Says the link to this BBC story. It’s currently the main story on their ‘In Depth’ page.
Mental image of another poor chap in a wheelchair, or hobbling along with the aid of a stick.
The story ? “A young Palestinian man with learning disabilities has been shot dead by Israeli troops near the West Bank town of Jenin, Palestinian officials said. Local residents said Mujahid al-Simadi had gone up to the troops with a toy gun and shouted that they should leave the village. He was among a number of children who had surrounded a house occupied by Israeli soldiers and began to throw stones, Palestinian security sources said. The soldiers opened fire from the house and Mujahid al-Simadi hit in the chest and died immediately, they said.”
Two things here. Firstly the characteristation of someone with ‘learning difficulties’ as ‘disabled’, no matter what disability benefits such a person may be entitled to in the UK, is essentially dishonest. To the vast majority of BBC news viewers, ‘disabled’ implies a physical disability. The prisons of the UK are full of people with learning difficulties, but the BBC have not yet taken to describing them as ‘disabled prisoners’. Secondly, the source of the information on his disabled status is apparently ‘Palestinian officials said’. Where are the quotes that traditionally go round such an assertion ?
Strange. I heard what seemed like an important (and depressing) story on the news yesterday, but I can’t find this story on the BBC website yet. “BAGHDAD — The U.S. military has stumbled across the first evidence of a death squad within Iraq’s Interior Ministry after the detention last month of 22 men wearing police commando uniforms who were about to shoot a Sunni man, according to the American general overseeing the training of Iraqi police. The men turned out not to be police commandos but were employed by the Ministry of Interior as highway patrolmen, according to Maj. Gen. Joseph Peterson, who commands the civilian police training teams in Iraq. “We have found one of the death squads,” he said. “They are a part of the police force of Iraq.”
The current Middle East page features … guess what ?. If anyone finds the police story on the BBC, could they let us know via the comments ?
UPDATE – the police story has arrived – just before midday. Thanks to commenter Archduke for the spot. They’ve given it third spot on the Middle East page, relegating the disabled Jenin man to the top of the ‘More from Middle East’ section. Of course, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are still numbers one and two. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4719842.stm
“Testing Time for troops in Basra”
i wonder why?
Basra provincial councillor Dr Salaman Wethib, says to the BBc:
“The British troops have a reputation in Basra for being heavy handed”
However, the BBC does the reader a disservice , for it never mentions what political party Dr Wethib is a member of.
To get the political context, we have to go elsewhere:
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/newsitems/news_item.2006-01-03.8582810756
Turns out that the Islamist UIA took 77% of the vote in Basra – with the secular INL getting a poor 11%
How is that important to understanding where Dr Wethib is coming from? Well , from that link above, we find out:
———————————-
“Most of the local party leaders and senior provincial [government] staff have lived in Iran,” said Ahmed Arif, 43, an Arabic-language teacher. “They are now pursuing Iranian politics in the city, and looking after Iranian interests.”
———————————-
Iran.
British troops are “heavy handed”.
Suuurrrrreeee. and i have a pink elephant in my bathroom.
By just reading the BBC , you’d never be able to join the dots.
OT: From Adloyada, a must read;
BBC soft soaps Holocaust denier
“It seems the BBC is more interested in promoting the Islamist agenda of equating with Holocaust denial unintended offence against Muslim requirements about not portraying the prophet Mohammed than it is in telling the full truth about David Irving.
BTW, does anyone have the name of the writer and book title of the recent book by the former BBC insider? Where can it be bought?thanks
It might be Taking Sides: Bias at the BBC by Robin Aitken?
10 O’Clock News rapped for bias
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,1711248,00.html
BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Govenors
Click to access apps_octdec2005.pdf
The govenors verdict?
Finding: upheld (no further action required).
??
“Yes, we’re biased, but.. who cares?”
Unbelievable.
Actually, putting this Robin Aitken into google came up with quite a good site.
http://theinternetforum.co.uk/bbc/bias1.html
First time I’ve seen it.
