| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| BBC chief slates US media on Iraq |
| 2003-11-26 |
| EFL & BBCias Greg Dyke, director-general of the BBC, used the award of an International Emmy to round once again on US coverage of the Iraq war — suggesting the American media had become a "cheerleader" for the 5, 4, 3, 2, ... Mr (yes, so far, so good) not banging the drum for one side or the other. (I knew it couldn’t last long) This is something which seemed to get lost in American reporting during the war." He doesn’t spend much time watching American media, eh? "For any news organisation to act as a cheerleader for government is to undermine your credibility," he added. Note to Dyke: The terrorists have no formal government... Oh, wait, that’s not what he meant. My bad. |
| Posted by:Dragon Fly |
| #8 The Blathering Bigots of Croydon want US to "balance" our reporting, while they go out of their way to convince half the world we're doing everything wrong. What's wrong with this picture? Why is this idiot still employed in an agency that's supposed to "present to the English-speaking world a first-hand view of what's important in the world today". The BBC is a total failure - their "news" is more biased than CBS, their programming would rate "UUGH" on most scales, and they couldn't draw more than 30 people to their own hanging. BBC deserves a large helping of American Raspberry: BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBBBBBBBBBPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-26 7:36:09 PM |
| #7 This would be the same BBC that had to hire someone to monitor it's own coverage of Israeli and/or Jewish news. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2003-11-26 6:07:20 PM |
| #6 JH That was worth seeing three times. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-26 4:59:09 PM |
| #5 "News organisations should be in the business of balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other. This is something which seemed to get lost in American reporting during the war." Well this is amusing. Someone from the BBC criticizing U.S. media as biased? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-26 10:57:35 AM |
| #4 I wonder if Mr.Dick will apologize for the BBC's blatant pro-British behavior during WWII. What with giving code on the air to the French and everything. They should have been more objective about Hitler. Horrible, simply unexcusable. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-26 10:34:15 AM |
| #3 "For any news organisation to act as a cheerleader for government is to undermine your credibility," Come again? - the BBC IS the British government, supported by compulsory fees! |
| Posted by: Spot 2003-11-26 8:58:59 AM |
| #2 When I hear the BBC self-promotion BS in which they say "Demand a broader view." I am always reminded of how |
| Posted by: .com (Abu Pure Spin) 2003-11-26 8:56:51 AM |
| #1 This reminds me of a remark I saw 20 years ago where someone was talking about how horrible the Holocaust was and someone else was complaining about balanced coverage. BBC really has to make a choice. They can either give up this idea that reporting two sides of, for example, an act of evil, means that you must in some way endorse the evil itself; that refusing, in the view of all the evil that is being done, to accept that right is right and wrong is wrong is not balanced coverage of events. An example would be: A crime reporter reporting a cop being shot by a druggie, and then telling the world that the druggie has a good excuse to shoot the cop, or any excuse. At that level, who cares the reasons the cop was shot, or even if it was justified? A crime has been committed. Do you really think that reporting such an event not as a crime but as a simple event is balanced coverage? The BBC does, and it is a central reason why their coverage mostly comes off as unbalanced and unfair. OR, they can chuck this mantle of impartiality they tote around, that few objective people really believe they have, and truley come out of the closet as a pro-Muslim and pro evil "news' organization. Heck, they may as well. The second item is how I view them. What do they have to lose? |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-11-26 7:49:48 AM |