Jon Stewart makes a fool out of Bill O Reilly

[OCybrManO]

I'm not quite sure about it being gh0st... but who comes to a Half-Life 2 forum and makes all of his 7 posts in politics? That is a bit odd. It at least warrants an investigation.

 

[Sulkdodds]

He types better... :|

BBC ftw, shurely? I won't pretend it's completely unbiased because even though UK broadcast media technically isn't allowed to show an opinion, you can't always stop opinion leaking through.

 

[Solaris]

Ye bbc>*

 

[gick]

He types better... :|

BBC ftw, shurely? I won't pretend it's completely unbiased because even though UK broadcast media technically isn't allowed to show an opinion, you can't always stop opinion leaking through.

I dont think ive ever heard a single example of biased reporting from the beeb, although there must be some out there.

 

[CptStern]

Does anybody else think that dancing soda is just ghost logging in under a different name?

it's probably southernman17 ...I once broke his brain, ya know ...see sig

 

[DeusExMachina]

Actually yeah, BBC is a pretty good news source. I'll add them to the list too.

 

[DancingSoda]

is that what you think I think is unbiased... cnn? is that the limit to your spectrum? fox = right wing, cnn = left wing anarchists? CNN is a corporately owned entity and as such has a fudiciary responsibility to their shareholders which often comes out heavily as heavy handed editorializing ...fox"news" doesnt even try to report accurately or even hide the fact that they're heavily biased, they just push right-wing ideology and often openly mislead the viewer

I never said EITHER were unbiased entities, friend.

wow you seem to know me pretty well ..in what? ..the 1 day you've been here ...you wouldnt happen to be from florida but are a southerner at heart now would you?

I don't need to sleep with you, hold your hand during long walks on the beach, or otherwise spend time with you to know what you just wrote. You are, essentially, doing the exact same thing as Fox, and yet damning them because of it.

And, no, I'm not from Florida. If it were any of your business, I am from Pennsylvania.

 

[CptStern]

I never said EITHER were unbiased entities, friend.

first of all I'm not your "friend" so dont call me that, and YES you did alude to foxnews being REAL journalism which it isnt

I don't need to sleep with you, hold your hand during long walks on the beach, or otherwise spend time with you to know what you just wrote.

so by reading what I wrote in a single post entitles you to making an accurate assumption on where I get my news? ...that just sounds a little crazy dont you think? ..I mean how long have you been here? less than a few days? you can no more make an assumption of me than I could of you ..see below

And, no, I'm not from Florida. If it were any of your business, I am from Pennsylvania.

ok fair enough, a moderator should be able to confirm it for me, thanks

 

[DancingSoda]

first of all I'm not your "friend" so dont call me that, and YES you did alude to foxnews being REAL journalism which it isnt

It is your opinion Fox News isn't real journalism.

Your opinion is not true. It's beyond ignorance to say Fox News isn't a real media outlet. I'm guessing since BBC News oozes Liberalism every second it's on the air, they aren't a real journalistic network?

so by reading what I wrote in a single post entitles you to making an accurate assumption on where I get my news?

I have an idea of where on the political spectrum you stand.

And, let me put it this way: Liberals don't watch Fox News. Conservatives don't watch BBC/CNN. Liberals don't read The Weekly Standard. Convervatives (and many others) don't read the New York Times.

ok fair enough, a moderator should be able to confirm it for me, thanks

Whatever. I don't see why it's important to know where I'm from, but if it makes you happy, friend, then I'm all for it.

 

[gick]

Your opinion is not true. It's beyond ignorance to say Fox News isn't a real media outlet. I'm guessing since BBC News oozes Liberalism every second it's on the air, they aren't a real journalistic network?

Care to back that up with a few examples? I'd like to see more than one or two please.

 

[DancingSoda]

Care to back that up with a few examples? I'd like to see more than one or two please.

BBC News has actually earned the title of being one of the few news networks to be banned for unbiased reporting in several countries. Including Uzbekistan, China, and Pakistan.

Completely anti-gun, and even anti-air soft on many segments. I have never heard, not once, BBC News supporting the right to firearms, or defending airsoft/paintball sporting.

BBC editing out the word "terrorist" when refering to the terrorists that perpetrated the horrible bombings in London and surrounding areas last year. Anyone that kills innocents for political agendas is a terrorist, and those that were behind the London bombings were so. What those terrorists did was a crime, and trying to not use the word "terrorist" to describe them is doing them justice (granted, if they were innocent, I could see reason for not doing so, however, they are guilty).

Andrew Gilligan and Gavin Hewitt's news report regarding the September Dossier. This even lead to an inquiry of the BBC, I believe. Correct me if that is false. James Hutton concluded, in part, that the story was unfounded and the BBC's reporting was "defective" (I believe that was the term).



All of this said, I will not claim that BBC News is not a real news network. It is a bonafide news network that is biased (as all are). There is nothing wrong with using them as a news outlet.

 

[OCybrManO]

BBC News has actually earned the title of being one of the few news networks to be banned for unbiased reporting in several countries. Including Uzbekistan, China, and Pakistan.

Wow, China banned the BBC? WHAT A SHOCKER! Seriously, they even banned Google. Those aren't exactly good examples to reinforce your point. Also, I think you might have meant to say "biased" rather than "unbiased"... becauses, as is, it doesn't make much sense... you know, since you're trying to make them appear biased.

Completely anti-gun, and even anti-air soft on many segments. I have never heard, not once, BBC News supporting the right to firearms, or defending airsoft/paintball sporting.

That's funny... because the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights of the United States of America. It's not that way in every country. Obviously, they're going to be anti-gun if guns are illegal (in most cases). Once again... shocking new! THIS JUST IN... THE BBC IS ANTI-AGAINST-THE-LAW! You heard it here first, folks.

EDIT: As for the liberal (meaning frequent, not left-wing) use of the word "terrorist" in our country... what does it accomplish? Not every bad action is terrorist in origin. Claiming that something is a politically-motivated act of terrorism should be avoided until you know who did it and why. What if it's just some guy that hates life and wants to go out with a bang? That's not terrorism.

 

[gick]

BBC News has actually earned the title of being one of the few news networks to be banned for unbiased reporting in several countries. Including Uzbekistan, China, and Pakistan.

They got banned for unbiased reporting? And there I was thinking unbiased (meaning without predjudice) was a good thing.

Completely anti-gun, and even anti-air soft on many segments. I have never heard, not once, BBC News supporting the right to firearms, or defending airsoft/paintball sporting.

Care to back that up at all? Simply becasue they did not support the 'right to bear arms' does not mean that they have an anti-gun agenda. If they did actively support the right to bear arms that would be biased reporting.

BBC editing out the word "terrorist" when refering to the terrorists that perpetrated the horrible bombings in London and surrounding areas last year. Anyone that kills innocents for political agendas is a terrorist, and those that were behind the London bombings were so. What those terrorists did was a crime, and trying to not use the word "terrorist" to describe them is doing them justice (granted, if they were innocent, I could see reason for not doing so, however, they are guilty).

I dont seem to remember any 'editing' of the word terrorist at the time of the London Bombings, and I was glued to the TV the whole day (of course, if you back that up with some evidence I will of course admit defeat).

Andrew Gilligan and Gavin Hewitt's news report regarding the September Dossier. This even lead to an inquiry of the BBC, I believe. Correct me if that is false. James Hutton concluded, in part, that the story was unfounded and the BBC's reporting was "defective" (I believe that was the term).

The Hutton Inquiry was not an inquiry into the BBC, it was an inquiry into the suicide of Dr David Kelly, whom Gilligan claimed had told him that the government exaggerated the threat from Saddam's WMDs. You are correct in saying that the inquiry found the claims to be 'unfounded'. However, I fail to see how this proves that the BBC has a 'liberal' agenda. It seems to me that this was an example of a single investigative journalist exaggerating a statement to get a good story. Even if this was biased reporting, its occurence on the beeb is very very rare indeed, and never as overt as that you would get from reading the Guardian or watching FOX.

 

[CptStern]

smoke and mirrors in favour of facts ...here's a few "lies, misconceptions, phoney stories by that workhorse of right wing extremists everywhere fox"news":


Hume failed to challenge Graham on false claim about Alito's abortion position -- same claim Hume made earlier
Sunday, January 8, 2006 6:06PM

Garrett falsehood: "[N]either DeLay nor his aides have been charged"
Friday, January 6, 2006 2:52PM

Gingrich, Noonan argue people expect corruption from Democrats, not GOP
Thursday, January 5, 2006 7:01PM

The porpoise-driven wife: O'Reilly links same-sex marriage to UK woman who "married" dolphin
Thursday, January 5, 2006 6:26PM

After O'Reilly-Letterman "knife fight," Juan Williams defended O'Reilly, compared Letterman to serial killer Gacy
Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:02PM

AP, Fox failed to note U.S. attorneys supporting Patriot Act renewal were appointed by Bush
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 6:12PM

Fox's Varney said NY Times willing to "undermin[e] the security of the country"; used unscientific poll to claim that 96 percent want warrantless wiretaps
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:19PM

O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush kept full congressional intel committees informed of wiretapping program
Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:08PM

O'Reilly on NY Times' Rich and Keller: "[W]e'll just have to get into their lives" if "personal attacks" continue
Tuesday, January 3, 2006 12:49PM

Fox's Angle distorted Rep. Harman's statements on warrantless spy program
Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:51PM

Ex-Clinton official Schmidt's defense of warrantless wiretaps, cited by York and Angle, rife with inaccuracy, empty arguments, and unwarranted credulity
Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:09PM

Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias"
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:53PM

Morris correctly predicted early withdrawal from New York Senate race -- but got candidate wrong
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:43PM

In defense of secret wiretapping, Lowry falsely claimed that Gorelick testimony proved Clinton asserted "the same authority" as Bush
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:16PM

Kessler dismissed "paranoid conspiracy theories" that military recently spied on anti-war groups; missed NBC report on leaked Pentagon database
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:56PM

O'Reilly adds New Yorker to media blacklist thanks to Christmas "war" column
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:00PM

O'Reilly admits he falsely accused Plano of banning red and green clothing
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:25PM

CNN, Fox tout ABC/Post poll showing increase in Bush approval ratings, ignore own polls showing no improvement or a decrease
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:53AM

LA Times, AP, Fox News failed to challenge Bush claim that timeliness necessitated secret wiretapping program
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:27PM

O'Reilly retreats in "war on Christmas," declaring: " 'Happy Holidays' is fine'
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:07PM

O'Reilly on NY Times' Kristof: "How nuts is this guy?"
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:41PM

Fox coverage of Bush speech dominated by conservatives
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:49AM

Special Report pundits created false justification for Bush administration's domestic spying operation
Monday, December 19, 2005 6:27PM

Cavuto's World populated by Victoria's Secret, Playboy models and a pole-dancing Pamela Anderson
Monday, December 19, 2005 5:09PM

Media outlets largely ignored liberal Christian protest of budget and tax cuts
Monday, December 19, 2005 12:54PM

Wash. Post, Special Report falsely cast Bush's claim that DeLay is innocent as inconsistent with White House response to CIA leak investigation
Monday, December 19, 2005 12:39PM

O'Reilly misrepresented Fox News poll results on Bush's Iraq speeches, saying majority does not "understand Iraq conflict"
Friday, December 16, 2005 5:33PM

Ben Stein: "Bush is going to go down in history as one of the great peacemakers"
Friday, December 16, 2005 4:45PM

Blame Canada! Cavuto: "[H]ave the Canadians gotten a little too big for their britches?"
Friday, December 16, 2005 4:29PM

O'Reilly, Olbermann showed different versions of Dingell Christmas poem
Friday, December 16, 2005 4:16PM

Gibson on "meaning of election day in Iraq": "We won. We won. We won. We won."
Friday, December 16, 2005 2:18PM

News outlets ignored Bush's absence from aging conference, instead reported on Medicare press event
Friday, December 16, 2005 10:16AM

O'Reilly echoed right-wing falsehood that Supreme Court overturns 9th Circuit at a "record rate"
Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:55PM

Media falsely reported that Bush "took responsibility" for flawed prewar intel
Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:05PM

O'Reilly compared Catholic leaders' silence over "war" on Christmas to Church's reaction to pedophilia scandal
Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:23PM

Fox News' Kilmeade: Sting would "be happy" in the Brazilian rainforest "raising money for those with plates in their lips"
Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:40PM

Cal Thomas: "War on Christmas" crusaders "might be more objectionable" than those saying "Happy Holidays"
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:19PM

O'Reilly's Midwestern Yuletide smear tour rolls on to "Madison, Wisconsin, where you expect those people to be communing with Satan"
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:55PM

Wilson repeated allegation that Earle sought to postpone DeLay trial, failed to attribute it to DeLay supporters
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:06PM

O'Reilly falsely claimed a Texas school district banned red and green clothing, called move "fascism"
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 3:04PM

Fox News hosts allowed Frist, Mehlman to distort Kerry's words
Monday, December 12, 2005 8:10PM

Asked to comment on CBS anchor candidate Couric and "liberal" media, Wash. Post's Connolly mocked Couric's shoe budget
Monday, December 12, 2005 4:55PM

O'Reilly said ACLU "certainly is aiding and abetting the enemy"; Gingrich joined in smearing group
Monday, December 12, 2005 11:14AM

O'Reilly on Factor jacket he offered to Stern: "I'm not having this on some lesbian somewhere"
Friday, December 9, 2005 6:46PM

Only on Fox: "Liberals on Iraq: Bad for America & Stocks?"
Friday, December 9, 2005 6:36PM



there's HUNDREDS more (771 to be precise) ..here have a look ..."fair and balanced" my ass

 

[CptStern]

double posts make stern a sad panda

 

[Lemonking]

lol nice list, but on some stuff I agree, but "orly" is a dick thoe thats true



"no spin zone"



hahahahaha

my uncle always says , when he watches" yeah right welcome to the cyclone zone"

 

[DancingSoda]

Care to back that up at all? Simply becasue they did not support the 'right to bear arms' does not mean that they have an anti-gun agenda. If they did actively support the right to bear arms that would be biased reporting.

The BBC has never supported the ownership of firearms, airsoft, nor paintball. At least not consistently and in segments.

I dont seem to remember any 'editing' of the word terrorist at the time of the London Bombings, and I was glued to the TV the whole day (of course, if you back that up with some evidence I will of course admit defeat).

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bullet...ord-terrorist-early-coverage-london-bombings/

(Did they honestly think that all those buses spontaneously exploded without the help of someone? Blowing up buses sure as hell constitutes terrorism)

Even if this was biased reporting, its occurence on the beeb is very very rare indeed

I can't think of any major U.S. based news media network that had a INQUIRY as to their reporting (except the exposure of CIA employee names).

Wow, China banned the BBC? WHAT A SHOCKER! Seriously, they even banned Google. Those aren't exactly good examples to reinforce your point.

Actually, they are. Especially Pakistan.

That's funny... because the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights of the United States of America. It's not that way in every country.

Um, in case you were flirting with sarcasm too much to notice: YOU CAN OWN FIREARMS IN ENGLAND.


Obviously, they're going to be anti-gun if guns are illegal (in most cases).

Yes, except for the fact that one can own a firearm in England. I don't think so, friend.

Not to mention, airsoft and, IIRC, paintball are legal in England too. However, the BBC apparently doesn't want you playing with such evil instruments.

Once again... shocking new! THIS JUST IN... THE BBC IS ANTI-AGAINST-THE-LAW! You heard it here first, folks.

Actually, they are against the freedoms your government gave you. In fact, the BBC is technically anti-British in this regard.

Claiming that something is a politically-motivated act of terrorism

the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Terrorism doesn't have to be political. Blowing up buses? That's terrorism.