OT : Sorry to return to the cartoons. Look at this :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3406041.stm
and then try to read this without laughing or spilling your coffee :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm
Mr Herrmann said it was also important not to exacerbate the controversy by publishing potentially offensive images, rather than simply reporting on it.
“In addition, images on a web page can have an immediate impact on readers who will not necessarily have absorbed any of the context around them,” he explained.
“When we cover any sensitive issue we have to balance our duty to report the story faithfully with our responsibility not to unnecessarily shock or offend our audience.
lee -> its one rule for the israelis , another rule for the islamists.
thats the bbc.
Wowzers:
President ‘Just Fine’ With Cheney Explanation
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185062,00.html
Rachel,
I saw the BBC’s revolting defense of David Irving and word-for-word parroting of the Islamist moral equivalence du jour on the question of free speech. “Why can’t we be HOlocaust deniers, it’s so UNFAIR!” they whine — and the Beeb happily chimes in to legitimize their insane prattling.
Even for the Beeb, this “article” was singularly revolting, a sickening screed of pathetic, inaccurate moral equivalence and distorted propaganda.
Frankly, it left me speechless. The Beeb has stooped so low, it has gotten into bed with Holocaust deniers in order to bootlick their favorite constituency.
The Beeb is simply disgusting, it is the enemy of the West.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4717568.stm
This article from Newsnight shown on Wed 15 Feb shows an interesting change in the beeb’s hierarchy of favour for victim groups.
Homosexuals are now positioned below Muslims since the beeb considers it wrong to ask Muslim applicants for German citizenship what their attitude is to homosexuals.
Instead of protecting homosexuals from potential gaykiller Muslims by exploring this topic the beeb thinks Muslims should not be asked about it.
The same reasoning applies (mutatis mutandis) to women since Muslims mustn’t be asked about their attitude to women
Homosexuals are now positioned below Muslims since the beeb considers it wrong to ask Muslim applicants for German citizenship what their attitude is to homosexuals.
It is exactly as Pim Fortuyn said………..however, Moscow has just banned a gay march because of opposition from The Orthodox Church and Muslims…………be interesting to see how The Council of Europe reacts
Basra provincial councillor Dr Salaman Wethib, says to the BBc:
“The British troops have a reputation in Basra for being heavy handed”
Can’t they employ Iraqi waiters instead ?
Yes, Robert Aitken’s comments last year really nailed the BBC’s bias. Don’t forget, he had worked for years in the belly of the beast.
Here we go again with the BBC banging on about Guantanamo. Lead item of course on the Today programme this morning. They are going to give Archbishop Tutu the top slot at 8.10am – with lots of juicy references to leftie Peter Hain’s comments on Question Time.
I don’t think most Brits give a monkey’s toss about Gitmo.
Meanwhile the BBC is not reporting that the main suspect for the shooting of the WPC is a local Yardie drug dealer.
Here is another view of Gitmo. No prisoners have died there (unlike most British jails), and the place is still yielding intelligence – including info on the London bombings.
There is a war on terror going on. You don’t release prisoners in the middle of the war – many of them would go straight back to Afghanistan and many would soon be attacking Brit troops in the south.
Whose side is the BBC on ?
sorry – forgot to post the link on Gitmo :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/17/wguan17.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/17/ixnewstop.html
I am staggered by some of the contributors on this forum and their hypocrisy. “We don’t do moral equivalence” is the stock line when any hypocrisy is brought to your attention.
Many on this forum claimed that the publication of the cartoons was exercise of free speech – I do indeed agree with you. Irving’s insane rantings (which do not incite any one to violence) should be viewed as such.
It is unsurprising that the BBC may take present the free speech line on this issue – after all it is a media organisation. This is not about encouraging Muslims to make anti semitc statements – this is conflating two different. And in any case how come to attack the Muslims (quite rightly) for making anti semitic statements when so many of you are happy to make anti Islamic statements?
