Active Users:1550 Time:23/10/2025 11:00:31 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 1157 Views
umm ok *NM* Aisha - 15/07/2010 10:03:37 PM 315 Views
wow that's low... *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 10:18:28 PM 286 Views
That doesn't... seem that weird? nossy - 15/07/2010 10:40:58 PM 771 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 822 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 811 Views
thats what i took away form that article Aisha - 15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM 724 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 285 Views
That's what I disliked about it, yes *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 11:42:53 PM 300 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist Aisha - 16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM 659 Views
I don't like that line of thought. Nate - 16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM 843 Views
I was going to say this*: nossy - 16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM 711 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though ironclad - 16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM 680 Views
Perhaps you read a different article then? snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:19:04 AM 668 Views
I agree snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:16:25 AM 655 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 687 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article random thoughts - 16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM 715 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something. nossy - 16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM 646 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM 828 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM 752 Views
Ditto snoopcester - 17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM 644 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM 602 Views
I'd guess I actually spend more time reading the Daily Telegraph snoopcester - 17/07/2010 04:15:43 PM 620 Views
Whoa nossy - 17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM 785 Views
Not at me, surely. I'm adorable. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/07/2010 10:07:15 PM 301 Views
Pft, evil most often hides behind "adorable." *NM* nossy - 17/07/2010 10:34:22 PM 269 Views
you wouldn't know an unbiased source if it bit you random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:09:46 PM 636 Views
"loony left"? BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 11:40:41 PM 687 Views
Sorry man. everynametaken - 16/07/2010 11:54:38 PM 622 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes