Active Users:726 Time:06/02/2026 06:49:26 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts Send a noteboard - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM
He seems to see this is as question of balance while for me I don't want them giving the terrorist a voice regardless. I don't believe they need to give the terrorist's side to keep from being a moth piece of the government. I really just felt that the story was too short to accuse the BBC of giving him voice and that what he said was sufficiently refuted. News source are allowed to be against terrorist and for the country they are created in. the BBC can and should be pro-British.
Reply to message
BBC News Sells it's Soul - If it ever had one... Wibble - 15/07/2010 09:50:52 PM 1198 Views
umm ok *NM* Aisha - 15/07/2010 10:03:37 PM 327 Views
wow that's low... *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 10:18:28 PM 296 Views
That doesn't... seem that weird? nossy - 15/07/2010 10:40:58 PM 802 Views
Looks like they're trying their best to uphold journalistic integrity in the face of public opinion lord-of-shadow - 15/07/2010 10:54:00 PM 862 Views
In fact, having now read the link a bit better... I think this is good journalism. I applaud it. lord-of-shadow - 15/07/2010 10:57:35 PM 838 Views
thats what i took away form that article Aisha - 15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM 746 Views
I suspect it is the line of thought that says giving terrorists airtime is justifying their actions. *NM* Ghavrel - 15/07/2010 11:32:37 PM 299 Views
That's what I disliked about it, yes *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 11:42:53 PM 315 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist Aisha - 16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM 684 Views
I don't like that line of thought. Nate - 16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM 871 Views
I was going to say this*: nossy - 16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM 742 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though ironclad - 16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM 710 Views
Perhaps you read a different article then? snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:19:04 AM 695 Views
I agree snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:16:25 AM 687 Views
its, not it's. i thought you were talking about the site format, which now sucks. temeraire - 16/07/2010 06:36:23 AM 717 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article random thoughts - 16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM 736 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something. nossy - 16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM 678 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM 854 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM 776 Views
Ditto snoopcester - 17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM 671 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM 626 Views
I'd guess I actually spend more time reading the Daily Telegraph snoopcester - 17/07/2010 04:15:43 PM 664 Views
Whoa nossy - 17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM 821 Views
Not at me, surely. I'm adorable. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/07/2010 10:07:15 PM 313 Views
Pft, evil most often hides behind "adorable." *NM* nossy - 17/07/2010 10:34:22 PM 279 Views
you wouldn't know an unbiased source if it bit you random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:09:46 PM 666 Views
"loony left"? BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 11:40:41 PM 712 Views
Sorry man. everynametaken - 16/07/2010 11:54:38 PM 650 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes