Sailor Steve is correct, good catch Steve. Safe-Keeper you haven't understood what I've tried to say, obviously I've failed to summarize properly.
"debating the benefits of Sharia to avoid appearing unbalanced against it." Example: invite the Australian High Cleric to take the pro-Sharia side in a debate, if he believes he is allowed to outright lie then there will be no debate, only misinformation, he can also limit himself to damage-control and in either case there will be no learning and no informing and afterall no debate. No objective opinion can be formed upon this.
Then there's the artificial neutrality, for every bad report about this you must have one good report about that. For every negative there must be a positive regardless of any objective reality. In equalizing the unequal by force, the worst is benefitted, the lie.
That's it, the rest is rhetorical air. "Then don't watch it", I watch whatever the hell I want, care or bother to, and you have nothing to do with it wether it frightens you or displeases you, it is also required to do so to form objective opinions on tv channels. "They can't report because you don't like it", of course they can, I don't have to approve of anything pal, I leave that to dictatorships and despots.
"The media is there to inform you. Its reason for existance is to tell you what happens, why it happens, and how it happens. Otherwise they're just propaganda senders, like a certain foxy channel in the US." Otherwise? Seems like I'm not the one who likes being told what happens, why it happens and how it happens. Think you got the whole objectivity thing inverted there.
I wouldn't put nearly as much trust in the media as you seem to do, especially not if I'm concerned about propaganda.
I'd end it here while it's fun but it seems you have edited the last paragraph to add personal insults, so:
Quote:
Yeah, that'll work. Six little words and they'll stop mud-slinging those who don't agree with them. Sigh, if only it was so easy.
Oh, and yes, that is why you bash BBC: Because its politics do not word-for-word match those of you. If it was solely about them being biased, you'd apply the same scorn to right-winged outlets such as FOX "News". The fact that you single BBC out for attack speaks novels about your true intentions
|
So that's your true intention right there, "If only it was so easy", you want to silence those who displease or disagree with you. You accuse me of mud-slinging, do a reality check first. You say I'm bashing the BBC, what part of internal executive confessions you didn't get? It seems like you bash me and accuse me of mud-slinging because I don't agree word-for-word with you, or better, you don't agree word-for-word with me. Why do you ignore the part where I've inserted Fox News allong with
ALL other channels right at the beginning, an absolute broad category, even more encompassing than your generic "the media"? Plus the fact that I've only mentioned Fox News to dequalify Xabby's sarcastic comment that it was an opposite to the BBC, this had nothing to do with Fox News from the beginning nor with media in general. It is specific to the objective fact that somebody leaked a document where BBC officials confess their bias and that's their word not mine.
You entire post is based on a false assumption, on a lie, a fiction, a wrong conclusion and it only stands as long as it is kept inside its own bubble of fantasy. Sorry to ruin the party but I'm popping your balloon, quoting myself:
Quote:
|
Nope. Fox News is no "opposite" to any News channel out there. As ALL of them(...)
|
So everything you wrote no longer stands. I do not single-out the BBC or disagree when something's not word-for-word etc. Now it's my turn: I believe you are just projecting all this stuff into me and all your critics fit perfectly right back at you.