BBC admits bias

uh who wouldn't?

Please take a long, sober think about that statement.

Well, believe it or not, she appeared to me then and there:
The Blessed Virgin herself, in answer to my prayer, despite the vulgarity,
Shimmering softly, dressed in blue and holding up a hand.
I cocked a pious ear as the Mother of God began.
Well she went on again, on again, on again, on, and I
Will have to state how very much I sympathise with the rest of the family.
Give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon
They go on again, on again, on again, on again,
And again, and again, and again, and again
They will go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on.

Then I saw the title again, and became sad.

As somone said on a Comment Is Free piece on the same subject, the BBC is a very big thing and BBC News is the most diverse part of the whole thing - Newsnight, the 6 O'Clock, Today, Breakfast, Five Live, Newsbeat... All very different programmes with their own journalists, editors, etc.

This is emblematic of how out-of-touch many Brits are about things in the Middle East.

Can you imagine such hand-wringing by CNN or fox or indeed the hebrew 'news' site that was linked in the opening post.

It is the English-language site of Yediot Achronot, which is the most widely read newspaper in Israel. It's known for being anti-settler and highly critical of the religious right, so it's probably right up your alley. But hey, you guys haven't heard of it, so I guess it's better to come off like ignorant douchebags by baselessly questioning it's "integrity", since it's an Israeli paper and all.

No, it's emblematic of exactly what I said in the same post - that the BBC is a vast corporation with dozens of seperate outlets offering different takes on things. Could anyone listen to, say, Chris Moyles and then say the BBC is all about tolerance and equality?

As for your complaint that the ILXors here are "ignorant douchebags" because they're all anti-Israeli... You've got one post questioning the impartiality of the link (and when it features an outright piece of comment such as "however, the true stance of the corporation’s editors remained the same" in the second par of a news story you can't blame people for raising eyebrows), and one in which Ed puts quote marks around "News" which he then later says he thinks he should retract.

Please note my retraction of my quote marks two post below or face coming off like an ignorant douchebag yourself.

Nope, I said it was ignorant to criticize the integrity of a newspaper that you have never even seen before and know nothing about. Then again, I'm about 75% sure if I'd linked to some anonymous Canadian newspaper that ran the same story then the comments upthread would not have been made (retracted or not).

it's total nonsense, from a journalistic point of view.

Anyone who is not a fool should question the integrity of all media all the time. 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance' and all that.

do you believe that? there are certainly variations and some shows (today and newsnight obviously) have their own feel. but most news output, especially on bbc1, is totally homogenous.

But that's enough about GMTV's News Hour.

The CBC in Canada is very much the same ... there's a reason why people always talk about newspapers and TV news stations having an "editorial bent". Saying that it all depends on which reporter/presenter is delivering the story is a bit of a cop-out.

Why the hell do a crap Joy Division ripoff band want anything to do with the BBC?

P. Diddy wants her back.