Umm, for those unsure, the word “monopoly” never passed my lips, nor would it in this context. Everton is addressing Zoff.
Bullshit. Actually it’s Dinoshit. The BBC showed the positives and negatives. You focus on the negatives because that’s the side you disagree with. Why I’m even bothering is beyond me as I might as well be banging my head against a wall but you’re so wrong it boggles the mind to see how you are not intentionally being dense about the whole affair.
You are wrong on two aspects:
a)It is not an issue of focus. It is one of experience. Armchair morons like Fox, who have never experienced a war on their own soil, are free to believe that a war is over when the bullets stop flying. It has nothing to do with reality. People are still dying in droves from this war. As for minimum casualties, that is an inaccurate statement in light of the fact that a lot of them were caused by sheer incompetence on the side of US forces, who demonstrated incapability to fulfill their duties under the Geneva Conventions. ‘Few’ is a relative assessment, and dependent on personal judgement, and when those few could have been easily reduced with a little less trigger-happiness and a bit more care, then ‘few’ is still far too much and certainly not ‘minimum’. That such is the case can easily be proven by the other disgust displayed by even British forces at the way the US forces interacted with the civilian population.
b)The issue of an attack on Israel was as a sine-qua-non tied to the accuracy of the claim of the US that Iraq had illegal weapons. Because otherwise, it lacked the ability to attack Israel. As such, it did not at all go well for the US in that aspect, since they were proven to have lied.
You merely oversimplify the arguments that were actually made and try to claim they were wrong. That has to fail because you do not address the actual arguments made.
Sorry, but it all depends on what you consider well.
[/quote]
**
Sorry, man, but violations of the Geneva Conventions is nothing that in any way needs exaggeration.
And citing a website which calls Iraqi pro-democracy students ‘pro-opposition’ shows that you should chose your sources more wisely.
Sorry, but the fact that you chose cites which pre-chose their sources to confirm your opinion doesn’t really speak well of you or your opinion. I would suggest researching more primary data than having your opinion hand-fed to you by pundits. The articles ignore, for example, that there were NOT just anti-US demonstrations with a few hundred people, but also such with tens of thousands of people.
Poor choice of words. However, BBC receives public funds and the guy is simply trying to keep the money coming in. The last thing he wants is other coming in and providing content. If the competitors siphon off too many viewers, BBC’s position will be challenged.
You must understand that the mere fact that you selectively read my posts and have a distaste for my opinion in no way is support for your argument I held condescending opinions about the US. I would suggest that you actually bothered to read my posts before falling into rabid rants. For one, frothing all over your keyboard is not conductive to its long-term survival. On top of that, you might learn that I actually lived in the US until recently. I have been part in plenty of political discussions and know what I am speaking of when referring to the political attitude of some parts of the US right. You will have a hard time showing US bashing on my part, rather than attacking specific organisations for specific actions. But hey, don’t let that keep you from trying to sling mud instead of providing any serious arguments.
Wrong !
Did I beat Everton to it ?
They may not be funded via general revenue, but they are funded by a licence fee. Surely that’s a hypothecated tax/ user charge.
Ok then. Lets race to find a quote from you where you actually said something not bashing the US on a thread in reference to…shall we say US critisism? I have read your posts, where do you think I got my opinion? I especially love where you compared UN nation building to the US history of such.
Anyways, sorry for te ad hominem hijack to everyone. Just some people lose credibility with me for their obvious agendas and bias, and I have the problem of saying something about it instead of just ignoring tham as I should.
**
I regret that you have such an adverse relationship to facts.
Talk about obvious agendas and bias, huh?
Here’s a hint: It is you who lose credibility when frothing at the very fact that someone disagrees with you. It ain’t bias when it is supported by facts.
The BBC is funded by money collected from the public by the government under penalty of law. That’s public funding.
Sorry, but a mandatory license fee imposed and enforced by the government is government funding. The fact that BBC is given autonomy is nifty, but the BBC is still publicly funded from a system in which the government requires households to pay money.
The overwhelming majority of money BBC uses comes from mandatory public license fees.
I found FOX News to be pretty bad - I did love the one graphic that they showed over and over where two bomb laden F16s swooped at the screen and then morphed into bald eagles with the Stars and Stripes fluttering in the background.
One of my completely non scientific ways of evaluating a news service is how much dramatic music they play - FOX tends to be by far the most musical. Combine this with the ever present stars and stripes in the corner during the reports and it certainly LOOKS pretty over patriotic.
Oh, this is rich — criticism about bias coming from the network through which the British government sent out secret messages to the French resistance in World War II. 
Some weeks ago, my little brother came from a drunken spree at some friend where they watched Fox, and was pissed because he thought that the anchor persons took sides and made biased comments on events.
I have never seen Fox, and i won’t vouch for my little brothers observational capacities when drunk 
Now, anchor-persons are traditionally supposed to simply report and abstain from personal sentiment. Do you guys believe that to be the case with Fox news?
If it was a broadcast about the war, I agree with your brother. Fox News was very pro-American.
You say this is “traditional,” but it isn’t. At least, not in America. If you want to see many examples of bias in American media, read the archives of Media Research Center.
Traditional in friendly Sweden then, though I would guess that the same holds for the BBC. Thanks for the link, i’ll check it out…
That’s humorous.
For a critique of the MRC, see this.
But as a preliminary I have to point out that people advertising themselves as “The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and
Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias” might have some bias of their own, december. 
If one is truly interested in studying the subject, look at this page on FAIR.org for links to articles related to media bias in covering the war with Iraq.
If it’s a tax - and I pay quite a lot of tax - why don’t I pay it ?