 

[DancingSoda]

smoke and mirrors in favour of facts ...here's a few "lies, misconceptions, phoney stories by that workhorse of right wing extremists everywhere fox"news":


Hume failed to challenge Graham on false claim about Alito's abortion position -- same claim Hume made earlier
Sunday, January 8, 2006 6:06PM

Garrett falsehood: "[N]either DeLay nor his aides have been charged"
Friday, January 6, 2006 2:52PM

Gingrich, Noonan argue people expect corruption from Democrats, not GOP
Thursday, January 5, 2006 7:01PM

The porpoise-driven wife: O'Reilly links same-sex marriage to UK woman who "married" dolphin
Thursday, January 5, 2006 6:26PM

After O'Reilly-Letterman "knife fight," Juan Williams defended O'Reilly, compared Letterman to serial killer Gacy
Thursday, January 5, 2006 4:02PM

AP, Fox failed to note U.S. attorneys supporting Patriot Act renewal were appointed by Bush
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 6:12PM

Fox's Varney said NY Times willing to "undermin[e] the security of the country"; used unscientific poll to claim that 96 percent want warrantless wiretaps
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:19PM

O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush kept full congressional intel committees informed of wiretapping program
Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:08PM

O'Reilly on NY Times' Rich and Keller: "[W]e'll just have to get into their lives" if "personal attacks" continue
Tuesday, January 3, 2006 12:49PM

Fox's Angle distorted Rep. Harman's statements on warrantless spy program
Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:51PM

Ex-Clinton official Schmidt's defense of warrantless wiretaps, cited by York and Angle, rife with inaccuracy, empty arguments, and unwarranted credulity
Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:09PM

Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias"
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:53PM

Morris correctly predicted early withdrawal from New York Senate race -- but got candidate wrong
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:43PM

In defense of secret wiretapping, Lowry falsely claimed that Gorelick testimony proved Clinton asserted "the same authority" as Bush
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:16PM

Kessler dismissed "paranoid conspiracy theories" that military recently spied on anti-war groups; missed NBC report on leaked Pentagon database
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:56PM

O'Reilly adds New Yorker to media blacklist thanks to Christmas "war" column
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:00PM

O'Reilly admits he falsely accused Plano of banning red and green clothing
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:25PM

CNN, Fox tout ABC/Post poll showing increase in Bush approval ratings, ignore own polls showing no improvement or a decrease
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:53AM

LA Times, AP, Fox News failed to challenge Bush claim that timeliness necessitated secret wiretapping program
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:27PM

O'Reilly retreats in "war on Christmas," declaring: " 'Happy Holidays' is fine'
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:07PM

O'Reilly on NY Times' Kristof: "How nuts is this guy?"
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:41PM

Fox coverage of Bush speech dominated by conservatives
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:49AM

Special Report pundits created false justification for Bush administration's domestic spying operation
Monday, December 19, 2005 6:27PM

Cavuto's World populated by Victoria's Secret, Playboy models and a pole-dancing Pamela Anderson
Monday, December 19, 2005 5:09PM

Media outlets largely ignored liberal Christian protest of budget and tax cuts
Monday, December 19, 2005 12:54PM

Wash. Post, Special Report falsely cast Bush's claim that DeLay is innocent as inconsistent with White House response to CIA leak investigation
Monday, December 19, 2005 12:39PM

O'Reilly misrepresented Fox News poll results on Bush's Iraq speeches, saying majority does not "understand Iraq conflict"
Friday, December 16, 2005 5:33PM

Ben Stein: "Bush is going to go down in history as one of the great peacemakers"
Friday, December 16, 2005 4:45PM

Blame Canada! Cavuto: "[H]ave the Canadians gotten a little too big for their britches?"
Friday, December 16, 2005 4:29PM

O'Reilly, Olbermann showed different versions of Dingell Christmas poem
Friday, December 16, 2005 4:16PM

Gibson on "meaning of election day in Iraq": "We won. We won. We won. We won."
Friday, December 16, 2005 2:18PM

News outlets ignored Bush's absence from aging conference, instead reported on Medicare press event
Friday, December 16, 2005 10:16AM

O'Reilly echoed right-wing falsehood that Supreme Court overturns 9th Circuit at a "record rate"
Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:55PM

Media falsely reported that Bush "took responsibility" for flawed prewar intel
Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:05PM

O'Reilly compared Catholic leaders' silence over "war" on Christmas to Church's reaction to pedophilia scandal
Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:23PM

Fox News' Kilmeade: Sting would "be happy" in the Brazilian rainforest "raising money for those with plates in their lips"
Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:40PM

Cal Thomas: "War on Christmas" crusaders "might be more objectionable" than those saying "Happy Holidays"
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:19PM

O'Reilly's Midwestern Yuletide smear tour rolls on to "Madison, Wisconsin, where you expect those people to be communing with Satan"
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:55PM

Wilson repeated allegation that Earle sought to postpone DeLay trial, failed to attribute it to DeLay supporters
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:06PM

O'Reilly falsely claimed a Texas school district banned red and green clothing, called move "fascism"
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 3:04PM

Fox News hosts allowed Frist, Mehlman to distort Kerry's words
Monday, December 12, 2005 8:10PM

Asked to comment on CBS anchor candidate Couric and "liberal" media, Wash. Post's Connolly mocked Couric's shoe budget
Monday, December 12, 2005 4:55PM

O'Reilly said ACLU "certainly is aiding and abetting the enemy"; Gingrich joined in smearing group
Monday, December 12, 2005 11:14AM

O'Reilly on Factor jacket he offered to Stern: "I'm not having this on some lesbian somewhere"
Friday, December 9, 2005 6:46PM

Only on Fox: "Liberals on Iraq: Bad for America & Stocks?"
Friday, December 9, 2005 6:36PM



there's HUNDREDS more (771 to be precise) ..here have a look ..."fair and balanced" my ass

Ahhh... so you did a search for Fox News articles and posted the results?

