Crumpet Trumpet
Banned
Which news source is the most fair? I've been wondering this for a while.
Crumpet Trumpet said:Which news source is the most fair? I've been wondering this for a while.
Crumpet Trumpet said:Which news source is the most fair? I've been wondering this for a while.
gofreak said:So what's with Russia advancing troops beyond the breakaway regions?
Are they saying this is to protect those regions, or are they land-grabbing?
gofreak said:So what's with Russia advancing troops beyond the breakaway regions?
Are they saying this is to protect those regions, or are they land-grabbing?
Kung Fu Jedi said:I'm American, and still prefer the BBC over almost any other news source. Especially on International issues.
gofreak said:So what's with Russia advancing troops beyond the breakaway regions?
Are they saying this is to protect those regions, or are they land-grabbing?
~Devil Trigger~ said:you already know the answer to this
Zapages said:I'm American too.... But its really biased as it really favors Israeli, Indian, and Western interests...
I prefer Euro News... They seem a better on the most part...
I swear, if Putin even tries to harm one hair on Yulia's perfect head I'll shove Polonium so far down his throat his boxers will glow.avaya said:There ain't nothing Putin can do to Viktor and Yulia. Well apart from a winter or two of total discontent.
avaya said:You don't seem to watch the BBC much do you if you think they favour Israeli interests :lol
avaya said:You don't seem to watch the BBC much do you if you think they favour Israeli interests :lol
Zapages said:I'm American too.... But its really biased as it really favors Israeli, Indian, and Western interests...
I prefer Euro News... They seem a better on the most part...
There are not enough smileys in the world to convey my sentiments with regard this post.goomba said:They favour US interests, which in turns means they favour Israeli interests.
Zenith said:really? the beeb's always covered the Palestinian side like most of Europe.
bbc world though is definitely a "global" channel, not just coverage of international affairs from a british perspective.
Napoleonthechimp said:I've never known the BBC to really favour anyone. I've always thought of them as pretty fair.
Zapages said:I thought like you too... But after a while I could tell the bias they unfortunately had... So they do favor...
Euro News is awesome...
Dawn News is awesome for English speaking for Pakistani news.
Hwang Seong-Gyeong said:Plus if anything Nato is going to use and dump Ukraine just like they did with Georgia.
Instigator said:Euronews is soulless.
It's like the record 15 minutes of stuff then they leave their VCR's running until the next day.
In its near 86 year history, BBC has a long, unbroken and dubious distinction. Today it's little different from its corporate-run counterparts in America, Britain and throughout the world. In fact, on its tailored for a US BBC America audience, what passes for news matches stride for stride what people here see every day - mind-numbing commercialism, shoddy reporting, pseudo-journalism, celebrity and sports features, and other diverting and distracting non-news that should embarrass correspondents and presenters delivering it. It offends viewers and treats them like mushrooms - well-watered, in the dark, and uninformed about the most important world and national issues affecting their lives and welfare.
That's the idea, of course, and has been since BBC's inception. John Reith was its founder and first general manager. Reassuring the powerful, he set the standard adhered to thereafter: "(You) know (you) can trust us not to be really impartial." BBC never was and never is.
Impartiality has no place on BBC nor does its claim about "honesty, integrity, (and being) free from political influence and commercial pressure." How can it? Its Director-General, Executive Board Chairman, BBC Trust Chairman and senior managers are government-appointed and charged with a singular task
- to function as a "propaganda system for elite interests." On all vital issues - war and peace, state and corporate corruption, human rights, social justice, or coverage of the Middle East's longest and most intractable conflict, Westminster and the establishment rest easy. They know BBC is "reliable" - pro-government, pro-business and dismissive of the public trust it disdains. Now more than ever.
This article covers one example among many - BBC's distorted, one-sided support for Israel and its antipathy toward Palestinians. In this respect, it's fully in step with its American and European counterparts - Israeli interests matter; Palestinian ones don't; as long as that holds, conflict resolution is impossible. Therein lies the problem. With its reputation, world reach, and influence, BBC's coverage exacerbates it.
Zapages said:I thought like you too... But after a while I could tell the bias they unfortunately had... So they do favor...
Euro News is awesome...
Dawn News is awesome for English speaking for Pakistani news.
goomba said:
goomba said:
Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. You can check my post history to see how much I hate Israel, and I say this link is bullshit.goomba said:
goomba said:
Tamanon said:Plus, wouldn't you then have to contend that any news station is controlled by their advertisers?
goomba said:
ana said:
:lol what?WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia's "brutal escalation" of attacks against the former Soviet republic of Georgia has jeopardized Russia's relationship with the United States and European nations, President Bush told reporters Monday after returning from his trip to Asia.
"Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century," he said.
World powers have urged Russia to agree to an immediate cease-fire with Georgia and accept international mediation on the crisis in South Ossetia, as the international community sought to head off all-out war between the two.
Bush said evidence suggests Russia may be preparing to depose Georgia's government.
"Russia must reverse the course it appears to be on and accept this peace agreement as a first step in resolving this conflict," Bush said.
Hwang Seong-Gyeong said:Ossetia's population is 70,000, 1,400 died in one day. Close to 2% of the population died in ONE day, what would have happened if Russia didn't even intervene? Plus there are reports that out of the 70,000 that 30,000 left the area as refugees.
If that's not ethenical cleansing then what is? Numbers speak for themselves.
manipulate said:neither the west nor russia have any grounds for moral/principalistic stances here, although you could make more of an argument for russia. the recent shit with the US pushing for georgias inclusion in nato was ridiculously aggressive
camineet said:sorry if already posted (i did not look)
ErasureAcer said:The U.N. doing nothing yet again in a major world conflict...what a shock.
ErasureAcer said:The U.N. doing nothing yet again in a major world conflict...what a shock.
ErasureAcer said:The U.N. doing nothing yet again in a major world conflict...what a shock.
goomba said: