Trump Tower Bugged by BHO?

[Speaker to Animals]

That the BBC might run stories from time-to-time critical of the government -- or probably more accurately: critical of the opposition party -- does not somehow exonerate them of lying and misleading people in order to facilitate the UK's government policies.

They were caught staging a chemical weapons attack to help support intervention in the Syrian civil war for fuck sake. That you just gloss over that little fact and fixate on some story where they criticized a politician is kind of crazy.

[BjornP]

I don't believe that BBC is as blatantly slanted as VOA but that doesn't mean it can be objective while it is tied to a government. It can only provide the UK's side of a story. This is the way PBS is biased as well.

So, you don't believe there ever have been, are, or can be BBC shows, stories, or segments, that are critical of the British government or its policies?

No it is not that simple. It pushes the narrative that it wants to push and factions of the British government with more access to the BBC can use it to be critical of factions they dislike.


Everybody has their own narrative


BBC's headline when an Islamist suicide bomber blew himself up in Germany

"Factions of the British government with more access to the BBC..."

Which factions, and what sort of increased access to the BBC do they have, and how do they determine what the news should report?

All media outlets have bias. If Iran throws some gay people off a cliff, all Western media is going to portray that as an, at the least , questionable decision, and it will definitely feature an interview with some human rights NGO. The BBC is British. They're going to have a British way of looking at things. Not an American. Shouldn't be a surprise.

As for the example BBC headline... the sub-headline is very clear about it being a suicide bombing. In fact, by making the headline about a "Syrian migrant", you could argue that they're really pushing the narrative that there have been too many Syrian migrants (and given how relatively few they have taken, that's even in line with the British government thinking). And given that every idiot on Earth knows that Syria is majority Muslim and that it is Muslims that commit suicide bombing, the story is more "juicy" with the factoid that not only was it a suicide bomber, but a Syrian migrant suicide bomber.... obvious headline choice. Gives the "We told you so about those Syrians!" crowd something to point to. Not saying that that was the editorial decision behind it, but that the headline isn't "Islamic terrorist blows himself up in Germany".... well, duh... what other sort of terrorist blows himself up? Had it been a Muslim convert, that would either have been in the headline or the sub-headline, since that too adds some spice to the story.

The other two stories aren't excatly front page news. They're featured in the India section... makes sense to have news from India about people from India... in the India section, ya know?

[Montegriffo]

I don't believe that BBC is as blatantly slanted as VOA but that doesn't mean it can be objective while it is tied to a government. It can only provide the UK's side of a story. This is the way PBS is biased as well.

So, you don't believe there ever have been, are, or can be BBC shows, stories, or segments, that are critical of the British government or its policies?

No it is not that simple. It pushes the narrative that it wants to push and factions of the British government with more access to the BBC can use it to be critical of factions they dislike.


Everybody has their own narrative

BBC's headline when an Islamist suicide bomber blew himself up in Germany

I'm sorry but I am having trouble working out which of these stories is fake. They seem to cover both sides of the refugee argument. If the BBC only ran positive stories about refugees and ignored their acts of terrorism you might have a point.
You need to learn the distinction between Government regulated and Government controlled.
The BBC is under constant attacks for it's left wing bias yet it is also attacked by the left for being run by the right wing establishment. To me this indicates that it is doing it's job.....
The BBC runs regular stories about the inept leadership of the Labour party while at the same time criticising the Govt's lack of a plan for Brexit.

[BjornP]

That the BBC might run stories from time-to-time critical of the government -- or probably more accurately: critical of the opposition party -- does not somehow exonerate them of lying and misleading people in order to facilitate the UK's government policies.

They were caught staging a chemical weapons attack to help support intervention in the Syrian civil war for fuck sake. That you just gloss over that little fact and fixate on some story where they criticized a politician is kind of crazy.

The British gov didn't "stage" the chemical attack, StA. The chemical attack happened... what the British gov was accused of was refusing to acknowledge that it could have been a rebel group or ISIS that had gotten control of some of the chemical weapons stockpiles, or simply made them themselves. That's what the story at the time was about.

That the British government tried to decieve the public into going to war is not really news. Did the same with Iraq, just like our PM did. But are you claiming that the BBC simply reported what the British government told them to report about that chem attack. That the BBC explicitly claimed that the Assad regime was behind it?

Here are some BBC links about the Ghouta attack:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23777201

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399

Not seeing a blatant assigning of guilt on Assad here.

[Dand]

If you two are being sincere and really don't see a problem with these headlines then you Eurocucks deserve to be part of the caliphate. You're gonna love it.

[Speaker to Animals]

[The Conservative]

So, you don't believe there ever have been, are, or can be BBC shows, stories, or segments, that are critical of the British government or its policies?

No it is not that simple. It pushes the narrative that it wants to push and factions of the British government with more access to the BBC can use it to be critical of factions they dislike.


Everybody has their own narrative

BBC's headline when an Islamist suicide bomber blew himself up in Germany

I'm sorry but I am having trouble working out which of these stories is fake. They seem to cover both sides of the refugee argument. If the BBC only ran positive stories about refugees and ignored their acts of terrorism you might have a point.
You need to learn the distinction between Government regulated and Government controlled.
The BBC is under constant attacks for it's left wing bias yet it is also attacked by the left for being run by the right wing establishment. To me this indicates that it is doing it's job.....
The BBC runs regular stories about the inept leadership of the Labour party while at the same time criticising the Govt's lack of a plan for Brexit.

A Syrian which failed to get into Germany legally, blew himself up... yet the BBC calls him a Migrant... seriously? You don't see a problem with that?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Good observation TC. Sometimes headlines don't tell the entire story in detail.

[Montegriffo]

A Syrian which failed to get into Germany legally, blew himself up... yet the BBC calls him a Migrant... seriously? You don't see a problem with that?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the question.
A person gaining entry to Germany from abroad is clearly a migrant. Are you objecting to the lack of the prefix "illegal" ?
The words failed asylum seeker appear to have made that distinction clearly enough.

[apeman]

A Syrian which failed to get into Germany legally, blew himself up... yet the BBC calls him a Migrant... seriously? You don't see a problem with that?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the question.
A person gaining entry to Germany from abroad is clearly a migrant. Are you objecting to the lack of the prefix "illegal" ?
The words failed asylum seeker appear to have made that distinction clearly enough.

This is so interesting