BBC gets KICKED for being pro Iraqi

[Kanth]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768569.html?menu=news.wariniraq

'Angry' Ark Royal crew switch off BBC

The BBC has been axed from the nation's flagship naval vessel following claims of pro-Iraqi bias.



The Navy says it has switched off News 24 aboard HMS Ark Royal after complaints by the crew.

It is one of a handful of task force ships which receives live TV direct from Britain.

Rolling news plus two entertainment channels are beamed into the warship.

A BBC correspondent has been on board but the crew say they have no gripe with his reports.

However they were annoyed by the comments of presenters and commentators reporting on the carrier's Sea King tragedy a fortnight ago.

The BBC suggested poor levels of maintenance played a hand in the deaths of seven fliers.

Sailors also believe the news organisation places more faith in Iraqi reports than information coming from British or Allied sources.

One senior rating said: "The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side. It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy."

Ark has replaced the BBC with rival broadcaster Sky News.

[funkedup]

Wow, shame on the BBC.

[Sandman]

Hmmm... any objective report will appear biased to someone that is biased. Don't you think?

[Kanth]

This must be why I feel such self loathing when I watch Baghdad Bob's reports.

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... any objective report will appear biased to someone that is biased. Don't you think?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... maybe it's just me, but any objective report will appear biased to someone that is biased.

Are you assuming that the crew were biased or are you just making a general statement?

Which report are you citing; the report regarding the ship's crew reaction or the BBS reports that the crew reacted to?

To say that a biased person regards an unbiased report as biased is just stating the obvious and has little to do with this story in my humble opinion.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by NUKE
Are you assuming that the crew were biased or are you just making a general statement?
 

The crew is biased. They have to be. It comes with the job.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The crew is biased. They have to be. It comes with the job.

OK, that narrows it down . You seem to be saying that the crew is biased and that the BBC reports are unbiased based on zero knowledge of the specific facts of the matter.

Thanks, now I get it. Media= unbiased. Military men and women= biased.

[ra]

The crew is biased. They have to be. It comes with the job.

The myth of journalistic impartiality is very strong.  Perhaps the crew knows what's going on better than some lefty snob newsanchor in London.

I'm surprised no one is calling this censorship yet.

ra

[Sandman]

Not what I said... From what I gather, the reports were not biased in favor of the UK military.

That's it.

[Kanth]

If the news would stick to reporting known facts we wouldn't have to worry about bias.

 It's when they start weaving their crap into it trying for sensationalism, and screwing their viewers out of the truth that there's a problem.

 Think it's the military listeners causing that?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Not what I said... From what I gather, the reports were not biased in favor of the UK military.

That's it.

Wow, you were able to glean that the reports were not biased in favor of the military? I thought the thread's first post covered that part already.

[Sandman]

Like I was trying to say... One cannot assume that the reports were pro-Iraq simply because the reports were not pro-UK. Because soldiers are inherently biased and incapable of objectivity any objective report will be perceived as pro-Iraqi.

Maybe the reports are pro-Iraqi. I think that reports from soldiers aren't enough to make that decision.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Like I was trying to say... One cannot assume that the reports were pro-Iraq simply because the reports were not pro-UK.

Another brilliant observation of the obvious......  

Why don't you just say what you are trying to say in the first place and then stand behind it?


You said the UK crew was biased and that the BBC report was not. That was what I feel you were trying to say.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by NUKE
Another brilliant observation of the obvious......  

Why don't you just say what you are trying to say in the first place and then stand behind it?


You said the UK crew was biased and that the BBC report was not. That was what I feel you were trying to say.

Feel what you like. It's not what I said nor is it what I meant.

Apparently it's not obvious:

Originally posted by funkedup
Wow, shame on the BBC.

[NUKE]

Hmmm... maybe it's just me, but any objective report will appear biased to someone that is biased.

The crew is biased. They have to be. It comes with the job

Like I was trying to say... One cannot assume that the reports were pro-Iraq simply because the reports were not pro-UK.

Like I was trying to say... One cannot assume that the reports were pro-Iraq simply because the reports were not pro-UK. Because soldiers are inherently biased and incapable of objectivity any objective report will be perceived as pro-Iraqi.

Feel what you like. It's not what I said nor is it what I meant.

After all that, how can anyone tell what you ment?