murdoch moves to the US.......

Jerrek your anti-BBC rants are starting to upset me. I love the BBC their news service is excellent and there programming equals their high standards. While FOX news is awful and really biased for example when they accussed the BBC of lieing to make the USA look bad which was no where near what they did. A lone reporter said the engliish goverment knew the 45 mintue claim was false nothing to do with the usa.

There is an example of biased fox news (owned by murdoch who has openly expressed his dislike of public broadcasting and hatred of the BBC) so before you continue to rant on aboout the BBC can you back it up?

Also due to you giving me a bbad rep for simply asking why you gave ic14 a bad rep that meansyou cannot really give me another for expressing my views

[Jerrek]

Your post was completely off topic and inappropiate. A PM would have sufficed.


http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...news.wariniraq

'Angry' Ark Royal crew switch off BBC

The BBC has been axed from the nation's flagship naval vessel following claims of pro-Iraqi bias.

The Navy says it has switched off News 24 aboard HMS Ark Royal after complaints by the crew.

(snip)

Ark has replaced the BBC with rival broadcaster Sky News.

Even your own armed forces can't stomach it.

[ic14]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Your post was completely off topic and inappropiate. A PM would have sufficed.

Not worth giving a red rep though. Oh and damien id give ya a greenie, but i cant seem to give reps

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Your post was completely off topic and inappropiate. A PM would have sufficed.


http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...news.wariniraq

'Angry' Ark Royal crew switch off BBC



Even your own armed forces can't stomach it.

Sorry but what does that prove? The british armed forces have always had a problem with the BBC since the falklands why the bbc refered to the british force as 'The British" for example peter snoow said this "if you belive the argentines or if you belive the british. Which is a sign of its impartality. I want actual proof here not sensentional storys. This just shows that they are impartl instead of siding 'with the boys' fox news. Just because the BBC wont say we where right to go to war doesnt mean they are not impartal.

SO can you give actual proof or do you just like to strike out against stuff. THe BBC is general accepted as the best news service and compared to fox news is excellent.

Also if you read the report the BBC said poor mantinace may have caused the crashs instead of automatically agreeing with the army. Impartal means just that so they do ot take the armys version without prooof. And how can someone who doesnt seem to understand the concept of proof (instead linking to someone elses views) be in a postion to tell us about news companys?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

You obviously don't watch O'Reilly enough. He critisizes Bush at least once every second or third show.

I must have missed it in between the self-promoting, and the urging of US forces to take a lession from Saddam and rule by fear by shooting Iraqi curfew violators on site.

[abailey152]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Yes. Moronic enough not to lie, moronic enough not to get a government investigation, and moronic enough not to have had their management resign...

At what point was it proven that the BBC lied? Only one individual actually lied, and he only lied about what facts he had to support his story. Whether the story is true or not is still speculation. On the other hand, loads of facts were conveniently overlooked at the inquiry. Like how much was Tony Blair aware of regarding the release of Dr. Kelly's name to the press. Why was enough information put out to allow the media to guess his identity. Etc. Etc. None of this was investigated. But I guess Fox failed to report this, as it didn't suit their slanted look of the world.

How are Fox going to be investigated when the government is controlled by the party to which they suck-up too?

The BBC is an organisation controlled by a broad spectrum of people, who are there to see that all angles are covered and everyone is represented. Fox is owned by a single individual who supports the Republican party. Add to this that Fox also has a strong editorial bias towards the Republicans and you get the propaganda outlet it is. I'd trust the BBC any day before Fox. You meantion Sky. Yes, I think Sky is quite good. They've obviously kept a good deal of independant editorial control (as apart from allowing Murdoch to rule what is said and how). I think it's fair to say that Sky News has a lot more crediblility than Fox News.