So your argument is that the BBC is biased because it doesn't think the world revolves around Ireland? It reported about the big events, But it doesn't report on every murder in Ireland for the same reason it doesn't report on every murder in England, Scotland and Wales. It's because not every murder is news-worthy. Sorry to break it to you, But Ireland isn't important enough to have the BBC dedicate it's entire existence to you and your petty squabbles.
Far from it. My argument is that the BBC is a very pro British media channel who have been known to use their power to sway peoples political opinions. England, Scotland and Wales never had troops deployed on their streets. You have totally missed the point on what I mean. You going to answer the question instead of trying to wrongly suggest what my argument is? Or were you even born when the shit was going down over here? Think about that when answering my question, you are on the right path. Thank fook! BBC are well known for their opinions about this country and to be honest, the less shite they talk about us the better. As for squabble, I was using the North as an example.
Lol the shit was going down over there? we heard about the IRA more because they were the people bombing the mainland. Is it surprising that when a terrorist organisation are planting bombs every week in London that they may just make it to the news? The problem here isn't that the BBC are biased, It's that you are.
The reports were still common and one sided well before the mainland campaign started but yet atrocities by the crown forces went unreported. In your opinion which is incorrect. I'll put it down to lack of knowledge on your part.
You are obviously biased. You didn't like the way the BBC reported it because it was different to how you wanted them to report it. It doesn't mean what they reported was wrong, It just means it didn't reflect your biased view. Here's some advice, if you don't want bad press, don't plant bombs.
Cormac, if the BBC is so biased, what the hell do you make of Fox, Sky, CNN? It's impossible for a news source to be 100% unbiased, but the BBC is the most honest news source out there, regardless of what you seem to think. I love the BBC, to me it's the most trustworthy news source. I love the way that they don't have ads (in the UK) and have very little ads when I'm in the states. I like how they use technology correctly (most read/most emailed/have your say), I like how they now have fast loading video segments for a lot of their stories now, I like how they concentrate on world affairs and not so much on celebrity bollocks compared to other networks. The iPlayer is also a fantastic idea, I think they could do a little better with the organisation of all the content on it, but it shows that they're listening to what the public want and reacting, they understand that a lot of people would prefer to watch programmes in their own time, at their PC, and stream it. I think the of the BBC very much as a news 2.0 kind of network, they're always ahead of their time.
I'm biased because I dislike the methods used by the BBC in reporting? You have no idea on how I wanted them to report any news so dont even try and assume that one. Its highly obvious you have no clue about your own country, funny that. Who said anything about not wanting bad press? Are you really that badly educated that you need to try and swing me into a republican rant? Typical British.
Sorry blitz just seen your post. Fox is not even news, its a twisted form of entertainment and Sky isn't that far behind. Actually, when in the U.S I watched a lot of CNN and BBC due to the fact I couldn't stomach fox. Nah its far from trustworthy. Dont get me wrong Blitz, I don't think the BBC is a shit company with shit services, far from it. Their news has been and is biased, thats all.
Ok, do us a favour and show me a news station which is 100% unbiased? Once you realise that it doesn't exist, write me a list in order of the most and least biased of the major news networks.
You draw it up because I would like to see such a list too. The BBC is certainly not impartial , as St0x referred to it, is my point.
Cormac just has the hump because the BBC doesn't consider every trivial matter in Ireland to be worthy of international reporting. The truth of it is most British people don't give a shit about Ireland and what they get up to. The BBC has a duty to inform the people who fund it, The British licence fee payer, Of news that is of interest to them. And a couple of pikeys having a punch-up over some wasteland isn't of much interest to the average licence fee payer.
You've excellent selective reading skills. We've known that for years as does everyone. Do we give a shit? Do you even know what regions make up Britain and who exactly pays those fees? As you said, they have a duty. Spoken like a true Sassenach. With an insult like that you've been watching to much Eastenders.
The BBC lost the very last bit of any of it's credibility when it reported WTC7 collapsing 25 minutes before it actually collapsed. The BBC should have admitted that mistake if it was a fair media corporation but it didn't. It had no intention of doing so because the vast majority of people here in the UK do not even know about a 3rd building collapsing in New York on 9/11. This is a very good article on Rense about the BBC: http://www.rense.com/general81/dbbli.htm
Careful AGS, you'll make st0X scream conspiracy or call you biased as well. Here's another conspiracy. I'll assume the protesters in Manchester were also biased, its so obvious when thinking on the same level as St0x.
I was introduced to Deutsche-Welle through my grandad in law, and enjoyed it in the past - though I don't know it's status now.
Cormac does have a point about the BBC and Ireland, but it's not more partial to this blind spot than the rest of the British media. When there was the recent 25th anniversary of the hunger strike, there wasn't a single mention of it in the British media. After all, the first person to die, Bobby Sands, was an elected member of the British parliament (it seems impossible today that a British MP would starve themselves to death on a point of principle - they won't even resign for that reason!)... after which there was a minutes silence in the both the French and Indian parliaments... there was major rioting in Northern Ireland with over 10,000 rubber bullets fired... It was big historic event.
This is a recent case of the BBC reporting wrongly, as reported by Paul Joseph Watson. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/042108_gang_assaults.htm I even emailed the BBC man responsible for the report and he wrote me back thanking me for bringing the video to his attention, yet still hasn't changed the article to reflect the fact that the twat fell on his arse whilst trying to grab their video camera. The Beeb is notoriously biased, I'm very surprised stox can't see that.