Who is this Fox News idiot?

[Galanthus]

@TwistofFate

Galanthus, It’s a whole different arguement as to wether the BBC lied or not.

I know

I was commenting on the irony of Fox News lying in thier report accusing the BBC of lying.

[Beagle]

1. This is a “BBC” pit thread. It is also a Fox News pit thread. I think both are fair game. You are essentially comparing the two. I think the BEEB is much better on issues without political overtones. They try to pretend like controversial issues have a scientific opinion one can ascribe to. That works very well for geology.

2. Hey, at least I knew the guy’s name. What thanks do I get?

3. I think that is a My Word segment – it sounds like one.

4. My internet connection shit the bed while I was watching it, and it took me 15 minutes to post fucking “John Gibson” – who worded for MSNBC (at least) before. I’m committed to this thread whether YOU like it or not. Do you talk to mommy with that mouth?

5. The entire “Hutton Inquiry” depends on WMDs and the situation in the ME.

We have ricin being sent to senators, but there is “no evidence” linking it to international terrorism. Meaning: they are fucking clueless.

The BEEB missed that story: ricin in the senate.

Speaking of ‘splainin’ If Rummy is clueless about the WMDs, WTF should I say about “sexing up” the WMD reports?

First of all, I don’t fuck paperwork. UK eccentrism can get a bit freaky.

[sirtonyh]

Stuff like this just makes you bang your head repeatedly against a solid object.

Fox lies about the BBC lying about the British government lying about the false intelligence on WMD given to them by the MoD.

And politicians/media are surprised when people don’t believe them

[Galanthus]

@Beagle

2. Hey, at least I knew the guy’s name. What thanks do I get?

Thanks

@Beagle

We have ricin being sent to senators, but there is “no evidence” linking it to international terrorism. Meaning: they are fucking clueless.

The BEEB missed that story: ricin in the senate.

I have seen at least five reports on various BBC outlets of this story, starting yesterday when the story first raised it’s head.

[sirtonyh]

Beagle,

Below is what Andrew Gilligan said and what prompted the Hutton inquiry. Care to enlighten us on how it could possibly be construed as a “A frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest” or “pillory America, Americans and George W. Bush”

Andrew Gilligan The information which I’m told was dubious did come from the information agencies, but they were unhappy about it because they didn’t think it should have been in there. They thought it was not corroborated sufficiently and they actually thought it was wrong. They thought the informant concerned had got it wrong. They thought he’d misunderstood what was happening. Let’s go throughout this. This is the dossier that was published in September last year, probably the most substantial statement of the government’s case against Iraq. You’ll remember that the Commons was recalled to debate it, Tony Blair made the opening speech. It is not the same as the famous dodgy dossier, the one that was copied off the internet, that came later. It was quite a serious document that dominated the news agenda that day, and you open up the dossier and the first thing you see is a preface by Tony Blair that includes the following words:

“Saddam’s military planning allows for some WMDs to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to deploy them.”

Now, that claim has come back to haunt Mr Blair because, if the weapons had been that readily to hand, they probably would have been found by now. But you know, it could have been an honest mistake. But what I have been told is that the government knew that claim was questionable even before the war, even before they wrote it in their dossier.

I’ve spoken to a British official who was involved in the preparation of the dossier and he told me that in the week before it was published, the draft dossier produced by the intelligence services added little to what was already publicly known. He said:

“It was transformed in the week before it was published to make it sexier. The classic example was the claim that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within 45 minutes. That information was not in the original draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes, because it wasn’t reliable. Most of the things in the dossier were double-sourced, but that was single sourced, and we believe that the source was wrong.”

Now this official told me the dossier was transformed at the behest of Downing Street, and he added:

“Most people in intelligence were unhappy with the dossier because it didn’t reflect the considered view they were putting forward.”

Now I want to stress that this official, and others I’ve spoken to, do still believe Iraq did have had some sort of weapons of mass destruction programmes.

“I believe it is about 30% likely there was a chemical weapons programme in the six months before the war, and considerably more likely there was a biological weapons programme. We think Blix downplayed a couple of potentially interesting pieces of evidence. But the weapons programmes were quite small. Sanctions did limit the programme.”

The official also added quite an interesting note about the result, since the war, of the capture of some of the Iraqi WMD scientists.

“We don’t have a great deal more information yet than we had before. We have not got a great deal out of the detainees yet.”

