BBC caught lying once again

[Souseiseki]

Firstly, Al Quds TV is not merely a “Palestinian broadcaster” – it is a television station owned and run by Hamas. Of course this is not the first time that the BBC has elected to conceal from its audiences the terror connections of Al Quds TV and its sister organization Al Aqsa TV.

Still a Palestinian broadcaster.

personally i think that whenever that station comes up the BBC should prove they are not biased by flashing a large banner saying THESE ARE THE BAD GUYS NEE NAW NEE NAW

[Kirrig]

Still a Palestinian broadcaster.

personally i think that whenever that station comes up the BBC should prove they are not biased by flashing a large banner saying THESE ARE THE BAD GUYS NEE NAW NEE NAW

Both sides aren't the sort of people you like to come round for tea.

[Massena]

http://bbcwatch.org/2013/01/16/bbc-tones-down-morsis-support-for-terrorism-against-all-israelis/

So at this point can we proclaim the BBC a biased news organization?

I've known it was for a long time. Every news network in the world is biased. The only question is in what direction, and to what degree. The ones I respect most are the ones who have the guts to honestly and openly admit it. Even so, I have long found the BBC's actions especially revolting.

[Souseiseki]

Also after reading the article, they are attacking BBC over translating semantics. Rather foundation-less, really. Not that I think the BBC (or any media group) is unbiased, but this is a bad example.

complaining about the BBC "concealing" from it's audiences the history of certain organizations while simultaneously concealing from your audiences you are using a source known for it's inaccurate/misleading translations while bitching about the BBC translations

i'm too early to properly phrase it all but this whole thing is making me very very happy in a non-PG 13 way. please point to this hilarious thread and story the next time someone bitches about the medias coverage of poor widdle israel.

[Tubbsalot]

[the] dirka dirka Mohammed Jihad one (al jazeera)

Oh dear. And you were doing so well (sort of) in appearing respectable.

[Free South Califas]

This thread would probably be stronger if it referenced what the BBC did with respect to the whole Jimmy Savile saga.

I guess we'll all just have to take your word for it.

First of all, can anyone clarify the issue here for me because I don;t really get it.

Second, what's wrong about replacing the word "Zionists" with "Jewish settlers". Doesn;t those two mean the same thing?

Not at all. "Zionists" is a much larger group.

[Costa Alegria]

Well, yes, they've always been made of humans. Nothing new there.

Unless of course, you consider humans to be unprofessional and emotionally motivated in all their endeavours. The BBC is a respected news organisation, not some crummy tabloid or some shitty propaganda site run by a corrupt dictatorship.

[Free South Califas]

Well, yes, they've always been made of humans. Nothing new there.

Unless of course, you consider humans to be unprofessional and emotionally motivated in all their endeavours. The BBC is a respected news organisation, not some crummy tabloid or some shitty propaganda site run by a corrupt dictatorship.

Sorry, I literally don't know what point you're making here. I'm saying that every news source is biased, like every debater, politician, scientist, etc. The best we can do is disclose our bias and work to subdue it, presenting information as honestly as we can. I think this can be done professionally, but it's not particularly a strong trend in TV news, to put it mildly...

[Massena]

The BBC is a respected news organisation, not some crummy tabloid or some shitty propaganda site run by a corrupt dictatorship.

Nor should it behave as one, especially considering the fact that it is a publicly funded institution supported by a universal television license (and what a concept that is...) costing roughly £145.50 in a single year's time for a single British household, regardless of political inclinations.

Even so, the problem is clear, at least to my eyes.

[Tubbsalot]

I'm saying that every news source is biased, like every debater, politician, scientist, etc

A ridiculous assertion which I can only imagine propagates due to a sort of golden middle counter-fallacy. If you accept that views fall along the range from "all for side A" to "all for side B" you have to accept that there are people whose views fall pretty much exactly in the middle, without preference for either.

[Free South Califas]

I'm saying that every news source is biased, like every debater, politician, scientist, etc

A ridiculous assertion which I can only imagine propagates due to a sort of golden middle counter-fallacy. If you accept that views fall along the range from "all for side A" to "all for side B" you have to accept that there are people whose views fall pretty much exactly in the middle, without preference for either.

I reject the premise that there is some simple duality of views, itself a common fallacy on US TV news, in which at most there is some neatly arranged linear spectrum separating one opinion from another. Life is a moving train.

[Massena]

A ridiculous assertion which I can only imagine propagates due to a sort of golden middle counter-fallacy. If you accept that views fall along the range from "all for side A" to "all for side B" you have to accept that there are people whose views fall pretty much exactly in the middle, without preference for either.

I don't know very many people who don't have some kind of opinion of pretty much every issue there is. Even a centrist view is still a personal view colored by one's own experiences, beliefs, and both the level and the quality of the information which one has available. Centrism does not necessarily equal a complete lack of bias.

[Free South Califas]

A ridiculous assertion which I can only imagine propagates due to a sort of golden middle counter-fallacy. If you accept that views fall along the range from "all for side A" to "all for side B" you have to accept that there are people whose views fall pretty much exactly in the middle, without preference for either.

I don't know very many people who don't have some kind of opinion of pretty much every issue there is. Even a centrist view is still a personal view colored by one's own experiences, beliefs, and both the level and the quality of the information which one has available. Centrism does not necessarily equal a complete lack of bias.

Indeed, centrist views are often actively triangulated, not null hypotheses.

[Forsakia]

Tbh my imagining of things involves the BBC having an internal conversation about "how many readers don't know what 'zionist' means?"

[Tubbsalot]

A ridiculous assertion which I can only imagine propagates due to a sort of golden middle counter-fallacy. If you accept that views fall along the range from "all for side A" to "all for side B" you have to accept that there are people whose views fall pretty much exactly in the middle, without preference for either.

I don't know very many people who don't have some kind of opinion of pretty much every issue there is. Even a centrist view is still a personal view colored by one's own experiences, beliefs, and both the level and the quality of the information which one has available. Centrism does not necessarily equal a complete lack of bias.

Yes, political centrism is irrelevant to whether or not you're biased. If it helps, replace "views" with "biases."

[Ta suil]

eh, f*ck israel

[Horsefish]

Even so, I have long found the BBC's actions especially revolting.

Revolting? Bit strong.

[Strykla]

eh, f*ck israel

What a well-reasoned, thoughtful argument! And what do you think of asbestos?

As for BBC, well, they were good. I dunno about recently. I feel like C-SPAN is becoming they only way to get the actual news.

[Ethel mermania]

http://bbcwatch.org/2013/01/16/bbc-tones-down-morsis-support-for-terrorism-against-all-israelis/

So at this point can we proclaim the BBC a biased news organization?

Better question (or thread, rather), is can we proclaim a single news organization un-biased?

the answer to the OP is yes
the answer to this post is no

both answers are sad.

[Onora]

That's ambiguous. Is it a painful truth for pro-BBC people or pro=BBCWatch people?

I think he's just after me because I put him on ignore when he telegrammed me saying that my parents basically just didn't care enough about us to try and save their relationship.

I am sure your parent's care a whole lot about you and your sister. The same as my parents care about me and my siblings. My parents, as mentioned, are also divorced. In order for me to say that about your family. I would have to also believe that my parents didn't care about me and my siblings. But that is not how I feel about yours or my family.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

http://bbcwatch.org/2013/01/16/bbc-tones-down-morsis-support-for-terrorism-against-all-israelis/

So at this point can we proclaim the BBC a biased news organization?

Ahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa

No.

[Johz]

eh, f*ck israel

What a well-reasoned, thoughtful argument! And what do you think of asbestos?

As for BBC, well, they were good. I dunno about recently. I feel like C-SPAN is becoming they only way to get the actual news.

I now get my news entirely from unbiased and accurate sources, such as news threads on NSG. Unfortunately, this means that I now support gay marriage, hate abortions, believe in eighteen different Gods, and want Mitt Romney to become president of the United Nations. I think.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Ralkovia: Content to your OP. It might be a good thing to look into. Also, hit and run threads like this serve little point. If you're that concerned over a topic, stick around to discuss it. Don't just toss it to the populace and sit back to be entertained. It's rude. 90% of this has been spam anyway, with the majority of actual content seeming to agree - you lack a proper OP, and there's many more valid points that could have saved it.