Active Users:382 Time:12/04/2025 04:49:52 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts Send a noteboard - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM
He seems to see this is as question of balance while for me I don't want them giving the terrorist a voice regardless. I don't believe they need to give the terrorist's side to keep from being a moth piece of the government. I really just felt that the story was too short to accuse the BBC of giving him voice and that what he said was sufficiently refuted. News source are allowed to be against terrorist and for the country they are created in. the BBC can and should be pro-British.
Reply to message
BBC News Sells it's Soul - If it ever had one... Wibble - 15/07/2010 09:50:52 PM 1100 Views
umm ok *NM* Aisha - 15/07/2010 10:03:37 PM 297 Views
wow that's low... *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 10:18:28 PM 266 Views
That doesn't... seem that weird? nossy - 15/07/2010 10:40:58 PM 686 Views
Looks like they're trying their best to uphold journalistic integrity in the face of public opinion lord-of-shadow - 15/07/2010 10:54:00 PM 766 Views
In fact, having now read the link a bit better... I think this is good journalism. I applaud it. lord-of-shadow - 15/07/2010 10:57:35 PM 760 Views
thats what i took away form that article Aisha - 15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM 676 Views
I suspect it is the line of thought that says giving terrorists airtime is justifying their actions. *NM* Ghavrel - 15/07/2010 11:32:37 PM 264 Views
That's what I disliked about it, yes *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 11:42:53 PM 278 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist Aisha - 16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM 620 Views
I don't like that line of thought. Nate - 16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM 788 Views
I was going to say this*: nossy - 16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM 662 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though ironclad - 16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM 630 Views
Perhaps you read a different article then? snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:19:04 AM 623 Views
I agree snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:16:25 AM 604 Views
its, not it's. i thought you were talking about the site format, which now sucks. temeraire - 16/07/2010 06:36:23 AM 635 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article random thoughts - 16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM 673 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something. nossy - 16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM 597 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM 781 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM 698 Views
Ditto snoopcester - 17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM 599 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM 558 Views
I'd guess I actually spend more time reading the Daily Telegraph snoopcester - 17/07/2010 04:15:43 PM 570 Views
Whoa nossy - 17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM 730 Views
Not at me, surely. I'm adorable. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/07/2010 10:07:15 PM 279 Views
Pft, evil most often hides behind "adorable." *NM* nossy - 17/07/2010 10:34:22 PM 245 Views
you wouldn't know an unbiased source if it bit you random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:09:46 PM 588 Views
"loony left"? BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 11:40:41 PM 635 Views
Sorry man. everynametaken - 16/07/2010 11:54:38 PM 574 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes