Slghtly OT: No news outlet is perfect but I do think the BBC is far more objective and neutral than most.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Claude
Printable View
Slghtly OT: No news outlet is perfect but I do think the BBC is far more objective and neutral than most.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Claude
Maybe they've shifted course since their internal document revealing admitted left-leaning, anti-christian bias was revealed. You could well be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claude
I personally look the Wall Street Journal and The Economist most often.
Sorry for the sidebar
Well the right accuse them of being left-leaning and the left accuse them of being right-leaning. Christian groups accuse them of being anti-christian and muslim groups accuse them of being anti-muslim, etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
On that basis I think they must be doing something right.
Agree on the Economist. Good source of information and news.
Claude
No, the BBC's journalists admitted to the bias a few years back. They had internal documents leaked where some of their "stars" were discussing it. A quick google search will reveal what I'm referencing. Like I said, they may have shifted course since then, I admittedly stopped relying on them in a similar fashion as I have Fox News, so I can't say for sure...Quote:
Originally Posted by Claude
Glad you're getting your news from a source with no bias ! :roflmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
you caught what I was saying, right? Maybe I should have completely spelled it out and said "I stopped getting news from them like I stopped getting news from Fox News" because that's the meaning I intended :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
AFAIC they are all like my Grandfather said when I was ten years old. "Believe half of what you see and nothing that you read." NPR, like the BBC, says that conservatives complain because they think NPR is too liberal and "progressives" claim NPR is too conservative. They showed what they are with the Juan Williams firing. The media is agenda driven on either side and fairness and objectivity in reporting is rare nowadays if it ever existed at all. Am I cynical ? Hell yes, I'm 62 years old, I'd be a fool if I wasn't. :boohoo:Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Welcome to the Internet :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NoseWarmer
Paul, as for BBC, I have found it remarkably fair handed. The "Leaked memo" you mention, after investigation, turns out to be a fabricated story by the Daily Mail (a tabloid newspaper) quoted at length by several Christian sites. The conversation was live streamed on the web and the discussions were balanced--the websties in question obviously had an agenda, and took no concern over the fact that the line "
Al Jazeera is biased, but their bias is clear and the analysis is coming from sources that are not covered in typical western media sources.
My problem with FOX, apart from the bias, is that they report things that are factually false; provably and definitely contrary to fact, and they do so in support of their agenda.
I TRIED to find quotes from members of this administration saying that this leak would lead to real threats--I found quotes form Senator John Kerry, who has not read the cables. I found quotes from Former President Clinton ("I wouldn't be surprised if people lost their lives.") and I found quotes from Sarah Palin. Nothing of what I found was in any way indicative of a real threat to human life caused by these cables.
What I have seen is outrage over the insult to dignity and embarrassment caused by the security failure. I've seen no reason to believe anything other than that there are a lot of embarrassing revelations, but no secret security information.
Tis bad because it will tighten up things to the point that should anything IMPORTANT need to be leaked there will be no way.
Blind leaks are like a broken pipe -- just wastes water.
It was there own internal review that found they were anti-Christian and Left leaning. I watch both Fox News and the BBC on our pay TV provider in Australia and I think they are as bad as each other on the opposite sides of the spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claude
The BBC is definitely not what it was. It's probably better than most. During the Thatcher years it became known as Buggers Broadcasting Communism.
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
BBC must become more impartial
The Editors: Bias at the BBC?
Does the BBC have a bias problem?
Confessions of a BBC Liberal
Now, I've given several BBC sources that cite issues of impartiality as recently as 2007. Plus, given a Times Online article. This isn't something that was fabricated by a "tabloid". This was an impartiality summit in which views of senior members of the BBC admitted to bias. The BBC reporting of the incident differs in interpretation of what it all meant, but it doesn't dispute that those sentiments were raised from within.
