Objective is the word you're looking for. I quite agree that the corporation was severely let down by Andrew Gilligan, and I'm sure that you can imagine that this case has been heavily reported here. It does seem unfair to tar the whole organisation's news output as biased based on this one incident. Having read the thread that you referenced, I still don't believe that the BBC is operating with an agenda, hidden or otherwise. Personal opinion of course.
It's pretty easy to do when the responding party's defense has nothing to do with the point presented. You want to battle your arguments by putting words in my mouth then arguing against something I never said so you can run around feeling like you’re the best poster to ever grace this billboard? Again, I'm not defending Bush policies, so don't respond insinuate my post is meant to defend Bush. Do you understand me? Are you built to handle that type of a complexity in a person, or should I should concede in all your "I am a genius, I am a God like poster, do not question me" attitude, that I am expecting too much?
Nothing so complex, or even well-grounded as that. Bush's unimpressive oratory skills are almost entirely the basis for the groundswell of public opinion in this country. Fuelled as much by right-wing newspapers (ie The Daily Mail) as "liberal" media sources. In all honesty, there was very little basis in fact, or sound reasoning, for these views. However, that was the impression that was held in this country, certainly at 9/11. It would also be fair to say that the British public were considerably more impressed with Guiliani's performance post-tragedy, than GWB. His apparent eagerness to commit to a war in Iraq only served to reaffirm the public's generally held opinion. From the media output we see in the country, which may be biased, British people tend to believe that certain members of his administration have a large influence on policy, perhaps more than is appropriate. I hope this clarifies my remarks.
A) What's with all the personal attacks? B) What would be the connection between arguing one of your...er...points, and being the best poster, or even a good poster? C) You still haven't substantiated you prima facea case, that there is no causative connection between our actions and the world's percpetion of us, or that they are irrationally biased and therefore we bear no responsibility. You are the one who reversed that as an absolute, not I. D) Even if I am a genius, how would that make me omniscient or omnipotent. Usually, with greater intelligence ( not that IQ is an accurate guage of same) comes greater perception, and with greater percpetion comes greater awareness of failings. As for myself, as I get older, I become increasinly convinced that, as I suspect is the case for most, my strengths are double-edged blades. I don;t know where you get the impression I advocate either that I am perfect, nor better than others. I have certainly never said anything of the kind. However, were we to use your argument against my criticism as a reflection of your argument against worldwide criticism of the US, there would definitely appear to be a pattern developing...
Originally posted by Bailey Nothing so complex, or even well-grounded as that. Bush's unimpressive oratory skills are almost entirely the basis for the groundswell of public opinion in this country. Fuelled as much by right-wing newspapers (ie The Daily Mail) as "liberal" media sources. <b>Sorry to say but that would appear to make you a very superficial nation!</b> In all honesty, there was very little basis in fact, or sound reasoning, for these views. However, that was the impression that was held in this country, certainly at 9/11. It would also be fair to say that the British public were considerably more impressed with Guiliani's performance post-tragedy, than GWB. His apparent eagerness to commit to a war in Iraq only served to reaffirm the public's generally held opinion. <b>Everyone was impressed with Giuliani, but he only had New York on his plate, Bush had much, much more responsibility. It's not wonder that at a time when the world was focused on New York, Rudy would shine.</b> From the media output we see in the country, which may be biased, British people tend to believe that certain members of his administration have a large influence on policy, perhaps more than is appropriate. I hope this clarifies my remarks. <b>Yeah, thanks.</b>
