More on the Fair™ and Balanced™ one

[Timber Loftis]

Hey, I resemble resent that remark! [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

Actually, I rarely watch Fox news. In fact, I guess I don't watch Fox much at all anymore, except that I like to watch the teens having sex on "The OC" (modern attempt to make a 90210 show). I just wanted a reason to drag out my favorite smiley.

Now I need a reason to drag out my second favorite. Hmmm.....

But, I'm guessing you're right about many Fox viewers, but that is of course only based on statistics and our horrible illeteracy rate in the US. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: My point is that this isn't true of televised media in the UK - its perfectly true of print media but not televised media. They simply aren't allowed to be biased in any way, and whilst you may think the Beeb was anti american I most strongly disagree personally. My whole point in the last thread on Fox was about the difference in convention in televised news media between the US and the UK. Over here we would be aghast at the concept of what you've mentioned above being the case, as its a convention that there can be absolutely no bias and largely thats been stuck to. Whereas of course in the US its considered so second nature and unobjectionable that people think we're just plain stupid to think we have it any different. My whole point is that we're both so used to what we've got that we have trouble comphrending the possibility of the other system working. I'm not arguing that one system is better that the other just yet, I'm just saying that both systems do exist.

{sigh} I wish we DID have a system more like Britain's - at least for the National News.

In America, we have two different levels of televised news - the "local" news (which deals primarily with events located around a specific city or region) and the National News (which deals with stories from all parts of the U.S. and stories from other countries as well. I don't expect the local news to be impartial, after all, they are targeting a very specific audience. But the National News is targeting the entire country. Because of that, it should be completely objective in it's presentation. But it isn't. The 3 major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) try to avoid being open or blantant in their spinning. It is often just a subtle reference or phrase that tends to favor one view over the other. Fox - on the other hand - has NO PROBLEM is showing their blantant favoritism to the conservative view.

I do want to offer an apology to Grojlach, Donut, and Barry. As I said, my views on the BBC being "anti-American" and "anti-Bush" were based on threads from the War Forum. Obviously, those articles that Gilligan did (and others like them) were the only ones discussed there with any regularity...so it did give the impression that the BBC was "anti-American". I don't have access to BBC to check it out for myself...and I wouldn't have the time even if I did. I rarely get to watch ANY News programs with 3 kids in the house. LOL

I didn't mean to seem as if I were slamming the BBC. I was just asking Barry to list the numerous lies from Fox's report. And as I said, my recollection of the BBC articles discussed here before gave me the impression they were "anti-American" (at least during the War). I know I've "crossed swords" with each of you in the past, but I wasn't trying to start an argument (at least not this time ), nor was I advocating that Fox was a more worthy News Source than the BBC. They are more worthy than, say, the National Enquirer, or The Star...but that's about it.

[Timber Loftis]

Has anyone ever noted what newspapers typically printed for articles in the past -- say, around the time of the US Constitution? It might be enlightening. In fact, we may be glad that news rags are more news than gossip these days.

[Barry the Sprout]

Ah, its no problem Cerek, and you certainy don't owe us an apology in my opinion. As for the lies the guy was telling the stuff calling the Beeb anti-war, anti-american, and saying that it had lied was all incorrect. I don't know the Gilligan story he was referring to but the Iraqi population are hardly greeting the US and UK armies with open arms even now, which seems to be the inference of his report. He then claims that Kelly killed himself because of Gilligan distorting what he said. This is untrue as firstly Gilligan reported almost verbatim what Kelly said and Kelly killed himself after the MoD released his name to the press, not after the story had been broadcast. Finally he finishes with a typical Fox whine that the BBC should stop criticising them, something I've never heard them do in any single broadcast, and then claims the BBC has been caught lying by an impartial inquiry. The BBC was, if I remember correctly, considered to have exxagerated the emphasis of Kelly's words, not lied about what he actually said. Also if this report was impartial then I'll eat my hat.

Thats all I can remember off hand, and I haven't listened to it in a few days...

[Skunk]

Gilligan stated that Dr. David Kelly had told him that the government had spiced up its infamous WMD report that it released to the public. According to Gilligan, Kelly agreed with him when he said:
so essentially you're saying that the document was 'sexed up'.

The judge ruled that this claim by Gilligan (with regards to Kelly) could not be proven. While it is true that Gilligan can not prove what Kelly said, (owing to the latter's unfortunate death), it does not mean that he lied. It just means that no-one prove or disprove his statement.

It is certainly TRUE that the British government ordered the wording of the document to be changed to make the threat appear much larger than it actually was. The evidence supporting this was already heard at the Hutton inquiry and Kelly's boss has again reiterated it in recent interviews.

If the BBC was guilty of anything, it was in failing to address the government's complaints in a fair manner - but even then, according to letters released by the BBC, the government had been inundated with complaints and threats from Downing street over its reporting of the Iraq war.

During the war, the BBC took the line that if it's own reporters or an independant source could not confirm what the government was releasing to the press, it would still report them but label them 'unconfirmed reports'. It did the same for the other side and any other reports.

Alistair Campbell took issue with this and demanded that the BBC took his every word to be Gospel truth - something unpalitable to good journalists.

This is what happened when US tanks arrived in Bagdad. The BBC refused to confirm it as it's own reporters in the Palestine Hotel could not (at that point) see the tanks and it did not have reporters in the US tank division concerned.

I can not see anything wrong in this.

[Timber Loftis]

What about when the Beeb (world service) was reporting that US forces were not in Baghdad when all the other stations were shooting us footage of the airport and tanks rolling into downtown? It was a lie (unlikely) or stupidity (more likely). Either way it was embarrassing journalism.

Why fret over biased information so much? All sources of information has a bias. Even down to the single journalist. Journalists often talk of how they try to set their personal feelings aside and just report the news, but inevitably human nature -- and bias -- comes into play.

[Barry the Sprout]

Timber, I haven't the strength to type out everything I've written in this thread again, but suffice to say I recommend you read it as I've been addressing exactly the same point you've just bought up.

[Timber Loftis]

Barry, I went looking for all the reams of material you'd typed that I might be missing. I found this:

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: My point is that this isn't true of televised media in the UK - its perfectly true of print media but not televised media. They simply aren't allowed to be biased in any way, and whilst you may think the Beeb was anti american I most strongly disagree personally. My whole point in the last thread on Fox was about the difference in convention in televised news media between the US and the UK. Over here we would be aghast at the concept of what you've mentioned above being the case, as its a convention that there can be absolutely no bias and largely thats been stuck to. Whereas of course in the US its considered so second nature and unobjectionable that people think we're just plain stupid to think we have it any different. My whole point is that we're both so used to what we've got that we have trouble comphrending the possibility of the other system working.

and this:

BBC were by no means either anti-war or anti-american as an institution. Gilligan probably was anti-war...

So, these kinda relate to my most recent point, but I don't see how you've been "addressing" those points all along. Oh, and I made two points -- not one.

Anyway, I don't grok what you're trying to tell me I missed. :shrug:

[Barry the Sprout]

I was just pissed off because you seemed to type your opinion as if it were so blatantly obvious that it didn't need further discussion, something I think it really does. It just seemed that after having spent a while trying to get my point across to Cerek I was going to have to type it all out again because you had the same issue to take up. Bias is not inevitable in my opinion - there are cultural differences between the US and Europe and whilst its perfectly normal to have bias in the news over there its rare to non-existant in televised media over here.

Sorry, I'm grouchy as I have a headache. Didn't mean to be snappy, just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that your point had already been addressed as far as I was concerned.

[InjaYew]

Chewbacca~

Thanks for that excellent Fox article. I hope you don't mind if I spread it around. [img]smile.gif[/img]