BBC gets KICKED for being pro Iraqi

[Sandman]

So... if I'm reading this report correctly... 2533 million for license fees and an additional 130 million for commercial earnings.

[Rockstar]

Sandman is owned but not by the governement.  He's out to prove to the world he has the answer.  To discover the mystery, the politcal angle, the conspiracy.  To show the world the error of its ways!

When all it really boils down is the crew thought BBC reporting sucked eggs, got up (or used the clicker) and changed the channel to another program.   And ya know what?  the British public will catch wind of this and probably do the same.  And the BBC? it will, like any other media outlet bend which ever way the wind blows to keep the ratings.

[funkedup]

I was too lazy to read the report, but that sounds right.  I know they have some commercial arms and overseas stuff.

We should start another thread.  IIRC Brits love to squeak about the BBC and the license fees.  Could be festive.

[Fishu]

Watching the BBC, I've found it quite neutral on the issue.

[funkedup]

Originally posted by Rockstar
And the BBC? it will, like any other media outlet bend which ever way the wind blows to keep the ratings.

They don't have commercials, so they don't need ratings.  If you want to have a TV in the UK, you either pay the BBC or you break the law.

[Rockstar]

Watching the BBC, I've found it quite neutral on the issue.

Well good for you.  But apparently the crew of the Ark Royal didn't and changed the channel.  I'll also bet they don't a rats arse who owns it either.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Rockstar
Sandman is owned but not by the governement.  He's out to prove to the world he has the answer.  To discover the mystery, the politcal angle, the conspiracy.  To show the world the error of its ways!

Not only that, I'm giving great thought to starting my own cult.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by NUKE
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.

Most importantly you forgot:

conservative=biased
liberal=unbiased

 

[Sandman]

Originally posted by AKIron
Most importantly you forgot:

conservative=biased
liberal=unbiased

 

This is not true.

[llyr69]

Because soldiers are inherently biased and incapable of objectivity any objective report will be perceived as pro-Iraqi.

This quote speaks for itself. Your statements inherently evidence your lack of objectivity and inability/unwillingness to engage in any kind of rational discourse.

SSGT USAF 1975-1982

[Sandman]

Originally posted by llyr69
This quote speaks for itself. Your statements inherently evidence your lack of objectivity and inability/unwillingness to engage in any kind of rational discourse.

SSGT USAF 1975-1982

Rational discourse of what?

OS1 USN 1982-1992

[llyr69]

By your own "logic", you are incapable of rendering an objective judgement having been a soldier.....errr squid.

Grow up, go back to school, and stay sober this time around. Maybe you'll learn something.

[Sandman]

I take it by "rational discourse" you really meant personal attack.

Thanks for playing.

[Martlet]

Everyone is biased.  It's natural.

Everyone also likes to be agreed with.  That's natural too.

That's why most peoples main news source is from an agreeable medium.  Sure, we all listen/watch what the other side thinks, but we much prefer the one that's in our corner.

This is compoundedly true of soldiers in war.  Their lives, and the lives of their comrades depend on their skill, enthusiasm, and morale.  It doesn't do a unit good to watch how evil the war is, how the coalition is being slaughtered at every turn.

[Karnak]

Are you guys intentionally trying to misunderstand Sandman?  It sure seems so as you keep saying he said things that he never even mentioned.

Or is this more of the typical Conservative tactic of inferring a desired message from what somebody didn't say?