.
The BBC reports that the United Nations Security Council has approved a new resolution on Iran, reaffirming demands it stop enriching uranium, but imposing no new sanctions. The BBC correspondent adds that it appears that the US and European powers have scrambled to find a face-saving document that would paper over any disagreements. If you glance across to the “Analysis and background” section you will see it is headed by a smiling Ahmadinejad giving the V for victory sign. We get the picture.
Any piece of paper prepared by the UN would have more use if it had the word ANDREX written across it for all the use it is.
so where’s the bias here? can’t see it
Fuck the BBC…and indemnify? Fuck, I condemn them all to hell. Dr. Who was good though, so maybe not ALL of them…Full legal responsibility? Shit, I was paring an apple with a KNIFE ( run for your lives-he has a knife!) As I was typing this screed…can I be legally responsible for thinking the BBC was the apple? COME GET ME BBC!!!
Do you know what? If anything is biased it is this site. Constantly putting Labour down..stop moaning about the BBC and report on things fairly yourself. All of your quotes are taken out of context now thats whats called biased
jack | 28.09.08 – 1:06 am | #
Pointing out the day-in, day-out pro-Labour, pro-left bias of the BBC is “bias” itself? Of course it is, Sparky…of course it is.
Maybe the police are biased against criminals. Maybe doctors are biased against disease. Who knows.
How about some evidence, Jack?
Just a little chapter and verse?
“All of your quotes are taken out of context”
Examples please
Jason, we have the same damned problem here. It’s all Baracky all the time, and Mcain and Palin are exoriated 24/7. But BIAS??…Fuck no, the press is completely neutral/maybe leaning toward the right according to our Democrat (read:socialist) friends at CBS, NBC,MSNBC (your folks would REALLY like Keith). Tell ya what? we’ll get together in umm……(nope, Canada is straight out)…Hmmm…Ok, I know where!! BRAZIL!!…If my neighborhood is any indication, nobody lives there anymore. OH…And the BBC are a bunch of dumb fuck that like it when muslims rape children…COME GET ME BBC!!!
Ed | 28.09.08 – 2:34 am | #
Actually I’m in New York so I know. My only comforts are the New York Post and Fox News.
jack: “stop moaning about the BBC and report on things fairly yourself…”
Yes, good idea. It’s going to take a little time for us to reach the 25,000 staffing-level the Beeb enjoys, but as soon as they start top-slicing the license fee perhaps we could apply.
A lot of imbecile trolls popping in lately. Has the BBC let a few of its teenage (D)HYS ‘moderators’ out on a spree?
Just remember Dolly Draper’s rapid rebuttal unit and whether it is already at work – but succeeds at making a bigger prat of themselves, and the BBC’s preference for all things left.
Just remember Dolly Draper’s rapid rebuttal unit and whether it is already at work
Deborah | 28.09.08 – 12:24 pm |
lord help em if jacks the best they’ve got.
jack:
Do you know what? If anything is biased it is this site. Constantly putting Labour down..stop moaning about the BBC and report on things fairly yourself. All of your quotes are taken out of context now thats whats called biased
jack | 28.09.08 – 1:06 am | #
———————————————-
The thing is, you beeboid asshat, is that we are not forced to pay for this site. But we are forced to pay the for the biased shite that dribbles from the BBC.
So until the day when the BBC is forced to actually make money as a commerical entity rather than as a protection racket, we will carry on complaining…
Why is it that you mind numbingly stupid BBC dickheads don’t get this?
jack:
Do you know what? If anything is biased it is this site. Constantly putting Labour down..stop moaning about the BBC and report on things fairly yourself. All of your quotes are taken out of context now thats whats called biased
jack | 28.09.08 – 1:06 am | #
————————————–
The ‘rational’ side of the left showing it’s true colours, so startlingly original and visionary in it’s approach to debate.
It is always nice to see the ‘liberal theory’ as espoused by the BBC shown for what it really is which is that unless you agree with the BBC’s centre of left view of the world than you must be irrational, after all only rational people can see that the BBC knows what is best for us all, and that any other view is the sign of a dangerous right wing bigot.
So much bile, and yet no-one has answered the simple question posed above: where is the bias in the BBC article under discussion?
