BBC bias
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, November 4, 2006 05:17
VIEWED: 5882
PAGE 2 of 7
"In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.
On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.
Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims."
This does seem to convey an impression of either bias or cowardice.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Totally infect ..."
Uhm, let's see. Wearing a veil, interviewing bin Laden and allowing a bible to be thrown in the trash. Totally infect, no I didn't see that phrase anywhere. Hmmm .... perhaps canker sore made that up ... could it be that HIS reporting of others' reporting is BIASED ??!!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"'Nearly everyone ... agreed they (kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran) could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.'
This does seem to convey an impression of either bias or cowardice."
What would be more offensive to a christian - throwing a bible in the dustbin or using a crucifix as a dildo? You have to pick your examples to make sure they are equivalent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think anyone doubts that the BBC is biased, it is however less biased than any American news source, and less biased than ITN or Channel Four news over here.
Even to the point where the BBC will admit it's own failings, where as their contemporaries would just say "we are always right, sometimes reality is incorrect".
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a US observer, I find the BBC int'l coverage to be focused on ex-colonies. So when I want news on Central and South America I tend to go elsewhere. Otherwise I think it has a much better world persepctive than US news.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"In a secret meeting with FOX executives they admited they were biased:
"Yes we hate everyone except the religious right, and we want them dead, what's wrong with that?"
Ah, nothing better than a little misdirection from a liberal to know there is truth to something. Jesus Citz, I thought better of you. Who knew you would stoop so low, you little dog. What a wiley coyote you are becoming, so sneaky and hard to get a bead on... wow! Say hello to Ruse while you are down there.......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"'Nearly everyone ... agreed they (kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran) could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.'
This does seem to convey an impression of either bias or cowardice." - Geezer
What would be more offensive to a christian - throwing a bible in the dustbin or using a crucifix as a dildo? You have to pick your examples to make sure they are equivalent. - Rue
I have no doubt that there are plenty of Christians who would be as offended by someone throwing the Bible in the dustbin as Muslims would be if the Koran were being treated the same way. Is there then some secret ratio of offense which would let us know when it's OK to offend and when we have to fear that we are offending too much? Is it that the offended Muslims are considered more likely to cause trouble? Is that actually bias against Muslims?
BTW. "Crucifix as a dildo"? Now why did that example pop into your head first? Experience? Naughty Rue!
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians."
"The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom."
Ruse, these are not my words. I'm sorry to have brought it to your attention. Like you don't think big media is biased. Come on now, aaah.. sure you do. Trying to act all flabbergasted and "oh, they would never do such a thing"ish....Did you and Citz talk by phone and make a pact to act all "oh, its nothing" and evasive? Pretty gooooood, it's a cute little act.. you two are a couple of little snakes. I got by eye on you..make sure you behave.......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"BTW. "Crucifix as a dildo"? Now why did that example pop into your head first? Experience? Naughty Rue!
Perhaps he saw "The Exorcist" at a tender age back in the 1970's (as did I). Never read the book... so I can't say whether that scene was in the novel.
That said, Rue seemed to be claiming (if I understood correctly) that a visual representation of someone using a crucifix as a dildo would provide an outrage to Christians that would be more closely equivalent to a Muslim watching a Koran being defaced.
The crucifix/dildo thing was done in theaters all over the country about 30 years ago. I do remember some outcry from the Christian community. But I don't remember any firebombings, beheadings, or even criminal arrests.
Edited to Add: I went back and reread Rue's original post. He didn't say that crucifix/dildo = koran/trash can. He indicated that crucifix/dildo > bible/trashcan and followed that with a comment (something)about choosing equivalent insults. So my statement that Rue means crucifix/dildo = koran/trashcan is my inference, not Rue's explicit claim.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem is in this paragraph:
"The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom."
The problem is the wording crafted to imply much but be actionable for little. With such careful wording, and such pathetic specifics, I'd be cautious about drawing any conclusions.
"Is believed" puts everything into the hypothetical. IS it taking a closer look at itself? IS that look more critical? DOES it fear loss of self-regulation? IS that why it may or may not be taking what might or might not be a more critical look at itself? And so on.
PS The crucifix thing was from a movie with echoes from a sci-fi book "Shikasta - the Broken One".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME