BBC tells journalists to stop calling hate preacher Abu Qatada 'an extremist' - and they can't show pictures of him looking fat either Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lling-Abu-Qatada-extremist.html#ixzz1lnbAJ2jO The BBC was once known as the epitome of news broadcasters. Can one really take them seriously these days?
Sure. There are people who still take the NYT and Reuters seriously. I don't even mind biased news medias but I wish they would quit pretending outrage when it's pointed out.
Consider this nonsense: LOL - and calling that piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) a "radical" doesn't imply a value judgement? Well, there you have it, and it's nothing new, much less unexpected...
From your own link. I know in the US, it's OK for someone on the TV to accuse Obama of "having a deep seated hatred of white people", without any evidence. But in the actual modern world, language has to be appropriate. I don't like this guy, but he simply has not committed a crime.
Neither were the GITMO detainees but it didn't prevent the US government from holding them on the grounds of national security. And I doubt that any US media instructed it's employees to handle them with kid gloves.
They were not really known as the epitome. Well maybe close to the epitome, but more like some potentially better grade of journalism comparitively to others that aren't epitomes and significantly less than the potentially better grade of the BBC. Let's not use the epitome word to describe them from now on....k? How about radically better than other rags?
The same ones that the Northern Alliance were paid per head for? Then proceeded to pick up random people and hand them over to the US? Then they were flown to Gitmo? These ones? Like I said, I'm not defending this guy, I don't like him, I think he should be deported. However, until he commits a crime he should not suffer a rabbid tabloid media scrum.
He's in the UK, the UK legal system wins. I'd deport him to Jordan as he's inciting violence over there. It's too easy for him to sit in nice safe England, inciting others to violence without any sense of feedback from his words. But, he simply has not committed a crime, jesus christ the government has tried to demonstrate this.
Using the Daily Mail as a source on this is the height of irony. All they seem to have is information lifted directly (illegally?) from another newspaper, clearly without checking any of the facts. They even took a quote word-for-word and claimed it was given to "Daily Mail Online". Why would anyone accept anything printed in this rag? As for the core report in the Telegraph, all we have is their claim of what was written in notes from a meeting - no indication of who took the notes, who made the quoted comment or what else was said on the subject. There is also no comment on how the Telegraph hack obtained private documents. Unless we can see the actual notes or actual published guidance from the BBC, we can only take these claims on face value and on my accounting, that value is very low. Oh, and nobody waste their time attacking me for "defending the BBC". I'm not and will ignore any such claims. This is about the trustworthiness of any news source.
It would depend on which period in time you refer. Mine is the war years, 1939 - 45, when everyone and his cat listened (many at risk of peril by the nazis) to what was believed by most to be the true war situation and not a propaganda broadcast.
Yes, I can well accept that. But when reported by more than one source and not denied by the BBC, I do not see why I shouldn't accept it as fact.
It isn't being reported by more than one source though. It was reported by one source and then copy/pasted by a second (and, having searched, several others). The Daily Mail article says nothing more about the validity of the claims that this thread does. We don't know what the BBC may have "denied" - we only have what the Telegraph chose to quote (and the Mail blindly copy, claiming they got the quote!). The remaining question is exactly what are you accepting as fact - that some staff in a department of the BBC held an editorial meeting where they discussed not describing Abu Qatada as an extremist and using more recent pictures of him or "BBC tells journalists to stop calling hate preacher Abu Qatada 'an extremist' - and they can't show pictures of him looking fat either"?
In the Left and Right's incessant war efforts to assassinate each other's character (as if there's really much of it to trash) and undermine each other's credibility (credibility??? ), it's usually quite useful to put your hands over your ears, close your eyes, and hum loudly - nah nah nah nah, lah lah lah - lah dee dah dee dah dee dah.
Here is another story that isn't being reported by more than one source, even though the remarks are in quotes and consequently a direct indication of the statement. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098498/I-got-wrong-older-women-BBC-boss-admits-ARE-TV.html I wonder why there is only one source. Any ideas?
That's not a news report, it a comment piece written by Mark Tompson himself. Conflating news and commentry is one of the many issues with the UK media industry.
So, to you, the person who created the story, then publicised it because he has the ability to get the news into print and on TV is not in fact responsible for the story because he only commented on it?
Sorry, you've lost me there. The BBC sacking women for being "too old" is news. Mark Thompson writing an article about it for newspaper is commentary. Other sources reported the news, you wouldn't necessarily expect them to report the commentary (unless it was especially controversial and even then not on the same day).
