Villepin “seemed to strike the right note” says the BBC. Suckups. Can anyone confirm the impression I got from a commenter that for a while the link text leading to this story actually said, minus the “seemed”, “Villepin strikes the right note”?
The American Expatriate analyses the evolution of the BBC’s coverage of Wilson’s trip to Niger. This post is extremely detailed and supplies copious links. [UPDATE: There’s a follow up post and the BBC’s Paul Reynolds says in the comments that he’s preparing a response.]
Scott Burgess both defends the BBC against an accusation of pro-American bias …
Yes, you heard. He then, ever impartial, criticises Sarah Montague for misrepresenting Jean-Marie Le Pen in a radio interview.
I’ve seen ‘Lurker in a Bhurka’, ‘a Lurker’ and I think there has also been ‘The Lurker’.
So what manner of ‘Lurker’ are you?
Bryan – I’m “Lurker”, always have been. Later on “Lurker in a Bhurka” appeared and “a lurker” (rather than “the lurker” I believe)was the most recent entity to emerge.
I commented here and/or on another site that using “a lurker” as a name could cause confusion. Needless to say no-one or “a lurker” for that matter bothered to reply, comment or in any other way take a blind bit of notice.
I’m virtually certain I was using the handle first in these parts otherwise I wouldnt be grumbling. Since no-one cares what I say it probably doesnt matter either way!
Well then you are not the ‘a lurker’ with whom I had a lengthy debate last month on this site.
That particular lurker went back to lurking mid-debate, evidently unable to answer an awkward question I put to him/her.
Trouble with you guys could be that you do too much lurking. So that when you finally surface and comment, people don’t know how to respond to you because they’ve forgotten who you are and where you’re coming from.
I sent Scott Callahan, the American Expatriate, my response on Friday afternoon and am looking forward to seeing it on his site. I have called it the “Callahan Calumnies.”
Paul Reynolds
Paul Reynolds | 12.11.05 – 8:35 am | #
Must be nice to know your views will probably be posted exactly as you wrote them – available for all to see. Imagine how frustrating it is when one tries to post something on the BBC site that doesn’t follow the BBC agenda, and so more often than not, is just binned.
That’s who you work for.
Teddy Bear scores another direct hit on Obfuscation Central.
I read the response by Paul Reynolds to the case put by Scott Callahan and the latter’s immediate riposte. The case put stands and indeed is strengthened by the attempted misrepresentations made by Mr Reynolds. These communications really need an outlet into the MSM in order that this ‘respected’ BBC journalist’s method can be laid bare for all to see.
Well, now Paul has had his expectations rewarded, and seen his reply on Scott’s site.I somehow doubt, judging from Scott’s reply to it, that he is looking backward with quite as much enthusiasm with which he was looking forward to it. However, I respect Paul for at least trying to uphold the BBC, even if he has yet to fully realise that he represents an organisation that is truly on the moral lowground.
Paul, you tried to extricate the BBC from another of its misrepresentations, thinking the one you chose, among the many levelled at them that you prefer to ignore, would be a simple matter. So long as your bosses want to try and convince the public of ‘The Emperors New Clothes’, even an 8 year old child will still be able to see the Emperors nudity, and easily defy the lies that you would make true. So long as you maintain the BBC course, you will always be on the losing side, morally, logically, and reasonably, unless you are trying to win a Machiavellian award.