• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

BBC slanted reportage

Giz

Philosopher
G
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
8,709
Decided to post this after reading BBC news page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4930470.stm

Reporting that the IDF has said, if necessary, it will go back into Gaza.

To put this into context for its readers the BBC kindly notes:

"Palestinian militants in Gaza frequently fire short-range and crudely made rockets into Israel. The rockets rarely cause significant damage or casualties. "

Am I being hyper-sensitive, or is the BBC implying that Israel is getting all worked up over nothing? It's only a few rockets right? Not that many people getting killed? (I wonder what the BBC thought of the London tube bombings - "only" 50 dead - what a lot of fuss about nothing!*!?). Is a soveriegn goverment over-reacting if it attempts to prevent its citizens being attacked?!

Of course they carry on with:

"Israeli forces say they fired more than 2,000 artillery shells into the northern Gaza Strip, in the first two weeks of April. Israel says this is an attempt to halt the growing number of rocket attacks by Palestinian militants.
A number of civilians have been killed and injured in the shelling. "

A number? Is it a "significant" number pray tell BBC? Are the "civilians" non-combatants or militants? In what proportion?

Why apply judgmental minimisation on one side and not the other? "independent, impartial and honest" (the BBC according to its own mission statement) or not?

My view: The BBC appears - consistently - to be desperate to avoid offending the "underdog" in it's reportage, leading to slanted writing whereby anyone without other sources of info (lgf etc) would be steered towards accepting the "underdogs" version of events, facts be damned.

Bah. At least I no longer have to subsidise it.
 
I believe the point that Grammatron is trying to make is that criminilization means "to make something illegal," so the caption would be redundant in a strict interpretation.

Either that or he was thrown off by the British spelling of criminaliszation.
 
Giz said:
My view: The BBC appears - consistently - to be desperate to avoid offending the "underdog" in it's reportage, leading to slanted writing whereby anyone without other sources of info (lgf etc) would be steered towards accepting the "underdogs" version of events, facts be damned.
Click to expand...

If seeing the fnords bothers you too much, try reading the advertising section instead.
 
Giz said:
Decided to post this after reading BBC news page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4930470.stm

Reporting that the IDF has said, if necessary, it will go back into Gaza.

To put this into context for its readers the BBC kindly notes:

"Palestinian militants in Gaza frequently fire short-range and crudely made rockets into Israel. The rockets rarely cause significant damage or casualties. "

Am I being hyper-sensitive, or is the BBC implying that Israel is getting all worked up over nothing?
Click to expand...

Israel isn't getting worked up over those rockets to any real degree. The article is talking about what may happen if the rate increasess or the weapons get better

It's only a few rockets right? Not that many people getting killed? (I wonder what the BBC thought of the London tube bombings - "only" 50 dead - what a lot of fuss about nothing!*!?).
Click to expand...

We were informed this was the correct patriotic atittude. Strangly it appears to have atchive widest acceptance in london.

Is a soveriegn goverment over-reacting if it attempts to prevent its citizens being attacked?!
Click to expand...

It depends. Generaly nukeing zimbarwe because a few brits got rather forcefuly thrown out would be considered an over reaction.

Of course they carry on with:

"Israeli forces say they fired more than 2,000 artillery shells into the northern Gaza Strip, in the first two weeks of April. Israel says this is an attempt to halt the growing number of rocket attacks by Palestinian militants.
A number of civilians have been killed and injured in the shelling. "

A number? Is it a "significant" number pray tell BBC? Are the "civilians" non-combatants or militants? In what proportion?
Click to expand...

The word "significant" was not used for a reason. It is probably imposible to identify the exact identity of those killed other than to say that killing millitants only in that kind of operation would be somewhat tricky.

Why apply judgmental minimisation on one side and not the other?
Click to expand...

They haven't.

"independent, impartial and honest" (the BBC according to its own mission statement) or not?
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

My view: The BBC appears - consistently - to be desperate to avoid offending the "underdog" in it's reportage, leading to slanted writing whereby anyone without other sources of info (lgf etc) would be steered towards accepting the "underdogs" version of events, facts be damned.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. How much experence do you have of trying to write nutral bits of text?
 
zakur said:
I believe the point that Grammatron is trying to make is that criminilization means "to make something illegal," so the caption would be redundant in a strict interpretation.

Either that or he was thrown off by the British spelling of criminaliszation.
Click to expand...

It was the former.

It seems like a silly choice of words to me.
 
Grammatron said:
It was the former.

It seems like a silly choice of words to me.
Click to expand...


Not really. Remeber decriminalise and legalise don't mean the same thing.

The upshot of this is that criminalisation can also mean make more illegal although would probably not be a standard useage.
 
Israel isn't getting worked up over those rockets to any real degree. The article is talking about what may happen if the rate increasess or the weapons get better
Click to expand...

I bet you'd be pretty worked up if a rocket landed in your back garden. Israel is in a constant 'worked-up' state precisely because of these activities.

It depends. Generaly nukeing zimbarwe because a few brits got rather forcefuly thrown out would be considered an over reaction.
Click to expand...

A few 'Brits' didn't get thrown out. What happened / is happening is that white Zimbabweans are being forcibly dispossesed of their property for the benefit of the ruling despotic (and personally self-interested) government. The net effect of this and other perverse activities of that government is to cause homelessness and starvation amongst the Zimbabwe population.

Why apply judgmental minimisation on one side and not the other?

They haven't.
Click to expand...

Of course they have, you only have to hear the BBC reporters' tone of voice to know what their political leanings are - its disgraceful.

"independent, impartial and honest" (the BBC according to its own mission statement) or not?

Pretty much.
Click to expand...

NOT!
 
hodgy said:
I bet you'd be pretty worked up if a rocket landed in your back garden.
Click to expand...

Dunno stff upper lip and all that. You can always repair a lawn given tender loveing care and a few centuries. In any case most of the rockets are not landing in people's back gardens

Israel is in a constant 'worked-up' state precisely because of these activities.
Click to expand...

Life goes on.

A few 'Brits' didn't get thrown out.
Click to expand...

Tell that to most of the the uk's news organisations witch had journalists there.

Of course they have, you only have to hear the BBC reporters' tone of voice to know what their political leanings are - its disgraceful.
Click to expand...

You mean the likes of Robert Kilroy-Silk (who joined UKIP)?


NOT!
Click to expand...


Argument by assertion logical fallacy.
 
Geni - if there was a God, pubs wouldn't close at 1130 in England and I'd still be there instead of arguing with you (arguing with someone in the pub instead). Nevertheless:

geni said:
Dunno stff upper lip and all that. You can always repair a lawn given tender loveing care and a few centuries. In any case most of the rockets are not landing in people's back gardens
Click to expand...

Great, thankfully the good old Palestinians just like to lob a few playful rockets over. Of course, they're not aiming for your (recently mowed and mole-free) lawn - that was just an unfortunate miscalculation.

Life goes on.
Click to expand...

Obviously excluding the recently 'martyred' and fellow bombees.

Tell that to most of the the uk's news organisations witch had journalists there.
Click to expand...

I take your point but the mis-nationally-assigned people were the victims in that activity so I hardly think its fair to take it out on them. Moreover, the corrupt, incompetent and frankly racist government of Zimbabwe is surely worthy of so much more of your outraged liberal attention. Why mention the poor 'Brits' when there are starving, dispossessed and oppressed Africans to concern yourself with.

You mean the likes of Robert Kilroy-Silk (who joined UKIP)?
Click to expand...

Erm, no - he's not a repoter for starters. He was a daytime TV host (after being a Labour MP). His UKIP activities discredited him enormously in the genral public opinion (IMO) - irrespective of wheher UKIP have a point or not.

I (like the OP) was referring to the tone of voice (and often the content) of BBC news presentations where it is often made pretty obvious where the presenter's sympathies lie.