We both know that isn't a problem confined to Fox News, though, right? In a recent Pew Research survey, only 29% of Americans considered their News sources accurate. However, because of their heavily right-wing commentary, they get bashed more than others. We could both find innumerable examples of factual inaccuracy in other news organizations. And it's not that hard...Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
How about something from the White House?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
Here's another one from National Security Advisor General James Jones refuting Wikileaks' claim that they contacted the administration prior to the release of the documents Whitehouse.govQuote:
Originally Posted by White House Press Secretary
I like facts too, and I make a habit of reading statements from the White House. This isn't coming from "drum thumping rabble rousing" ill-informed buffoons (yes I recognize some may consider that debatable); it's the current administration. Like I referenced earlier, there are hundreds of thousands of these cables out there. You nor I have had a chance to read through them all. This is just the beginning of what's likely to be released.
Paul
Looking at the references you provided re the BBC what really strikes me is that many of the issues referred to were either whipped into a frenzy by the Daily Mail (who believe that Fox News is a bit left wing and liberal) or were pretty specific instances that the BBC themselves were highlighting. One of the reasons this happens is that there is a national obsession with the BBC being impartial and every time they may possibly veer from that there is a great hue and cry with internal reviews etc. Needless to say individual journalists have there own leanings one way or another but the organisation as a whole is neutral and is more than prepared to beat themselves up and publicly humiliate themselves whenever there is a suggestion that they may not be perceived as such.
Claude
This is a fascinating development in human history never before seen on such a global scale. Wikileaks and the global sharing of information by individuals via the internet are the very reasons that people such as senator Jay Rockefeller wonder out loud whether the world would be better/safer etc. if the internet were shut down.
I think the concept of Wikileaks is a good thing. However, I wonder if again, the concept of being an international vehicle for blowing the whistle on governments, corporations, etc that pose serious harm, danger, exploit, commit crimes against humanity, etc has been veering or may continue to veer off course.
Do the majority or even any of the leaked classified cables bring to light such grave injustices? If not, then it seems to me they're incompatible with what I understand wikileaks to be designed for.
I think those that may believe that ALL information related to governmental foreign affairs should be completely transparent and open do not understand the concept of international interaction and coexistence among sovereign nations nor would such a person, in my opinion, understand the reality of human nature.
Conversely I think those that may believe that NO governmental information of illegal activity should be leaked no matter how heinous or criminal it may be are sadly misguided. And to such people, I would ask: What would be the appropriate means to blow the whistle on any government that was committing crimes against humanity, genocide, or even torture if such torture would be illegal according to international or national law? Lenin's Cheka (the first Soviet security organization) skinned people alive and twisted the heads of people around and around until their head literally separated from their body.
If any government were using similar techniques of torture, for example, what would the reason or reasons be for someone within that government to refrain from blowing the whistle?
Chris L
Claude,
That's an admirable stance for the BBC to take, if it is practiced. However, I only chose those sources because they clearly refuted the notion that there was no internal discussion of bias, and that such talk wasn't "fabricated" by a tabloid. I also refrained from using Daily Mail intentionally. I could have linked others (because I found many), but it would not have added to the point.
Chris L,
That's a great post, and I feel very similarly to you. Thanks!
Paul
There is quite an interesting relationship between the BBC and the rest of the media in the UK. On the one hand most do believe the BBC does a good job (across the whole range of its output) but on the other they resent the fact that the BBC, which is publicly funded, is competing with them for viewers / listeners / browsers, if not directly for advertising revenues.
Claude
If you look at history nothing has changed except the greatly increased dissemination of information via cable tv with the 24 hour news cycle and of course the internet. I have a coffee table sized book of all of the photos taken of Abraham Lincoln.
It has a chapter illustrating political cartoons of the period. He is depicted in some of them as an ape and many of them are over the top in their anti Lincoln bias. I recall that when Andrew Jackson was running for president some newspapers referred to his wife as a whore ...... using that word.
As Finley Peter Dunne famously said,"Politcs ain't bean bags", and the play can get rough. Not to excuse it, just sayin'. :shrug:
Paul, each of those documents linked supports the fact that the conversation was had, but the idea that anyone "admitted" to bias is directly refuted by two of those documents. The fact that the BBC is publicly holding discussions about their attempts to maintain impartiality is, indeed, a strong sign in their favor, if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
In addition, the final document refers to a liberal bias FORTY YEARS AGO, in the entertainment arm of BBC, discussing comedies and dramas.
Not the news.