Now the 45-minute issue is not just a detail. It did go to the heart of the government’s case that Saddam was an imminent threat, and it was repeated a further three times in the body of the dossier. And I understand that the parliamentary intelligence and security committee is going to conduct an inquiry into the claims made by the British government about Iraq and it is obviously exactly this kind of issue that will be at the heart of their investigation.

[Beagle]

Return smilie of peace:

Personally, I like the BBC. I like having many news outlets. Through sheer repetition, there is a chance someone will get it right. Also, it’s not like there is one BBC, or that I’m implying that the BBC would not cover a big story like the ricin story. Maybe that was recorded earlier, dunno.

The South Carolina thing, admit it, is funny.

Divisions “1” or divisions “2” “Why, I sah, if those Union soldiers allow any more nigras into my neighborhood.” Even in South Carolina they do not suffer from the divisions of the Civil War “1”. In other words, race relations have come pretty far since the days of the Emancipation Proclamation.

That’s a perfect example of thinking you can explain a complex situation with one point of view. John Edwards, from South Carolina – and white as paste – would love to explain all this to everyone. Just tune in and listen to his stump speech. It’s uplifting, if repetitive.

I do think that all journalists have a slant of some kind. Segments like “My Word” (maybe I’m channeling O’Reilly? I hope not.) if in fact that is what it is called, and that was one, are good in the sense that a journalist reveals their personal bias in an open way.

The greater issue of anti-Americanism and such, I’ve talked about before. I think it is a factor in the UK. But, Gibson sounded a bit off the hook before I was dropped. The quotes posted are just another example of how not to get to the bottom of all this.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@jjimm

Hey Beagle, why not address the OP and the issues raised by the Fox report, rather than criticise the BBC on its Mid-East coverage?

I will, however, address one part of your attempted hijack:The US election would be covered only on BBC World, but also on all the domestic channels in the UK and Ireland, on our nightly bulletins. You’re quite an important country, see, especially in terms of foreign policy.

How odd. Things are usually the other way 'round. “What do you mean, you’ve never heard of <insert something to do with America>, insolent foreigner? We saved your people from the Nazis! Pay attention!”… Or something to that effect.

<this is not a anti-US rant>

[furt]

I’m not getting the beef here, other than Gibson’s a jerk. Here’s the major claims I see:

The BBC is/was Anti-American.

Okay, it’s an opinion.

The BBC felt entitled to lie to support their anti-war position.

Assigning motives is never a good thing, but still an opinion.

The BBC defended Gilligan even as doubts were being raised about his reporting.

The BBC declined to do any serious internal investigation, and my understanding is that this is one of the things Hutton criticisized them for.
Gilligan had earlier made a fool of himself by insisting forcefully that US forces were nowhere near Baghdad when in fact they were.

Factual, IIRC.

Gilligan exagerrated about what Kelly said.

Isn’t this more or less what the Hutton Report said?

BBC execs resigning was proof that they had dropped the ball.

Given that they more or less said so themselves, I don’t see how this can be otherwise interpreted.

Now I’ll grant you that John Gibson is a smarmy weasel-faced ass. But given that this was his opinion, where are the lies you’re referring to?

[Dead_Badger]

@furt

Now I’ll grant you that John Gibson is a smarmy weasel-faced ass. But given that this was his opinion, where are the lies you’re referring to?

In particular, the quote along the lines of “today the BBC was made to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism when the Hutton report [etc. etc.]” is a lie, because the Hutton report had absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism or for that matter the wider BBC coverage of the war. Another lie is his deliberate description of Gilligan’s earlier report about US troop locations as being “the incident in question”, which again is a complete crock of shit. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Hutton report at all.

Essentially, Gibson’s trying to make even more out of the Hutton report than Blair, which really is saying something.

[xcheopis]

For any interested in finding out more about Mr. John Gibson and his thought processes, his book, Hating America, is available in hardcover this month. Here is the promo from the publisher’s catalogue:

“John Gibson is one of the Fox News Channel’s most outspoken and enduring personalities. Now, as President Bush continues to face world-wide condemnation and scorn for the war in Iraq and its aftermath, Gibson exposes the outrageous tenor of the current debate against American values filling airwaves all over the world today.
In the tradition of bestselling books like Sean Hannity’s Let Freedom Ring, Dick Morris’s Off With Their Heads, and most recently Laura Ingraham’s Shut Up and Sing!, Gibson throws a spotlight on the extreme anti-Americanism, in word and deed, that has grwon distrubingly pervasive throughout the world, from the “Arab street” to the halls of eve the most historically friendly foreign governments. From the obvious violent reactions of the Muslim world - to the much more shocking recent expression of natinal disapproval from France, Germany, and eve the strong anti-war factions in the UK and Canada- Gibson offers hundreds of examples of the international community biting the hand that has fed it, clothed it, and protected it from tyranny and oppression for almost a century.
Argued with passion, and supported by hundred of outlandish examples, Hating America is sure to outrage and motivate the avid conservative bookbuyers of “red-states” America in droves.”

