Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Again, I said ignoring Blair because regardless of his movites I think his points are valid. The media have the most to answer for are using the fact it was Blair to dismiss these points.

By the way, I used to read the Independent and it has become very biased. The fact that a lot of people agree with it does not make it less biased, a lot of people agree with the Mail as well, doesnt mean its not a right wing, idiotic, hatred filled rag. Left wing ideals in a paper are still biased. So the Independents line that it was right is pointless. Since in being right they were giving a biased view on the war. A newspaper should not need to be right or wrong*, it should just be true.

*Excluding Editorials of course

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

They're also *rare*. So is decent investigative journalism. The majority of newspapers read in this country are biased to the right and contain little or no journalism of any depth, preferring lightweight celebrity based news* or carefully spun Government propaganda (witness today's 'chemical castration' headlines, designed to conceal the frenzied (and welcome) rowback from 'Sarah's Law').

I'm sorry, I completely fail to understand your point (it's coming across as 'if you have a point of view, it doesn't matter because by possessing a point of view, you're biased', which is a circular argument).

The Independent told the truth and was vindicated, Blair lied and was found out, then singles out the Independent as an example of where the media go wrong, and *that doesn't matter*?

Er, it was.

* Things in the US are rather amusing - apparently Fox News, the great Iraq War station of 2003, is now devoting rather less coverage to the joys of the Surge, and rather more to Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith. There's a direct link between celebrity culture and the concealment of inconvenient truths - what it isn't is 'news'.

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

Yes, I am glad there is one. But that does not mean it is above the other right wing papers when it comes to bias. It is just as guilty as the Mail in many respects when it comes to using emotive language and leading headlines that lean towards its own editorial point of view. This is something they did not do back when they were changing to tabloid and their sales increased.

It doesn’t matter because you applying the motive you presume Blair had to my comments and I am talking about the media and not Blair. When we are talking about bias then it does not matter that the independent was proved right in its concerns about the Iraq war because throughout the process it continually chose to campaign for their own point of view. This is clear, undeniable bias. Their headlines reflected the view and not always the actions on the ground. It has seemed more interested in assigning blame to Blair/Bush then to report any good that has come out of Iraq.

Its bias. They also ran an anti-Bush headline on the day of the American Election. Its left wing and its biased not at all Independent. The Guardian editorials were also against the Iraq war let they did not feel the need to using leading headlines or use emotive photos and language in their news sections. They often reported what happened, if they had a issue they expressed it in their comment pages and not on the front page as ‘news’

Re: Blair attacks Media
 

South Africa - she's a proud Zulu being from Durban :)

That was pretty much what I thought he was saying :D

Though I think Damien has a point, I can't think of any truly objective or independant news outlets, and when I'm forced by law to pay for biased reporting, I tend to object.