BBC fails in its mission of impartiality, inquiry finds

[J-10]

BBC fails in its mission of impartiality, inquiry finds

Thu Jan 27, 7:48 PM ET

LONDON (AFP) - The BBC, Britain's internationally renowned television and radio broadcaster, has failed in its mission of impartiality and is guilty of a pro-European bias, according to an independent report it commissioned.

The report, commissioned by the British Broadcasting Corporation's Board of Governors, said there was a "serious problem" with the BBC's coverage of European issues because of its failure to be impartial.

"While we have found no evidence of deliberate bias in BBC coverage of EU matters, we have found that there is a widespread perception that it suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias," it said.

"In essence it seems to be the result of a combination of factors including an institutional mindset, a tendency to polarise and over-simplify issues, a measure of ignorance of the EU (European Union) on the part of some journalists and a failure to report issues which ought to be reported.

"We think that the BBC's coverage of EU news needs to be improved and to be made more demonstrably impartial," it said.

It said EU matters were often reported through a Westminster prism -- the BBC was not airing the opinion that Britain should withdraw from the EU, because none of the Westminster parties stood on this platform.

Presenters appeared to be ill-briefed and "the problem of ignorance among BBC journalists must be addressed as a matter of urgency," it said.

The report said: "The public themselves feel ill-informed. Much is at stake.

"As the public service broadcaster, the BBC bears a heavy responsibility for raising the level of public awareness and understanding of EU matters without itself taking sides in the debate.

"We think it needs a conscious strategy to achieve this."

It said: "We were asked whether the BBC is systematically europhile.

"If systematic means deliberate, conscious bias with a directive from the top, an internal system or a conspiracy, we have not found a systematic bias.

"But we do think there is a serious problem. Although the BBC wishes to be impartial in its news coverage of the EU, it is not succeeding," it said.
From (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1538&ncid=732&e=7&u=/afp/20050128/wl_uk_afp/britainpoliticseu)

[budgie]

Wow they actually investigated themselves and found that they needed to improve. If only the good folks at FOX were capable of such soul-searching.

[martinexsquaddie]

I don't think Fox make any great claims to be impartial though some posters on here find them to liberal(':lol:')

[SHAM]

I think it was a bit harsh, show me another news agency that does better reporting on europe? other than the euronews show ofcourse.
But like you say good to see them finding there own faults and trying to improve them..if only other afore mentioned unfair, lopsided and top heavy news channels were as good. p-)

[Mailman]

Its not just europe though...their lack of objectivity appears to tar everything they touch.

What I do disagree with though is the notion the BBC didnt do this purposely...of course they fecking did this purposely!

Mailman

[cut]

I don't think Fox make any great claims to be impartial though some posters on here find them to liberal(':lol:')

"fair and balanced" is fox's slogan, which is enormously funny and the same time somewhat worrying.

[cut]

Its not just europe though...their lack of objectivity appears to tar everything they touch.

What I do disagree with though is the notion the BBC didnt do this purposely...of course they fecking did this purposely!

Mailman

someone's been watching too much fox news

[BarkingSquirrel]

Wow they actually investigated themselves and found that they needed to improve. If only the good folks at FOX were capable of such soul-searching.Better yet, CBS.

[kineret]

not a surprise. there have been many reports and studies that all find BBC of severely breaching their own impartiality agreement, from the Lord Hutton report to the mid-east coverage analysis. unlike Fox news which is a private corporation, BBC needs to be examined and fined if in breach of contract, since BBC is a public company sponsored by the british tax payer.

www.bbcwatch.com

[cut]

not a surprise. there have been many reports and studies that all find BBC of severely breaching their own impartiality agreement, from the Lord Hutton report to the mid-east coverage analysis. unlike Fox news which is a private corporation, BBC needs to be examined and fined if in breach of contract, since BBC is a public company sponsored by the british tax payer.

www.bbcwatch.com

bbc watch is bollocks

[kineret]

not a surprise. there have been many reports and studies that all find BBC of severely breaching their own impartiality agreement, from the Lord Hutton report to the mid-east coverage analysis. unlike Fox news which is a private corporation, BBC needs to be examined and fined if in breach of contract, since BBC is a public company sponsored by the british tax payer.

www.bbcwatch.com

bbc watch is bollocks

how

[cut]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfect, and yet ignores the fact that although the is bias at the BBC it's far less than any other major news organisation.

