Jack
I think you need to reread if you honestly think that.
Funny though, because you’ve added your point of view to this argument in your post. Surely the effort you’ve just put into that response is therefore equally pointless? Or is that what you meant by the last line (I love that attitude, by the way: “don’t criticise me because I can already see the flaws in my own post”)
Hmmm.
I do apologize for lumping the BBC into being a liberal news outlet. Their track record does not show that. I also apologize for flying off the handle on SimonX and London_Calling. I got a little carried away.
But, was this story from maybe Reuters or the AP? If so, then they are the ones who caused the spin.
This does not get the BBC, or any other news outlet who ran the story, off of the hook. A simple fact checking of the article versus the actual quote would have shown the spin. A news outlet has the choice to run or story or not. If they chose to run the story, then they are just as much guilty of the spin as the originator of the story.
Pointing out silliness and hypocrisy is at least marginally more interesting than hand-wringing over coverage of Tony Blair.**
Take your own suggestion, and reread this thread for context.
I trust there will be no further blasts about “bigotry” here.
All major UK media were at the press conference.
Except I’m not accusing you of bigotry - if anything, I’m accusing you of hypocrisy in your post about detail. In fact though, I was just pointing out the irony.
Never mind.
A recent headline from the BBC:
Tests ‘show Saddam’s sons died’ 
So Gilligan claims he didn’t write exactly what he wrote. Interesting. They’ve convinced themselves of their own Jessica Lynch story too, because I see it repeated often: “capture and rescue exaggerated”, which is much more damaging imo because it concerns a individual who’s not any kind of official. The NYT was even suspicious of that one. In light of these things the accusations of extreme American media bias from across the pond make much more sense. They have no more credibility than anything found on an average blog, but they do make sense.
Note that the definition of “troll” is not “someone who posts something you personally disagree with”, “someone who posts something you think is unsubstantiated or incorrect”, “someone who is partisan” or “someone with an ideology or beliefs that are different from or opposed to yours”.
Hmm, must be the last one then.