LOL. MediaMatters considers any use of the word "Liberal" to be biased. GG.

 

[OCybrManO]

I can't think of any major U.S. based news media network that had a INQUIRY as to their reporting (except the exposure of CIA employee names).

Actually, they are. Especially Pakistan.

Um, in case you were flirting with sarcasm too much to notice: YOU CAN OWN FIREARMS IN ENGLAND.

Obviously, they're going to be anti-gun if guns are illegal (in most cases).

Yes, except for the fact that one can own a firearm in England. I don't think so, friend.

Not to mention, airsoft and, IIRC, paintball are legal in England too. However, the BBC apparently doesn't want you playing with such evil instruments.

Actually, they are against the freedoms your government gave you. In fact, the BBC is technically anti-British in this regard.

Terrorism doesn't have to be political. Blowing up buses? That's terrorism.

The BBC can be investigated by their government because there are laws that keep news outlets in check in Britain. In the USA, unless it breaks other laws (like libel/slander, releasing secret information, inciting violence, etc) they can do and say pretty much whatever they want and only have to worry about making a profit. American media doesn't have to be unbiased... there are no ethical standards (beyond those that apply to everyone) that have to be met. They don't even have to tell the truth... nor do campaign ads.

If you think we should follow China's lead in censorship and ethics... you are worse than I thought. Do you know why Uzbekistan banned the BBC? If you did... you might understand why it has no bearing in this discussion. Pakistan is a good source of media ethics? They banned Newsweek for an article about Van Gogh. As for the BBC, all I could find is this article. Here's an excerpt:

Pemra's general manager, Rana Altaf Majeed, said the stations concerned were violating laws that forbade them to relay "foreign transmissions" and added: "If any one is flouting the law, we can even revoke their license and do not need anybody's permission for the action."

Mazhar Abbas, the secretary general of Pakistan's Federal Union of Journalists said the BBC's Pakistan service was happy for the radio and television stations to relay its transmissions and accused the government of using "phony laws" to stifle criticism and debate, arguing that the code of conduct being enforced by Pemra had not yet become law.

He also accused the government of curtailing the independence of the media in Pakistan. "These stations had been relaying BBC transmissions for more than a year. The brutal action was taken only now because the government is showing signs of nervousness over the BBC coverage of the earthquake, in which there has been criticism of the role of the Pakistan army," he said.

As for British gun laws... it's not as simple as you put it. Yes, you can own a gun... but only if you have a good reason for it... like needing one for hunting. Even then, in the 50s all concealed weapons (including mace) were made illegal... and handguns were banned entirely in 1997... and automatic weapons have never been legal, IIRC. Hell, the cops didn't even carry any guns until recently... and only because of the amount of illegal guns appearing in Britain. They have some of the most strict gun control laws in the entire world. They're about as anti-gun as is realistically possible. IIRC, the government was even attempting to ban air guns, as well.

Your idea of terrorism is so incredibly vague that you would probably include punching someone that insulted your mother as an act of terrorism. Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. As I said before, if you just want to go out with a bang... it's not terrorism. If you shoot up the school because everyone treats you like shit... it's not terrorism. That doesn't make it any less illegal or terrible. You can't just go around assuming every violent act is terrorism before you know who did it and why. If you assume everything is terrorism you either dilute the word until "terrorism" just becomes synonymous with "crime" or you will cause a constant state of panic among the people... and fear makes people irrational.

Please, give it a rest...

 

[gick]

The BBC has never supported the ownership of firearms, airsoft, nor paintball. At least not consistently and in segments.

And why the hell should they? Let me try to make this clear: IF THE BBC SUPPORTED THE USE OF FIREARMS THEN THAT WOULD BE BIASED REPORTING. Also, you have not yet produced a single source to prove your statement that the BBC is anti-gun.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bullet...ord-terrorist-early-coverage-london-bombings/

(Did they honestly think that all those buses spontaneously exploded without the help of someone? Blowing up buses sure as hell constitutes terrorism)

Fair enough, you're right on that point. Even so, I think that it was a good decision not to jump to conclusions about the nature of the explosions. The explosions on the trains were originally thought to be caused by gas, and it was only after the bus (one bus, not several) bomb went off that everybody knew for sure that it was indeed terrorists. To assume it was terrorists before the facts were known would have been sensationalist, something that the BBC is not supposed to be.

I can't think of any major U.S. based news media network that had a INQUIRY as to their reporting (except the exposure of CIA employee names).

So there have been inquiries into US networks due to their exposure of CIA employees? I think you may have just contradicted your own point. Even so, there are inquiries into most publicly funded bodies in the UK to ensure that they working properly, its nothing special. Naturally there wont be many inquiries into US media networks, as they only have to answer to their shareholders.

Wow, China banned the BBC? WHAT A SHOCKER! Seriously, they even banned Google. Those aren't exactly good examples to reinforce your point.

Actually, they are. Especially Pakistan.

