[Bobboau]

you know what, I bet China is behind all of it

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Bobboau
oftine we are told not to place too much faith in our government and our media, maybe you should not be so sure that your media is always being as truthful as you think

Yeah, we're taught not to trust the government or the media. Then we grow up and elect people like Bush ("Trust me, I know what's best"). And we have people like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity and Combs and John O'Reilly, whose word many people seem to take as Gospel.

I particularly love O'Reilly. The guy has been caught in more lies than Clinton, but no one remembers any of them ("Hard Copy won a Peabody!", "I was a registered independent!", "I come from a blue collar background!" All lies, and all documented and provable as lies). Sean Hannity is a good one for repeating the same lie over and over ("We have found Iraq's WMDs!". Of course, he never ever once retracted the statement).

If more people were critical of what the government fed them, we wouldn't have so many who thought that Iraq was involved in Sept11 (whatever Bush would like you to believe) or that Iraq had WMDs (questionable claim on the face, proved false later).

The fact of the matter is that while we grow up knowing we shouldn't trust the government and the media, most of us end up doing just that.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by aldo_14
fox in US == pravda in USSR (?)

This reminds me of a joke that started out in Russia. As some of you might know, Russia has two big-name newspapers: Izvestia (which translates as "News") and Pravda (which translates as "Truth").

The joke was this: "In 'News,' there is no truth, in 'Truth,' there is no news."

That pretty much sums up Fox News.

As for the dude on "My Word," whoever he is, it wasn't a news broadcast per se, it was more akin to an opinion editorial, where a reporter gives his own opinion on current events rather than reporting it. Technically and legally speaking (and I'm a lawyer, so I know), it's not slander as no one is asserting flat out that it's supposed to be objective. While it might look like a news broadcast at first glance (and seems very much designed to fool people that it is a news broadcast), it's nothing more than a guy on the news giving his opinion.

All the same, though, this sort of thing is exactly what I would expect from the trashhouse that is Fox News. I still remember how, during the war in Afganistan, some schmuck "military consultant" was recommending that we actually use tactical nukes on the Taliban. Oh, sure, that sounds like a great idea: let's liberate a country by making it permanently radioactive.

It's only a matter of time before Fox news screws up so blatantly they get sued for slander and gets fined out of business. I still remember happily what happened when Fox News tried to sue Al Franken over his satire book "Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them," a book that pokes fun at Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media. If you want to know more about how this suit by Fox News was resolved, just ask. All I'll say right now is that Al Franken was very happy with the result, as his book became a national bestseller immediately afterwards.

[mikhael]

Man, "Lies and the Lying Liars..." is a absolutely hilarious book.

You know what's really funny about it though? Franken publishes through a company owned by Murdoch. That makes the whole thing more poetic.

[kasperl]

Originally posted by mikhael


Could you clarify which question you mean?

the one about how many people viewed Fox as something thatmight speak the truth.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


As for the dude on "My Word," whoever he is, it wasn't a news broadcast per se, it was more akin to an opinion editorial, where a reporter gives his own opinion on current events rather than reporting it. Technically and legally speaking (and I'm a lawyer, so I know), it's not slander as no one is asserting flat out that it's supposed to be objective. While it might look like a news broadcast at first glance (and seems very much designed to fool people that it is a news broadcast), it's nothing more than a guy on the news giving his opinion.

Surely that's even worse....  Dressing up opinion as news to make it believable, yet being able to give the excuse "it's only an opinion"?

[Killfrenzy]

What I find funny about the guy's rant was him saying 'whilst Gilligan was in Iraq.....'

Uh........no he wasn't. He didn't go to Iraq IIRC....

Arguments aside, there are a lot of people who are going to believe all this despite it being flagged as 'opinion.' You know what the say: Control the media, control the mind.

[Knight Templar]

AMERICANs RulE!!1 TEH WorlD SUXORZ!!1 NUKE EVERYTHING!!!1 DIE ANTIAMERICAN BBC!!! XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA!!!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Killfrenzy
What I find funny about the guy's rant was him saying 'whilst Gilligan was in Iraq.....'

Uh........no he wasn't. He didn't go to Iraq IIRC....

I certainly don't remember it - in fact, I'm willing to say* he's talking out of his rectum.

(*in my opinion HAHA YOU CANT SURE ME AND I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT!!!1)

[an0n]

Originally posted by Killfrenzy
Arguments aside, there are a lot of people who are going to believe all this despite it being flagged as 'opinion.' You know what the say: Control the media, control the mind.

But the little-mentioned anti-effect of it is that those who already know it's bull**** get more and more riled every time they see it.

[Flipside]

I think it's just this Anti-Americanism thing being taken too far, not only, at any point do I recall hearing ANY newsreporter here in England even hint that 'bungling Americans forces were being ripped apart by brave Iraqi soldiers' as this man suggests, barely even mentions the complete bull which was the dossier created by the government to justify the war. Dr Kelly was a member of the team that compiled it, and told the BBC they were told to make the document more 'enticing', the government denied it.
This led to a massive face off between the Beeb and the Government, which culminated in a report by a Lord who's seat was insecure due to changes the Government was trying to get made to the House of Lords.
Curiously enough, the report was squeaky clean for the government, and I can betcha theres one Lord who'll be keeping his seat
I think it's that which annoys me more than anything, the fact that what the BBC was accused of lying about is absolutely and completely and utterly nothing whatsoever to do with what this man is saying.

To fabricate a story to make it sound as though the BBC was being deliberately Anti-American and using a string of crap as evidence is extremely shaky ground.

[karajorma]

Maybe this wanker heard someone repeating Comical Ali's comments and thought it was actually the BBC's point of view. That's about the nicest thing I could to say about him

[SadisticSid]

The Fox thing made some downright slanderous assertions (Gilligan saying Iraqis were bravely fighting off incompetent Americans? I'm pretty sure he was never in Iraq and wasn't even involved with the during-war journalism) and was utter trash as a result.

But for those of you who say the BBC is miraculously objective, you need to read between the lines. They might not be blatant about it but subtle tones of anti-Americanism can be found everywhere. The same was true of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli attitudes, although this isn't so prolific any more. This blog points out these numerous instances of bias and makes a compelling case for abolishing the BBC poll tax (or 'license fee') altogether.

[Flipside]

You are quite right Sid, I don't deny that the BBC was on a slightly anti-war bias, during the whole thing, but yes, the thing that annoys me is not so much this man's opinion as the 'evidence'.

[aldo_14]

Actually, i think the BBc presents an almost completely impartial viewpoint - it's just that peoples opinions make them interpret the information given in a certain way.  

I didn't read through that entire website listed but I noticed that the page linked relating to the myDoom virus was totally misinterpreted.

[Blaise Russel]

The BBC has a tendency to recruit from the Guardian; hence it does possess a left-wing bias.

That said, I think it's important that we all remember that dismissing an argument or claim due to the bias of the arguer, left-wing BBC or the right-wing American networks, is ad hominem circumstantial, and thus is bad form, wot wot.

[aldo_14]

eh?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by SadisticSid
But for those of you who say the BBC is miraculously objective, you need to read between the lines. They might not be blatant about it but subtle tones of anti-Americanism can be found everywhere. The same was true of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli attitudes, although this isn't so prolific any more. This blog points out these numerous instances of bias and makes a compelling case for abolishing the BBC poll tax (or 'license fee') altogether.

Of course there is a bias. There is no such thing as 100% objectivity. However BBC did manage to stay remarkably objective compared with rubbish like this excuse for a news station.

[Bobboau]

you see a 20 second editorial from a substitute anchor and you think it's the offical position of the network.

[Fineus]

It doesn't bode well for the network when they employ anchors to represent them who voice their opinion so publicly with no concern for the fall out on their employing company. I'm fairly sure that if I were to publically announce that my employers mirror company in another area were liars, I'd be in for a stiff talking to.