Active Users:1195 Time:22/11/2024 07:34:35 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 1059 Views
umm ok *NM* Aisha - 15/07/2010 10:03:37 PM 275 Views
wow that's low... *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 10:18:28 PM 243 Views
That doesn't... seem that weird? nossy - 15/07/2010 10:40:58 PM 615 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 699 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 720 Views
thats what i took away form that article Aisha - 15/07/2010 11:13:02 PM 605 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 240 Views
That's what I disliked about it, yes *NM* ironclad - 15/07/2010 11:42:53 PM 252 Views
i wonder if the same logic applies to giving air time to white supremacist Aisha - 16/07/2010 02:37:43 AM 552 Views
I don't like that line of thought. Nate - 16/07/2010 02:44:41 AM 725 Views
I was going to say this*: nossy - 16/07/2010 02:47:37 AM 590 Views
The amount of newsworthy information in that article was close to zero, though ironclad - 16/07/2010 10:16:56 AM 558 Views
Perhaps you read a different article then? snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:19:04 AM 552 Views
I agree snoopcester - 16/07/2010 11:16:25 AM 525 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 575 Views
Sorry I just don't see what is upsetting you with this article random thoughts - 16/07/2010 03:12:24 PM 605 Views
You just agreed with snoopcester about something. nossy - 16/07/2010 08:07:15 PM 534 Views
well hell really hasn't frozen over yet random thoughts - 16/07/2010 11:14:31 PM 709 Views
I'd rather have an unbiased source of information BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 12:19:39 AM 631 Views
Ditto snoopcester - 17/07/2010 12:28:39 AM 534 Views
that is funny coming from the guy who reads the Guardian random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:12:05 PM 491 Views
I'd guess I actually spend more time reading the Daily Telegraph snoopcester - 17/07/2010 04:15:43 PM 495 Views
Whoa nossy - 17/07/2010 08:59:35 PM 653 Views
Not at me, surely. I'm adorable. *NM* Ghavrel - 17/07/2010 10:07:15 PM 250 Views
Pft, evil most often hides behind "adorable." *NM* nossy - 17/07/2010 10:34:22 PM 218 Views
you wouldn't know an unbiased source if it bit you random thoughts - 17/07/2010 03:09:46 PM 522 Views
"loony left"? BlackAdder - 17/07/2010 11:40:41 PM 562 Views
Sorry man. everynametaken - 16/07/2010 11:54:38 PM 510 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes