More proof that the BBC is a liberal propaganda machine

For all the anger and hostility directed at FoxNews by the liberals, they have done nothing as bad as what the BBC is now confessing to -- or the lying Times for that matter. Shameful.

This is an outrage. It is time to end the liberal spin machine's game of political slander.

 

wow...agreed entirely. it's one thing to have a bias...another to just make crap up.

 

... but if those "socialists" at CNN are reporting this, how can we be sure they're not lying too?

 

The BBC reporting is shameful. Fox news has done things equally as bad, namely claiming that WMD were found not once but on multiple occasions. They cleared it up later, unlike the BBC. It's only now that the BBC is atoning for there mistakes. Fox's commentators lie, and make mistakes all the time, but that isn't reporting. The BBC is actually reporting here so that makes their reproting worse, but not their organization as a whole.

 

i would say by definition it makes their organization worse. if the goal is to report the facts...and you make them up...that's not even in the same ballpark as having commentators jump to conclusions like that. not even close.

 

No but commentators on fax lie about facts and numbers too. O'Reilly lies about numbers in debates so that statistics look like they are on his side. It turns out later that the statistics quoted by O'Reilly are are false and inaccurate. We could aslo argue frequency of inaccuracies. I won't defend the bbc on this at all. They were dead wrong in what was done. But I will still won't put Fox news ahead of them for accurate reporting and commentary.

 

Bill O'Reilly provides commentary. It is not presented as news.

 

I agree with FranchiseBlade

"reporting" or "commentry" or whatever ya want to label it, no matter which media outlet, needs to be acurate and these organizations need to set higher standards

information is already the key to control....and its getting more so each day...no one is above ethical standards and responsibility to produce truthful material

O'Reilly and Hannity on FNC are especially bad..they lie a lot

 

are you serious?

you really want to open that can of worms?

we might need a new thread for this one

 

i will

im fixin' to leave work though so it will have to wait

that ok with you?

you won't be disapointed

 

get off their "conservative" jocks.

besides, you'll refuse to believe whatever Maynard finds anyways, so why bother wasting everyone's time.

 

Don't know about Hannity, but if you want to know about O'Reilly's lies, read Al Franken's new book. They are well documented in there...with references for those who think Franken is lying. Very well done.

 

I made a distinction between the reporting of the BBC and the commentators of Fox, but in Bill O's commentary if he uses statistics to help him make a point and his statistics are false, then it still discredits his show and the network, if we are talking about integrity or trustworthiness.

 

The BBC made a *terrible* mistake, and their reputation took a serious blow.

But you can't dismiss the entire institution because *one guy* has a bias. This particular slant was isolated, and not systemic to the entire network. The BBC is fiercely independent and world-renowned for its objective investigative reporting.

They should have their feet held to the fire for letting this mistake through, but at least they're taking responsibility for it.

 

If you think this is the first time the BBC has showed bias, you weren't paying attention during the Iraq War. "One guy". LOL.

 

I didn't say it's the first time they showed bias. I said it's not systemic.

 

O'reilly can argue his pedestrian positions however he wants...but Fox News Channel still doesn't present his opinions (however he chooses to argue them) as news or fact anymore than the New York Times does with Maureen Dawd or Paul Krugman, who often make statements that I could certainly refute with primary sources given the opportunity.

It's hard to call someone who is paid to editorialize a liar, and still be intelectually honest with yourself. It is a far cry from the guy who works as a news desk of the BBC and makes a statement that is untrue (intentional or not). I personally think the level of scrutiny and accountability is higher in news than anywhere else.

I would even add that journalists (that is, people who report the news, not so-called pundits that shill for their party affiliations on Sunday talk shows) have higher degrees of expectations in regard to accuracy than even the public officials they report on since we largely expect politicians to be dishonest, and the media to catch them.

In any case, the Post-9/11, anti-America, anti-Israel bias of the BBC turned me off a long time ago. The choices they have made in chosing to call the September 11 hijackers, Chechen revolutionaries, and Hamas suicide bombers anything but terrorists to help bolster what they thought was objectivity was enough.

By the time Jenin happened, and the BBC had the whole world in a fuss for Israeli's supposed "genocide" and later had to recant, BBC's credibility was already way on the wane.

Now? Calling it a liberal propaganda machine isn't as unfair as it sounds. Sadly, the BBC has fallen to 700 Club levels of credibility, IMHO and needs to seriously re-asses its mission as a news service if it wants to regain what it used to have.