What the Fox News Network thinks of the BBC

by Sneaky Russian 47 Replies latest jw friends

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    As much as I would probably have fun drinking a beer with Yeru or having tea with growedup, I must say both of you are absolutely out of touch with reality and are participating in the most insane "groupthink" I've seen outside of the JWs. You too stillajwelder.

    Fox News is shit. Total shit. If you can't see that you just might be a lost cause. Sucks to be you.

    Bradley

    Bradley -

    As I mentioned in my "who would you like to meet in person" post, I put you on my list - mostly 'cuz I just wanna give you a noogie. Now, I would like to meet you even more so that I can shake your hand for helping me to prove my point that liberals can be intolerant of ideas other than their own, and that when the chips are down, many resort to overt or covert name calling. I could not have made the point any clearer than you have made it with the above post. Thank you for your help.

    *raises tea cup in a salute*

    Cheers!

    growedup

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome

    people who run the BBC can be influenced by politicians. remember when the then cabinet minister peter mandelson was 'outed' for being gay? nobody at the BBC was allowed to say that peter mandelson was gay. and who was it who got the BBC to do this? peter mandelson.

    who picked greg dyke to be the director-general of the BBC? tony blair. director-general is a political appointment. greg dyke was forced to resign, because he felt there was nothing to appolgise for. obviously he wasnt playing ball with good old tony. (he's the socialist PM, by the way).

    other than claiming that the government altered the intelligence dossier, Gilligan did a very good job. its what you call investigative journalism, very rare isnt it? INTELLIGENCE CHIEF'S BOMBSHELL: "The intelligence official whose revelations stunned the Hutton inquiry has suggested that not a single defence intelligence expert backed Tony Blair's most contentious claims on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction." http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=4875

    Blair told the house of commons in answer to a question that he did not realise that the (bogus anyway) 'intelligence' claim that saddam could deploy WMD in '45 minutes' referred only to battlefield weapons and not to long range missiles that could strike british 'interests'. he said he did not know this until after the Commons 'debate' in march 2003 that supported the invasion of iraq. Robin Cook, who resigned from the government before the war in protest at the manipulation of the 'evidence' for the invasion, referred in his resignation speech to the fact that the (false anyway) WMD claims were about battlefield, not long-range, capability. how did Cook know this, but not Blair? also defense secretary Hoon, admits he knew, but never bothered to tell Blair. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3460517.stm
    Gilligan's resignation letter: "I repeatedly said also that I did not accuse the government of fabrication, but of exaggeration." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446443.stm
    KELLY'S TAPED INTERVIEW WITH ANOTHER BBC JOURNALIST, SUSAN WATTS, SUBMITTED TO THE HUTTON 'INQUIRY', SUPPORTED THE BASIC THRUST OF WHAT GILLIGAN REPORTED KELLY TO HAVE SAID. transcript PDF file: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/08/13/sjw_1_0037-0043.pdf
    Reporter Gavin Hewitt backs up Gilligan's claim the the weapons dossier had been spun: http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/keyplayers/story/0,13842,1025921,00.html
    I WONDER WHERE LORD HUTTON WENT WRONG? WHITEWASH WHITEWASH WHITEWASH
  • logansrun
    logansrun

    needstogrowup,

    There's a time for name-calling when it's true. Adolph Hitler was an asshole -- do you disagree?

    My take on you is that you've been absorbed into the right-wing Republican groupthink because of your conservative Christian beliefs. Bush and Co. cater to fundamentalist drivel and you simply toe the party line on economics, defense, etc.

    Bradley

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    Bradley -

    I am willing to debate with you when you are minding common rules of courtesy. You are on official notice that you have crossed the line. Please go find yourself a chill-pill, and when you can behave like an adult again, come back. If I'm in the mood to deal with you, we can try again - but I will not put up with your attitude any longer the way it is now.

    growedup

  • Matty
    Matty

    The difference is not unembellished truth, but more what agrees with your preconceived ideas. If you believe something, you are more inclined to want to listen to a source that agrees with your beliefs. It?s disturbing to hear any dissenting voice, you like to be reassured that your view is correct. I don?t have any particular hard and fast political stance, either left or right, but I know propaganda when I see it. After reading Watchtower propaganda most of my life, I now like to hear all sides and make my own mind up objectively. It?s difficult to do, I know, but watching nothing but Murdoch sourced news is certainly not conducive to learning what is really going on in this world.

  • Simon
    Simon
    the Sailors of the Royal Navy didn't want the BBC to be broadcast on board ship

    I wonder, was it the saiors or the powers that be?

    I wonder too how they feel about 'the cause' now that it's been ADMITTED to have been a pile of tosh. Even the die-hard zealots are admitting that there was no threat.

    The very vocal neo-cons in the administration have gone very quiet lately as they work on self-preservation strategies,

  • logansrun
    logansrun

    needstogrowup,

    Gee, thanks mom. Whatever.

    Bradley

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    Matty -

    You have a good point. I also believe that people tend to choose the news source that best fits their world view. However, IMHO, this is exactly why there needs to be something like FOX News, in addition to other network news sources. Not everyone has the same world view. However, I do not think anyone who has made a choice in who they prefer to get their news from can say that they do not have any political leanings to the left or the right. If they disagree with the way FOX presents the news - which is slanted towards the right - and therefore, will not watch it, then they can not claim neutrality. Someone who is truly neutral receives their news from all sources and makes their mind up from there. So although I think you really believe you are neutral, I don't believe you are being honest with yourself. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I do occasionally watch other networks besides FOX. However, I am still willing to admit that I am not politically neutral. It is okay to admit it. If you don't watch FOX or any other right-leaning news sources, then it is okay for you to admit that you are not politcally neutral, also. It's also okay to disagree with others with differing ideas and/or to agree to disagree with the same, as long as it doesn't become personal. All I am asking is to keep it out of the personal arena. Insinuations and outright name-calling doesn't get anyone anywhere.

    growedup

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    Bradley -

    Gee, thanks mom. Whatever

    You're welcome, Sonny.

    Mom

  • Valis
    Valis

    I watched BBC during the Iraq war...they had better pictures and didn't show as many of the same ones over and over I thought.

    Sincerely,

    District Overbeer

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit