If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The BBC, Baghdad Broadcast Company is finally exposed.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
"the BBC, which has admitted that Kelly was "the principal source" for its bombshell allegation, is in just as deep trouble.
Politicians said the BBC's acknowledgement called its whole report into question because Kelly had said he did not provide the substance of the report -- that a claim that Saddam could launch banned weapons at just 45 minutes' notice had been overplayed by government officials."
Now let's expose the liars at the BBC for their release of a broadcast, exactly at the moment America was asking for Britian's help, regarding "open fundraising in America for the IRA".
It didn't and wouldn't happen the way the Baghdad Broadcasting Company said, "openly" in the Catholic churches in America.
If you want to be against a war...fine. But then don't call yourself a journalist.
Politicians said the BBC's acknowledgement called its whole report into question because Kelly had said he did not provide the substance of the report -- that a claim that Saddam could launch banned weapons at just 45 minutes' notice had been overplayed by government officials."
Now let's expose the liars at the BBC for their release of a broadcast, exactly at the moment America was asking for Britian's help, regarding "open fundraising in America for the IRA".
It didn't and wouldn't happen the way the Baghdad Broadcasting Company said, "openly" in the Catholic churches in America.
If you want to be against a war...fine. But then don't call yourself a journalist.
0
Comments
*Ahem* that was a daft thing to say.
It must REALLY have hurt you to know, since you have an unhealthy obsession with "terrorism", than many of your fellow Americans have been KNOWLINGLY supporting a terrorist group.
Live with it and stop trying to deny the truth or discredit the messenger.
As for the (unrelated) Kelly issue, many questions remain that need answering about who sexed up the dossier and what Kelly said exactly. That someone had sexed up the dossier very few people doubt. This is just the result of an extremely cocky, arrogant spin doctor attempting to bully anyone who stands in the government's way into submission. And of course, successfully diverting the real issue here: a government that has lied to its country and the world and gone into war under false pretenses. The witch-hunt and supposed indignation of Campbell and the government at the suggestion that they have misled the public (which everyone knows) is just an exercise to divert attention.
It might well be the case the Gilligan misquoted Kelly, in which case he should resign, alongside perhaps with the head of the BBC. But that is yet to be proven, and believe me the BBC hasn't been discredited, regardless of what the Rupert Murdoch's press may say to the contrary (talk about the pot calling the kettle black!).
It is a leftist organisation , I propose it be disinfected before it poisons a new generation with its left-wing views.
TRULY unbiased people should be put in charge , admittedly it would be hard to find people who have no political view or are neutral , but an attempt must be made to do so.
Youre views on the BBC are undoubtedly coloured more by sentiment than by fact. Especially when its clear that the only agenda at work in the editorial policy of BBC is to provide a window of transparency for the public into the machinations of government, labour or torry or otherwise, it makes no difference.
You wont get that from any milk fed corporate spin monger agncy on the airwaves!
But then youre a Daily "Hate" Mail enthusiast so your views come as no surprise to anyone.
Actually timing is of relevance to any news media, and something which right wing corporate spin artists certainly calculate continuously when deciding what fresh propaganda to air to the gullible masses. Why should it be any detriment that the truth which opens the public's eyes for a change happens to be timely as well, pnj?
What good to air information necessary for people to see whats really going on behind the scenes after every other agency has happened to decide it might be more commercially propitious to switch tracks and become critical?
More power to the BBC for having the balls to expose the truth before the rest! It shows their committment to the public and has proven to be sufficient initiative on their part to make other news agencies follow suit or end up being regarded as little more than mouthpieces for corrupt powermongers.
My dad says whenever a t.v. camera is pointed a certain way a choice is made. So always showing casualties isn't good news reporting...it's editorial comment. Of course, never showing them is bogus too.:cool:
Can you explain how the BBC is biased? I don't think this explains anything.
Even the thing you posted somewhere from another news outlet for the UK had one part that was sooo off. It talked about residual anti-British feelings left over from the revolution. I was shocked to read that as fact. The truth is, in school we learn that the revolution happened because of a bad King of England at the time: King George. And that the richest colonists wanted to be known as Londoners...sophisiticated. The truth is when people talk about the UK in America, the exact term they use is "friends." That's used by adults...not just us teens.
The BBC should be allowed to continue its tradition of investigative journalism and its typical that people are trying to put the Focus on the BBC for this whole incident just because they don't want the spotlight on the government..
This article from 1995 is interesting: (From when we had a Tory government)
Flogging the dead horse of bias
From Times - 15/11/1995 (402 words) Peter Barnard
THE Queen's Speech today will announce another Broadcasting Bill and one key battleground during its passage through Parliament is likely to be whether it should contain a clause imposing impartiality on broadcasters, including the BBC. That, along with two audience surveys last week, means the question of BBC bias is once more near the top of the agenda.
Neither survey, from the BBC itself and the Broadcasting Standards Council, had much comfort to offer Tory politicians who are said to be trying to rein in the BBC ahead of the general election campaign. The best that can be said in the politicians' cause is that, according to the BBC survey, 4 per cent of complaints are about bias and, in the bias category, 16 per cent concern political bias.
People who claim to hear bias are split more or less 50-50 as to whether the BBC is Tory-biased or Labour-biased.
This is a thin string on which to hang an impartiality clause but of course the purpose of the Tory thunder is to intimidate the BBC in general, BBC Radio in particular and the Today programme most especially. This Government is not the first to want Today to transpose a couple of letters in its name and become the Toady'' programme.
About the only merit of a bias clause in the Act is that it would posit the prospect of a fantastic piece of entertainment: John Humphrys going to court to be cross-examined by some eminent QC. One could sell tickets for that.
The fact is that politicians queue to be interviewed on Today and then queue to complain about it. 'Twas ever thus. But the audience is clearly more sophisticated than the politicians, and knows the difference between aggression and bias.
Humphrys and Co are tough on Tories, less tough on politicians of a different hue. This is exactly as it should be, for John Major purports to run our lives whereas Tony Blair only aspires to do so.
The Government makes news every day, the Opposition is mostly concerned with reacting to that news. Thus, Labour politicians are broadcast attacking the Government while its own spokespersons get the treatment from Humphrys et al.
But the research shows that listeners see this as perfectly normal. Politicians bleating about bias are flogging a dead horse and the horse is no less deceased just because the Queen is required to ride it.
The allies have been there, how long now, what 2 months isnt it, and havent found ANYTHING.
IF the BBC has made a mistake, yes they should admit it, but I think the government has a lot more to explain than the BBC, EVEN if this story was totaly made up.
No matter how much you claim youve come to learn you continually revert back to Fox News style mindless propaganda and knee jerk reactionism mode.
Exposing the lies of government is not "Anti American", what is Anti American is condoning such lies and aiding in propagating them as has been the case all along with domestic US news sources.
Or perhaps you are suggesting that The Bush admin is the end all and be all of the nation? If so than you need to go back and do some serious revision in Civics.
There was an is no "Anti Americanism" at work, regardless of what your fascist role models claim in order to defend their lying cronies. Neither has there been any overly emotive presentation of the ways in which this concerted effort on both sides of the Atlantic to defraud the public was carried out. Simply a factual revelation that it occurred.
Time to remove the duct tape from your eyes and recognise that the BBC arent the ones who betrayed their sworn oaths and sent our young men and women into a hornets nest for elitist interests, that was and is solely the guilt of our leaders.
Can't help thinking you've got a teensy weensy bit of an axe to grind about the BBC here, Pnj...
What no-one in the government has denied is that the '45 minutes' claim was baseless, so the furore about Gilligan's source seems to have been heated up, and then reheated, for the benefit of only one group of people, and it sure ain't the Beeb.