http://www.epnworld-reporter.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/625/BBC_Bans_Staff_From_Peace_Rally.html
Boo, what do you think those two cites indicate? Have you scrutinized them, or have you just skimmed them and bolstered your confirmation bias?
The BBC prohibited reporters from joining peace protests precisely because it wanted objectivity in staff, and if staff march for peace then objectivity could be jeopardized somewhere along the line. Being as objective as possible is always the number one directive at the BBC, which is what makes it a superior global news medium. Take a closer look at the Guardian article, with my added emphases:
What makes the BBC so valueable is that they always try to look at every issue from all the major angles. Of course this is an editorial directive, I don’t see how it could be otherwise. What’s the problem?
You are aware that opposition to the war in the UK and even more so out of it was “significant” to say the least? That it is correct to report such opposition because it is part of “the national and international reality”?
Common sense, and a general approach I wish certain governments would imitate more closely.
Again I see nothing wrong with this – indeed, it is the only correct approach to reporting the matter, particularly given the context (the governments of the US and UK have provided false information on a number of occasions concerning the Iraq matter – the BBC simply asks to assess the credibility of the claims they publish).
The article then quotes a conservative spokesperson, an emetic toad who has this outrageous claim:
This is repulsive. This disgusting little worm has just suggested that the world’s most objective and respected news medium ought to behave like a government organ of propaganda. Thankfully the BBC is made of sterner stuff than the conservative buffoon. he also alleges that “People inside the BBC who are opposed to the conflict are imposing their own views”. But I still don’t see evidence of that happening at any higher level than the usual background noise found in all media.
Boo, how can you bring forward this kind of material with a straight face?
On to the other link, with my emphases:
Explain how this is indicative of any particular trouble with bias. it seems to me a set of preventive measures against bias.
The matter of field reports etc. has already been discussed.
No, Boo, that isn’t funny at all, it’s perfectly reasonable if you understand the meaning of bias and, in particular, the essential differences between the BBC and FOX (different ends of the quality spectrum entirely).
No one ever claimed the contrary, but what are you arguing? That perfect objectivity is impossible, or that the BBC is inordinately biased? You’ve been claiming the latter, only you don’t seem to have arguments behind your claim – and the cites you use don’t support it either.
no, actually. I remember one bomb that had a man and a woman in a car.
I do remember a van loaded up with people approaching a checkpoint in a panic, failed to stop at the first warning and was then “riddled” with bullets, though.
Yes, I remember that one, too, although I believe they failed to respond to a couple of warnings. That was tragic.
There was also an earlier episode where a van stopped, and a pregnant woman ran out screaming, and then the van exploded – presumably because of a bomb. It was later IIRC that there were a number of women & children also in the car.
The point is that it is difficult to know exactly who to trust. Sometimes soldiers trust the wrong person and end up dead. Obviously the reverse sometimes happens, too.
old Abe, you must have spent the better part of an hour writing that post.
ahh, the old break up the quote and disect the article game. Taking things out of context to “prove” your point isn’t proving anything except you know how to manipulate.
Those articles were the first to show up on a google search. Search for yourself. There’s plenty out there. You’ll be able to spend the next week and half disecting them.
Ah the old “I have a quote!!!” “No you musn’t actually read it” game.
Having read Abe’s post and yours I have to say I find Abe’s much more persuavive in his reasons. Of course, that could be because you don’t give any reasons at all. I guess you didn’t spend too much time preparing your post either.
Hardly, my Boo. Such a simple set of objections to a non-existent argument required no more than 10 minutes, 15 minutes at the very most if we count the time required to examine the links. Really not much of a challenge – just like this response I’m writing now.
Filthy lies, Boo, filthy lies. You linked two cites that fail to support your position. You didn’t even bother to use quotes to support your point – very possibly because you didn’t read the materials thoroughly. I actually read them and went over their contents, right here in the open for everyone to read. You disagree with something, feel free to point out how and why.
Hand-waving, an egregious non-argument. Remember my comment about confirmation bias? You didn’t bother to examine for comprehension the materials you researched, you just skimmed them looking for specific keywords (like “BBC” and “bias”), and you jumped to conclusions.
Or you have a personal problem with the BBC that’s prompting you to use such poor tactics – either way I’m afraid you still haven’t put forward a valid argument.
Folks like Boo, such as the BBC readers who made the comments quoted by amanset on 5/18, are amazing. It’s not just their point of view, but that they’re so sure of it, so unwilling to change it in the light of new (or old) evidence. How can anyone, anyone with an inkling of how the world works, think of everything in such black and white terms? What’s the point of arguing with them when you believe in logic and they don’t?
Now to more important matters. The Chicago Tribune today placed the Lynch counter-story on its front page – a pleasant surprise! (Note : the CT site requires free registration)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0305260210may26,1,7157122.story?coll=chi-news-hed
That’s one newspaper I didn’t expect to run it. I thought the Washington Post might, and they have, with columnist Richard Cohen placing the story in the larger context of what the public expects of journalists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28908-2003May22.html
The New York Times, which I also expected to run the story, doesn’t seem to have done so. It certainly knows of it - its website linked to the CNN reports on the BBC story several days ago. Maybe I’ve missed something.
The Trib also answered my #2 question about the whole incident, about the ambulance trying to return Jessica back to the Americans getting fired on:
"Ultimately, Lynch was loaded into an ambulance and driven off by Sabah Khazaal, a hospital driver, and an Iraqi officer, the staff said. Soon afterward, at an Iraqi army checkpoint, another Iraqi gave the officer a gun and told him to shoot Lynch, but the officer refused, saying that was against Muslim belief, according to Khazaal.
Farther up the road, Khazaal said, the ambulance approached a U.S. Army checkpoint. The driver slowed down and turned on his ambulance lights, but then he heard gunfire, which he assumed was coming from the checkpoint, so he quickly turned around and returned to the hospital.
In its report, the BBC said that the ambulance came under direct fire from U.S. soldiers, “almost killing their prize catch by mistake.” But interviewed Saturday by the Tribune, Khazaal said he had no evidence that the troops had aimed at the ambulance carrying Lynch."
Folks like Boo (I look forward to Boo him/herself proving me wrong) will seize on this detail and ignore the rest of the story. But this is simplistic. Yes, the BBC erred in an important detail and thanks to other journalists, those of us who care to know now know. This is how journalism is supposed to work. Does it damage the key point that the report was trying to make – that the original Lynch story was a lot of hype/lies/insinuations (pick your favorite word) ? No. And at least now credit is going to where it’s due – the staff at Nasiriya hospital.
On another note, it would be nice if the snippet about the officer refusing to shoot Lynch for religious reasons found its way into more publications.
The LA Weekly has an article on the (pre-Trib story) media coverage, saying “The blame for the apparent misrepresentations falls squarely on the American government and a willingly gullible and inattentive media.” and “Only the international press covered the story as though it actually matters whether the American government is telling the truth.”
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/27/news-blume.php
Things aren’t going to well for the left these days. So when a story like this comes along, they seize upon it like a drowning man would grab a lifeline. They want so badly to believe that thier ideological world isn’t crumbling around them. The war with Iraq has shown more than once that if some people can’t find something negative, they will make it up.
Thanks MoronosaurusRex good work.
eh?
You are talking about Saddam Hussein’s “stockpiles” of Iraqi WMD, aren’t you?
Just in case anyone was wondering, I heard on NPR today that the informant who told U.S. forces where Private Lynch was being held is now living in the U.S. with a nice job. Oh and he isn’t a doctor, he said he was dating one of the nurses of the hospital.
Yes, it was said from the beginning he was a lawyer, and I believe it’s his wife who is a nurse.