I loathe Ahmadinejad and would love to see him eliminated, but no bias is actually pointed out in the post – unless we are supposed to object to any photo of Ahmadinejad smiling. Perhaps, Mr Vance, you could supply the BBC with one of your many photos of Ahmadinejad weeping or bleeding.
Of course, were the photo one of Ahmadinejad doing something other than smiling, sure enough someone here would accuse the BBC of trying to hide the fact that Ahmadinejad is a gloating, sneering, arrogant, evil fool.
The war with Iran is just around the corner.
The Bush administration are in their death throws. They have realised that war is not as profitable as it used to be… especially, when you owe China a ***LOT*** of money.
However… they will still use “False Flag” tactics in order to bring in even more offensive ‘laws’… just like 9/11… The ‘Patriot Act’… Ouch. There is always profit to be made in civil disobedience.
Question: Why is half the US military fleet currently camped outside the Persian Gulf? Some fucking training exercise?…
…because some stupid monkey is running the USA.
The BBC will, as usual, provide the usual comedy when the proverbial hits the fan.
Like reporting 9/11 buildings falling down whilst they are still upright… anybody found those missing tapes yet?
The BBC should stick to taking EU bribes/soft-loans and shut up, rather than reporting the upcoming ‘war’ between the USA and Iran.
I see Derek’s team are out in force today, quite touching really…
NonTVLicencePayer:
what has your last post got to do with BBC bias?
Again – we are in danger of becoming biased obsessed -i dont see the bias here in this particular article. Im ahmed whats his name was grimacing would it make any difference?
Dont geddit -he always seems to be smiling,perhaps he is happy?
Whitewineliberal
Having read multiple inputs you have made to this blog it is evidently clear you are either:
a) A Beeboid or a former beeboid; or
b) a Labour supporter/spin doctor.
You’re just another troll. But even you must realise the BBC in its current state cannot sustain itself. Too many people have become wise to it. The Telegraph regularly run stories now highlighting the liberal left bias output of the BBC. No high level Conservative isn’t aware of the bias, or aware that people believe the BBC is no longer what it was. More and more young people (such as myself) are aware of it. The inevitable wreck is just around the corner. It’s just a matter of time, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
NonTVLicencePayer | 28.09.08 – 5:21 pm | #
Sucks that they took the X-Files off the air, doesn’t it?
Kids.
Does the BBC have a political soft spot for the Ahmadinejad regime of Iran?
How far down the dhimmi road will the BBC go so that it can keep a reporter in Tehran?
Is it simply a coincidence that the BBC doesn’t have much on this?:
“Britons named in plot to arm Iran”
(‘Observer’):
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/britons-named-in-plots-to-arm-iran.html
I have to say I don’t see any bias in reporting that this new UN press release is nothing more than Paddington Bear diplomacy. I’m not seeing any implied gloating, either.
The only questionable thing is that smiling Ahmadimjihadi photo. That’s a bit of thoughtlessness on the part of the sub-editor, which is typical.
But hey, it’s nice to see a truther paying a visit. After all, that’s the other kind of BBC bias, according to comments on every single HYS about trusting them.
Truthers – now they are biased,absolute nutters still quoting the BBC website and it’s still living hijackers etc etc
Anybody here got a copy of the sept 12 01 question time yet?
Henryflower,
If you have to ask….I am surprised that Ahamadinejad has not made an appearance in Children in Need (As long as they are not Jews)
DV, I agree entirely. But the point remains that I cannot see much evidence of bias in the article under discussion. A more systematic analysis of what the BBC says about Ahmdnjd’s words and actions – and perhaps more importantly, what the Beeb DON’T say about his words an actions – would have more purpose than subjectively sensing admiration for him in a relatively balanced article.
That’s the kind of thing that the planned book might give you the opportunity to pursue – the blog format of this site makes such an approach impossible.
I might go to sleep smiling tonight, at the thought of the grinning Iranian scumbag hosting Children in Need. We might have to rename Pudsey, though I hear there are certain names that are unacceptable names for teddy bears in muslim eyes.
When Iran gets the Bomb things will be a bit more even vis a vis Israel.