COMMENTS:
absolutely. its the bbc for crying out loud. totally reliable.
I may not like what the BBC says, but it is possibly the only unbaised news organisation.
For example, it may have a spokesman for the BNP on for an interview, I may detest this party, but will applaud the BBC for broadcasting it.
The BBC is not in private hands, so can report the news without bais. Other news sources are ultimately censored by those who own them.
The Murdoch Press or Ted Turner, can theoretically (and sometimes do) pull news stories if they feel it isnt in their own or their friends interests.
herz: Are you, perchance, misrepresenting occurrences and trying to link your own credibility (under fire) with that of the BBC?
The BBC is one of the better news organizations out there. This doesn't mean that every article is immune from bias, of course. And it doesn't mean that your presentation of a BBC article is immune from bias.
Perhaps in the future cath, if you belive I am editing the article (I'm not, but if you feel so) you could simply ask me to post the web address. I usually don't because it's a hassle to do so on here and I try not to copy and paste too much because LCD decides that deserves being banished, but if you'd ask politely I would have no problem giving you the source so you can read it yourself.
Which do you think is a better response to a ballot you believe to be biased? A) you're lying, this whole thing is phony, you're making it up so I'm going to disregard this article out of hand without even a second glance, you liar, or B) could you please show me the source so I could read it myself.
So far you've never asked to see the source and have simply dismissed all of my articles out of hand on the basis that I make them up, even though that charge is not backed by evidence.
Can you point out the ballots in which I dismissed your source?
Steel: I can't recall if you have, this was more directed at cathexis.
cathexis, herzog presented a news item, found in a highly credible news soure -- the bbc. how is herzog biased because of this? and is the bbc and any new organization only biased when they present news that you don't like? ("you" being the universal you). either they are credible or not -- if you are saying that this piece in question is biased, or that they have in the past presented biased news, then in effect, you're saying they are not credible. however, herzog is not the bbc, is he?
"I may not like what the BBC says, but it is possibly the only unbaised news organisation."
I know you hear that a lot, but it isn't true. There have been numerous studies and examples of the BBC showing bias in reporting the news. EVERY person (or organization) has some bias (more or less) that they bring to reporting a story. I'll give you a simple example. Have ten people watch the same event occur. You will see variations in what each people report.
Is the BBC better than most? Yes. Unbiased completely? No.
Of course those doing the reporting are human beings and so any preconcieved political bias can occur.
But overall, I trust the BBC news service more than the alternatives.
I also believe Channel Four News is a good source.
Not sure if people outside the UK can get it.
BBC is not rightwing.
They may be status quo and even conservative
(in the true sense of the word)
but that doesn't make them right wing.
Boring,maybe yes!
I've always considered them as fair and unbiased. Maybe the problems that some are having regards your interpretation of said sources' information.
maybe this was this a joke,
all I remember people saying here about BBC is that they're lefties.
by Jyl on Tue May 09, 06 3:59pm
[+]
Yes, I believe it is reliable. But if they report issues that certain users disagree with, they then tend to act as if the BBC has a bad reputation.
some accuse it of being too right wing, others too left. I think its pretty fair to be honest, politically speaking, but I do think that its also terribly PC.
herz: The 'would you point to the source' option is the more civil response, true.
However ... even if something is in the BBC ... I may not believe it. No information source should be accepted completely without question.
Is this ballot, then, a reaction to some occurrence where I dismissed one of your assertions, out of hand? (Note: I'm not denying ever doing this; in fact, I'm sure I have.) 
There is a difference between a statement 'I don't believe that is true' and 'I think you are making that up.'
If you state your source, I will probably tend to accept that. But that doesn't mean I will magically change my opinion on its veracity, merely because a usually credible source published the article.
Also, there have been cases, herz, where (IMO) your 'perceptions' have significantly filtered the 'facts' of news articles. When one goes back to look at the actual article, your spin becomes more evident.
|