It is not unreasonable for the BBC to give air to the free speech position. Even Deborah Lipstadt the person who so vociforously and magnificantly attacked him in the court case 5 years ago has called for him to be freed. See the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm
Whilst many of you may well identify areas of BBC bias and even contradictions in a liberal left position on many issues (of course the right has no contradictory positions) you are way off the mark when you imply the liberal left is anti semitic. The liberal left has been at the forefornt of combating bigotry of all kinds – as a liberal I salute those of you on the right who are beginning to shed some of your bigotry. All you need now is to shed your knee jerk hatred of anything Islamic 😉
We just see the world as it is Lurker, not how we’d like it to be.
Watch for BBC bias today in an upcoming report.
Yesterday BBC reported that Mr Justice Collins ruled that the British Govt should assist “British residents” held in Guantanamo.
The High Court did not.
It accepted that they could make an Application to The High Court to have a ruling on whether this was the case, but that these individuals were “dangerous”
Today Sir Roy Meadow’s appeal is heard before Mr Justice Collins in The High Court over the GMC striking him off. Just a note – an Expert Witness cannot be sued – but his professional body can be petitioned – his Appeal is that Courts ie Judges and Lawyers use Expert Evidence and it is not he who fixes verdicts, or sentences.
Let us see how the BBC treats a potential victory on the part of Sir Roy Meadow against the General Medical Council………………..today
Irving’s insane rantings (which do not incite any one to violence) should be viewed as such.
Irving’s books can be bought in Britain – he is however in an Austrian jail for breaching Austrian law and trying to use Austrian research facilities.
The review on Amazon.co.uk of Lippstadt’s book states:
In her acclaimed 1993 book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt called David Irving, a prolific writer of books on World War II, “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial”, a conclusion she reached after closely examining his books, speeches, interviews, and other copious records. The following year, after Lipstadt’s book was published in the UK, Irving filed a libel suit against Lipstadt and her UK publisher, Penguin. Lipstadt prepared her defence with the help of first-rate team of solicitors, historians, and experts. The dramatic trial, which unfolded over the course of 10 weeks, ultimately exposed the prejudice, extremism, and distortion of history that defined Irving’s work. Lipstadt’s victory was proclaimed on the front page of major newspapers around the world, with the Daily Telegraph proclaiming that the trial did “for the new century what the Nuremberg tribunals or the Eichmann trial did for earlier generations.”
Now he had earlier lost a libel case against Capt. Jack over Convoy PQ17:
Broome sued Irving for libel in October 1968, and in February 1970, after seventeen days of deliberation before London’s High Court, Broome won. Irving was forced to pay £40,000 in damages, and the book was withdrawn from circulation.
It may be “free speech” but losing twice in libel courts does not suggest he is necessarily on the right track – no wonder he switched to themes rather than persons
On Today just now (8.10), and in the “main interview” slot, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is informing us that the UK is like apartheid South Africa. Thankyou Archbishop, very interesting, but keep the day job.
Just why does the BBC turn to people like this to comment upon our national affairs? Any claim he had on our respect and attention ran out years ago. Still, he can be relied upon to say things the Beeb likes, so no doubt that’s why he’s on.
A Hamas spokesman appeared on Today at 7.20am this morning. Strangely though, he has anglicised his name to “John Humphreys”.
Seriously, listen to how Al-Humphreys brushes aside (ignores) the concerns of the Israeli spokesman that the Hamas covenant is expressly antisemitic. Also note that Humphreys refers to Hamas as “so-called” terrorists. And this about an organisation recognised as terrorist by the EU, USA, UK, Japan etc.
Whose side is the BBC on ?
It’s not on The West’s side, that’s for sure!
Perhaps Al-Humphreys is dhimming the truth to avoid being the next Frank Gardner?
I broke a smile at this (probably unintentional) dig at the Beeb from FOX.
President ‘Just Fine’ With Cheney Explanation
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185062,00.html
“But critics of the critics said the story was just another way for Democrats to pile on the White House.”
ho ho!
BBC R4 ‘Today’ programme brings peace to the world with their ‘peace’ cartoos:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/gallery/gallery_peacecartoons.shtml
About as funny as a road traffic accident.
The Today prog was plugging the Gitmo stuff like crazy this morning. They went as far as suggesting in their reviews of today’s newspapers (at 6.10am, 6.40 and 7.40) that Gitmo was leading the UK press. eg at 6.10 “The big story for many of them” intones John Humphrys.
This is an absolute lie. The UK press were NOT in lockstep with the Beeb in leading with Gitmo. At the Sky newsite you can check each day’s front pages. Only the Guardian led today on the Gitmo court case. All the other newspapers had totally different leads. The BBC newspaper review at 6.10am this morning specifically suggested that the Mirror was leading on Gitmo. We know the Mirror has been consistently anti-war, and it would not have been surprising if the story had been splashed on their front page. But no – as this link and the Sky site shows, their front page splashes the claim that we could face terror from Al Quaeda for another 50 years, with hundreds of known fanatics in the UK.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/
So here we have a blatant BBC/John Humphries lie. Humphries will have scanned the press himself before he went on air. He KNEW that they were NOT leading with Gitmo. But he is obsessed about Gitmo, so easily slips into the 6.10am lie “The big story for many of them”….because he is licking his chops about hammering the US right through today’s programme. Agenda-driven news.
The real facts are that the US is locking up a load of what they suspect as Islamist fanatics because the war is on-going. The Met Police anti-terror chief issues a grim warning that there are hundreds of these nutters here amongst us, with 60 already facing trial. This grim prognosis is confirmed by the Home Office Minister responsible. Elsewhere we know that Gitmo prisoners are still providing evidence useful here in the UK. But the BBC chooses to drip-drip-drip the poison about Kofi Annan, Archbishop Tutu and anyone else they can find criticising the Americans. Tutu was gaga long-since, and his comparison of Gitmo with apartheid is patently ludicrous but the BBC don’t tell him to stop spouting nonsense- they lap it up.
Why didn’t the BBC interview Peter Clarke, the Met’s anti-terror guy, rather than Tutu ? Or Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister ? Why did they not even cover today’s real story, the frightening depth of the Islamist threat right here in Britain ? A story that directly affects the British public in a way that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib never did. And why did they try to suggest that the UK press was leading on Gitmo, totally different to what the bulk of the press actually led with ?
Why ? Because the BBC news staff are perniciously and consistently twisting the news. Bias by omission, bias by featuring people and stories that chime with the BBC house line, bias every-which-way. This morning’s issue of Today was a real classic. Distort the UK press, give a gaga foreigner ten minutes to criticise Gitmo and the UK’s own anti-terrorist laws, give Hamas an easy ride and fail to describe them as terrorists – while attacking an Israeli spokesman. The only good thing was that they let up on the attacks on the British Army squaddies in Basra.
Meanwhile, in the Political-Correctness-gone-mad department, the BBC has now reported that the police have issued a description of the guy wanted for the WPC shooting. 24, slim, gold teeth. They neglect to mention that he is black. Just a small slip, of course ! And they failed to warn people that the police are saying this Yardie should not be approached.
dumbcisco – good post on this mornings ‘NGO/Socialist Worker Talk Radio’
Ritter: “BBC R4 ‘Today’ programme brings peace to the world with their ‘peace’ cartoos: [..] About as funny as a road traffic accident.”
First frame:
Cartoon figure on left says: “You and I are no different, my friend!”
Yea, but they havn’t printed the next frame, which goes like this:
Cartoon figure on left, holding severed head of cartoon figure on right.
“If I cut you do you not bleed?”
dumbcisco – The BBC can’t avoid it now that the suspects picture has been issued by the Police:
Police name Pc shooting suspect
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4722884.stm
He is black, slim, has one or more gold teeth and a Caribbean accent.
OT – (D)HYS
Do you believe the news?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1117&edition=1&ttl=20060217114731&#paginator
No1 Recommended:
Added: Thursday, 16 February, 2006, 12:08 GMT 12:08 UK
No I don’t, and the BBC is one of the worst culprits when it comes to mis-presenting the news.
The morning midday and early evening news always seem to have a politically correct slant were ethnic minorities, immigrants, women, non-white people etc… cannot be shown in a bad light.
Lee, Leeds
Recommended by 41 people
Oh, how I laughed!
It has now been recommended by 43 people!
Second one is just as good…
I certainly believe very little of what’s reported on the BBC since this organisation gave up honest reporting and adopted political correctness and a liberal-left bias.
Derek S, UK
Recommended by 37 people
“All you need now is to shed your knee jerk hatred of anything Islamic”
if they stop the beheadings, gay hatred, sucide bombings, forced marriages, denegration of women, hatred of danish cartoonists and ditch sharia law, i’ll reconsider.
until then, my knee will jerk.
as much as my knee jerks in response to anything Nazi or Communist.
It is NOT wrong to jerk your knee in response to ANY ideology that threatens the freedoms that my ancestors fought and died for.
oh and by the way – i think David Irving should be allowed to holocaust deny.
much as i believe that Abu Hamza should NOT have been locked up for stuff he SAID.
i’m a bit of an extreme liberal when it comes to free speech.
good post there dumbcisco. very good analysis.
listened to the 0715 Today segment (israel/hamas)
references to a hamas run town dealing with “the jewish state”
(if its a jewish state, how come there are Arab Islamic members of the Knesset? its a democracy FFS!!!)
no reference to “Islam” in the report.
Humphries interviews Israeli minister after the report. he says “if you destroy the economy of the palestinian state…” regarding the with-holding of funds to the PA. – so we’re in “blame the jews” mode here with Humphreys.
israeli minister refers humphreys to the hamas charter – humphreys dismisses it saying to the israeli that he has to deal with the “elected” authority. to be fair , the israeli does make the most use of his time, refering the Hamas’s belief that the Jews were behind everything (ww1, ww2,blah blah).
But what was apparent was Humphries blind dismissal of any Israeli concerns about the nature of Hamas.
Many comments & recommendations on the (D)HYS on Guantanamo rely on the disgracful report by John Simpson, fisked by Rotty Pup.
Simpson uses statistics from “a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer”. Simpson does not point out the declaration of interest by the authors of this analysis, i.e. they state in their report “The authors are counsel for two detainees in Guantanamo.”
Simpson even manages to distort the findings of these partial lawyers, converting
” This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the
United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected
enemies.
to
The overwhelming majority of the others were handed over to the Americans by people who could reasonably be called bounty hunters.
The BBC allow their star man to present defence team findings as impartial & then fill (D)HYS with comments from people gullible enough to regard a BBC report as unbiased.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=1102&&edition=1&ttl=20060217122530
http://rottypup.com/
OT – BBC ‘spooked’ by muslims
BBC denies axing Spooks episode
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4719412.stm
In a statement, the BBC said the latest episode in question was about a fictional ‘Christian extremist’.
A ‘Christian extremist’? What’s that exactly?
AD,
I think I’d draw the free speech line at incitement to murder. If Abu Hamza used his position to incite people who he knew to be willing to commit murder to do so then that has to be criminal.
By the same token presumably the bloke who organises a bank robbery but doesn’t get his hands dirty is exercising his freedom to speak about bank robbery strategic approaches with whomever he sees fit?
OT – Dhimmi-Watch
Students urge Muslim prayer time
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4721090.stm
“A ‘Christian extremist’? What’s that exactly?”
The Pope?
Ritter
I knew yesterday from the Net that the WPC-shooting suspect was a Yardie. I think I posted it here.
Yet BBC Radio 4 news at 11am today reported that the police had released a description of the suspect, and they said he was “24, slim, gold teeth”. No mention of black. What made it really funny was that they implyed his colour by then saying that he was born in Trinidad. PC-loopy.
Oh – and they failed to mention the police advice that he should not approached.
So – a day late, a dollar short. The world’s most trusted news service. Yeah, sure.
“I think I’d draw the free speech line at incitement to murder”
indeed – and thats also the case in 1st Amendment America.
however, the Abu Hamza defense case was that he was just quoting from the Koran. I must look up the transcripts to figure out how they discounted that particular angle.
That last post on the BBC’s colour-blindness on the WPC-shooting suspect was me.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu is informing us that the UK is like apartheid South Africa.
