Active Users:729 Time:13/12/2025 06:16:33 PM
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 1178 Views
umm ok *NM* Aisha - 15/07/2010 10:03:37 PM 322 Views
wow that's low... *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 10:18:28 PM 291 Views
That doesn't... seem that weird? nossy - 15/07/2010 10:40:58 PM 789 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 847 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 826 Views
thats what i took away form that article Aisha - 15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM 737 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 290 Views
That's what I disliked about it, yes *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 11:42:53 PM 307 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist Aisha - 16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM 672 Views
I don't like that line of thought. Nate - 16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM 856 Views
I was going to say this*: nossy - 16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM 728 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though ironclad - 16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM 698 Views
Perhaps you read a different article then? snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:19:04 AM 686 Views
I agree snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:16:25 AM 671 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 702 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article random thoughts - 16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM 727 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something. nossy - 16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM 662 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM 843 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM 766 Views
Ditto snoopcester - 17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM 659 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM 616 Views
I'd guess I actually spend more time reading the Daily Telegraph snoopcester - 17/07/2010 04:15:43 PM 645 Views
Whoa nossy - 17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM 803 Views
Not at me, surely. I'm adorable. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/07/2010 10:07:15 PM 306 Views
Pft, evil most often hides behind "adorable." *NM* nossy - 17/07/2010 10:34:22 PM 273 Views
you wouldn't know an unbiased source if it bit you random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:09:46 PM 653 Views
"loony left"? BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 11:40:41 PM 701 Views
Sorry man. everynametaken - 16/07/2010 11:54:38 PM 637 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes