The Fox News view of the BBC. Americans are being poisoned.

by Browser Mon Feb 09, 2004 14:57

The last (Yahoo) link doesnt seem to work

by David from Co. Dublin Mon Feb 09, 2004 16:35

the article "BBC Chief Attacks U.S. Media War Coverage" is here:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/bbc_chief_attacks_042403.htm
or
http://www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/html/2003.1/msg01169.html

by ec Mon Feb 09, 2004 19:36

Here is the presenter's on-screen analysis of Andrew Gilligan and the BBC, five hours after the Hutton report was published.

"The British Broadcasting Corporation was forced to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism before and during the Iraq war. A frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest.

"The BBC - the 'Beeb' - was one of the worst offenders in the British press because it felt entitled not only to pillory Americans and George W Bush, but because it felt entitled to lie. And when caught lying, it felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives.

"The incident involved the reporter Andrew Gilligan who made a fool of himself in Baghdad when the American invasion actually arrived in the Iraqi capital. Gilligan, pro-Iraqi and anti-American, insisted on the air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military. Video from our own Greg Kelly of the American army moving through Baghdad at will put the light to that.

"After the war, back in London, Gilligan got a guy named David Kelly to tell him a few things about pre-war assessments on Iraq's weapons' programmes. And Gilligan exaggerated about what Kelly had told him.

"Kelly committed suicide over the story and the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie, exaggerate, because, well, the BBC knew the war was wrong and anything it could say to underscore that point had to be right.

"The British government investigation slammed the BBC Wednesday and a Beeb exec resigned to show they got it.

"But they don't."

At this point, Gibson made a grab for the small badge on his jacket, and held it up to the camera. Referring to claims from the BBC that the audience for BBC World, the corporation's international news channel, rose during the Gulf War because of its impartial take on events, he continued:

"So the next time you hear the BBC bragging about how much superior the Brits are delivering the news [he adopts a British accent] rather than Americans who wear flags in their lapels, remember it was the Beeb caught lying."

by R Isible Tue Feb 10, 2004 18:57

Media Lens has a huge archive of "media alerts" that document the dishonesty of the British media in supporting the Blair administration.

One of their best articles about the BBC is linked below. It points out that the current attack on the BBC by the Blair junta should not be taken as evidence that the BBC is "anti-Blair" in any way.

The article reaches back as far as the NATO attacks on Serbia and details the series of lies that the BBC told about this and about the Iraq Attack (i.e. that UNSCOM inspectors had been expelled by the Iraqis).

It speculates that the massive public opposition to the war and pressure on the BBC pushed it to rise slightly above it's usual useless level of being a spokesperson for spokespeople.

Media Lens is well worth supporting. If anyone has a detailed complaint about mainstream media then it's a good place to formulate it and to engage the news organisation in public with the support of other concerned readers.

by Desmond Fennell Wed Feb 11, 2004 02:21

Do you even know what a junta is?? Someone with your ignorance shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard.

BTW. the BBC is a nest of Marxists but their days are numbered. Gilligan was caught with his pants down and the UK license payer has had enough of paying for shoddy journalism.

The new Chairman is going to purge the organisation of the muesli-eating sandal-wearing armchair communists.

by Nighthawk Wed Feb 11, 2004 04:45

Shame on you, Durutti, for impersonating someone of the caliber of Desmond Fennell. You really should be kept away from keyboards

by Cabhog Wed Feb 11, 2004 13:29

The arrogance on both the Fox TV News medium on on Indymedia are astounding. Most intelligent media reporting shys away from refering to lies and facts and so on as these are generally transient matters dependent on the perspective of the receiptent and viewer.

The opnly difference is that FOx tells news from a multi-national 'right wing' conservative agenda, indymedia generally spins the news towards the far and extreme 'left'.

by redjade Thu Feb 12, 2004 14:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction.

The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.

"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."

"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.

by ec Thu Feb 12, 2004 14:49

Is Indymedia peoples does it voluntarily / for nothing. Like the GAA v Premiership I suppose.

by Badman Thu Feb 12, 2004 14:55

Is that everybody has an automatic right of reply on indymedia. If you disagree with a point in an article you can point it out. Your reply is just as visible as the article itself.

I don't remember Fox news doing that! In fact, very few articles from the mainstream news would hack it on indymedia, they can spout lies and prejudice in the comfort of their exclusive platform, but would be made to look silly and uninformed if people could respond.

by Cabhog Thu Feb 12, 2004 15:14

Badman and ec,

My point was that the arrogance of extremists are visible on both of the mediums. On FOX, you generally get individuals convinced that their own political viewpoint is absolutely correct and refuse to acknoweldege that they may be wrong and that their viewpoint doesn't equate with 'truth'.

Simiarily with indymedia.


That one thing to be thankful to organsiations such as the BBC, who generally speaking aim to provide as balanced a view on a particular issue as possible. The fact that people on this site and on FOX think that the BBC's coverage was overtly propagandistic for the pro or anti-war side, would suggest its coverage, bar the Kelly affair was good, and as objective as possible.