Jessica Lynch

[Attalus]

LOL, well-put, NS. I will not post on this any more.

[wellard]

Well I was not aware of any restrictions being imposed on GD forum or that another forum was being created. But if I have upset anyone by posting this link to the BBC then let me know. I note that Memnoch did not mention this.


As for the soldiers who rescued her, they would not have been aware that the Iraq militia had gone. They where brave and did the job very professionally. My anger is that the facts of this case where obviously kept quite to allow for full public sympathy. Nor can we totally blame the reporters. It also seems that there is a bit of a smell around the currant official story.

[Iron_Ranger]

I find it funny that when ever someone posts a BBC story people so readily accept it as the gospel, truth and honest. But when somebody posts a Fox link the first or second posts (usally first) attacks Fox.

I guess English networks are incapable of reporting dishonest news

[Desuma Malevois]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: I find it funny that when ever someone posts a BBC story people so readily accept it as the gospel, truth and honest. But when somebody posts a Fox link the first or second posts (usally first) attacks Fox. I guess English networks are incapable of reporting dishonest news

(I hope I'm quoting this right - I don't have it in front of me)

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank god, the English journalist,
But seeing what that man will do
Unbribed there's no occasion to!"

[wellard]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: I find it funny that when ever someone posts a BBC story people so readily accept it as the gospel, truth and honest. But when somebody posts a Fox link the first or second posts (usally first) attacks Fox. I guess English networks are incapable of reporting dishonest news

Oh I do believe that the BBC can be manipulated, and personally I find it right wing in its overall approach. However this appears that through the inconsistencies which came with the original story as it broke, that some lingering questions which the more inquiring journalists *and therefore better* are starting to get the answer too. Don't shoot the messenger or tar him with disdain, it only makes the gathering of the truth harder to acquire and muddies the water when the truth is outed.

And we all want the truth, so lets investigate, and keep our minds open to the crazy possibility that we may have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[TheCrimsomBlade]

If any body really wants to respond to this artical then just put your statement in the place the BBC made for it at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/3028585.stm

and you can get you response on the BBC [img]graemlins/flickoff.gif[/img]

[ 05-18-2003, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: TheCrimsomBlade ]

[Chewbacca]

[img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]
Its the subtle differences between Fox and the BBC- Like the flag waving in the corner during a Fox newscast.

Other differences include a level of commentary. Where as the BBC would report that french fries have been officially renamed freedom fries, Fox would report that french fries have been renamed freedom fries and that we like it. It is the subtle differences.

As far as war coverage in general, I recall a poll a few weeks ago in the poll forum that asked opinions about the differing news perspectives during the war. Perhaps this discussion belongs there.

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...;f=12;t=000623

As far as coverage of the continued occupation goes, I have noticed Fox still has its commentators, but I have seen very little glossing over the fact the occupation is not going well. So maybe they are at least a lil bit "fair and balanced" even if they are just tooting their own horn like everyone else does.

And finally On topic:

I'll wait til the dust clears a bit more on this article. It wouldn't suprise me if the gov. would use hollywood tricks to make themselves more marketable. Good PR gets votes!


edited to add link to poll forum media discussion.

[ 05-18-2003, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Davros]

Well worded by the big hairy Wookie - especially that bit about commentary. I can just see it now - you will eat your freedom fries and you will enjoy them

[Donut]

Originally posted by Attalus: Evidence of biased reporting by the BBC: somebody says that an ambulance was fired on, by troops that could not know that an American was within, so immediately it is a great error, though she was not hurt. Somebody misreported her injuries, big deal. And, most of all, those guys went in and rescued her for crying out loud. She was a captive, she was being abused, on the evidence of the Iraqi who reported her. Several of her comrades were lying in shallow graves on the grounds of that hospital. She was in danger. This is another reason that I distrust the BBC. When you criticize FOX and hold up the Bebe as more reliable, I just shake my head.

There is no argument that she should have been rescued but why set the whole thing up to be filmed for propaganda reasons? I think that the point being made is that the Americans didn't want her back before they could go in and rescue her. You keep on shaking your head Attalus.

BTW - how lucky that she doesn't remember!

[ 05-19-2003, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by khazadman: Hmmm, let's see, we started firing on ambulances because the Iraqis were using them to transport soldiers and their supplies. Besides, it's not like the BBC can be trusted in it's reporting of what's going on in Iraq. One of their own people there blasted them for misreporting the war.

Good point khazadman! He blasted the BBC for telling the TRUTH! He wanted the news to be slanted towards the coalition side instead of being even handed.