Indeed, his reference to the 2007 poll only says "Indeed the BBC’s own 2007 report on impartiality found that 57% of poll respondents said that “broadcasters often fail to reflect the views of people like me”. "...No mention of liberal or conservative, or indeed any political bent. "The views of people like me" could mean "the views of people with children."
I said LIES, not mistakes. Not inaccuracies. Deliberate misleading in order to control public opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
I admit I hadn't seen that. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Paul, did you read that? I really think you should.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
It's talking about the release of the "Afghan war diaries", last summer. Several months later, and...what happened again?
Indeed. Hundreds of thousands, dribbled out over weeks and months, and the US government, the NY Times and others already know the full extent. If anyone's lives are in danger because of the information, either they're already dead, or there is enough warning to take action to protect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Jim,
You didn't read those well, my friend. They interpreted things differently, but they admitted that the comments about bias were made (but said they were individual opinions not pervasive bias). I understand that you like the BBC, but I find it rather odd that you refuse to accept something they themselves admitted.
The Sunday Times article on the same report: BBC Report Damns its "Culture of Bias"
I'm not making this up...
Concerning the "LIES" (Sidebar: by the way, using all capitals doesn't quite seem to be befitting of a conversation between friends... this is something you've done repeatedly, and it reads as being very condescending which isn't how I perceive you most of the time): please stop it. Michael Moore made the same claim about CNN (plus CNN has their own dedicated "lie blogger"), MSNBC has been caught in several lies, ands so have the other national media outlets... Do I really have to link to them all. It's really easy to find examples. They've been documented extensively.
Yes, I've read all the links I offered you, and I find your supercilious tone very disrespectful of someone who is at least offering you the courtesy of refraining from being personal while offering support of ideas and comments instead of insulting comments, insinuations, and accusations.
We have no way of knowing what all has happened as a result of the War Diaries, and I knew the release date. However, I was pointing out the administration expressed real concern that the release of classified documents would risk lives. That was only months ago. The full fall-out of that (and all other leaks) will not be fully known for a long time, and I know that you realize that.
Considering I have a brother fighting in Afghanistan, I really wish there wasn't such a cavalier attitude toward the potential loss of life... Oh yeah, he's on the intelligence side of things...
To get things back on track, this is what Ron Paul said today about Wikileaks, via Twitter:
In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.
source
I completely AGREEQuote:
Originally Posted by commiecat
BUT.
LET'S KNOW ALL THE TRUTH.
PLEASE INCLUDE.
RUSSIA, CHINA, ENGLAND --------------------ENDLESS.
that will be fair game.
According to Assange, Russia and China will be next.Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl
Having lived my adult life through the assassination of JFK and subsequent coverup, the Viet Nam war, Pentagon Papers etc., Iran-Contra and what have you, I am all for transparency.
OTOH, we elect leaders to represent us within democratic societies. Many times we are disappointed but the fact remains that we put our trust in those representatives. Part of that trust is allowing them the discretion over what should be made public and what should remain classified.
Human nature assures that our representatives will fall short but we still have to trust them to do the best they can. The uncontrolled leaking of classified information by zealots who do not know or care about the ramifications that come from what they do is not always desirable IMHO.
There is the idealized world and there is the real world. Our national interest may be counter to that of others. With people like Putin, Chavez, Castro, Iran, No Korea we need to think of what is best for us rather than what may be the most ethical path in a storybook world. Wikileaks doesn't take our interests into consideration so it remains IMO a threat to world security.
In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.
While I don't agree with all the man's views, I agree with him on this one.
Also, some George Orwell:
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
I don't agree with Ron Paul on that at all.
If I steal his personal financial information, and pass it on for the world to see, would he be ok with that because it's "true"? On a more sinister level, what if someone gave out a complete map accurately giving away the locations of our troops, list their weaknesses, and give out times/circumstances that would be best for an attack? Just because it's true, doesn't mean it's not treason. Does it?
Not wading into the good/bad debate, but I don't see how this is treason - he's not a U.S. citizen...?
Mark
I think the treason talk is directed at the guy who leaked the information to wikileaksQuote:
Originally Posted by Milton Man
Ahh...thanks, I wrongly assumed they were referring to the Wikileaks owner.
