the BBC has been ruined by people who put ideology and partisan political activism before journalism. the left are entitled to their views, but they should not have a broadcasting monopoly. left-colored politics have ruled the day and shaded news coverage there through much of the late 90's.
ideologically driven 'journalistic activism' is not, and should never be confused with, real investigative journalism. the independent and widely respected hutton commission found that the BBC journalistic integrity, as well as the ensuing and ongoing editorial oversight on this whole issue was dead wrong.
andrew gilligan’s reporting was much worse than merely sloppy. another example… on the day that the americans captured the baghdad airport, gilligan reported on the BBC that he was ''at the airport,'' and that ''the americans are not here.'' later in the day, another BBC reporter reported that he was at the airport, that the americans had seized it, and that gilligan was nowhere near the airport that day.
if the BBC were an honest news organization, it would have fired gilligan on the spot. but gilligan was promoting the anti-blair party line of the BBC, so they kept him on board. he said he was there and we weren't, when in fact he wasn’t there and we were. he should have lost his job then, but he was pushing the anti-war agenda and to them, the end justifies the means. so there was hardly just a momentary lapse of journalism there, the whole institution continued to back gilligan up long after his so-called 'gaffe'.
he returned to england and he filed his blockbuster story that the blair government had, in essence, faked the evidence of iraq's weapons, which in turn was the basis for both the british and american decisions to go to war. the core of that entire story was that blair "sexed up" intelligence information about iraq as a pretext for war. the truth..and that's why all these guys resigned..is that blair and his government did not "sex up" the intel.
it's exactly the same point kay made, bush and his team did not manipulate the intelligence. did they get bad intelligence? perhaps. but they acted honestly based on what they knew, what clinton knew, what france knew, what the UN knew regarding WMDs. the BBC lied, and they are once again blaming others instead of trying to correct the problem.
people jump up and down over the implication that bush lied, blair lied. but when it’s proven that the BBC lied, they try to change the story. if we had found a giant nuke aimed at NYC with saddams & bin ladens signature on it, the left would still claim that bush lied.
Quote:
|
Well, I'll let your ignorant ass in on a secret, Scoob. It aint because it's chief was 'ultra left wing' (man, that sounds kinda catchy...) pushing 'false ideological pretenses'.
|
Quote:
|
Scoob, I particularly enjoy your idea regarding the BBC 'fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide'. worldwide regarding the iraq war"…
|
aw…thanks for taking the time and effort to let my “ignorant ass” in on that secret. since you enjoyed so much the idea of the BBC “fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide”…here’s some more...for your enjoyment…
“Greg Dyke, director-general of the BBC, issued an unprecedented public apology yesterday after BBC1 screened a live edition of Question Time shortly after the attacks on New York, during which members of the audience expressed violent anti-American views.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...552742,00.html
“The BBC news department continues its war of words over why Tony Blair was wrong to take us into the Iraqi war. It's failed attempt to cast light on an interesting subject "The Media at War" proved to be just another attempt by the BBC to bash the US and UK governments. It made no mention of the past failures of the media that had brought this situation into being. It wreaked of prejudice from beginning to end. The BBC used it's guise of 'media balance and objectivity' to cloak it's opposition to the war.”
“The BBC has become anti-American and anti-British because it feels itself to be in a bigger ball game than mere politics. It is time the government let the people of Britain opt out of it's legal obligation to pay the BBC Tax and fund this corrupt moralising.”
http://website.lineone.net/~maxwolfe/bbc.htm
“BBC bans reference to Saddam as 'dictator'
Reporters ordered to call him 'deposed former president”
“The British broadcaster was heavily criticized for its coverage – widely perceived as anti-war and anti-American – of the major combat in Iraq and the subsequent controversy surrounding the intelligence underlying the U.S.- and Britain-led pre-emptive strike.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36360
“Embolden by (modest) public support and the backing of much of the press, the BBC went on the offensive yesterday by shifting attention away from the findings of the Hutton report and toward the Blair government's supposed attack on the BBC's independence. Time and time again the word "independence" appeared on last night's BBC Ten O'Clock News coverage of the fallout of the Hutton Inquiry. For example, in the opening tease Dyke announced that his "sole aim as director-general of the BBC has been to defend our editorial independence ..."
”Surely the "sole aim" of the BBC, or at least the news division of the BBC, should be to tell the truth? No wonder the director-general went to the wall defending Andrew Gilligan, a dishonest, incompetent anti-war reporter/wannabe politician. Apparently, none of Gilligan's many failings mattered to Dyke because his "sole aim" was to show the government that the BBC was independent -- "independent" here interpreted in thoroughly obstructionist terms. Dyke further illustrates his cluelessness by stating: "I couldn't quite work out what they [the BBC's Board of Governors] had apologised for."
http://www.lastnightsbbcnews.blogspot.com/