More proof that the BBC is a liberal propaganda machine

No it's not. If Bill O'reilly or Maureen Dowd or anyone says, "This room will be too crowded by the end of the week. I know it will be too crowded because 10 people come in here every hour."

But if the actual truth is that only 2 people come in the room every other day, then it's easy to call the editorial person a liar. They may not have been lying about their opinion, but they were lying about the evidence supporting that opinion, and therefore they are lying, and it discredits whatever organization they work for.

 

BBC man criticises 'war bias'

Jason Deans
Wednesday March 26, 2003

The BBC's coverage of the war has come under fire from one of its own correspondents in the Gulf who has fired off a furious memo claiming the corporation is misleading viewers about the conflict in Iraq.

Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent who is based at the coalition command centre in Qatar, complained that the corporation was conveying a untruthful picture of how the war was progressing.

Adams accused the BBC's coverage of exaggerating the military impact of casualties suffered by UK forces and downplaying their achievements on the battlefield during the first few days of the conflict.

"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.

"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.

"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected," Adams continued.

The memo, which has been leaked to the Sun newspaper, was sent to BBC executives including the head of TV news programmes, Roger Mosey, and his radio counterpart, Stephen Mitchell.

The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as the "worst possible news for the armed forces".

Labour MP Alice Mahon has also complained that the BBC is too pro-war and is not showing enough of the casualties inflicted on the Iraqis or the problems with humanitarian aid.

Earlier this week the BBC was forced to promise that it would no longer show footage of seriously injured British troops, after the mother of a Royal Marine watched her son set on fire during a gun battle on a BBC early evening bulletin.

A BBC spokeswoman said the corporation could not confirm the contents of what was an internal memo.

But she added that the BBC was not the only news organisation highlighting British casualties.

"This is an immensely complicated and difficult story and the big challenge for the BBC, as for other broadcasters, is getting the balance right. We are constantly monitoring the language and tone of reports to achieve this balance," the spokeswoman said.

"We think we get it right most of the time, but we know we don't always. This seems to have been an internal memo and we can't confirm its content, but this is the kind of debate about editorial tone that's going on in newsrooms all over the world about this particular story."

 

More non-systemic comments from BBC News Director Richard Sambrook, here OPENLY ADMITTING they are biased in their coverage:

"If we were simply to take the justification for the war, we would have lost half our audience," he says. "There's a strong body of opinion in Europe that the grounds for this war haven't been proven and aren't clear. Our coverage has to reflect that."

Why not just report what's happening?

 

I think it would be bias of them not to report the other side of the war debate.

of course this doesn't mean you make stuff up or mislead your audience

 

I understand what you're saying, and you make excellent points.

But taking the government's "justification for war" at face value isn't objective. It's the news media's responsibility to make our government answer questions and take responsibility for its actions. The BBC did just that.

Now, there's no way I'm going to defend that idiot's lies and misstatements. That's just wrong, and he should lose his job for this.

 

For those who want to see a collection of lies that would strangle an elephant, read "Slander" and "Treason" by Ann Coulter. If you do it with a critical eye and check facts, you will find that she lies about liberals more than a crack fiend lies about money.

Does anyone else here not trust ANY source until it is corroborated? Personally, I like to see (or read) both sides of an argument before passing down judgement. If more Americans did that, we might actually be able to call bulls*** when the liars spout their tripe.

 

really?? how about editors?? how about fact-checkers??

this is becoming all too common-place...and I find it particularly disturbing when the lies are written as facts in non-commentary pieces.

 

It is absolutely hilarious that any news organization that does not toe the Bush Junta line on the war in Iraq is automatically labelled "liar" or "traitor".

Welcome to the United States of Russia. 1984 is here, just 19 years late.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A19833-2002Aug14

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020923&s=alterman

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/26/Floridian/Bestseller_trampled_u.shtml

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/06/27/coulter/index.html

Sorry, I don't have time to read that crap AGAIN. There are dozens of websites that have actually picked apart her statements one by one by checking facts and quotes and reading the articles she cites to see if the article supports her claims. I have not listed any of those here as the right-wingers here will just slough it off without responding to any facts. I have provided links to sites like the Washington Post and Salon.com which I am sure that y'all will pooh-pooh as being part of the mythical "liberal media."

 

Reading this crap pulled by the BBC is yet another reminder why I despise the media. Good to see that they did NOT let me down, lol.

 

wait..did you read the story. the guy admitted to making crap up, RMTex. it's not even in question.

 

Ann Coulter's lies are well known


dont worry, bigtexxx, i havent forgot bout O-Rielly and Hannity's lies..I wil get to that later this morning..I will throw in some Coulter lies for you also..

 

Just because Fox is biased (and sorry guys, O Reilly showed his vitriolic and 'creative' personality over the Al Franken fiasco)...excuses the BBC not at all.

The Times error does not concern me quite as much because it was one reporter. Sr mgmt screwed up by letting him continue, but he was not reporting lies to 'tow the company line'...which is what was happening at the BBC. TheFreak's quote from Sambrook was most illustrative. I always sensed that the BBC reporting was schizo... some articles seemed balanced but other seemed skewed...now we see evidence.

Regardless, my faith (which is what it takes) in the BBC was higher than any other media.... damn.

 

I don't think anyone's argued that. Some have argued that the BBC's actions deems Fox's obvious bias unimportant.

 

I have to agree Cohen, The BBC screwed up on this deal and is soaking up the backlash--as they should. We need not compare them to FOX as the BBC is FAR more respected and credible than Faux News will ever be. However, this was the BBC's mistake and it is fair for us to expect atonement on their part. Keep Fox out of it--do we really need any further discussions on that motley group of clowns and Neo-con sycophants?

 

Don't worry if nobody else posts them sooner, I'll have a chance to access my computer at home, and I'll post a partial list of lies by both Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly.

If anyone else would like to before them, please go ahead. I'm posting from work from right now. I have limited access or time to use the computer here.

 

As this heinous story unfolds, I am outraged at how irresponsible these bastions of liberal propaganda have become. The BBC, the New York Times and CNN (Christina Amanjoke) have stooped to new lows with their lies. I am gobsmacked to hear of this. These are the standard-bearers for fraud and deception in today's information age.

GOBSMACKED