watch the BBC anymore. If you are that upset about it, switch the channel. Get cable or satellite TV. Watch the 700 Club. I am sure you can find plenty of Christian symbols there.
Skybird
10-05-06, 06:04 PM
One thing I would like to know - was it
a.) a demonstrative oversized cross, ten centimeters or bigger, worn with a clear intention to represent a given religious or political or ideological or any other kind of agenda, and an "Amen!" on her lips after each report finished reading?
b.) or was it more likely one of these miniature crucifixes that are worn by so many people for no other reason than habit and using it as a fashionable ascessoir that can be bought at thousands of streets stands, or because it was a gift my a caring grandmother? Maybe that is why she was allowed to wear it for many years before, then?
If b.), then I don't know what the big show is about, and why.
And if a.), then I don't know either - isn't Britain a nation of Christian heritage and Western culture and has always been since the celtic and druid religions withdrew?
The latter question maybe must be asked about the BBC, too, without the positive answer so very much obvious, maybe.
Yes the BBC should be ashamed of themselves for wanting to present the NEWS in an impartial manner.
I suggest you don’t watch the BBC anymore. If you are that upset about it, switch the channel. Get cable or satellite TV. Watch the 700 Club. I am sure you can find plenty of Christian symbols there.
The BBC news sucks up to Islam so is that impatial?
The BBC loonies who came out with this PC Crap are left wing Dumbo's who waste the BBC licence fee but that's another subject.
Tchocky
10-05-06, 08:39 PM
To my mind, the BBC produces the best news, on the telly, radio and Web.
This wasn't the BBC telling Fiona Bruce she can't wear her cross, it was one part of a discussion on religious symbols appearing on a state broadcast network.
So quit with this horrible inflation.
DanCanovas
10-06-06, 04:45 AM
maybe you think its the best news because you agree with its views.
Tchocky
10-06-06, 11:27 AM
I never find myself nodding along with a newsreader, if that's what you mean?
I prefer the BBC for sheer scale and scope of coverage. Having lived in America for the last two months, I am disgusted daily by the amount of news that is left out of broadcasts/websites.
Update
Clear cut case of PC Madness.
Fiona Bruce removes cross after PC debate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=409074&in_page_id=1773
madDdog67
10-08-06, 10:30 AM
I'm right in the middle of Melanie Philip's book "Londonistan". Very sobering read, and this is a perfect example of exactly what she's talking about. I can only imagine where England will be in another 10 years, given the appeasers, PC judges run amok, and Imams preaching treason and sedition with nary a whisper from the powers that be.
Plus, I'm guessing there's a little anti-Christian element to this particular element as well.
NEON DEON
10-08-06, 12:40 PM
71 % of the population of the UK is Christian.
The next closest group would be Islam at 2.7 %.
Yet some people here would have you believe the British Broadcasting Company is partial to Muslims. I do not understand the motive behind this belief. Why would one believe the BBC would want to be impartial to 71% of the UK?
BTW
If you believe in Democracy, Then you have to understand it:
One of the fundamental things a modern democracy must do, is protect the minority from the majority. That is why you have to have a bill of rights that apply equally to all citizens of a democracy.
scandium
10-08-06, 08:50 PM
I can’t fault the BBC for wanting to present themselves as being objective.
The news has to be objective.
Since it must report in an objective manner it must also present in an objective manner.
Wearing of religious symbols on TV while reporting on a story of religious significance, does not project objectivity. Therefore presenters of the news must keep an appearance that displays neutrality at all times.
A reporter covering a war does not present as objective if he is doing so with a peace symbol on his helmet no more than he would present as objective reporting it with a skull and cross bones on his helmet.
If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.
The problem is banning the symbol does not eliminate the potential bias, it just camoflages it. I'd rather see newspeople and other public officials wear their religious, business and social accoutrements so i know where they are coming from.
Personally if it were up to me every politician would wear be required by law to wear their sponsors logos on their clothing and vehicles. I don't care if it made them look like nascar drivers, at least we know who they are beholding too.
Indeed. :up:
thestoon
10-09-06, 05:32 AM
Hey us Brits have to pay £130 a year for this crap else we are taken to court!
Well I stopped last year and had three red letters and a bloke representing the BBC around knocking on my door and asking do I live here, which I answered sorry can not help you don't know the person your asking for. By the way never let them in without a warrant to inspect your home without a policeman with them.
So I'm waiting for my next letter or another visit, out of interest there is a guy in the U.K. who is doing battle with the BBC though the courts he believes the licence fee is a criminal act as it has not got the permission of the government.
He will lose, as will you. If the TV licence wasn't given to the BBC it would just go into the general government fund.
Channel 4's digital switch over is also being paid with by the license fee.. that can't be right - advertising AND your money!!!! :nope:
And as for the permission of the government - where did you get that from... its a criminal not civil matter if you chose to not pay your TV license, hence its written in law, hence the government quite clearly gave permission for it.
The BBC collects it directly now, whereas the Home Office used to, but the requirement to have one in law has not changed.
And as for the permission of the government - where did you get that from...
From the gentlemen who are heard on the radio some months ago and he has a case against the BBC and good luck to him. As for me I have now got rid of my TV so bring it on BBC with your letters and callers I am the one who is laughing now. :p :smug: :lol:
PS: I can watch my mates TV and yes he has a licence.
madDdog67
10-09-06, 02:52 PM
One of the fundamental things a modern democracy must do, is protect the minority from the majority. That is why you have to have a bill of rights that apply equally to all citizens of a democracy.
So what exactly is the BBC "protecting" the muslim minority from? Persectution? Is anyone denying them the right to practice their own religion? So what does a newscaster's wearing of a small cross convey to muslims...that another religion, apart from their own, actually exists and some folks practice might it? Jeesh...heaven forbid they'd have to face THAT prospect.
Protecting the rights of the minority and letting the minority dictate what the majority can/can't do are two vastly different things.
NEON DEON
10-09-06, 04:10 PM
[quote=madDdog67
Protecting the rights of the minority and letting the minority dictate what the majority can/can't do are two vastly different things.[/quote]
Yes they are.
That however has nothing to do with impartial new broadcasts.
madDdog67
10-10-06, 08:49 AM
[quote=madDdog67
Protecting the rights of the minority and letting the minority dictate what the majority can/can't do are two vastly different things.
Yes they are.
That however has nothing to do with impartial new broadcasts.[/quote]
yes, but your basic premise that a broadcast is flawed merely because the news is read by someone with a cross around their neck is nonsensical. And, honestly, I would have expected someone who most likely reads the LA Times every day to have realized that the "news" is anything BUT impartial. Especially in the U.S., the "news" exists merely to sell advertising, and further the political agenda of the owner/editorial staff.
Isn't the BBC government owned? If you think they've destroyed their impartiality by allowing one news-reader to wear a cross, you should be absolutely apoplectic over the fact the the .gov *owns* the organization. :D
NEON DEON
10-10-06, 06:26 PM
[quote=madDdog67
Protecting the rights of the minority and letting the minority dictate what the majority can/can't do are two vastly different things.
Yes they are.
That however has nothing to do with impartial new broadcasts.
yes, but your basic premise that a broadcast is flawed merely because the news is read by someone with a cross around their neck is nonsensical. And, honestly, I would have expected someone who most likely reads the LA Times every day to have realized that the "news" is anything BUT impartial. Especially in the U.S., the "news" exists merely to sell advertising, and further the political agenda of the owner/editorial staff.
Isn't the BBC government owned? If you think they've destroyed their impartiality by allowing one news-reader to wear a cross, you should be absolutely apoplectic over the fact the the .gov *owns* the organization. :D[/quote]
I never said the news was flawed by wearing a cross.
I did, however, say this:
Post #23
I can’t fault the BBC for wanting to present themselves as being objective.
The news has to be objective.
Since it must report in an objective manner it must also present in an objective manner.
Wearing of religious symbols on TV while reporting on a story of religious significance, does not project objectivity. Therefore presenters of the news must keep an appearance that displays neutrality at all times.
A reporter covering a war does not present as objective if he is doing so with a peace symbol on his helmet no more than he would present as objective reporting it with a skull and cross bones on his helmet.
If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.
:D
madDdog67
10-10-06, 08:03 PM
If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.
:D[/quote]
Well, we can agree on that...but my contention is that editorializing is all we get now...but that's another story.
The dress/jewelry/accoutrements of the newscaster really don't factor into whether or not I find the content "objective". If I were to see a star of David around the anchor's neck, I wouldn't immediately assume the news is biased in favor of Israel. But that's just me. But how far do you want to take this?
For example, should I believe a newstation is biased for women's rights if they have a female presenter? Biased against women if they have a male presenter? Biased against straight people of they have a gay presenter? Religion, sex, etc, all can exert biases on a person's viewpoint.
I'd be interested to see your example of a completely unbiased news organization. I don't think one truly exists anymore...not even the beeb. And the bottom line is, if they folks think the news is biased because the newsperson sports a piece of jewelry, well...here's where it gets tricky...they don't have to friggin' watch it!! There are plenty of other news sources around.