Argument by assertion logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Haha maybe NOT! is a double negative....
 
hodgy said:
Great, thankfully the good old Palestinians just like to lob a few playful rockets over. Of course, they're not aiming for your (recently mowed and mole-free) lawn - that was just an unfortunate miscalculation.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware the rockets the palistinians used allowed for aiming.

Obviously excluding the recently 'martyred' and fellow bombees.
Click to expand...

Which are in fairly low numbers compared to normal israli life and very low numbers compared to normal palistian life.

I take your point but the mis-nationally-assigned people were the victims in that activity so I hardly think its fair to take it out on them. Moreover, the corrupt, incompetent and frankly racist government of Zimbabwe is surely worthy of so much more of your outraged liberal attention. Why mention the poor 'Brits' when there are starving, dispossessed and oppressed Africans to concern yourself with.
Click to expand...

I was useing it as an example. Our army is a little busy right now so remove a few cities would appear to be the simplest way of indicateing it is a bad idea to mistreat british citersens. After all " Is a soveriegn goverment over-reacting if it attempts to prevent its citizens being attacked?!
"

I (like the OP) was referring to the tone of voice (and often the content) of BBC news presentations where it is often made pretty obvious where the presenter's sympathies lie.
Click to expand...

I suspect a significat number are just generaly anti politician. The problem comes when you try and define what their bias is. You can accuse them of being liberal but then you see the Paxman v Galloway interview.
 
Last edited:
That article is obviously biased. It doesn't refer to Israel as a "land-stealing theocracy", and it fails to mock the Palestinians' headgear even once.

Clearly the BBC is controlled by pro-gerbil bigots.
 
Giz said:
Am I being hyper-sensitive, or is the BBC implying that Israel is getting all worked up over nothing? It's only a few rockets right? Not that many people getting killed? (I wonder what the BBC thought of the London tube bombings - "only" 50 dead - what a lot of fuss about nothing!*!?). Is a soveriegn goverment over-reacting if it attempts to prevent its citizens being attacked?!
Click to expand...

Distance seems to harden people.

I remember about a year after 9/11 when people across the pond were saying, "So what? Big deal. Not much destroyed. Not many killed." And then, when the London train bombings happened, in some cases the same people, if they lived in England, were really upset about it.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Tell you what, BBC, YOU pay for them if you are going to propagandize for them..theyre called illegal for a reason
Click to expand...

"Illegal" and "criminal" doesn't mean quite the same thing. Not everything that's illegal is criminal (speeding is a good example) and "illegal" also have a meaning of "unauthorised."

An illegal, but not criminal, immigrant can be deported -- as he has no legal right to stay in the country, but not sentenced -- as he has not commited a crime by staying in the country.
 
hodgy said:
Of course they have, you only have to hear the BBC reporters' tone of voice to know what their political leanings are - its disgraceful.
Click to expand...
Hey, Hodgy. Could you take at look at that woman who reads the news on BBCNews24 - can't remember her name, but she's the giggly brunette one with glasses - and tell us how she votes?
My husband ilikes watching her, but can't fully commit himself to total fanworship until he's certain that she hasn't got any leftward political leanings.
 
epepke said:
Distance seems to harden people.

I remember about a year after 9/11 when people across the pond were saying, "So what? Big deal. Not much destroyed. Not many killed." And then, when the London train bombings happened, in some cases the same people, if they lived in England, were really upset about it.
Click to expand...
actually, the London bombings didn't cause that much of a stir, yes there was shock for a couple of weeks, but frankly, they have been largely forgotten about, as Londoners just get on with their day to day lives.
Mainly because thy where just two more incidents in a long string of bombings in London.
 
Leif Roar said:
"Illegal" and "criminal" doesn't mean quite the same thing. Not everything that's illegal is criminal (speeding is a good example) and "illegal" also have a meaning of "unauthorised."

An illegal, but not criminal, immigrant can be deported -- as he has no legal right to stay in the country, but not sentenced -- as he has not commited a crime by staying in the country.
Click to expand...

It's a crime to be here illigaly in USA, thus you are criminal if you an illigal immigrant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom