BlkPaladin said:
fillet said:
Kantor said:
Alright, who wants to keep up the argument that the BBC is a reliable and balanced source for news? |
Nobody keeps up that argument.
It's common knowledge since around 2001-2002 with the Iraq war they have been completely biased, full of shitty little reporters all climbing their way to the top of the bbc looking for their fame.
I think the problem is the reporters, not the editorial. I'm thinking that basically everything that a reporter says on the BBC is so over-cooked, over stressed, like some kind of exaggerated West End performance, it's impossible to put together a report in the cutting room where the reporter isn't using some kind of double meaning on words, or grossly circumflexing the end of words to imply things they darn well fucking shouldn't be implying as impartial employees of the state!
|
Sounds a little like Fox News in the US. But then again they are owned by News Corp so that souldn't be surprising.
Here is a great example of Fox at it finest. Its a little hyberbole but it was close close to what my local (I live near Milwaukee) Fox News is like.
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/09
|
No no, I'm with you on this. Local news round this way on the bbc is similar.
Obviously the agenda is different with the bbc, but the end result is the same. In the case of the bbc local news stations (there's around 20 in the UK for example). There's no limit on the news they discuss, so they will just blabber shit and turn anything into a story - because they can. There's no quality bar set because they have no competition. They have high production values because they have good funding....and just get to it from there.
Shame really, but there we go.
