Gaza Strip: Simplified!

[D2Kvirus]

It appears the latest round of Gaza Crises has got the BBC in a bit of a pickle - since they have to be fair and balanced, that means one side has to be seen as the "good guys."

So, ignoring years of Axis of Evil jibes, they take a pro-Hamas slant, on the basis that Hamas are the government (even though, when democratically elected they were forced to form a coalition, but that's not important right now), so for future discussion of the topic you should remember that Fatah are the baddies.

Agreed?

[HighlyIllogical]

If Fatah is the group of the "baddies," then the United States is evil, as is the rest of the West, and only fundamentalist Islam is good.

But any media has to be taken with a grain of salt – the BBC, despite it's usual accuracy and candor (except in relation to Israel), is included.

[D2Kvirus]

I take issue with that - any notion of the BBC being worth anything, that is. They're journalism has become more and more tabloid and less, you know, journalistic for a couple of years.

When a main broadcast was headlined with talk of attacking Iran three months ago (including targets and a rough timeframe) for no logical reason due to no declaration of war against Iran, as well as using their broadcasts to plug upcoming BBC programmes, they became Fox News wannabes.

And this is before considering how scared they are of incurring the wrath of Tony Blair following the Hutton Whitewash - so, every other news programme on every other channel can criticise Blair, but they won't.

[HighlyIllogical]

Well, it's nice to have a liberal Fox to attempt to balance it out...of course, the BBC isn't pandering to idiots and doesn't blatantly lie like Fox does, as far as I can tell...and it has a smaller audience, IIRC.

No one can beat Rupert, no one.

And that's bad.

[D2Kvirus]

Well, the six months is up, so once again the BBC is castigated for its "liberal bias" - which is patently untrue, as their bias is more along the lines of "Don't make Tony angry, or we're in trouble, so placate him at all costs."

Of late, the BBC news is becoming more and more like Sky News - i.e. Fox News - with presentation winning out over journalism at every turn and, since Sky News is the news on Five, about the only non-tabloid, objective, journalistic-based news available is on Channel 4.

Of course, British news reporting has shifted from journalism to comment for the past ten years across media, so newspapers lack objectivity.

[HighlyIllogical]

It makes me sad that the source of information that kept Nazi dominated Europe with some light of hope is now turning into Fox News, which itself is little better than Der Stürmer.

[emmytee]

The BBC has not taken a pro-Hamas line at all. I was watching it earlier and it seems more on fatah's side than anyone elses

[Demosthenez]

At 6/17/07 04:09 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: of course, the BBC isn't pandering to idiots and doesn't blatantly lie like Fox does

Geez, I dont like Fox either but good lord, liberal elitism anyone?

And please tell me which network doesnt pander. You have Keith Olberman going for the libs, Nancy Grace (or whatever the fuck her name is) going for the angry spinsters, Lou Dobbs, well, I got no idea what he goes for except maybe really boring people (he does own people in debates though), Larry King goes for libs, Wolf Blitzer goes for libs who also happen to militantly support Israel, Tucker Carlson goes for conservatives, Scarborough goes for moderate conservatives. They all have target audiences. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If you have a news station that doesnt pander and doesnt have people that lie out of their asses on them, you have found something that doesnt exist.

[WolvenBear]

At 6/20/07 11:09 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It makes me sad that the source of information that kept Nazi dominated Europe with some light of hope is now turning into Fox News, which itself is little better than Der Stürmer.

OK, HI, comparing FOX to the Nazi propegandists is crap and you know it.

I have never understood why liberals hate FOX so much. It's moderately (if even that) conservative, and takes its news off the same AP feed as everyone else.

Hell Murdoch even helped at a fundraiser for Hillary:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/200 6/05/murdock_explains_hillary_fundraiser/

[HighlyIllogical]

Murdoch has control of:

United States

New York Post

United Kingdom

The Times
Times Literary Supplement
The Sunday Times
The Sun
News of the World
Times Education (inc Times Education Supplement and Higher Education Supplement) - sold to Exponent Private Equity September 2005

And these are just the US and UK papers. He's got dozens of other outlets, whether TV, radio, print (including BOOK PUBLISHING)...

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/21/07 06:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I have never understood why liberals hate FOX so much. It's moderately (if even that) conservative, and takes its news off the same AP feed as everyone else.

Moderatley conservative?

Fox is the only news agency I have seen that will either not put the opposing view on ( I.e, on pretty much every show where they have a discussion they have people who all have conservative stand points, with some minor differences) or will use someone with no backbone or is an idiot as a representative of opposite opinions.

CNN etc may do the same thing, but I've yet to see them do it to the same level as Fox.

Why is this a problem? Because it distorts the news, only gives one viewpoint. The news is supposed to be about information NOT political one upman ship to make one side looks better than the other. Which is what, from my perspective Fox does.

[animehater]

At 6/21/07 11:32 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: bitching bout Fox

Thanks for making Alan Colmes look like a nobody man.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/20/07 12:58 PM, emmytee wrote: The BBC has not taken a pro-Hamas line at all. I was watching it earlier and it seems more on fatah's side than anyone elses

Does this mean they've switched sides? Bloody hell, I thought it was just Murdoch that would do a 180 on his allegences when the tide was turning...

On the broadcast I was watching on Friday/Saturday, they were presenting Fatah as some violent mob, while Hamas wer epresented as the more rational of the two. That they've done a 180 in half a week is worrying.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Personally, I prefer corrupt and slightly inneficient to Morally sound and filled-with-violent-terrorist-urges-towards-t he-people-you're-supposed-to-be-making-peace-
with. I support Fatah as the the lesser of two evil, and the BBC shouldn't be taking sides at all.