[istara]

@xcheopis

In the tradition of bestselling books like Sean Hannity’s Let Freedom Ring, Dick Morris’s Off With Their Heads, and most recently Laura Ingraham’s Shut Up and Sing!

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

That’s a parody, right?! Those books - in that order?

[casdave]

We have ricin being sent to senators, but there is “no evidence” linking it to international terrorism. Meaning: they are fucking clueless.

Beagle

Care to show us some evidence for this ?

At present I believe the evidence suggests that Ricin was sent by somebody, not who or why it was sent, not much about ME terrorist groups, it could even be US domestic groups who did this, or even possibly more sinister goings on.

They never got to sating who sent the anthrax around either.

So are you just assuming it was a ME terrorist group?

Just like those fictional WMD Hussain had?

or those fictional links between SH and the 9/11 terrorists.

or those extremely dubious links between SH and Al Qaeda.

[furt]

@Dead Badger

In particular, the quote along the lines of “today the BBC was made to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism when the Hutton report [etc. etc.]” is a lie, because the Hutton report had absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism or for that matter the wider BBC coverage of the war.

That’s an opinion. There is no shortage of people who think the BBC is anti-American and slanted in its coverage. Insofar as the Iraq war was American- led, and Blair is pro-American, I hardly think it’s a stretch to connect a report attempting to make Blair and the war look bad with more general anti-American sentiments. You may not agree, but that’s irrelevant.

Another lie is his deliberate description of Gilligan’s earlier report about US troop locations as being “the incident in question”, which again is a complete crock of shit. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Hutton report at all.

No he doesn’t. Play it again. He says “the incident in question (referring to the Kelly affair) involves Andrew Gilligan, the reporter who …” He’s providing the context of who this Gilligan chap is.

Essentially, Gibson’s trying to make even more out of the Hutton report than Blair, which really is saying something.

Of course. Blair has to keep it low-key, as he’s a pol. Pundits like Gibson can crow all they want, just as anti-Bush commentators can be far more vocal than active politicians.

The Hutton Report was a damning indictment of the Beeb, and a commentator on an opposing network (commercially and ideologically) was gloating about it. Crass and obnoxious, yes. But save the accusations of lying for those who merit it.

[Lamar_Mundane]

@sirtonyh

Probably, Fox is the highest rated news channel in the US AFAIK

Fox is the highest rated cable news channel. The ratings of the evening news on the the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) dwarf those of Fox, CNN, etc. The vast majority of Americans get their news from the networks, not from Fox.

[Brutus]

@Lamar Mundane

Fox is the highest rated cable news channel. The ratings of the evening news on the the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) dwarf those of Fox, CNN, etc. The vast majority of Americans get their news from the networks, not from Fox.

I think the only area where cable competes with broadcast is the morning shows. I read somewhere that Fox and Friends is 2nd or 3rd, when compared with all (cable and broadcast) shows.

And regarding the editorial in question; It was the BBC, not Fox, that was shown to be a bit fast and loose with the truth. And it is the BBC, not Fox, that forces you to pay a tax if you buy a television. (Or VCR, etc). Maybe, just maybe, the Brits will make a bit of noise about the unfairness of being compelled to pay for bad reporting? If the beeb is so popular, it would have no problem gathering up subscribers in a free-market system, no?

[jjimm]

@Brutus

It was the BBC, not Fox, that was shown to be a bit fast and loose with the truth.

In that instance, yes, Gilligan fucked up royally, and the governors fucked up by standing by him. I should point out though that the substance of Gilligan’s report is increasingly being shown to be true, even if he was guilty of fabricating the actual quotes. I also think he’s a shithead for waiting for the top guys to resign before he himself did.

And it is the BBC, not Fox, that forces you to pay a tax if you buy a television.

Actually it’s the government. The BBC is the result of the constitutional policy - i.e. there are no “BBC police” who track you down: the TV license vans and all that shit are a separate agency.

Maybe, just maybe, the Brits will make a bit of noise about the unfairness of being compelled to pay for bad reporting?

That is an opinion that has been expressed publically many times in the wake of the Kelly affair, though I should point out that polls just after Hutton have shown that the UK public is still THREE TIMES more inclined to trust the BBC than it is to trust the government (31% vs 10%).

If the beeb is so popular, it would have no problem gathering up subscribers in a free-market system, no?

For the most part, we like it the way it is, though nearly everyone complains about the license fee, even if we agree with the concept in principle… The real selling point is (in addition to the high quality of a lot of its output) the complete lack of commercials. I suppose making it a voluntary cable subscription without commercials might be feasible (and might come in cheaper than the license fee), but as its remit is as a public service broadcaster, the technology would have to be there for the entire public to receive its services if they coughed up the dough.

I tell you what though - with 2 national terrestrial channels, 5 national radio stations and a free-for-all website (not to mention all the local radio stations, local news teams, the World Service, digital TV and radio, etc.), and the largest international news team in the world, were the corporation to become commercialized, a hell of a lot of people would miss out on a hell of a lot of stuff. I think the people who would be pissed off would exceed those who were happy not to have to pay the license fee.

[Brutus]

Does the tax go to only the BBC ‘family of stations’, or do other broadcasters get a cut?

[jjimm]

@Brutus

Does the tax go to only the BBC ‘family of stations’, or do other broadcasters get a cut?

Nope, BBC (as in the entire kit & caboodle) is the public service broadcaster, and has been ever since radio started being broadcast. Bear in mind, historically, that “Auntie Beeb” was the first TV station ever to broadcast, starting in the mid 1930s, sending two different signals (EMI vs. Baird) from its radio transmitter. (For Brits/Irish, I admit got this off Clarkson’s programme during the week). This was in the days when you needed a radio license too, which funded the Beeb before TVs became popular. In other words, it’s always been that way.

The first commercial station, ITV, began in the 1950s I think ( the first ever commercial was for Guinness :D). Terrestrial commercial channels now are ITV and its various regions, Channel 4, and Channel 5, and S4C which is in Welsh. They all have to rely on advertising, just like the US.

IIRC, there has been controversy over the fact that the BBC’s output was self-policing, while commercial stations were moderated by an independent body. That is changing as a result of Hutton, and I agree with the decision.

[Brutus]

@jjimm

…IIRC, there has been controversy over the fact that the BBC’s output was self-policing, while commercial stations were moderated by an independent body. That is changing as a result of Hutton, and I agree with the decision.

Well, that is good news.

Don’t get me wrong, I watch BBC-America regularly. I don’t care for the news (to say the least), but the other stuff is pretty good. What gets my goat is the concept of a tax that you must pay if you want to buy a television. I can cancel my cable subscription (and whatever share of that which goes to BBC-A). Joe Brit cannot. Dunno, that bothers me.

[amanset]

@Brutus

Don’t get me wrong, I watch BBC-America regularly. I don’t care for the news (to say the least), but the other stuff is pretty good. What gets my goat is the concept of a tax that you must pay if you want to buy a television. I can cancel my cable subscription (and whatever share of that which goes to BBC-A). Joe Brit cannot. Dunno, that bothers me.

Why does it bother you? Does it affect you in some way?

The majority of Brits seem happy with the situation and, let’s face it, they are in a better position to know what the BBC provides. You see BBC America, the website and perhaps BBC World. Those in the UK see the national TV and radio stations (of which with the advent of Digital TV and radio there are many) as well as the myriad of local radio stations and TV programming.

Without wanting to seem rude, you have no idea what the BBC is like and what it means to most Brits.

I would also argue that most American opposition (and, yes, I know that not ALL Americans are anti-BBC) towards the BBC these days seems to stem from the BBC’s alleged anti-War stance. And yes, I mean alleged, as the pro-war stance gets more airtime than you’d expect from an anti-war station. I’d go as far to say as the pro-war stance gets more airtime on the BBC than the anti-war stance on any of the major news sources in the US. Of course that is in my limited knowledge of getting CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and CBS via cable here. You may disagree.

I wonder how people would like you would feel if your news sources were telling you that the BBC is pro war? By your own admission of not caring for their news coverage I’d be amazed if you’ve seen enough of their news to form an opinion of your own.

My experience is that those who are anti-BBC and the licence fee are a highly vocal minority and/or foreigners from countries without a licence fee (and yes, other countries do have one as well).

(And yes, I know my location is set as “Sweden”, but I am a Brit. I moved here with my job four years ago).