I agree with jjimm. This is quite normal reporting. It is not an attempt to distort.
Not unfair in the slightest - and absolutely correct use of language when quoting someone whilst trying to make a wider point. Moreover this:
Things like “US shows ‘Bodies of Uday and Qusay’” is also absolutely correct because at the time the US were claiming that the bodies were those of U&Q but it had not been confirmed. Indeed, NOT to have the quotation marks would have been misleading!!
On the other hand, every anti-BBC campaigner can use any everyday story as a device for bashing the corporation I suppose…!
Oh, I have no doubt that this is part of a pathetic and repetitive vendetta by december. Unfortunately, he seems to be right in this case. Although given that several other outlets phrased it the same way, he should have held them over the coals as well.
I find the Financial Times description of appetite for office to be many times more acceptable than appetite for power, btw.
This item was also pointed to by Professor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.
I confess that I didn’t check other sources to see how they covered this statement.
Note that FT said his appetite for office was “undiminished.” You have shown two examples who made the same mistake as the BBC – the Telegraph and the Independent. That’s not enough to prove that it’s standard journalistism. Still, your point is well-taken. The BBC had company.
OTOH, doesn’t the BBC have a greater obligation to present unbiased news? Doesn’t the law require them to do so?
Neurotik,** december**, though the quote said “office”, the FT headline read as follows:
Blair maintains his appetite for power
No subtlety there.
I suspect the publications felt justified with the use of the word “power” since that very statement was put to Blair a few seconds after he’d said “appetite for work” and he didn’t refute it.
I notice, jjimm, that you didn’t refute my quotes of your characterization of december’s work. I am therefore justified in continuing to quote you thusly, yes?
Unfortunately, one can not always trust the National Geographic to be an unimpeachable source of journalistic integrity.
I still remember some disgraceful insinuations they made about Jacques Cousteau’s behavior with seals during one of those long, long sea voyages. 
Thanks for the link Fang. I see now that the quote from december’s blog is actually from the later lines, as jjimm pointed out. It’s not nearly as much a deception as the blog makes it out to be, if it is one at all. I should’ve known…
You may indeed, though whenever you do this, my referring people to thread will indicate that your misrepresentation of me was considerably greater than that perpetrated by the British press. Anyway, you’re not a journalist, and I’m not the British Prime Minister*.
But I’m sure you agree with me: as you yourself have said in this very thread, “I” “congratulate” “jjimm” on “his” “shockingly” “even-handed” “and” “unbaised commentary on the world at large”. 
BTW, for those who seem concerned by this, I used National Geographic as an example of “any old publication where this construction is used” (one that I happened to have been reading this morning).
*Yet.
I think we should all thank Jackmannii for this timely reminder of the pressures young people face today in our society We must all take the time to, both, teach our children* and *to watch for signs of weakness because sealant abuse can take hold anytime, anywhere. Thank you.
Good research, ** jjimm**. Kudos.
Will the OP return to mop up the leaking shite all over the floor ?
I didn’t realize that Maureen Dowd worked for the BBC.
So, London_Calling, I assume you would agree that it is a fair representation of your position that what the BBC did was “not… polite”?
Regards,
Shodan
december, I think you owe these boards an apology. And I think you ought to request that this thread be closed.
Perhaps in the future you might reconsider using the SDMB as your own personal stomping ground for unfounded and biased attacks and spin.
(And please note that this is not simply a case of “if you don’t want to read a thread, don’t open it.” Every single day there are numerous threads with ridiculous titles/OPs, often misleading and always to serve one purpose: to further december’s conservative ideology. It goes without saying, but what is most frustrating is that when confronted with a sound rebutal, instead of conceding, the author merely spins or ignores.)
After the loss of one great (but nasty-tempered) poster last night, I think enough is enough round here, no?
And LC’s reminder to be careful about one’s sources is ever so apropos.
As it happens, I am the editor-in-chief of the “Ambrose Anchor” (along with being the head photographer, publisher, chief cook, and bottle-washer), a newsletter for members of my Knights of Columbus council. Every month, I am read by at least 150 people. 
Well, the BBC is coming out on top this time:
Well perhaps not quite as misrepresentational as the blogs (and december) make it out to be, but still not fair to Blair. “Undiminished appetite for power”, while maybe a technically accurate description of what Blair was trying to say, still to me carries the connotation of somebody who wants more power than he has and will stop at nothing to get it. YMMV of course.
Well I don’t agree that my criticism of the BBC was unfounded. First of all everything I said was accurate and cited. As has been pointed out, Blair never used the phrase “appetite for power.” It was a reporter’s usage.
jjimm says that Blair accepted that usage by not objecting to it. I don’t buy that, because quibbling over wording makes an interviewee look bad at at formal press conference. Even if agree with jjimm, the BBC mixed up two separate questions. They used the quoted word, “undiminished,” as if it went with the phrase “appetite for power,” bu that phrase came from a separate question.
I’ve seen this particular type of of quotation mark abuse committed by others. I disapprove of the practice in general. I think it’s deceptive journalism. I see nothing wrong with starting a thread on the subject of misuse of quotation marks.
Furthermore, although this particular example wasn’t that big a bit of Beeb Blair-bashing, I do believe that the BBC has been gunning for Blair and his administration. Maybe Blair deserves bashing, but the BBC shouldn’t be playing a partisan role. If they are, that fact certainly ought to be noticed. Given the importance of the BBC in world journalism, their partisanship (if any) is worth debating.
sailor, thanks for the poll info. Your cite says,
So, the BBC appears to be doing better than the government, but both parties are actually losing in the court of public opinion.
Not quite: I said ‘I suspect the publications felt justified with the use of the word “power”’. The meaning is a bit different.
I agree.
Leander,
December has to apologize for being conservative? Surely you jest. Why don’t you apologize for trying to squelch the freedom of speech of a fellow Doper?
Conservative Ideology. Please. How about Liberal Ideology?
December was quoting, word for word, the spin the liberal BBC was putting on Blair. It was BBC doing the spinning. December was the one to bring it to light. I thank s/he for that.
If you want to see what your liberal buddies are doing on this board, and how guilty they are themselves of your accusations, just check in with SimonX and London_Calling.