Bbc

Originally Posted by Defiant

Do your research. It was the Germans that started WMD

That would very much depend on how you define your weapons of mass destruction. The modern definition would include bioweaponry such as germ warfare. This has been around for a long, long time and is well documented.

http://www.rense.com/general16/thehistoryofgerm.htm

If you are attempting to deliberately infect the population of an entire besieged city that would generally be considered a WMD attack.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by peachey

he was a warmonger by many accounts
and the Hitler conflict could have been avoided


you look at a film like "dambusters"

people glow with pride at that mission success but over 3000 innocent civilian died in the carnage and flooding that ensued


also - the black dog was called nigger in that film - so there

Peachey: Could the hitler conflict have been avoided? I doubt it could have been. Even if it could have been, Chamberlain was Prime Minister when we went to war, so ultimate responsibility should lie with him.

Churchill was a great leader, and under his leadership our armed forces held back the German forces, who had (IIRC) both superior technology and more personnel.

Anyway, I am .

Is the BBC biased? IMO all the news channels and papers are biased one way or another. The best way to find what is happening is to get your news from several sources with differing biases.

One thing I read in Private Eye (satirical magazine for our non-british friends) is that at one point, the BBC had so much footage coming in from various sources that they didn't have enough journalists to filter out the news. They ended up using VT technicians and other studio staff as untrained journalists.

The BBC does seem to be biased. It seems to be biased against the government. If this has always been the case, maybe that is why Churchill didn't like it.

Originally Posted by scastle

Peachey: Could the hitler conflict have been avoided? I doubt it could have been. Even if it could have been, Chamberlain was Prime Minister when we went to war, so ultimate responsibility should lie with him.Churchill was a great leader, and under his leadership our armed forces held back the German forces, who had (IIRC) both superior technology and more personnel.

A slight digression, In 1938, there was a national peace ballot held under the Peace Pledge Union, can't recall the figures, there was widespread support for what people perceived as continuing peace but in reality was appeasement. Chamberlain wasn't operating in a vacumn there was a majority of people who felt Germany was justified in overturning the 1919 Versailles Treaty, Germany was our best trading partner and appeasement was the winner. 1938 was also the year that Czechoslovakia was betrayed and millions cheered the event, few turned up at stand by Czechslovakia rallies in Trafalgar Square, London. So when 1939 came most people didn't want war. This alone shows that the majority can be wrong. Only a minority of people and leaders like Churchill felt it was time to stop Hitler and fascism. Fortunately, the UK resisted Hitler and with our allies won.

And back to the BBC.

The BBC has over the years watered down news content and the six o'clock TV news bulletin needs the clown act, some twit of journalist who has to wave his arms about, use facial expressions to the maximum and treat us all as if we were primary school kids, patronizingly explaining something about what he sees as important.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

That would very much depend on how you define your weapons of mass destruction. The modern definition would include bioweaponry such as germ warfare. This has been around for a long, long time and is well documented.

http://www.rense.com/general16/thehistoryofgerm.htm

If you are attempting to deliberately infect the population of an entire besieged city that would generally be considered a WMD attack.

Yep read that before somewere but I was talking about gas ( A man made wmd )

Well I've just read this one (catching up after three and a bit days away) and Oh dear, here we go with the Anti-BBC attacks.

Perhaps, Jerek, you'd prefer a "fair and open" broadcaster like, say, Fox News...?!

The BBC do *NOT* claim to "represent the voice of public opinon"! They are *not* a government mouthpiece, they are an independant broadcaster whose job is to present the facts, no matter who they may annoy. They're often considered "anti-government" because they do stories which criticise our current leaders, no matter *what* their political standings!

As to the Question Time audience, most of the comments I've seen appear to be "how dare the BBC have the ill grace to have *anyone* on who questioned American policy or behaviour at that time".

Well I say *good for them!* It's great to see that the BBC isn't willing to play for "public opinion" but *ask* the difficult questions at the difficult times!

As to whether their news coverage is "impartial" or not, I suggest, if you get the opportunity, you compare it with, say, Sky News or ITN and see just how different a spin those channels put on certain stories!

Addressing Xaccers question about why don't the BBC show the improvements being done in Iraq, wouldn't you say it's a bit difficult to report on them whilst helicopters are being shot down and the US are attacking civilian homes?

Finally Gogogo

The BBC has over the years watered down news content and the six o'clock TV news bulletin needs the clown act, some twit of journalist who has to wave his arms about, use facial expressions to the maximum and treat us all as if we were primary school kids, patronizingly explaining something about what he sees as important.

Can I assume, therefore, that you've never watched Sky News? Pointless "on the spot interviews" between the Studio presenter and the Journalist "in the field" which tell us what we've already heard, but add the "journalists opinions" (which are usually just worthless speculation), rumour reported almost as fact, suppositions reported almost as truth? Do you consider this to be *better* than the BBC??

[cjmillsnun]

Originally Posted by Defiant

You should be bloody shot NOW. What happened then cannot be compared to today's morals. Why because the Germans didn't have any. Your a bloody traitor. I've put boards down to a chat and never took it to heart but you disgust me.

Do your research. It was the Germans that started WMD

That stops right now. Calling people a traitor is not on.

The Germans as a race DID have morals, Adolf Hitler and his cronies did not.

