20-08-2003 20:00									#1
	Conditions improving in Kandahar Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

This from the BBC - yes, the BBC.

Conditions in Kandahar

Note among other things, the drive to Kabul, which used to take 2 days, now takes 12 hours.

	20-08-2003 20:01									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

In what way is it significant that it's from the BBC?

	20-08-2003 20:06									#3
	Remove this text

In an age of FED EX, FAX, CEL Phone, everything appears to be done immediately, but some things, like I said before takes time, can't be done overnight.
This article is an example of that.

	20-08-2003 22:39									#4
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet In what way is it significant that it's from the BBC?

Its not from a source that could be accused of trying to make US actions in the world appear successful.

	20-08-2003 23:02									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The state-sponsored television station of their biggest allies could very easily be accused of wanting to make the US appear successful.

	20-08-2003 23:11									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

no they couldn't considering recent events.

	20-08-2003 23:12									#7
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet The state-sponsored television station of their biggest allies could very easily be accused of wanting to make the US appear successful.

are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy? I guess Tony Blair would be surprised to hear that.

	20-08-2003 23:16									#8
	Tired of ads?

and btw, it's nice to see things improving for these people

	20-08-2003 23:19									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy?

Yes.

Despite what Alistair Campbell *****es and whines about I haven't seen any anti-government propaganda coming from the BBC. Just because they're not bending over and waiting for Tony and Alistair to **** them in the ass every time the news comes on doesn't mean they are anti-government.

	20-08-2003 23:21									#10
	Got spare money?

the whole david kelly affair seems to suggest otherwise...

	20-08-2003 23:24									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Only if you believe the BBC misrepresented Kelly's comments, which has yet to be proven.

	20-08-2003 23:25									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet quote: are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy? Yes. Despite what Alistair Campbell *****es and whines about I haven't seen any anti-government propaganda coming from the BBC. Just because they're not bending over and waiting for Tony and Alistair to **** them in the ass every time the news comes on doesn't mean they are anti-government.

well ive been checking the BBC website for a couple of years now, and i also get to see BBC world tonight on a local public tv station. And id say that their bias regarding US foreign policy, and Brit foreign policy to the extent it supports US for policy, is blatant. But i could see it if you tried to defend them and said they are unbiased, and not anti-government. But to say they are biased pro-govt????? Please cite some examples.

	20-08-2003 23:29									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet quote: are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy? Yes. Despite what Alistair Campbell *****es and whines about I haven't seen any anti-government propaganda coming from the BBC. Just because they're not bending over and waiting for Tony and Alistair to **** them in the ass every time the news comes on doesn't mean they are anti-government.

from the weekly Standard

"For example, on April 3, after U.S. troops had taken control of the Baghdad airport, Andrew Gilligan (remember that name) reported on the BBC World Service and on the BBC website, "Within the last 90 minutes I've been at the airport. There is simply no truth in the claims that American troops are surrounding it. We could drive up to it quite easily. The airport is under full Iraqi control." That was Gilligan's story, and the BBC was sticking to it--until another correspondent pointed out that Gilligan was not, in fact, at the airport, but U.S. troops quite clearly were.

Two days later, on April 5, Gilligan reported, "I'm in the center of Baghdad, and I don't see anything. But then the Americans have a history of making these premature announcements." At roughly the same time, CNN was broadcasting pictures of the 3rd Infantry driving through the center of Baghdad. By April 11, even the intrepid Gilligan could no longer maintain that the coalition was not in control of Baghdad. So instead he argued that Baghdadis were experiencing their "first days of freedom in more fear than they have ever known before"--that is, that they felt less safe than they had under Saddam. The prime minister's office shot back, "Try telling that to people put in shredders or getting their tongues cut out."

	20-08-2003 23:34									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: But to say they are biased pro-govt?????

I didn't say that.

I said I agreed with the sentiment that they "tend to support UK foreign policy". Which means that, more often than not, (but not all the time), they're news reports present UK foreign policy in a good light. (note: I'm talking about news programmes here, not the discussion programs, which are a bigger playground of trolling and BAMs than even here).

You'd be hard pressed to find any state-sponsored television that was anti-government.

	20-08-2003 23:37									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I watch BBC America on the local Public Broadcasting System channel and they don't seem to be very pro or anti government. Though some times they seem to gloss over important details.

	20-08-2003 23:38									#16
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet quote: But to say they are biased pro-govt????? I didn't say that. I said I agreed with the sentiment that they "tend to support UK foreign policy". Which means that, more often than not, (but not all the time), they're news reports present UK foreign policy in a good light. (note: I'm talking about news programmes here, not the discussion programs, which are a bigger playground of trolling and BAMs than even here). You'd be hard pressed to find any state-sponsored television that was anti-government.

which is why the BBC stands out so much.

	20-08-2003 23:39									#17
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I watch BBC America

BBC America blows. It's tailored to suit American audiences, which means it's just s bad as everything else on US TV. I was so disapointed.

	20-08-2003 23:42									#18
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet quote: are you implying that the BBC tends to support UK foreign policy? Yes. Despite what Alistair Campbell *****es and whines about I haven't seen any anti-government propaganda coming from the BBC. Just because they're not bending over and waiting for Tony and Alistair to **** them in the ass every time the news comes on doesn't mean they are anti-government.

weekly Standard
"Of course, BBC spin usually comes in more subtle forms. The use of scare quotes on the BBC website, for example, often betrays a remarkable contempt for the coalition. When Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed by U.S. troops last month, the website blared, "Saddam sons 'dead'" and "Iraq 'deaths' will have huge effect." The next day, having come to terms with the fact of these deaths, the BBC moved on to questioning their value: "U.S. celebrates 'good' Iraq news." And, as Christopher Hitchens noted in a perceptive Slate essay, you can no longer depend on BBC journalists even for proper pronunciation. The Beeb's announcers habitually mangle Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's last name (pronounced exactly as it looks) to make it more Jewish-sounding: Vulfervitz. "

	20-08-2003 23:43									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

so FP, do you really think that conditions ARE not improving in Kandahar, and that this article is BBC pro-govt spin? What parts are wrong. And whats your cite?

	20-08-2003 23:44									#20
	Suffering from ads?

quote: The Beeb's announcers habitually mangle Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's last name (pronounced exactly as it looks) to make it more Jewish-sounding: Vulfervitz. "

Yes! It's all an anti-semitic plot!

quote: When Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed by U.S. troops last month, the website blared, "Saddam sons 'dead'" and "Iraq 'deaths' will have huge effect." The next day, having come to terms with the fact of these deaths, the BBC moved on to questioning their value: "U.S. celebrates 'good' Iraq news."

I don't see how that is anti-government.

	20-08-2003 23:54									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I like checking the BBC site to see if anything has gone wrong in Iraq. If theres nothing there, it means absolutely nothing has gone wrong that day, cause if there was, it would be there, Ditto for Afghanistan. If something went well in either place, it may or may not be there.

Basically the reverse of Fox and certain right wing blogs. Between the two you tend to get a picture of whats going on.

	20-08-2003 23:56									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Defiant In an age of FED EX, FAX, CEL Phone, everything appears to be done immediately, but some things, like I said before takes time, can't be done overnight.

For instance, recovering from a region wide blackout? True.

	20-08-2003 23:59									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: I like checking the BBC site to see if anything has gone wrong in Iraq. If theres nothing there, it means absolutely nothing has gone wrong that day, cause if there was, it would be there,

And you blame them for this? I'd be more worried if they didn't mention it.

Anyway, I'm not sure if BBC can be considered the polar opposite of Fox. It's clearly more to the left and less supportive of the war, but if you really wanted to find an anti-war news source to compare with Fox I'm sure you could find something better. Something French for instance.

	21-08-2003 00:39									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet quote: I like checking the BBC site to see if anything has gone wrong in Iraq. If theres nothing there, it means absolutely nothing has gone wrong that day, cause if there was, it would be there, And you blame them for this? I'd be more worried if they didn't mention it.

If they gave the same detail to positive things, or the negative things they mentioned were really as bad as they spun it. Its like a medical test that often gives false postives, but never false negatives. It can be quite useful, but its neither accurate nor unbiased.

	21-08-2003 00:42									#25
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet quote: I like checking the BBC site to see if anything has gone wrong in Iraq. If theres nothing there, it means absolutely nothing has gone wrong that day, cause if there was, it would be there, And you blame them for this? I'd be more worried if they didn't mention it.

But it does mean that when they something positive about Iraq or Afghan, its very likely to be true. If not in fact understated. Which is what we were talking about here.

	21-08-2003 00:46									#26
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet quote: The Beeb's announcers habitually mangle Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's last name (pronounced exactly as it looks) to make it more Jewish-sounding: Vulfervitz. " Yes! It's all an anti-semitic plot! [.

Hitchens, in Slate:

'Yes that's all very well," said the chap from the BBC World Service, "but what about this man Vulfervitz who seems to run the whole show from behind the scenes?" For the fifth time in as many days, and for the umpteenth time this year, I corrected a British interviewer's pronunciation. You see the name in print, you hear it uttered quite a lot in American discussions, you then give a highly inflected rendition of your own. ... What is this? In my young day, the BBC had a special department for the pronunciation of foreign names for the guidance of those commenting on Thailand, say, or Mongolia. But this particular name is pronounced as it is spelled. "Very well," said the BBC chap, with a hint of bad grace. "This man Wolfervitz ..."


It takes a lot, I hope, to make me feel queasy. (I had, during my appointment at the BBC offices in London, already had to pass a door with a sign reading "Male Prayer Room," which means that the British taxpayer is already funding not just religious observance on public property but the sexual segregation of same.) And this is not quite like old-line reactionaries going out of their way to say "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld." Still, I don't think I am quite wrong in suspecting that a sharpened innuendo is in play here. Why else, when the very name of Paul Wolfowitz is mentioned, do so many people bid adieu to the very notion of objectivity?'

	21-08-2003 01:00									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet [ quote: When Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed by U.S. troops last month, the website blared, "Saddam sons 'dead'" and "Iraq 'deaths' will have huge effect." The next day, having come to terms with the fact of these deaths, the BBC moved on to questioning their value: "U.S. celebrates 'good' Iraq news." I don't see how that is anti-government.

Andrew Sullivan, Sunday Times

"There was something wonderfully strained about how various media organisations dealt last week with the news of the deaths of Qusay and Uday Hussein.

From the BBC to Reuters, there was palpable — if sternly repressed — dismay. One of the first headlines that the Ba’athist Broadcasting Corporation put out on the news was: “US celebrates ‘good’ Iraq news”.

The quotation marks around “good” did not refer to any quote or source in the text. They were pure editorialising on behalf of the BBC, whose campaign to undermine the liberation of Iraq is now in full swing. It was not clear to the BBC that the deaths of two of the most sadistic mass murderers on the planet was in any way a good thing, especially if they redounded to the credit of Tony Blair or President George W Bush. '

	21-08-2003 01:00									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I still don't get your point. Unless you really ARE claiming that what you perceive as anti-war sentiment by the BBC is rooted in anti-semetism?

	21-08-2003 01:02									#29
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Whoops. I spelt semitism wrong. Obviously I must hate Jews.

	21-08-2003 01:03									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: It was not clear to the BBC that the deaths of two of the most sadistic mass murderers on the planet was in any way a good thing,

It's not clear to me either. I favour trials before executions. Perhaps their murder was unavoidable in the circumstances, and I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it, but that doesn't mean I think it was a "good thing".