Reader Tom has a look at the coverage of Saddam’s “Poor me!” outburst.*
*From comments, but posted in the interest of archiving (well, at least as long as google is happy to host all of this stuff) as haloscan deletes comments after a while.
Nuremberg
Bookmark the permalink.
“Michael Gill” notes that the Times sees fit to identify a criminal as an asylum-seeker, whereas the BBC doesn’t
Not only do they not refer to the asylum-seeking issue, but now the two mugshots that the piece originally included have been removed.
Obviously, in its original form the BBC’s piece was not PC enough for the Beeboids as the ethnicity of the criminals was all too obvious.
Some newbie has probably has his/her knuckles rapped for that lapse.
“Move along please, nothing to see here”.
Thanks.
Orwell worried that the state could rewrite history – as long as google keeps paying for those server farms, it can’t!
“Orwell worried that the state could rewrite history – as long as google keeps paying for those server farms, it can’t!”
For posterity, here is the ‘before’…
http://tinyurl.com/9j5m6
and the ‘after’…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4547304.stm
Toby,
Thanks I like these comment on BBC article roundups.
I think it gives people an idea of the volume of Bias @ the BBC.
MG – updated thanks.
Are ‘asylum seekers’ allowed to work? And can these guys simply not be deported if guilty (or innocent)? As for trade, it is self-evident that goods manufactured locally in western countries would be done so in a more energy-efficient manner, and be closer to the market with much reduced transportation. How can the BBC be a proponent of ‘free-trade’ and supposedly environmentalist at the same time?
Trade protectionism is fully justifiable in an age when any product can be manufactured identically in any factory from the same set of machine data.
“Trade protectionism is fully justifiable in an age when any product can be manufactured identically in any factory from the same set of machine data.”
Complete and abject nonsense.