The German people are ashamed of what he did. This includes people who fought against the Allies!

Why are they ashamed, because they were fed LIES and propaganda that they swallowed, they believed what they were told.

Also anyone with Morals would NOT have attacked Iraq to finish daddies war!

The BBC are given a remit to present a balanced and objective view. IMHO on the whole they do well. This give us the advantage of both sides of the story.

eg In Iraq, they had two reports the other day on News 24, one from people who wanted the Allies out, and another from an Internet Cafe in Baghdad where They were pleased with some of what the Americans had achieved.

However people (politicians) have strong views and point fingers, and shout if they don't get a favourable report. (Normally to comics like The Sun and The Mirror) This has happened a lot in recent years (Since Blair came to power). Unfortunately people believe what they read in the papers...... Reminds me of some people I mentioned above!

Also FYI, the Russians first used gas, (the first WMD) The popular belief is that it was first used at Ypres (1915), but the Russians had in fact used it before WW1

[downquark1]

Have any of you seen those Greg Dyke impressions on dead ringers

[cough, puts on michael kane voice] "I'm fed up of poiltical parties complaining about BBC bias, first it was the torries, now it's labour moaning. And of course the lib dems are alway belly aching that we can't even be bothered to be biased against them."

[cjmillsnun]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Have any of you seen those Greg Dyke impressions on dead ringers

[cough, puts on michael kane voice] "I'm fed up of poiltical parties complaining about BBC bias, first it was the torries, now it's labour moaning. And of course the lib dems are alway belly aching that we can't even be bothered to be biased against them."

Just what was needed to calm the situation down.

That reminds me very much of the episode of "Drop the Dead Donkey" (a news channel spoof) where a Labour Politician and a Conservative politician have *both* phoned up the station complaining about bias!

Eventually one of the staff grabs the phones off the two people fielding the calls, snaps "argue it out amongst yourselves!" and puts the phones on the desk, mouthpiece to earpiece and leaves them there!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

As to whether their news coverage is "impartial" or not, I suggest, if you get the opportunity, you compare it with, say, Sky News or ITN and see just how different a spin those channels put on certain stories!

The thing is, I'm not forced to fund ITN or Sky News. I am forced to fund the BBC and therefore would like to get what I consider, as a consumer, what counts for good news reporting.
I feel that I do not get this from them.

Addressing Xaccers question about why don't the BBC show the improvements being done in Iraq, wouldn't you say it's a bit difficult to report on them whilst helicopters are being shot down and the US are attacking civilian homes?

Report the helicopters being shot down, report the coalition forces raiding civilian houses arresting people on suspicion of terrorism (definitely report on that to help make sure it is justified), but also cover the rest of what's going on, all the hard work our engineers are doing trying to rebuild the infrastructure.
If there's a report on hospitals not having electricity etc then at least do some research and let us know if it was like that before the war.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The thing is, I'm not forced to fund ITN or Sky News

So you don't buy ANYTHING thats advertised on there?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dellwear

So you don't buy ANYTHING thats advertised on there?

I'm not forced to.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The thing is, I'm not forced to fund ITN or Sky News.

The fact that you are not "forced" to buy products advertised on "commercial" news channels does not mean that your money is not, directly or indirectly supporting those channels.

I am forced to fund the BBC and therefore would like to get what I consider, as a consumer, what counts for good news reporting.
I feel that I do not get this from them.

Ok, but then you say...

Report the helicopters being shot down, report the coalition forces raiding civilian houses arresting people on suspicion of terrorism (definitely report on that to help make sure it is justified), but also cover the rest of what's going on, all the hard work our engineers are doing trying to rebuild the infrastructure.
If there's a report on hospitals not having electricity etc then at least do some research and let us know if it was like that before the war.

Where are Sky News or ITN news versions of current affairs etc programmes like Newsnight, Panorama, The Money Programme to quote three examples which *do* the sort of in-depth analysis you want?

Yes, I agree that the BBC should do *more* with its public service mandate than try to compete with the commercial channels' output of trashy game shows, soap operas and US television shows, but I don't think it is anywhere as bad as you make out.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Where are Sky News or ITN news versions of current affairs etc programmes like Newsnight, Panorama, The Money Programme to quote three examples which *do* the sort of in-depth analysis you want?

When was the last time you saw them deal with the Iraq situation in a positive way?
When did they last discuss the rebuilding of the water supplies, electricity, food and medical supplies?
When did they last state that where there is hardship it was like that before the war or caused by the war, rather than just making ambiguous comments like "the doctors at this Bahgdad hospital say they are low on supplies"?

Originally Posted by Graham

The fact that you are not "forced" to buy products advertised on "commercial" news channels does not mean that your money is not, directly or indirectly supporting those channels.

But if I wanted to I could live off my own land, or go across the channel and shop at Carfours and still watch TV.
But if I don't pay for the BBC, well then I'd be up in court facing the possibility of time inside and £1000 fine!

[Jerrek]

When the British armed forces couldn't stomach BBC and had to replace it with Sky News, you know something is wrong. Our own forces can't stomach the likes of Komrade Klinton's News Network (also known as Communist News Network, or CNN) and as a result Fox News is the official news source. It reflects the situation more accurately than any other news source, according to the U.S. Marine Corps.