[Demosthenez]

At 6/21/07 11:32 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Fox is the only news agency I have seen that will either not put the opposing view on ( I.e, on pretty much every show where they have a discussion they have people who all have conservative stand points, with some minor differences)

or will use someone with no backbone or is an idiot as a representative of opposite opinions.

LOL Colmes? Meh, I feel sorry for that guy, everyone gives him a bad rap but its gotta be tough playing second fiddle to that asshole Sean Hannity. I know I couldnt be paid enough to do that job. Well, yes I could ; )

CNN etc may do the same thing, but I've yet to see them do it to the same level as Fox.

They do, its just done in a less, how shall we say, Orielly-esque way (less screaming at each others faces. Coincidentally, less entertainment value). Which is why they are all crap.

Why is this a problem? Because it distorts the news, only gives one viewpoint.

News is distorted. It is sad we consider "fair and balanced" one liberal and one conservative yelling at each other. Why is that fair and why is it balanced? And since when does opposing viewpoints create balance in news? All opposing viewpoints create is debate. And one viewpoint does not represent anything more than a single viewpoint so all we are really getting when we watch cable news is Jerry Springer without the crack. We get self righteous d-bags telling us the way things are when they shouldnt be telling us anything other than the information.

The only opinions I want to hear is our legislators, academics, researchers, and government officials, not our talking heads on cable news. All their coverage does is distort, it does not inform.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/21/07 04:53 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: and the BBC shouldn't be taking sides at all.

Obvious glory hunting...

Anyone find the tombstone for fair and balanced reporting yet?

[The-evil-bucket]

I understand what the Media is doing, but it still must be remembered that both sides are aimed at domination. Saying one side is ethicly correct is impossible, both Fatah and Hamas are evil and great. Everything is like that.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/23/07 09:26 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote: I understand what the Media is doing, but it still must be remembered that both sides are aimed at domination. Saying one side is ethicly correct is impossible, both Fatah and Hamas are evil and great. Everything is like that.

Nah, Scientologists are just EEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIILLLL, with no "great" about them.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/23/07 03:09 AM, Demosthenez wrote: LOL Colmes? Meh, I feel sorry for that guy, everyone gives him a bad rap but its gotta be tough playing second fiddle to that asshole Sean Hannity. I know I couldn't be paid enough to do that job. Well, yes I could ; )

He was the person who sprung to my mind yes.

They do, its just done in a less, how shall we say, Orielly-esque way (less screaming at each others faces. Coincidentally, less entertainment value). Which is why they are all crap.

I agree its less entertaining. I watch O'Reilly to be entertained. But the news first priority should be to report the facts.

News is distorted. It is sad we consider "fair and balanced" one liberal and one conservative yelling at each other. Why is that fair and why is it balanced?

It gives both sides of the opinion, giving the viewers the chance to actually form an educated opinion on the subject.

And since when does opposing viewpoints create balance in news? All opposing viewpoints create is debate.

Debate instigates thought, in both the debaters and the audience. It makes them think about who's right and wrong, and thus makes them more informed...in theory at least.

And one viewpoint does not represent anything more than a single viewpoint so all we are really getting when we watch cable news is Jerry Springer without the crack. We get self righteous d-bags telling us the way things are when they shouldn't be telling us anything other than the information.

The news shouldn't be about giving opinions period. Ideally, it should just report the facts and leave the viewer to make up their minds, with the odd debate now and then to explain how these facts can be

The only opinions I want to hear is our legislators, academics, researchers, and government officials, not our talking heads on cable news. All their coverage does is distort, it does not inform.

Agreed. But I'd much rather we have two idiotic talking heads giving opposing views than a single idiotic head giving one view.

[Demosthenez]

At 6/23/07 12:46 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The news shouldn't be about giving opinions period.

Thats really all it has turned into, huh? Kinda sad. I do agree we need some debates but I do not think that is all news should be about, which is what it is now.

But then again, if news wasnt entertaining people wouldnt watch it. So it is all about the bottom line.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/23/07 01:39 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Thats really all it has turned into, huh?

Pretty much.

Kinda sad. I do agree we need some debates but I do not think that is all news should be about, which is what it is now.

I don't mind opinions being given if its a part of a debate. But when a station is filled with one view point, and the entire thing revolves around their anchors giving their opinions, then I get annoyed.

But then again, if news wasnt entertaining people wouldn't watch it. So it is all about the bottom line.

Very true, though that says more about people than the news. The fact that people need to entertained 24/7 is quite sad in my mind.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/23/07 01:39 PM, Demosthenez wrote:
But then again, if news wasnt entertaining people wouldnt watch it. So it is all about the bottom line.

Which is the ultimate problem at the heart of it all: ratings wars may be fine for soap operas, but news programming?!?

[Demosthenez]

At 6/23/07 02:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Which is the ultimate problem at the heart of it all: ratings wars may be fine for soap operas, but news programming?!?

You cant exactly legislate that news should not have this problem so I guess all we can do is bitch about how pathetic it proves we are. Kinda sad but reality has never exactly been kind : /

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/24/07 12:14 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 6/23/07 02:31 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Which is the ultimate problem at the heart of it all: ratings wars may be fine for soap operas, but news programming?!?

You cant exactly legislate that news should not have this problem so I guess all we can do is bitch about how pathetic it proves we are. Kinda sad but reality has never exactly been kind : /

Well if the BBC accepted my CV when I applied to be Director General...

What's worse: the fact I actually applied, or that the job went to Lorraine Heggessey, best known for apologising on national TV about a children's TV presenter being caught snorting coke, bringing in the God-awful "rhythm and movement" idents to BBC1, and axing most of the arts output before stating that there wasn't enough arts programming on the BBC (ditto for axing Tomorrow's World then complaining there was no science programming on the BBC).