I think that you are entirely missing the point. You are arguing that because the BBC has been banned from various dictatorships/theocracies due to their 'unbiased reporting' (your words), they must have a 'liberal bias'? Did you just say 'unbiased' (meaning without prejudice) instead of biased by mistake? If not, please explain how you reached the conclusion that being banned due to impartial journalism constitutes a bias.

Um, in case you were flirting with sarcasm too much to notice: YOU CAN OWN FIREARMS IN ENGLAND.


Obviously, they're going to be anti-gun if guns are illegal (in most cases).

Yes, except for the fact that one can own a firearm in England. I don't think so, friend.

Not to mention, airsoft and, IIRC, paintball are legal in England too. However, the BBC apparently doesn't want you playing with such evil instruments.

Actually, they are against the freedoms your government gave you. In fact, the BBC is technically anti-British in this regard.

Firearms laws are very strict in the UK, you can own an rifle or a shotgun if you have all sorts of licences, but its hardly a 'freedom' thats integral to our society. Most people in Britain are quite anti-gun.

But that is besides the point. Could you please provide a source to back up your sweeping assumptions that the BBC is anti-gun? Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

 

[gick]

Ah, Cyberman beat me do it.

Well said old chap.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Um, in case you were flirting with sarcasm too much to notice: YOU CAN OWN FIREARMS IN ENGLAND.

Not to mention, airsoft and, IIRC, paintball are legal in England too. However, the BBC apparently doesn't want you playing with such evil instruments.

As Cyberman said, the gun laws are a lot more complicated than you make out. And as Cyberman said, even if the BBC were anti-gun - and I can't say I've ever noticed it - that's because they're in a country with very strict gun control laws. I also don't recall the BBC ever being at all against airsoft or paintball - certainly not with the vitriol or in the daily-mail style 'BAN THIS SICK FILTH' manner you imply. I appreciate it's not always easy to find specific articles but every time someone's asked you for an example you've flat-out ignored them.

Also: what the bollocks do you think the fact that Uzbekistan banned them proves? We're talking about the kind of government that has "children being tortured in jail, strung upside down, frozen in iced water." :|

 

[CptStern]

Ahhh... so you did a search for Fox News articles and posted the results?

LOL. MediaMatters considers any use of the word "Liberal" to be biased. GG.

:upstare: try to read at least some of the link I posted ...it'd make you look like less of a fool ..every last one of those links are examples of Foxnews outright LYING about facts ..I'd slam you for dismissing a source for being as you put it "liberal" but I think you've received enough of a collective beating from gick and OCybrManO ..but I will add that your posts are your own worst enemy

 

[DancingSoda]

As Cyberman said, the gun laws are a lot more complicated than you make out. And as Cyberman said, even if the BBC were anti-gun - and I can't say I've ever noticed it - that's because they're in a country with very strict gun control laws. I also don't recall the BBC ever being at all against airsoft or paintball - certainly not with the vitriol or in the daily-mail style 'BAN THIS SICK FILTH' manner you imply. I appreciate it's not always easy to find specific articles but every time someone's asked you for an example you've flat-out ignored them.

A South African missionary and pro-gun lobbyist

Yes, the BBC finds it necessary to interject "PRO-GUN, TOO!!!! EVIL!!!" into the article.

'Joke'

He said he and his family did not approve of Halloween, which they saw as an "occult holiday celebrating human sacrifice, witches and goblins".

The idea had been to target trick-or-treating teenagers.

"It was meant to be a joke: nobody was meant to get hurt," Rev Hammond said. "I laid down a few ground rules: we were just going for teenagers, no kids."

Rev Hammond, who leads the Frontline Fellowship, is well known for his work in rebel-held areas of Sudan, Angola and Mozambique and for his opposition to South African gun-control measures.

They are, obviously, trying to discredit him due his pro-gun stance - which has no right being the article to begin with.

Also: what the bollocks do you think the fact that Uzbekistan banned them proves? We're talking about the kind of government that has "children being tortured in jail, strung upside down, frozen in iced water." :|

It proves that BBC News is rather vocal in their opinions, I think.

The BBC can be investigated by their government because there are laws that keep news outlets in check in Britain. In the USA, unless it breaks other laws (like libel/slander, releasing secret information, inciting violence, etc) they can do and say pretty much whatever they want and only have to worry about making a profit.

Uh-huh, and what exactly can they be investigated for? I'm guessing libel, releasing classified information, and inciting violence...

American media doesn't have to be unbiased... there are no ethical standards (beyond those that apply to everyone) that have to be met.

Um, that's also because we allow that in our Constitution.

"FREEDOM OF PRESS." "FREEDOM OF SPEECH." Bill of Rights, first Amendment.

If we were to disallow press from reporting incorrect of biased things (doesn't mean they can't be punished for it - THEY CAN BE), then we might as well burn the Constitution.

They don't even have to tell the truth... nor do campaign ads.

Because, as we all know, the BBC has never neglected to tell the truth

Do you know why Uzbekistan banned the BBC? If you did... you might understand why it has no bearing in this discussion.

...So you're going to counter the BBC being banned from a country with a BBC ARTICLE? I do not think so.

Pakistan is a good source of media ethics? They banned Newsweek for an article about Van Gogh.

If you say so, then again, Newsweek is kept in my bathroom, and not for reading.

As for the BBC, all I could find is this article.

The move followed complaints by army officers to BBC staff in the earthquake zone that their reports were too critical of the Pakistani military's relief efforts, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the disaster which killed more than 73,000 people and left about 3 million homeless.

BBC? Critical? Noooooooo. My god, those horrible Pakistanis... censoring information about how long it took the government to respond. My god, they make Hitler look like a good guy.

Your idea of terrorism

I don't think so.

with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Wow. You said the exact same thing I said, and then claimed my idea (which isn't mine, it's dictionary.com's/The ENGLISH LANGUAGE's idea) are vague and assuming.

This is, actually, quite funny.

As I said before, if you just want to go out with a bang... it's not terrorism. If you shoot up the school because everyone treats you like shit... it's not terrorism. That doesn't make it any less illegal or terrible. You can't just go around assuming every violent act is terrorism before you know who did it and why. If you assume everything is terrorism you either dilute the word until "terrorism" just becomes synonymous with "crime" or you will cause a constant state of panic among the people... and fear makes people irrational.

And, as we all know, groups of angry people regularly congregate in order to blow up buses, because they hate them.

Please, give it a rest...

Same.

And why the hell should they? Let me try to make this clear: IF THE BBC SUPPORTED THE USE OF FIREARMS THEN THAT WOULD BE BIASED REPORTING. Also, you have not yet produced a single source to prove your statement that the BBC is anti-gun.

...So, supporting a freedom is biased?

Well, jesus, the next time someone voices up against the United States government, I'll throw them to the ground and tell him to shut the **** up. Because, according to gick, they are biased.

Also: evidence provided in article above. The BBC is, clearly, not supporting of firearms or people that advocate them.

So there have been inquiries into US networks due to their exposure of CIA employees? I think you may have just contradicted your own point.

Um, no. Because, it would have been illegal HAD ANYONE DONE SO.

Giving away names of CIA employees = giving away classified infomation, which in turn = the possibility of getting 500,000 volts through your ass.

Naturally there wont be many inquiries into US media networks, as they only have to answer to their shareholders.

That's because you can sue them for just about anything. A media network that steps out of line will later regret it. There are some publications that claimed (just after 9/11) that "We deserved it." Those publications are no longer in print - because the people didn't agree with them.

I think that you are entirely missing the point. You are arguing that because the BBC has been banned from various dictatorships/theocracies due to their 'unbiased reporting' (your words), they must have a 'liberal bias'? Did you just say 'unbiased' (meaning without prejudice) instead of biased by mistake? If not, please explain how you reached the conclusion that being banned due to impartial journalism constitutes a bias.

Huh?

But that is besides the point. Could you please provide a source to back up your sweeping assumptions that the BBC is anti-gun? Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4491632.stm

Rev Hammond, who leads the Frontline Fellowship, is well known for his work in rebel-held areas of Sudan, Angola and Mozambique and for his opposition to South African gun-control measures.

Bias.

In a similar situation, we might as well have a caption like this:

"Mary Johnson was raped early Tuesday morning. She is well known for her frequenting of clubs and sleeping around."

Mentioning that the man is pro-gun (and who do they even know that? they didn't ask him that, they ASSUME he's pro-gun) is not even something that should be in the article - and is an attempt at discrediting due to his assumed stance.

 

[Sulkdodds]

How is it biased to say that a person is well-known as a pro-gun campaigner if said person is well-known as a pro-gun campaigner?

You also haven't found any examples of hatin' the gentlement's sports (airsoft + paintball). :|

In any case, even if what you've posted are examples of biased reporting, it's really only very slight and I don't think it really constitutes "oozing Liberalism every second it's on the air" as you put it.

 

[OCybrManO]

Yes, the BBC finds it necessary to interject "PRO-GUN, TOO!!!! EVIL!!!" into the article.

It's a matter-of-fact statement about what he is famous for doing. It would be like calling Jack Thompson an anti-game lobbyist... because he is. Also, lobbyists tend to lobby in order to change things... so, if guns are already illegal, there won't be many anti-gun lobbyists.

They are, obviously, trying to discredit him due his pro-gun stance - which has no right being the article to begin with.

Wow. I'm glad you can read between the lines and discern their intention of telling people what the guy does for a living. If they were trying to attack his character, why did they bother mentioning his Frontline Fellowship work in an article about Halloween? That doesn't seem related to the topic at hand... why bother telling the reader about it? It's background information.

It proves that BBC News is rather vocal in their opinions, I think.

Where is the vocal opinion part? All I see is that they're not holding back on reporting the information they have just to avoid pissing off the Uzbek government.

Uh-huh, and what exactly can they be investigated for? I'm guessing libel, releasing classified information, and inciting violence.

"Media Ethics and Media Regulation in Britain"

Um, that's also because we allow that in our Constitution.

"FREEDOM OF PRESS." "FREEDOM OF SPEECH." Bill of Rights, first Amendment.

If we were to disallow press from reporting incorrect of biased things (doesn't mean they can't be punished for it - THEY CAN BE [any proof of this?]), then we might as well burn the Constitution.

So, you don't mind the lack of objectivity, the move toward opinion-based "news" channels, replacing news reporting with shows like The O'Reilly Factor, using pundits to waste time while saving money, cutting the number of real reporters that actually report the news, trying to one-up other channels with action-packed flashy graphics/sounds/wording (usually trying to make the channel appear as patriotic as possible at the same time)? News channels no longer emphasize objectivity... now, they say they're "fair." We're shifting from the heavy-hitting news we once had to a bastardized reality show based on current events... all because the bottom line is pleasing the shareholders. The news used to be a public service.

Because, as we all know, the BBC has never neglected to tell the truth

For the people that don't want to wade through all of that legalese crap... get to the point.

...So you're going to counter the BBC being banned from a country with a BBC ARTICLE? I do not think so.

If you can find a better article saying why they should have been banned... do it. I'll be waiting. Anyway, as I said, that's all I could find on the subject.

If you say so, then again, Newsweek is kept in my bathroom, and not for reading.

The move followed complaints by army officers to BBC staff in the earthquake zone that their reports were too critical of the Pakistani military's relief efforts, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the disaster which killed more than 73,000 people and left about 3 million homeless.

BBC? Critical? Noooooooo. My god, those horrible Pakistanis... censoring information about how long it took the government to respond. My god, they make Hitler look like a good guy.

So, would you like to ban the BBC in the USA for reporting how slow Bush took to respond to Katrina? No? Well, why do you support it being done by another country and use that as evidence against the BBC? Don't pull that sarcastic bullshit and try to make it seem good in comparison to the Holocaust. If that worked, every lawyer in the world would use it as their client's defense.

I don't think so.

Wow. You said the exact same thing I said, and then claimed my idea (which isn't mine, it's dictionary.com's/The ENGLISH LANGUAGE's idea) are vague and assuming.

This is, actually, quite funny.

And, as we all know, groups of angry people regularly congregate in order to blow up buses, because they hate them.

Now you're going back on your previous statement AND ignoring what I emphasized. Notice the part I bolded in my last post. That requirement is not part of the OR statement you try to shift the focus to; it is separate. For it to be counted as terrorism the person must INTEND TO INTIMIDATE OR COERCE. There is no if, and, or but about it. If it's not meant to do one of those it is NOT terrorism. Without even knowing who was behind it or why they did it... you can't know if something was an act of terrorism. Just being horrible isn't good enough. There are many horribly devastating acts throughout history that are worse than any terrorism about which I've ever read. Your own example of Hitler and the Nazis (a few inches above this) fits perfectly. They didn't care about intimidating or coercing the Jews. Their goal was, ultimately, to kill them all (after exploiting them for free labor).

Same.

...So, supporting a freedom is biased?

Well, jesus, the next time someone voices up against the United States government, I'll throw them to the ground and tell him to shut the **** up. Because, according to gick, they are biased.

Also: evidence provided in article above. The BBC is, clearly, not supporting of firearms or people that advocate them.

Once again, you're thinking as an American. Britain is an extremely anti-gun society. There is no such thing as a freedom to bear arms. Therefore, they can't be violating a nonexistant freedom. As for your interpretation of gick's meaning... are you retarded or on drugs?

Um, no. Because, it would have been illegal HAD ANYONE DONE SO.

Giving away names of CIA employees = giving away classified infomation, which in turn = the possibility of getting 500,000 volts through your ass.

That's because you can sue them for just about anything. A media network that steps out of line will later regret it. There are some publications that claimed (just after 9/11) that "We deserved it." Those publications are no longer in print - because the people didn't agree with them.

That's because their viewers/readers most likely didn't appreciate such statements... and, if the audience leaves, you have no profit. So, we're left with a bunch of networks that don't want to be too abrasive or brutally honest, lest their core audience might abandon them.

Huh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4491632.stm

Bias.

So, you're saying it's not pertinent to know that an adult that organized an unprovoked assault on teenagers with paintball guns during Halloween was also a gun lobbyist? That seems relevant to me...

In a similar situation, we might as well have a caption like this:

"Mary Johnson was raped early Tuesday morning. She is well known for her frequenting of clubs and sleeping around."

I hate to break it to you... but, yes, we did have a caption like that in the USA... and all too recently. Do you remember the Kobe Bryant case?

Mentioning that the man is pro-gun (and who do they even know that? they didn't ask him that, they ASSUME he's pro-gun) is not even something that should be in the article - and is an attempt at discrediting due to his assumed stance.

Idiot... he's a pro-gun LOBBYIST. Do you know what that means? He, personally, goes to the politicians and tries to get them to push for legislation to relax the gun laws so more (all?) people can own guns. No assumption was necessary. It's not exactly PRIVATE information.

......

 

[gick]

CybrManPwned

 

[CptStern]

......

oh look! an intelligent post trying to difuse a potentially flaming post, exactly what we're being accused of not doing which which is why they're closing this forum



/me runs away sobbing uncontrollably






gj OCybrManO, entertaining discussion :thumbs:



now I'm off to the off-topic forum where I'll partake in witty intelligent banter in threads like People's Reaction to Goatse or I <3 prostitutes (no offense Rakurai, ikerous)




/me runs away crying

 

[jondy]

lol@Sterns indignance

Moderators! Close this filthy cesspool of debate!

EDIT: Hahaha nice editing of the sig

 

[Krynn72]

O'Reilly: Sears, Kmart started it, said no more Christmas. It's all happy holidays or winter soltstice. I actually got a card from a friend of mine, it said 'Have a Blessed Winter.' I live in New York. You know what you can do with your blessed winter. You know what I'm talking about? Are you with me, Dave?

Thats a BS fact. I work at Sears, and we posted signs on the doors saying "Merry Christmas".