The Avon Lady
10-16-06, 11:34 AM
I have blown my top today, I am in a very angry mood that bloody PC BBC should be renamed the Muslim Political Correctness Broadcasting Corporation and here's why. :mad: :mad:
BBC bosses in PC row over newsreader's cross
BBC bosses in PC row over newsreader's cross (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408437&in_page_id=1770)
Here's another reason why:
BBC Suing to Suppress Critical Report on Mideast Coverage (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22971_BBC_Suing_to_Suppress_Critical_Report _on_ME_Coverage).
We've been calling them the Balestinian Broadcasting Corporation for decades. :yep:
Here's another reason why:
BBC Suing to Suppress Critical Report on Mideast Coverage (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22971_BBC_Suing_to_Suppress_Critical_Report _on_ME_Coverage).
We've been calling them the Balestinian Broadcasting Corporation for decades. :yep:
I am just glad I am not paying a licence fee anymore. The BBC news service is a disgrace. :nope:
And there is this one
BBC set to launch TV channel in Iran (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=409637&in_page_id=1770)
SUBMAN1
10-16-06, 01:52 PM
Crazy. I am against offending muslims with intent (you see what happends if you piss the Radicals off) Even if it's the truth? Even if it's called for?
Yes.
Do you comprehend where your attitude is heading?
Yes. It's heading thorwards Duck and Cover, thorwards saving my a**. No need to cause trouble if i can just shout up and continue in peace.
Wow! Good thing you don't live in my country because we don't need ideas like this or people not willing to stand up to ideas like this! They will kill you anyway since you are an infidel. Better to go fighting.
-S
PS. By the way, due to their very nature, there will never be peace. THey are animals that follow a path blindly without question.
The Avon Lady
10-17-06, 06:57 AM
Here's another reason why:
BBC Suing to Suppress Critical Report on Mideast Coverage (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22971_BBC_Suing_to_Suppress_Critical_Report _on_ME_Coverage).
We've been calling them the Balestinian Broadcasting Corporation for decades. :yep:
I am just glad I am not paying a licence fee anymore. The BBC news service is a disgrace. :nope:
It appears that the South Africans have learned from the BBC (http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2006/10/a_black_and_whi.html).
Or is it the other way around? :hmm:
Abd_von_Mumit
02-11-08, 09:45 AM
[quote=The Noob]PS. By the way, due to their very nature, there will never be peace. THey are animals that follow a path blindly without question.
Hmm... I was to post a long comment about this, but eventually I deleted what I wrote as I feel it's completely useless.
However, this thread makes me vomit, when I see all this hatred towards Muslims (you mess Muslims with Arabs, as well as with imigrants), expressed FREELY and without reaction of the Forum staff (imagine what would happen if anyone stated Jews were animals). Some of you are sick from hatred, guys, it needs treatment.
Have you noticed no Muslims here expressed hatred against you or Europe or Christianity, America or whatever?
Kapitan_Phillips
02-11-08, 09:55 AM
What's with the zombie threads?
Abd_von_Mumit
02-11-08, 10:25 AM
What's with the zombie threads?
Oh, you're right, I haven't noticed the dates (went here from link). My fault. :shifty:
Happy Times
02-11-08, 10:55 AM
[quote=The Noob]PS. By the way, due to their very nature, there will never be peace. THey are animals that follow a path blindly without question.
Hmm... I was to post a long comment about this, but eventually I deleted what I wrote as I feel it's completely useless.
However, this thread makes me vomit, when I see all this hatred towards Muslims (you mess Muslims with Arabs, as well as with imigrants), expressed FREELY and without reaction of the Forum staff (imagine what would happen if anyone stated Jews were animals). Some of you are sick from hatred, guys, it needs treatment.
Have you noticed no Muslims here expressed hatred against you or Europe or Christianity, America or whatever?
Il start therapy when i see some change in the muslim communities and countries.:doh:
What's with the zombie threads?
Here, here. :yep:
I'm the boss of this thread and it's done it's bit. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Zayphod
02-11-08, 03:04 PM
We don't need no education (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22788_British_Insanity_Watch)! :nope:
I loved this comment on that story:
At times like this I like to play a game called "Imagine If..."
Imagine if a non-Muslim teacher yelled at a bunch of Islamic school kids that Mohamed was a pedophile. That Islam is responsible for just about all the terrorist attacks against the west. That Islam is not a part of the West’s traditions of freedom and liberty and in fact Islamic inspired laws are oppressive and offensive to our historical beliefs.
Does anyone believe that this non-Muslim teacher would have kept his or her job let alone be promoted some day?
Nope, me neither.
How true. In fact, that teacher would have probably lost their head of the incident.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.