“A ‘Christian extremist’? What’s that exactly?”
It is a S. African Archbishop who peddles his private lunacies claiming he is inspired by God
anon-> so we have a highly dangerous Yardie on the loose, and it takes them a DAY to issue a description?
PC Loopy alright.
The police have had the description of the suspect in the shooting of the WPc in Nottingham for several days now but have sat on it, presumably to give him a few days’ start given that he’s one of the oppressed. The BBC will now report this incident in the usual manner.
On Irving, I too believe that he should be allowed to deny the mass murder of Jews in Europe (by Europeans, who handed over the jews en masse to the nazis) just as the islamonazis should be allowed to do. I just like to know who the bastards are, that’s all.
More (D)HYS Beeb bashing fun:
Socialist/media studies grad beeboid drone asks:
Should school play love scenes be banned?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=1119&edition=1&ttl=20060217132633&#paginator
Some cracking comments in recommnded:
Added: Friday, 17 February, 2006, 11:57 GMT 11:57 UK
This is just unbelievable. What are we becoming – the Taliban Republic of Britain?
Michael Jamieson
Recommended by 22 people
Added: Friday, 17 February, 2006, 12:00 GMT 12:00 UK
Come on,give us a break!!Is this a candid have your say prank question?What a disrespect towards writers.
Europe is turning into a police state.No love,no smoking,no passion,no speeding,no writing,no,no,no.
Alex Gache, Netherlands
Recommended by 20 people
Added: Friday, 17 February, 2006, 11:36 GMT 11:36 UK
This is ridiculous revisionist PC nonsense, sounds like the sort of thing our government might get involved in.
Andrew Crown, Bath, United Kingdom
Recommended by 18 people
Read the first page of ‘recommnded’ posts. Fantastic!
Most people who post here are convinced that the BBC is seriously biased. The BBC Royal Charter requires balance, but there ain’t no balance inside the huge BBC news bubble.
Interestingly, we are now getting the sense from a lot of the recommendations on (D)HYS that there is a widespread perception of BBC bias. So it is not just a theme of sites like this, USS Neverdock, Daily Ablution, The AmericanExpat, RottyPup etc. Plus leading US blogs, plus certain newspapers here that have focussed on printing instances of BBC bias.
But of course the BBC always trots out its stock defence that one man’s bias is another man’s balance. It holds that john Humphries is not biased (horselaughs), that John Simpson is the soul of balance, that Kirsty Wark is clean as the driven snow, that Frank Gardiner doesn’t have form …..etc etc etc.
This morning’s Today prog. was a classic example of agenda-driven news. Item after item showing bias, either bias by commission (top-slot for the decrepit Tutu) or bias by omission (no interview with US spokesman over Gitmo, no interview with Peter Clarke of the Met or with a Home Office minister about the hugely-disturbing estimates of islamist terrorists here in Britain. The whole programme could be Fisked.
Maybe there should be a public survey of whether people think the BBC is biased. Not “Is it biased” but a series of questions asking whether folks think the BBC has a position, a party-line, on specific issues. Eg “From all your BBC viewing and listening, do you think the BBC is in favour/not in favour of large-scale immigration? Do you think the BBC is in favour/not in favour of deeper European integration ? Do you think the BBC favours Palestine or Israel? Do you think the BBC endorses the Coalition’s actions in Iraq ? Do you think the BBC supports or condemns the existence of Gitmo ? Do you think the BBC is convinced or not convinced there is global warming. Does the BBC support/not support Kyoto. Does the BBC support/oppose George Bush?” Etc etc etc, scrolling down the list of alleged BBC biases.
Such a survey, properly conducted, would show whether the BBC’s audience PERCEIVED clear bias in BBC news treatment. If there is PERCEIVED bias, that would give the lie to the BBC’s claims that its news services are balanced.
Ritter -> and it goes on for several more pages. fantastic indeed.
is there a revolution brewing amongst the middle class of Britain?
By the way, I think the Today programme is far more balanced than Eddie Mair on PM. Now that is saying something.