BBC suing to supress critical report on Middle-East coverage

[Sulkdodds]

To you, sir, I will say the following: Nanny nanny. Looks like I hit a soft spot with that post.

Looks like your post was exposed as opinionated rubbish by the actual facts of the matter, and that you can't sustain any kind of argument without resorting to cheap and childish barbs (something you've accused others of before).

 

[Absinthe]

Looks like your post was exposed as opinionated rubbish by the actual facts of the matter, and that you can't sustain any kind of argument without resorting to cheap and childish barbs (something you've accused others of before).

You know, I'm glad I'm not the only one who picked up on this.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh shit, a misinformed hypocrite in the politics forum.
Throw 'er on the pile with the rest.

 

[Solaris]

You know what I think the BBC is allright, it's accused of bias by all sides. And I must admit, it does appear to be a bit pro-labour, but that has to be expected. It is an excellant media organisation with good news reports.

 

[Ome_Vince]

I think BBC is biased, but certainly ALOT less biased than alot of "other media" i see around lately.
non-biased media is impossible imo, since every person has his/her own opinions, and in alot of cases that subconsciously flows into even the smallest things like "how they say" things.

 

[NeptuneUK]

rather read the mail, than the leftist cesspit garbage coming from the unbiased BBC. the mail never claim to be unbiased (they report most things using fact anyway) and they dont force everyone to fund them or face jail.
no im not pro mail, i dont like the bbc so much

 

[DeusExMachina]

I use the BBC for my news source. I honestly don't see any bias toward the left. They might be a bit center-left, but really, unless you're a conservative news source, that's what you usually are.

 

[pomegranate]

the mail never claim to be unbiased, they report most things using fact anyway

Hahahahahah!!! Good one, that's very funny.

 

[Nemesis6]

My post wasn't 'exposed' to be anything. That's just what you want it to be because you don't agree with it. As simple as that. However, you're right that I myself am opinionated. That's why I post here. My posts are opinionated.

 

[Sulkdodds]

My opinion is irrelevant. Reality disagrees with it.

Ah, so that's why Red Ken called a Jewish reporter from that paper a concentration camp guard. Ken is such a lovely guy.

First, let's look at the definition of opinionated:

- Obstinate or conceited with regard to the merit of one's own opinions; conceitedly dogmatic.
- Holding stubbornly and often unreasonably to one's own opinions.

So it doesn't just mean you have an opinion, then. It means you are convinced your opinion is right even in the direst of circumstances. The word has negative connotations for a reason.

What, then, is your opinion? Well. Firstly, you believe Ken to be some kind of communist or socialist and use the name that tabloid papers gave him in the early 80's (although he's an independent now). It's clear from previous posts you really don't like communism.

By ommitting any of the circumstances leading up to the confrontation, or any way in which the journalist might have antagonised or provoked 'Red Ken', you are blanking out key information which is very important to the affair and are essentially trying to infer that these circumstances were irrelevant (if they were relevant you'd surely consider them - which you have't).

By concentrating on the reporter's Jewishness, you are casting a racial aspect on the affair that simply does not exist as Ken did not know that the reporter was Jewish (information you ommitted). While Ken did not change his comments after the reporter told him he was Jewish, he did explain his reasoning - and it had nothing to do with race. You, however, suggest that Ken's (perhaps unjustified) barb was somehow anti-semitic.

By ignoring the circumstances leading to the incident, by focusing on an imagined racial dimension and by adding a sarcastic little comment on the end, your post is constructed, essentially, to imply that Ken Livingstone an anti-semite.

As far as anyone can see, he's not - though a rude son of a bitch he may be. He made the comment before the reporter revealed that he was Jewish. Indeed, he then explained the reasoning behind his comment and it had nothing to do with race or religion or anything like that.

Now, unless you believe that there's some conspiracy going on where Ken actually researched the guy's background, found he was Jewish and then thought of that comment just to offend him (if so, where's your evidence?) then it's been shown that your 'opinion' is not actually based on facts.

Funny how someone who makes a thread about press bias leaves out crucial facts in order to strengthen his own point of view and to mislead people. You let your views get in the way of reality. Hence 'opinionated'.

When you were called out on this, you just jeered nonsensically in a way common to internet politics enthusiasts everywhere when they can't support their opinions properly.

And if you can't support your opinion (you haven't actually tried yet) then your opinion is stupid. All opinions are not equally valid. "George Bush is a communist" is a stupid claim to make without any reasoning, or only faulty reasoning, to back it up.

 

[Nemesis6]

Ok... how did he not know that the guy was Jewish?

Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?

Livingstone: Ah right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?

He knew and he went for it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But at that point he had already called the man a "German war criminal." The comment was already made - he just refused to take it back. You seem to have left that out.

And again, it was clearly not racially motivated. In fact, Livingstone there basically says 'I don't care if you're Jewish. It's irrelevant.' He explains why he made it right there in your quote and it has nothing to do with the fact that the man is Jewish.

 

[Nemesis6]

I knew you were gonna point that out. Both things are equally disgusting. Although I'd say that the punchline was the worst.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Are you referring to his comment or mine?

 

[Nemesis6]

His. There's no way the "I didn't know" defense is valid. A "I didn't know" defense, in this case, would be built on that Ken didn't know the person was Jewish. He knew full well and he went for it. The only thing he regrets is that he couldn't get away with it just like that.

It's like vegetarians. Some -- The holier-than-thou bunch -- claim that they're trying to "limit the suffering" by eating wheat and soy products, when in reality, more animals die when mowing these additional fields. "At least it's unintentional" they say, and I guess that's the point = How is it unintentional if you know about it? Ah, yes, Maddox rules.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Right, only it looks to me like he called the man a "German war criminal" before he knew he was Jewish. You're still missing out crucial information.

Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?
Livingstone: Ah right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?
Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?
Livingstone: It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.
Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.
Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism.

So it couldn't have been racially motivated in the first place - all Ken did was refuse to take it back. You're refusing to actually respond to the point.

Of course, all this is assuming it's actually anti-semitic or horribly immoral to compare any Jewish person to a nazi. Is it wrong to say a black person is like a slave trader if, for example, they're shipping hundreds of people across the Atlantic to work on plantations?

And no, it's not like vegetarians. We're not arguing over whether he continued to insult the man. I thought we were arging over whether the insult was anti-semitic. Your post looked like it was inferring Ken Livingstone was an anti-semite and you have not yet denied this interpretation of your words. Therefore, I can only assume the interpretation is correct.

 

[Nemesis6]

Calling a person you know is Jewish a concentration camp guard is anti-Semitism and goes to show that he has no problem with anti-Semitism. It wouldn't surprise me one bit due to the fact that he hates Israel, etc.

 

[SAJ]

Calling a person you know is Jewish a concentration camp guard is anti-Semitism and goes to show that he has no problem with anti-Semitism.

No it isn't and no it doesn't.


This is just a drunk man trying to make a clever remark that is beyond his level of sobriety.
The fairest interpretation of Livingston's "concentration camp guard" remark involves an observation of how flexable a person's moral compass becomes when they are "just obeying orders" . Always a fair question in regard to journalists, imho.

The best headline the Evening Standard should have used the next day ? ......

Famous drunk Londoner believes he sounds witty and clever, but is really just pissed and obnoxious

 

[pomegranate]

No it isn't and no it doesn't.

Seconded. Being insensitive is not the same as prejudice or hate.