Good news in Iraq is rarely reported in the U.S. media

[Dowding]

I think you should qualify your assertion before I give you my views. Let's keep it simple.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Dowding
I think you should qualify your assertion before I give you my views. Let's keep it simple.

You said the BBC was unbiased, I say it isn't. I'm not familiar enough with your politics to know if our left/right terminology perfectly applies to you. If it can be at least loosely applied then I say the BBC is not unbiased. Humans always see things through bias and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, (I reserve the right to prove you wrong) but I believe the BBC has far more lefties on staff than righties.

[bj229r]

link

THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.

It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.

The document, jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors, now replaced by the BBC Trust, includes details of a staff impartiality seminar at which senior figures criticised the corporation for being antiAmerican and pandering to Islam.

Criticisms highlighted from the seminar include: A senior BBC reporter attacking the corporation for giving “no moral weight” to America. Executives admitting they would broadcast images of a Bible being thrown away – but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims. The BBC deliberately championing multiculturalism and ethnic minorities, while betraying an anticountryside bias.

Mary Fitzpatrick, the BBC’s “diversity czar”, told the seminar Muslim women newsreaders should be allowed to wear the hijab, or headscarf, on screen. Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism over Fiona Bruce’s decision to wear a necklace with a cross while reading the news.

link

LONDON - What is keeping the BBC, which is ready to invest intense efforts and money, from publishing a report it commissioned to investigate whether its reporting is biased against Israel?
This question is being asked in Britain after a report about the BBC's petition to the High Court demanding the right to keep a report about its broadcasting secret. The report was commissioned by the BBC in 2003 and 2004.
In 2003, Israel complained about the broadcaster's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, accusing the BBC of being biased against Israel.
Among other things Israel condemned the BBC's refusal to call Palestinian suicide bombers "terrorists"
The crisis reached a nadir when Israel banned diplomats and government officials from speaking with the broadcaster over its release of a documentary claiming that Israel has numerous weapons of mass destruction.
In 2004, the BBC decided to appoint editorial advisor Malcolm Balen to pile a report about the organization's coverage of the Middle East conflict.
 
The BBC refused to publish the full report although acknowledged that its reporting was biased against Israel.

link

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

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.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

link

The London Telegraph reports that the bitter old BBC won’t air a drama about Britain’s youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero “because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.”

The subject of the drama was Private Johnson Beharry. Here’s the full citation of his heroism from the British Ministry of Defence:

“Private Beharry carried out two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades. Both were in direct face of the enemy, under intense fire, at great personal risk to himself (one leading to him sustaining very serious injuries). His valour is worthy of the highest recognition.

 

An incredible man, an incredible story. But British viewers won’t see it on the BBC because, as a source told the Telegraph:

    “It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn’t show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

    “It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn’t approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn’t have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn’t do that.

    “The film is now on hold and it will only make it to the screen if another broadcaster picks it up.”

Maybe Fox News can air it.

***

The BBC won’t broadcast a British war hero’s story, but it did have a reporter embedded last fall with…the Taliban as they killed British soldiers.

[Shaky]

Damn, BJ....thats gonna leave a mark!

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Shaky
Damn, BJ....thats gonna leave a mark!

Takes forever to look this stuff up on dialup, but I have time while P47 climbs:p

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
No different than Japan or Germany....

That would be a poor correlation. And as much as I'm sure that's been beat to death here already .....

.... the "occupation" we currently have in both Germany and Japan has nothing to do with maintaining stability in either region. We're not there to protect the German people or the Japanese people from themselves nor are we there to deal with insurgents. We're there to project U.S. military presense globally, taking advantage of ongoing post-occupation agreements with now stable and peaceful allies to do so.

Maybe it's a pet peeve of mine but all these ridiculous WWII correlations that aren't even remotely comparitive get old fast. Kinda like Bush = Churchill and anyone critical of how the war's been handled to date = Chamberlain's "peace in our time" speech and invading Iraq = D-Day and ....

*shakes head*

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Arlo
That would be a poor correlation. And as much as I'm sure that's been beat to death here already .....

.... the "occupation" we currently have in both Germany and Japan has nothing to do with maintaining stability in either region. We're not there to protect the German people or the Japanese people from themselves nor are we there to deal with insurgents. We're there to project U.S. military presense globally, taking advantage of ongoing post-occupation agreements with now stable and peaceful allies to do so.

Maybe it's a pet peeve of mine but all these ridiculous WWII correlations that aren't even remotely comparitive get old fast. Kinda like Bush = Churchill and anyone critical of how the war's been handled to date = Chamberlain's "peace in our time" speech and invading Iraq = D-Day and ....

*shakes head*

Actually, I was thinking the first 5 years after winning the wars...no country defeats another, removes a dictator, then immediately pulls out.

But back to the topic, what say ye about the media not reporting good news in Iraq?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, I was thinking the first 5 years after winning the wars...no country wins a war then immediately pulls out.

Gotta "win" the war and see the region stabilize to the same extent as Germany and Japan before you can make such a comparison or project it's success. Now, if you're dead set on such a comparison, let's do so more than superficially and declare the conclusion foregone. Do you not see some particularly obvious differences between this war, the region, the people, logistics and WWII?

And the media is in the job of reporting the news. Not just the news you .. or I .... want it to ("good", "bad" or "politically beneficial to my team".) I understand you're convinced that it's indeed doing number two and three in a conspiratorial effort to sabotage either Bush or the Republicans but I need a bit more convincing. Yeah, I know. Even after fifty threads "proving" the conspiracy I'm not yet convinced.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Today, only the BBC reports the highest output in Iraq, even before invasion:

So what you're saying is that the BBC is less biased that all US media?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Arlo
Gotta "win" the war and see the region stabilize to the same extent as Germany and Japan before you can make such a comparison or project it's success. Now, if you're dead set on such a comparison, let's do so more than superficially and declare the conclusion foregone. Do you not see some particularly obvious differences between this war, the region, the people, logistics and WWII?

And the media is in the job of reporting the news. Not just the news you .. or I .... want it to ("good", "bad" or "politically beneficial to my team".)

We won the war. Saddam was removed. What you see on TV is insurgency, and a "continuation" of a "war".

Dude...we won. Saddam was dethroned. Syria, SA, Iran and every other nutcase infiltrated AFTER we took the country. Sure, you can call it a war, but it is a war after the victory.

Admit it, the success in Iraq is not kosher with the media.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Viking
So what you're saying is that the BBC is less biased that all US media?

To a point, but as the link suggests in the first point, they STILL felt they needed to change the subject (good news) and report on bad news.  Go back and read BJ's posts. The proof is there. YOu have to be willing to READ and COMPREHEND the truth first though...

[Viking]

All media do that. That's not bias, that's sensationalism ... like I'm sure someone already have pointed out. Bad news is more exiting = more readers/viewers.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
We won the war. Saddam was removed. What you see on TV is insurgency, and a "continuation" of a "war".

Dude...we won. Saddam was dethroned. Syria, SA, Iran and every other nutcase infiltrated AFTER we took the country. Sure, you can call it a war, but it is a war after the victory.

Admit it, the success in Iraq is not kosher with the media.

I'm not seeing it "kosher" on your plate. Not even properly prepared and cooked. See. You can't even make up your mind if it's "mission accomplished" or "stay the course and eventually the plan has to work." It's either a war that's not over or a war that's over. If it's not over then, after five years, expect someone to ask why. If it's over, expect someone to ask when the boys come home (this includes your nephew, yes?). The U.S. military has no time machines.

[john9001]

not everyone would call killing innocent people with car bombs war, some of us call it criminal activity.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
not everyone would call killing innocent people with car bombs war, some of us call it criminal activity.

Newsflash: The Bush administration stopped considering terrorism a purely a crime when they gave up on international law and declared a U.S. (you're either with us or against us) foreign war on it.

Insurgency, however is indeed a term of warfare and is what the occupation of Iraq was allowed to devolve into.

Some are of the opinion that the men who designed our present form of government never intended the militia nor a standing U.S. army to become a global police force against international crime .... even as a stand-in for the U.N. when it, as a body, fails to do the bidding of the U.S.

Stay tuned for updates as they happen.

Sorry the news wasn't what you wanted to hear.