Active Users:701 Time:10/12/2025 03:25:33 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 1171 Views
umm ok *NM* Aisha - 15/07/2010 10:03:37 PM 320 Views
wow that's low... *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 10:18:28 PM 288 Views
That doesn't... seem that weird? nossy - 15/07/2010 10:40:58 PM 783 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 842 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 824 Views
thats what i took away form that article Aisha - 15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM 732 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 289 Views
That's what I disliked about it, yes *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 11:42:53 PM 304 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist Aisha - 16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM 668 Views
I don't like that line of thought. Nate - 16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM 853 Views
I was going to say this*: nossy - 16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM 723 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though ironclad - 16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM 691 Views
Perhaps you read a different article then? snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:19:04 AM 679 Views
I agree snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:16:25 AM 664 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 696 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article random thoughts - 16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM 723 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something. nossy - 16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM 656 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM 837 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM 762 Views
Ditto snoopcester - 17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM 653 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM 611 Views
I'd guess I actually spend more time reading the Daily Telegraph snoopcester - 17/07/2010 04:15:43 PM 639 Views
Whoa nossy - 17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM 797 Views
Not at me, surely. I'm adorable. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/07/2010 10:07:15 PM 303 Views
Pft, evil most often hides behind "adorable." *NM* nossy - 17/07/2010 10:34:22 PM 272 Views
you wouldn't know an unbiased source if it bit you random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:09:46 PM 647 Views
"loony left"? BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 11:40:41 PM 697 Views
Sorry man. everynametaken - 16/07/2010 11:54:38 PM 632 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes