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.
BBC News Sells it's Soul - If it ever had one...
15/07/2010 09:50:52 PM
- 1056 Views
Looks like they're trying their best to uphold journalistic integrity in the face of public opinion
15/07/2010 10:54:00 PM
- 698 Views
In fact, having now read the link a bit better... I think this is good journalism. I applaud it.
15/07/2010 10:57:35 PM
- 718 Views
thats what i took away form that article
15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM
- 602 Views
I suspect it is the line of thought that says giving terrorists airtime is justifying their actions. *NM*
15/07/2010 11:32:37 PM
- 239 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist
16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM
- 550 Views
I don't like that line of thought.
16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM
- 723 Views
I was going to say this*:
16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM
- 587 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though
16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM
- 555 Views
its, not it's. i thought you were talking about the site format, which now sucks.
16/07/2010 06:36:23 AM
- 572 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article
16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM
- 602 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something.
16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM
- 532 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet
16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM
- 707 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information
17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM
- 628 Views
Ditto
17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM
- 532 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian
17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM
- 488 Views
Whoa
17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM
- 651 Views