Article

2004-07-04 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2004-07-04 2:29:18 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Much of the outright lies and hate directed at the US is the work product of the BBC. Don't expect it to get better. These are the dumb F***s that use the word "militants" to describe criminals and terrorists. They also put out pure crap about how the UK doesn't do enough to make imigrants who will never try and assimilate "feel welcome. These folks will never get it.

Posted by Anonymous5430 2004-07-04 2:52:18 AM|| 2004-07-04 2:52:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Like the false story about WMD !

Posted by Anonymous14453 2004-07-04 3:51:15 AM|| 2004-07-04 3:51:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Anonymous14453: Like the false story about WMD !

A "false" story that was corroborated by just about every intelligence agency in the world. Besides, we haven't found bin Laden yet. Does that mean he doesn't exist?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-04 8:17:20 AM|| 2004-07-04 8:17:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Anonymous5430: Much of the outright lies and hate directed at the US is the work product of the BBC. Don't expect it to get better. These are the dumb F***s that use the word "militants" to describe criminals and terrorists.

It's not just al-Beeb. The Economist and the Financial Times have been on the same road for several years now. If they keep this up, they can kiss the non-hatriotic bits of their US market goodbye.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-04 8:20:07 AM|| 2004-07-04 8:20:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 While you're at it read this
Link

Lastnight on Fox News Bill OâReilly interviewed his fellow anchor, John Gibson, who has been censured by the British government, according to the Fox report. He had been particularly caustic about the actions of BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and the Dr David Kelly affair. Gibson correctly stated that it is a golden rule in British broadcasting that anchors and reporters not editorialise. OâReiily, in unusually mellow tones, waxed lyrical about the BBC and its high standards.

Posted by Cynic 2004-07-04 9:12:07 AM|| 2004-07-04 9:12:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I'd noticed that the Economist had got a bit Anti-American over recent years (rather dumb for a publication based on Economics to decry the worlds largest economy, no?)

As for the FT, I've not read it enough in recent years to be able to give a definitive opinion, but there are certainly overtones there - again, not a particularly sensible move.

And by the way, a very Happy Independence Day to our former colonies! :)

Posted by Tony (UK) 2004-07-04 10:21:28 AM|| 2004-07-04 10:21:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Cynic - I watched that very interview the other night. O'Reilly was waxing lyrical about the high standards of the BBC of days gone by, not the current Beeb.

Posted by Fred 2004-07-04 10:33:58 AM|| 2004-07-04 10:33:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Oh, and Gibson was talking about the fact that he had been "censured" by Beeb for expressing his own opinion, labeled as opinion. You can "editorialize" through your choice of articles, through your headline writers, and in the course of the editing process. And of course there's also the use of 'quotes.'

Posted by Fred 2004-07-04 10:38:39 AM|| 2004-07-04 10:38:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Some years ago, I briefly wrote a column for a local "arts and entertainment" monthly (that is, a hippy gimme rag).
I soon learned that the editor was the worst status snob I had ever heard of (declaring that "peons" like receptionists and janitors did not deserve respect), that she lied to advertisers about circulation (overstating it by 200%) and, conveniently enough, that she seldom bothered to review content before sending the new issue off to the printer.

I therefore inserted this passage into my next column:
"[editor] is a cretin and a fraud, nobody but her friends and a few doper-cranks read this stupid rag, and this is my last column"

Sure enough, it went to print exactly as I had submitted it, and it was indeed my last column. The editor threw an altogether satisfying hissy-fit. She even blurted out that she would sue me for libel before I pointed out that this would inevitably mean suing herself and her own paper.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-07-05 12:28:01 AM|| 2004-07-05 12:28:01 AM|| Front Page Top

02:45 Long Hair Republican
00:28 Atomic Conspiracy
00:27 Lucky
00:09 Atomic Conspiracy
23:50 Lucky
23:45 Lucky
23:45 Zpaz
23:34 Silentbrick
23:32 Raptor
23:19 Frank G
23:18 Frank G
23:10 Raptor
23:09 WhiteHouseDetox
23:06 WhiteHouseDetox
22:59 Raptor
22:52 Raptor
22:44 Anonymous5295
22:37 Zpaz
22:14 muck4doo
22:02 muck4doo
22:00 Shipman
22:00 Crazy in Texas
21:56 Shipman
21:55 Jarhead