Active Users:437 Time:28/03/2026 06:10:47 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information BlackAdder Send a noteboard - 17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM
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.

If I wanted propaganda delivered seamlessly with my news, I'd move to North Korea.
Reply to message
BBC News Sells it's Soul - If it ever had one... Wibble - 15/07/2010 09:50:52 PM 1217 Views
umm ok *NM* Aisha - 15/07/2010 10:03:37 PM 334 Views
wow that's low... *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 10:18:28 PM 302 Views
That doesn't... seem that weird? nossy - 15/07/2010 10:40:58 PM 815 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 875 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 856 Views
thats what i took away form that article Aisha - 15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM 764 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 303 Views
That's what I disliked about it, yes *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 11:42:53 PM 321 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist Aisha - 16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM 698 Views
I don't like that line of thought. Nate - 16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM 885 Views
I was going to say this*: nossy - 16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM 757 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though ironclad - 16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM 725 Views
Perhaps you read a different article then? snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:19:04 AM 719 Views
I agree snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:16:25 AM 704 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 732 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article random thoughts - 16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM 753 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something. nossy - 16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM 697 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM 871 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM 791 Views
Ditto snoopcester - 17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM 684 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM 643 Views
I'd guess I actually spend more time reading the Daily Telegraph snoopcester - 17/07/2010 04:15:43 PM 685 Views
Whoa nossy - 17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM 840 Views
Not at me, surely. I'm adorable. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/07/2010 10:07:15 PM 320 Views
Pft, evil most often hides behind "adorable." *NM* nossy - 17/07/2010 10:34:22 PM 284 Views
you wouldn't know an unbiased source if it bit you random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:09:46 PM 686 Views
"loony left"? BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 11:40:41 PM 728 Views
Sorry man. everynametaken - 16/07/2010 11:54:38 PM 665 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes