I am in the US at present so my choice of news sources are FOX or CNN on tv. Instead I turn to the BBC online for my news. Is that a good choice? Would you recomend another source for news while I am in the US?
I personally would not recommend only one source for news, but if you only have these 3 as options then BBC would be best, but thats me. edit: the reason is that I think they are more independent than the other 2.
I think the BBC is more independent as well, not totally but for me it is a better source of news while I'm in the states. MSN is just gossip, fox and cnn are crazy biased, so I have to turn to the BBC.
stay away from US TV news, Extremely biased and i can honestly say that some actually have a racist agenda behind them. Fox news for example. Not only is it extremely biased and filled with a lot of laughable "statistics" that are made up to lead there audience in a certain direction. Oh and you can't forget bill O, any news station that wants to give him a program on there network automatically gets no credit from me. The guy is the biggest racist tard spewing idiot on TV. Everyone knows hes all for white power underneath, thats why i think the other tards of america down in Alabama, texas, etc (all the Nascar loving folk) who can't think for themselves buy into bills crap. Sorry just ranting, I want to do terrible things to the fox news station!
You would be better off to not "rant" as much as you are doing. Make your point but take the rant out of it.
I prefer BBC rather than the rest, they at least strive to show a more balanced picture of the events rather than the rest of the channels.
yes it's always better to watch news from another country because the national medias have too much on their agendas. International media have their own agendas for their country, but they are more neutral concerning other countries. Not always the case, depends which countries, etc. but I would prefer bbc world instead of cnn or fox if I was in the us. Prefer doesn't mean not to watch the others at all, it' interesting to have the "official version" too It's a pity that not all humans speak the same languages, because then americans would have understood the reasoning behind things such as the invasion of iraq and why France and other countries were against it the way it was done. But since french media are in french, the only translation of their points was made by english medias such as bbc, cnn, fox, which are biaised since they were for invasion. Now there is an english speaking french tv network, called france24 but it didn't exist at that time.
What possible difference would that have made to the "Americans"? The U.S. government declared war, not the people. Besides, the French media certainly has its' share of bias, as do all news sources. That's why it's up to individuals to take all of the news with a grain of salt.
I didn't say it would have make a difference, but if americans could watch the french debates on TV if there wasn't the barrier of language, then they would have had the points made by french speakers against invasion of the country. that's it, of course it's not the people who went to war, but a lot of them I guess didn't understood the reasons and took the NO of france and other countries as a treason, just like the american media were "translating" when it was more of an advise not to go into that mess. I guess it would be the same if tomorrow the us government decides to invade iran, the advise would be not to go, then after the us government can do what they want, I don't see any country able to force them not to do it, only an internal uprise from american people could do it. And yes of course foreign media can be biased over international issues, so multiple sources are always best, I too wouldn't rely solely on BBC to get american news
The BBC is publicly funded through TV licence fees, It's owned and funded by British licence payers, and there are whole bodies and organisations set up to ensure they remain impartial. If you want honest factual news the BBC is your best bet.
Its just a pity they simply cant remain impartial or even have. The BBC news is driven by propaganda and has been heavily influenced by the government and even the military. Their reporting on Northern Ireland was a prime example of how they were a one sided propaganda machine. Unfortunately if you are in the U.S. that is true. Its one of very few news channels that I followed when I was over there although I knew to take their reports with a pinch of salt and still do.
i read the nypost in the morning going to work and dailynews in the afternoon also check bbc online and haaretz for some ME news. also watch NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on 13 maybe too much for most but i ride the subway for about 45 min each way as far as the result did you guys know that israel has grounded all her F16
This one is the British media in general on how they reported, BBC is mentioned a few times. BBC gets sued over copyright infringement and no its not off topic. Question for you stox. From all the years you have watched the BBC what did you hear about more? The IRA, UVF, UDA, UDR, UFF, LVF, RUC or British killings in Ireland? I bet you any money I could answer that question for you as I watched the same BBC news but I also watched other news channels not available in England although Channel 4 were usually on the ball when it came to reporting on Northern Ireland. Other links of interest. BBC distorting the news ( never ) and some more reading. If I had the time I find you more on this but for the most part, the BBC news is not that well trusted with nationalists in the North of Ireland because of past methods of reporting, more towards pro-Britain in Ireland.
It's hardly compelling evidence, A blogger blog and a couple of conspiricy theorists with axes to grind.
It doesn't surprise me you think the Pat Finucane site is a blogger or conspiracy theorist. You not going to answer my question then? It has its own Martin Ingram too......use Google.