Makes more sense now.
Mark
Espionage ? I remember when we were getting out of Viet Nam. I was for getting out then just as I am for getting out now. People like William F Buckley said that there would be a "bloodbath" if we got out. Ridiculous said those who were for withdrawal. I don't know how many the NVA killed let alone the Khmer Rouge. Certainly anyone who was even remotely suspected to have offered help to the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Man
Now in Afghanistan, where the Taliban used to take people to stadiums where they would perform amputations as punishment, many names have been released through this latest leaking of classified documents. When they cut off peoples hands, feet or heads it becomes more consequential than the mere embarrassment of a diplomat.
Generally speaking, i think that Wikileaks is just another media that reveals some so called classified information -whether harmless or not- to public. Press is another and does that even more.
Now if we were to consider that no any information that might be harmfull to our leaders nor any documents that tell some possible violations on human rights done by military forces should always be kept in secret (and i do not speak about the US or so called our sidebut whole world), how could we ever have heard about Watergate, Srebrenica, My Lai, human right violations of Russian army in Checknya, on those that happen in China. The list is endless: we can go back to Malmedy massacre, Holocaust or Katyn and even further. It was the press that first told about them to the world.
Now i do not think or believe that forces of any ISAF nation, for example, had done any crimes, but if they have, it should be revealed. There are 35 nations other than USA that have forces in Afganistan, including my country.
As far as i know, there are no so called bad secrets revealed although i haven't read or will not read them all. Mostly diplomats talking bullshit behind peoples back. Yet there are information on other countries than US that people are more than willing to get.
Not the same comparison. This is truth about the operations of our public officials. Truth as in what Enron was doing financially, not truth as in Ken Lay's SS#. We all know what Ron Paul meant, let's not argue semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
As I've said before, Wikileaks does not, can not, and would not provide real time information about troop locations. If someone did have that information that they wanted to expose, they could post it anywhere online (e.g. Facebook or SRP) and help their cause just the same. Wikileaks provides simplicity and anonymity, and if the data is relevant to the public then it gets published. It isn't filterless.
Meh, I thought you were an idealist. Transparency is transparency..and truth is truth.
Your argument is that whistle blowing is good. I agree with you. However, leaking hundreds of thousands of stolen classified information is not the same thing as showing evidence of specific bad deeds.
It's not arguing semantics; it's being consistent. If leaking government documents who people with intimate knowledge of the situation think risk lives is OK, you can't seriously say that leaking stolen records that could ruin one individual's life is not OK... Right?
No, he had it right. I operate by the "if you wouldn't want others to know about it, don't do it in the first place" rule, and feel that others should do the same. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, as they say.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
Transparency in operations is completely different from asking for private personal information. Unless, of course, you would rather be in the dark to the so called "greatest nation on earth" not being that great after all.
Ok. so stealing is good as long as it shows someone else's bad deeds? Sweet.
Everyone was wrong growing up: two wrongs do make a right. I stand corrected
So for you, the leaking of information about the wrong doing is worse than the wrong doing itself?Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
I stand that releasing information about what a public figure says and does is completely different than an irrelevant (to citizens and voters) and sensitive part of their life. If I say or do something that comes back to haunt me, whose fault is it? The semantics I did not want to argue was that Ron Paul's use of "truth" was an absolute literal meaning to be applied to everything, when he was clearly referring to the truth of what our public officials are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
If the documents do not affect the public and can endanger any lives, then it is not published and/or names are redacted. This is how Wikileaks works.
EDIT: Your two wrongs comparison also isn't quite relevant. If stealing is always bad, why do we shield whistleblowers? By that logic, the people who exposed Enron should have been the sole recipients of punishment.
Like Jimmy said, in the real world, being an idealist on everything doesn't work out so well. That's why undercover cops do "bad" stuff sometimes, and that's why the governments work with less than ideal characters sometimes.
You guys keep talking about the whistleblowing aspect of this, but then you argue that this is mostly just embarrassing stuff. So does whistle blowing just mean trying to embarrass and discredit?
No, the revealing of wrong doing isn't worse than the wrong doing. However, that's not really what's going on. So we're arguing hypotheticals and semantics now lol