Well, when the thread is really about religious and cultural bias by the BBC and you post about the Blair broadcast network. You can see how one can say "can AGS read?" right. That's why I suggest you preface your posts, so people know immediately as to why they are about to scratch their head.
The Blair Broadcast Corporation is an interpritation of the actual acronyms meaning which is British Broadcasting Corporation. If you need any help, just ask.
Like that. It would be helpful to put ahead of that post "I'm being stupid right now" just so I know that I don't have to read any further. I'm really just trying to help you look less foolish. It's good advice, really.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the most popular paper in the UK called "The Sun" it is a very influncial newspaper due to the low mentality of most of its readers and the amount of papers it sells every day. Well back in the early 1990's it's allegence was very much towards the British Conservative party. When it became apparent that the Conservative party were doomed to lose the 1997 election Murdoch switched the papers allegience to the British Labour party. Media corporations will be biased as and when they see fit.
Who just so happens to be about as close to a democrat as they get. He was on one of the single largest donors to the Kerry campaign in 04. Them liberals sure do like to waffle...
I agree. But the BBC is the best source of impartial TV news in the UK. Its impossible to convince anybody that you are a unbiased media outlet. The BBC is paid for by UK Citizens, I think its ok for it to have a slight bias if it reflects the views of the majority in the UK.
Did you, like, read the story on page 1? Impartial? Read the story For the people who wont click links: Its deeper than bias that is representative of british at large you say. It's anti-British. Anti-west. Pro-Islam. Eurabia!
But what we are telling you is that unbiased media does not exist. You are pointing out that the BBC is biased, but so is every other news source. There is nothing sinister about the types of bias on the BBC, it does not try to intentionally mislead people to further its ideas. I watch the BBC news alot, it is a world leader in providing factual information.
Isn't it? Did you not just read the excerpts from the article? Being able to offend one group of people, but not offend other, is that not sinister?
That info came from the families that lost loved ones in Iraq. It was a survey carried out by The Lancetl medical journal.
Actually it came from random sampling; using not enough data points, designed to inflate the numbers.
I am judging the BBC based on what I read on their website, listen on the radio and watch on TV. I can decided for myself if they are credible or not. The BBC is aware of and takes account of contemporary social sensitivites. It is aware that Muslims are currently being demonised by many news sources in the UK so it is doing its part not to contribute to that demonisation.
It is the most reliable count of civilian deaths in this war. If you knew a thing or two about the statistical techniques and analysis used then you would know this.
If you weren't so blind to letting numbers fit the model you want it to fit, you'd know that there weren't enough data points used. Anyways, I think its telling that you let the BBC slide even when it admits to blatant bias towards one group of people over another. Says a lot.