BBC World Ad Campaign (Pic)

[DAB]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

:rotfl:

Can you document this?

Can you document this?

The closest correlation I could find documented between the 2 is on this page of the Muslim Public Affairs Commitee - MPACUK. Thanks for the tip.

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.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.