Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 23, 2005 20:26:23 GMT
Paul Reynolds is the World Affairs correspondent for
BBC News Online. Unexpectedly he posted some comments recently at Biased BBC Blogspot
I took this opportunity to post this question which I have commented on in another topic on this forum:
His reply and my response to it was this:
Although Paul replied to various other posts from other contributors he failed to do so to mine, so I asked him another question:
I will post any response he gives to this question but I feel he will have the same difficulty as the first.
BBC News Online. Unexpectedly he posted some comments recently at Biased BBC Blogspot
I took this opportunity to post this question which I have commented on in another topic on this forum:
Paul Reynolds - Welcome to the forum, it is good to have some feedback from 'the other side'.
I have one question for you.
One that penetrates our individual political or religious views, and confirms whether or not the way we view the output of the BBC as biased is valid or not is purely according to our own biased perspectives, or that we have our basis in truth and intelligent and informed observations. You do not need our real names and addresses to answer this question, but I can assure you regardless of what name we use EACH OF US IS REAL, and your answer will determine how we might relate to you in future.
The question is this - following the ousting of Saddam, Eason Jordan of CNN, after previously denying it, finally admitted to the NY Times that they had been guilty of bias, . He claimed it was because Saddam had threatened physical assault on their staff and closure of their offices if they didn't follow his perscribed line.
If you need a link to this article I will happily provide it, but I'd be willing to bet you are already aware of it - or should be.
The BBC operated similar offices in Iraq, but have never admitted to being subject to the same restrictions, which it is fair to assume they would have also been subject to, unless they were very happy anyway to do so for their own agenda.
WHY???
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 22.08.05 - 10:20 pm | #
I have one question for you.
One that penetrates our individual political or religious views, and confirms whether or not the way we view the output of the BBC as biased is valid or not is purely according to our own biased perspectives, or that we have our basis in truth and intelligent and informed observations. You do not need our real names and addresses to answer this question, but I can assure you regardless of what name we use EACH OF US IS REAL, and your answer will determine how we might relate to you in future.
The question is this - following the ousting of Saddam, Eason Jordan of CNN, after previously denying it, finally admitted to the NY Times that they had been guilty of bias, . He claimed it was because Saddam had threatened physical assault on their staff and closure of their offices if they didn't follow his perscribed line.
If you need a link to this article I will happily provide it, but I'd be willing to bet you are already aware of it - or should be.
The BBC operated similar offices in Iraq, but have never admitted to being subject to the same restrictions, which it is fair to assume they would have also been subject to, unless they were very happy anyway to do so for their own agenda.
WHY???
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 22.08.05 - 10:20 pm | #
His reply and my response to it was this:
You mean like Rajeh Omarr's crawling letters to Saddam's sons? I notice since those letters were discovered, he has been given a very low profile at the Beeb. ;DTo Teddy Bear: like all Western journalists, BBC reporters are at risk in Iraq and have to tread carefully physically but this does not affect what they say.They seek simply to describe the situation for better or for worse. That was the principle established in the Second World War when truth was felt to be superior to propaganda and that the public could take the worst news in its stride. The same holds today.
Paul, thank you for taking the time to reply, but I'm very disappointed that you take us for fools. The BBC did not maintain offices in Germany during the war, otherwise they would have been subject to severe restrictions to continue there. The same that Saddam did with CNN, and without a doubt with the BBC too. So your analogy doesn't hold water. You failed to acknowledge if restrictions were placed on the BBC by Saddam, and if not, why not? If so, why hasn't the BBC come clean instead of STILL trying to have us believe that you're a shining beacon of integrity.
You (The BBC) did the same recently over the T word, first claiming that your avoidance of using it was "not to be a barrier to understanding" until Helen Boaden finally admitted it was to avoid offending your world service listeners, and we know how many of a particular persuasion that make up the majority that you are referring to. I think all of us would have a lot more respect for the BBC if you did not take us for fools.
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 23.08.05 - 12:24 am | #
Although Paul replied to various other posts from other contributors he failed to do so to mine, so I asked him another question:
Paul, I see you failed to reply to my question, except to post some non-related blurb about a time when none of us had a problem with the BBC. In fact I think it's fair to say that it is for precisely the reason that we know what the BBC 'WAS' that we are so disappointed, sickened and frustrated with how the BBC 'IS' today. In fact it uses it's past glory to aid the spread of its mostly insidious garbage that is the 'BBC agenda'.
But I'm not surprised you didn't answer the question - because you can't, at least without admitting what we already know.
So here's another one for you, perhaps you can do better with this one. Since you feel that the BBC's online pages are such a mine of information, perhaps you can explain it's failure here.
No doubt you are familiar with Omar Bakri, the cleric who just fled to Lebanon to avoid treason charges. The BBC has given several interviews over the last 5 years with this man as well as giving him ample opportunities to state his twisted point of view. (Where are the Zionists controlling the BBC when you need them?
In the first of these articles on 14/10.2000 following Bakri's appearance on Radio 4, the BBC reported that Bakri said news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/972207.stm
"A Syrian-born activist has called for Muslims in Britain to join a holy war against Israel following the outbreak of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed said it was the duty of all Muslims to give support to the Palestinians.
"They are obliged to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine by raising funds, giving them complete moral support and even some of them going abroad to be joined with their Muslim brothers fighting against Israel," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "
Just over a year later, on 7/1/2002 they quote him as saying
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1746454.stm
'....But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group, said ..."We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities."
totally opposite to his previous quote above, AND NO-ONE at the BBC picks up on it. If you read all of the articles, you will see that this is not the only time he contradicts himself, as the prevailing political wind demands, without seemingly any BBC ears pricking up or pointing out the real story behind this man.
Aren't you ashamed of this poor reporting, when the interviewer doesn't even research previous interviews, or is it that the BBC simply doesn't care what these extremists say for fear of antagonizing them?
I wish you better luck with this question.
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 23.08.05 - 9:05 pm | #
I will post any response he gives to this question but I feel he will have the same difficulty as the first.