[tambourine-man]

Well, Scoob... I read what you wrote... and I'm not sure what point you are making - other than that you really should be considered as a contender for a Lawlordship. I'll also say that I only wrote a long reply because what I've read has pissed me off so much - I do have a job to do, so I'll keep this fairly short.

You seem to believe that the 'media'/BBC can be unbiased - or better yet, was unbiased before this whole debacle. This is bizarre, even for someone who clearly has a solid set of enlightened political and social opinions - such as yourself, Scoob. Putting aside for one moment, the more philosophical argument (that 'the media' in any form will be biased, because of the very human trait of perceiving rather than seeing), you complain about 'the left' having a broadcasting monopoly... this is palpably absurd as you seem to ignore the possibility of the media taking whatever agenda it wishes, ultimately to serve the interests of it's backers/owners.

Take, for example, the daily British newspapers, the day after the Hutton Report broke (or was leaked - whichever suits you). You'll notice that there were two polar, opposite reactions. Both 'The Sun' and 'The Times' yacked on endlessly about how this served justice and how brilliantly innocent the Government were of any wrongdoing. If they'd blatherd on any more, they might have been accused of advertising a washing powder. Almost every other paper took the opposite viewpoint (gaining confidence over the week), that the Report was insanely crippled in favour of the Government to the point that it was almost embarrassing. I'll let you figure out why those two particular newspapers acted like a pair of dribbling sycophants. Suffice to say that 'lefties' are often accused of imagining 'a vast Right Wing conspiracy' (Sound familiar Span?). Surely you're not suggesting that there's a 'vast Left Wing conspiracy' to usurp Bush and Blair? Surely not?

No... there isn't a big, evil, lefty media monster bashing Bush/Blair, 'pushing a false ideological agenda'. As I said earlier, Scoob, the mainstream media has been forced into the awkward position as a temporary, makeshift opposition - because no-one in politics has the solid ideology or balls to do it themselves. The mainstream media is aware of a very visably spineless political opposition, a complicit gaggle of Labour politicians and a growing discontent or lack of public faith in Government.

Contrary to what you may believe, this isn't an issue of left-right-wing bullshit. As Knifey has already said, there are some things that go beyond party politics. The crux of what I was saying, Scoob, is repeated below:

Now here's the problem: In the good old days, the Government could always rely on a party political opposition, never to go for the throats of those in power. The criticisms would always be blunt, because the criticisms always related to policy or scandal - they never really went to the core of the problem. They never really started to question the fabric of political life and the trustworthiness of elected officials, they never really encouraged the electorate to view politicians with cynicism and mistrust. The media (as an opposition) does all that and more because, unlike a party political opposition, it's paychecks and existence aren't necessarily thretened by an enquiring and cynical populace.

This isn't about 'the left' beating up 'the right' (or vice-versa) or even about the BBC pushing 'left-coloured politics', this is about the fact that the current political system is in trouble. It's about a bigger picture going on - right beneath the noses of those in power. It's about the fact that people are becoming more and more enquiring of their Government's actions, when the Government is becoming less and less accountable. It's about people genuinely losing faith in the system that is supposed to be theirs. It's about people wanting a real change in politics, not just a change in leadership or party. If the BBC is guilty of 'fanning the flames' of anything, it would be 'fanning the flames' of public scepticism.

Which leads me to your response regarding the BBC 'fanning the flames of anti-americanism'. First, I should make clear that I am not anti-american (despite what you may believe). Essentially, you're a good lot - and that Constitution thing you guys always used to bang on about seemed like an excellent idea. Shame it got turned into a deformed political football.

I took a look at the links you provided, Scoob. I have to say that I actually watched the Question Time show you mentioned. Firstly, as far as an example of BBC bias goes, it's not a very good one - largely as there's usually between 150 - 300 audience members in the studio and they aren't filtered (I've actually been to one). The views expressed on a live programme by audience members reflects the cynicism of the general population, not the BBC - unless you advocate that the BBC should filter/censor it's audience.

Secondly, the remarks made were not anti-american. Nobody said, "geez, those fucking americans, I wish some fucker would bomb them'. Many of the points raised were legitimate areas of question, surrounding American foreign policy, particularly in Israel/Paelstine. That someone said 'they brought it on themselves' was a fucking disgrace in my opinion - nobody deserved to die in that fireball, nor did anyone in that building 'bring it upon themselves' - but the fact remains that the debate surrounding American foreign policy always appears to be 'off limits', when there's actually a huge and potentially positive discussion to be had.

The other links you provided were pretty sad. Unfortunately, I never saw "Media at War" - so I find it difficult to comment on the programme, never mind commenting on a comment or providing an opinion of an opinion that your link gave. How was the programme? Did you even watch it?

I also had a chuckle over your link regarding the BBC banning the use of the word 'dictator' in reference to Saddam Hussain. Warning: low flying philosophy... is Hussain a 'former dictator' or a 'deposed former president'? If I was being sneaky, I might argue that the BBC was simply stating that he was a 'president' who was 'deposed' by the US/UK. Pretty accurate. As it stands, I'll simply say that rebranding of leaders/polititians is nothing new for the BBC. I remember when they banned journalists and talking-heads from mentioning Peter Mandelson's homosexuality. The BBC has made some strange decisions in it's time .

Your final link would also have been an interesting read... if only they'd bothered to perform some sort of analysis of the differing use of the word 'independent' and how it was equally over-used by the pro-Government papers following Hutton's publication. As it turned out, your link didn't seek to look at why each 'side' emphasises 'indepenence' and feels the need to pepper every sentence with it, as it turned out, your link was happy to just remain entrenched in the usual political shitstorm... but I fear we're returning to party politics again.