Both authors are israeli or linked to Israel and clearly that is their motive to discredit the BBC, the most well-known news service from Europe.

[BarkingSquirrel]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfectNow, why does that sort of behavior sound familiar...

[cut]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfectNow, why does that sort of behavior sound familiar...

coz you're a fox fan ;)

[kineret]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfect, and yet ignores the fact that although the is bias at the BBC it's far less than any other major news organisation.

Both authors are israeli or linked to Israel and clearly that is their motive to discredit the BBC, the most well-known news service from Europe.


both authors are british, with one having a law degree from an israeli bar association

---------------------------
Trevor Asserson is a UK solicitor based in London. He is a partner in an international law firm. He was called to the Israeli Bar in 1992.

Lee Kern graduated from Cambridge University in 2001 where he took a BA in English Literature.
----------------------------

besides the bbcwatch, theres numerous other reports like the Hutton enquiry which clearly show that BBC does not follow its own ethical guidelines when reporting. this isnt about being perfect, but about fullfilling your responsibilities towards your reporting, especially if the taxpayer is paying for it.

[BarkingSquirrel]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfectNow, why does that sort of behavior sound familiar...

coz you're a fox fan ;)Really? Coulda sworn it was all the anti Op Iraqi Freedom rants.

For the record, I don't seriously watch Fox or any news for that matter. The cartoons I watch late at night has more unbiased and correct information than any news network.

[Jobu]

The BBC has always been biased, just like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.

The difference is that the BBC is funded by the taxpayers.

[Stolly]

The BBC has always been biased, just like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.

The difference is that the BBC is funded by the taxpayers.

No its not, it doesn't receive a penny from the government.

[kineret]

The BBC has always been biased, just like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.

The difference is that the BBC is funded by the taxpayers.

exactly. people arent complaining that media networks like Fox or Guardian are biased towards their respective viewers/readers, left or right, but BBC is another case. It is funded by the government through taxes, and it has a tremendous impact on reporting, probably the most heavy media impact out of any global station. therefore it bears much more responsibility when it does not follow its own reporting standards, when for example, its reporters openly weep and sympathise with known terror leaders/freedom fighters.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Weeping_for_Yassir.asp






The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state: "Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth... [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world...."

THE BBC makes many good programs when it comes to drama, comedy, sport, and science. But its enormous news division — by far the world's biggest — is another story. Using lavish public funding (courtesy of the British taxpayer) and an unprecedented worldwide news reach (its radio service alone, broadcasting in 43 languages, attracts over 150 million listeners daily), it is — in blatant breach of its own charter — virtually conducting its own anti-American and anti-Israeli foreign policy. Anyone who doesn't agree with its policies (Tony Blair, for example) finds himself at the mercy of BBC news coverage.

Last week, for example, almost every other news organization in the world (including those in the former Communist states) began their obituaries of Ronald Reagan by saying that many (including Mikhail Gorbachev) credit Reagan with helping to bring about the end of the Cold War. But the BBC online obituary ("World Edition," Sunday, June 6, 2004, titled "Reagan's mixed White House legacy," and running to almost 1,000 words — that's a full four pages if you print it out from the BBC website) didn't even mention the Cold War, let alone Reagan's calls to "tear down" the Berlin Wall.

Instead the BBC reminded us that Reagan was "a B movie actor," and stated that as president his "foreign policy was criticised for being in disarray." Accompanying photos were not of Reagan meeting Gorbachev, but of Oliver North, and of the invasion of Grenada ("a clumsy sham," according to the BBC text).




http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/BBC_Living_in_a_Bubble.asp

[SHAM]

The BBC has always been biased, just like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.

The difference is that the BBC is funded by the taxpayers.

BBC is biased? why? because it asks hard questions and doesnt put the answers in the mouth of those that get interviewd? So if it didnt ask questions but merely made statements for those being interviewed to agree with it would be unbiased?

I would love to see a BBC reporter let lose on GWB like that Irish reporter was let lose on him some time last year.
The BBC doesnt give respect to anyone and thats exactly how it should be for news media, not the hand job FOX gives the news nor the monotone numbness of CNN.

[Stolly]

The BBC has always been biased, just like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.

The difference is that the BBC is funded by the taxpayers.

exactly. people arent complaining that media networks like Fox or Guardian are biased towards their respective viewers/readers, left or right, but BBC is another case. It is funded by the government through taxes, and it has a tremendous impact on reporting, probably the most heavy media impact out of any global station. therefore it bears much more responsibility when it does not follow its own reporting standards, when for example, its reporters openly weep and sympathise with known terror leaders/freedom fighters.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Weeping_for_Yassir.asp






The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state: "Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth... [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world...."

THE BBC makes many good programs when it comes to drama, comedy, sport, and science. But its enormous news division — by far the world's biggest — is another story. Using lavish public funding (courtesy of the British taxpayer) and an unprecedented worldwide news reach (its radio service alone, broadcasting in 43 languages, attracts over 150 million listeners daily), it is — in blatant breach of its own charter — virtually conducting its own anti-American and anti-Israeli foreign policy. Anyone who doesn't agree with its policies (Tony Blair, for example) finds himself at the mercy of BBC news coverage.

Last week, for example, almost every other news organization in the world (including those in the former Communist states) began their obituaries of Ronald Reagan by saying that many (including Mikhail Gorbachev) credit Reagan with helping to bring about the end of the Cold War. But the BBC online obituary ("World Edition," Sunday, June 6, 2004, titled "Reagan's mixed White House legacy," and running to almost 1,000 words — that's a full four pages if you print it out from the BBC website) didn't even mention the Cold War, let alone Reagan's calls to "tear down" the Berlin Wall.

Instead the BBC reminded us that Reagan was "a B movie actor," and stated that as president his "foreign policy was criticised for being in disarray." Accompanying photos were not of Reagan meeting Gorbachev, but of Oliver North, and of the invasion of Grenada ("a clumsy sham," according to the BBC text).




http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/BBC_Living_in_a_Bubble.asp

Again, it is not funded by the government through taxes. If you are going to have an opinion on the BBC at least get the basics right.

[kineret]

The BBC has always been biased, just like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.

The difference is that the BBC is funded by the taxpayers.

No its not, it doesn't receive a penny from the government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Funding

The 2003 Annual report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2003/) gave revenue sources in millions of:

£2,659m licence fees collected from consumers. Aka the UK taxpayers, via the mandatory TV tax.
£147m from BBC Commercial Holdings Ltd.
£223.7m from the World Service, of which £201m is from grants (primarily funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), £16.1m from subscriptions and £6.6m from other sources.
Assorted additional sources such as property and interest.

thats approx. $4 billion a year of funding from the british taxpayer.

[SHAM]

The BBC has always been biased, just like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.

The difference is that the BBC is funded by the taxpayers.

No its not, it doesn't receive a penny from the government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Funding

The 2003 Annual report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2003/) gave revenue sources in millions of:

£2,659m licence fees collected from consumers. Aka the UK taxpayers, via the mandatory TV tax.
£147m from BBC Commercial Holdings Ltd.
£223.7m from the World Service, of which £201m is from grants (primarily funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), £16.1m from subscriptions and £6.6m from other sources.
Assorted additional sources such as property and interest.

thats approx. $4 billion a year of funding from the british taxpayer.


Money well spent, even though i dont contribute p-)

[Stolly]

Wrong again, its not mandatory, and a licence is not a tax. Its not collected by the inland revenue and the government does not touch a penny of it.

Are you British ?

[kineret]

Wrong again, its not mandatory, and a licence is not a tax. Its not collected by the inland revenue and the government does not touch a penny of it.

Are you British ?

im sorry, its called a 'license', a cleaner, more PC version of 'tax'.

and it is mandatory, unless you plan on watching TV with coconuts.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/#link1

A colour TV Licence costs £121.00 and a black and white licence costs £40.50.


no, im not british, but i dont see how thats relevant to this issue.

[cut]

The BBC has always been biased, just like FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.

The difference is that the BBC is funded by the taxpayers.

exactly. people arent complaining that media networks like Fox or Guardian are biased towards their respective viewers/readers, left or right, but BBC is another case. It is funded by the government through taxes, and it has a tremendous impact on reporting, probably the most heavy media impact out of any global station. therefore it bears much more responsibility when it does not follow its own reporting standards, when for example, its reporters openly weep and sympathise with known terror leaders/freedom fighters.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Weeping_for_Yassir.asp






The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state: "Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth... [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world...."

THE BBC makes many good programs when it comes to drama, comedy, sport, and science. But its enormous news division — by far the world's biggest — is another story. Using lavish public funding (courtesy of the British taxpayer) and an unprecedented worldwide news reach (its radio service alone, broadcasting in 43 languages, attracts over 150 million listeners daily), it is — in blatant breach of its own charter — virtually conducting its own anti-American and anti-Israeli foreign policy. Anyone who doesn't agree with its policies (Tony Blair, for example) finds himself at the mercy of BBC news coverage.

Last week, for example, almost every other news organization in the world (including those in the former Communist states) began their obituaries of Ronald Reagan by saying that many (including Mikhail Gorbachev) credit Reagan with helping to bring about the end of the Cold War. But the BBC online obituary ("World Edition," Sunday, June 6, 2004, titled "Reagan's mixed White House legacy," and running to almost 1,000 words — that's a full four pages if you print it out from the BBC website) didn't even mention the Cold War, let alone Reagan's calls to "tear down" the Berlin Wall.

Instead the BBC reminded us that Reagan was "a B movie actor," and stated that as president his "foreign policy was criticised for being in disarray." Accompanying photos were not of Reagan meeting Gorbachev, but of Oliver North, and of the invasion of Grenada ("a clumsy sham," according to the BBC text).




http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/BBC_Living_in_a_Bubble.asp

the article you quoted comes from a comment page from the nationa; review, which has...like any other american right wing leaning website ads for "the conservative book club"

it's a case of a pot calling an electric kettle black.

[kineret]

the article you quoted comes from a comment page from the nationa; review, which has...like any other american right wing leaning website ads for "the conservative book club"

it's a case of a pot calling an electric kettle black.

i could say the same about your comments regarding Fox news, or comments regarding fox news from blatantly left wing organizations. that doesnt change the facts of BBC reporting. I admit that Fox is biased and caters to the right wing/republican viewers/constituents. The difference is Fox is a private corp. and is reasonably small and insignificant compared to BBC, which is a public company that has a Royal Charter affirming its commitment to impartiality and fair coverage of events, which it hasnt done.

Explain to me how a BBC reporter could declare herself 'weeping' at Arafat's funeral and describe him as a great leader and a hero, without mentioning his clear involvement in terrorism and the murder of hundreds through his terror groups. This is the kind of reporting thats staining BBC news integrity.

[cut]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfect, and yet ignores the fact that although the is bias at the BBC it's far less than any other major news organisation.

Both authors are israeli or linked to Israel and clearly that is their motive to discredit the BBC, the most well-known news service from Europe.


both authors are british, with one having a law degree from an israeli bar association

---------------------------
Trevor Asserson is a UK solicitor based in London. He is a partner in an international law firm. He was called to the Israeli Bar in 1992.

Lee Kern graduated from Cambridge University in 2001 where he took a BA in English Literature.
----------------------------

besides the bbcwatch, theres numerous other reports like the Hutton enquiry which clearly show that BBC does not follow its own ethical guidelines when reporting. this isnt about being perfect, but about fullfilling your responsibilities towards your reporting, especially if the taxpayer is paying for it.

Cassie Williams graduated from Oxford University in 2002 where she took a BA in Egyptology and modern Hebrew Literature. She also holds an MA from SOAS in Israeli and Jewish Diaspora Studies.

Elisheva Mironi (v. british name :D )

have you spotted the theme yet?

[kineret]

Cassie Williams graduated from Oxford University in 2002 where she took a BA in Egyptology and modern Hebrew Literature. She also holds an MA from SOAS in Israeli and Jewish Diaspora Studies.

Elisheva Mironi (v. british name :D )

have you spotted the theme yet?


:roll: yes i did. you really dont care about issues presented, since some of the analysts happen to have a BA in hebrew literature. would you feel better if an Arab or a non-Israel related scholar wrote this piece? that facts about BBC reporting arent changed.

[cut]

the article you quoted comes from a comment page from the nationa; review, which has...like any other american right wing leaning website ads for "the conservative book club"

it's a case of a pot calling an electric kettle black.

i could say the same about your comments regarding Fox news, or comments regarding fox news from blatantly left wing organizations. that doesnt change the facts of BBC reporting. I admit that Fox is biased and caters to the right wing/republican viewers/constituents. The difference is Fox is a private corp. and is reasonably small and insignificant compared to BBC, which is a public company that has a Royal Charter affirming its commitment to impartiality and fair coverage of events, which it hasnt done.

Explain to me how a BBC reporter could declare herself 'weeping' at Arafat's funeral and describe him as a great leader and a hero, without mentioning his clear involvement in terrorism and the murder of hundreds through his terror groups. This is the kind of reporting thats staining BBC news integrity.

fox news is a private organisation that happens to be owned by one man, who happens to have very clear affiliations to right wing politics, but this isn't about fox news so I don't know why you are getting them involved now, I was talking about the national review article you posted.

The accusations of bias leveled against the BBC come from unreliable right-wing sources, and by that I mean that more credible right-wing sources like the times (london) don't make these accusations, if they did then I would believe it. Instead those taking aim at the BBC are trying to discredit it for political reasons, there are left wing newspapers in the UK such as the guardian, so I do know what left wing bias is and the BBC is not biased strongly enough for it to be a factor.


You can tell it's purely political because before the Iraq war and the Hutton inquiry, the same people said that the BBC was controlled indirectly by the left-wing government (tony blair's left-wing government that is), but strangely enough I think the BBC has prooved that it is independent, don't you?

The BBC is well known for tough reporting, but this is the same hardship for any politician being interview no-matter what their, you'll never see that in the states where media outlets actually name their favoured presidential candidate!

The anti-american/anti-israeli thing is bollocks, of course the BBC is going to be to the left of these governments because they are right-wing, the center is to the left of right-wing last time I checked. Equally a left-wing government official will come away thinking that the BBC is to the right of their arguments. Having said that a centrist politician will not get favourable treatment either.

Another fact is the BBC has to be impartial, but what do you measure impartiality? If they seamed impartial to an american public then they would be considered to have a right-wing bias in the UK, if they were impartial in Holland then they would be considered left-wing in the UK.
That's why I think that the BBC charter that dictates that the BBC should be impartial everywhere is a bit of an impossibility, but a nobel goal never the less.

The BBC is the British Broadcasting Corporation, so I think it's right that we Brits are the ones to get the impartiality, rather than have to live with a right-wing anti-palestinian one

[cut]

Cassie Williams graduated from Oxford University in 2002 where she took a BA in Egyptology and modern Hebrew Literature. She also holds an MA from SOAS in Israeli and Jewish Diaspora Studies.

Elisheva Mironi (v. british name :D )

have you spotted the theme yet?


:roll: yes i did. you really dont care about issues presented, since some of the analysts happen to have a BA in hebrew literature. would you feel better if an Arab or a non-Israel related scholar wrote this piece? that facts about BBC reporting arent changed.

yes because then I could say that they are impartial...picking up on all the BBC inacuracies rather then just those who involve Israel.

[Pandy]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfectNow, why does that sort of behavior sound familiar...

coz you're a fox fan ;)Really? Coulda sworn it was all the anti Op Iraqi Freedom rants.

For the record, I don't seriously watch Fox or any news for that matter. The cartoons I watch late at night has more unbiased and correct information than any news network.

The sad thing is, BarkingSquirrel is correct about the cartoons...

[cut]

nah cartoon characters never die :P

[cut]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfectNow, why does that sort of behavior sound familiar...

coz you're a fox fan ;)Really? Coulda sworn it was all the anti Op Iraqi Freedom rants.

For the record, I don't seriously watch Fox or any news for that matter. The cartoons I watch late at night has more unbiased and correct information than any news network.

please point out the said "anti Op Iraqi Freedom rants"

[BarkingSquirrel]

*BarkingSquirrel* Points at the entire Politics forum and portions of the General forum

[Raistlin]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfect, and yet ignores the fact that although the is bias at the BBC it's far less than any other major news organisation.
Are you looking at news reporting as some kind of competition sport or what? We're not comparing here! We're talking about the whole core of public news reporting.

[BlackRain]

Wow they actually investigated themselves and found that they needed to improve. If only the good folks at FOX were capable of such soul-searching.

Have you ever seen Fox News? Really?

[RavenW]

kineret and cut, well, guys... one of you apparently is a moron and another one is a silly guy stupid enough to have an argument with a fool

I leave you two to figure out who is who. ;)

P.S. No hard feelings, just stop (neutral third to judge, count me as a referee) for a second to read your debate. woot :hug: Just moving on

[Gyles84]

BBC...biased. Im shocked I tell you, shocked.

















p-)

[cut]

*BarkingSquirrel* Points at the entire Politics forum and portions of the General forum

All I've ever said about the war in Iraq has been in complete support of my government, apart from questioning the timing and completely disagreeing with the WMD motive, but then Tane, the froum's foremost thinker was in agreement with me. And I don't think anyone would call him left-wing. so go back to the drawing board on that issue.

[cut]

It criticises the BBC for not being perfect, and yet ignores the fact that although the is bias at the BBC it's far less than any other major news organisation.
Are you looking at news reporting as some kind of competition sport or what? We're not comparing here! We're talking about the whole core of public news reporting.

we're talking about a national institution that some people disagree with because they have to be impartial and therefore are not right-wing.

[BarkingSquirrel]

*BarkingSquirrel* Points at the entire Politics forum and portions of the General forum

All I've ever said about the war in Iraq has been in complete support of my government, apart from questioning the timing and completely disagreeing with the WMD motive, but then Tane, the froum's foremost thinker was in agreement with me. And I don't think anyone would call him left-wing. so go back to the drawing board on that issue.I wasn't specifically citing you at fault. Sorry for the confusion if you thought I was.

[cut]

*BarkingSquirrel* Points at the entire Politics forum and portions of the General forum

All I've ever said about the war in Iraq has been in complete support of my government, apart from questioning the timing and completely disagreeing with the WMD motive, but then Tane, the froum's foremost thinker was in agreement with me. And I don't think anyone would call him left-wing. so go back to the drawing board on that issue.I wasn't specifically citing you at fault. Sorry for the confusion if you thought I was.

ok then, but it that case you should be used to me disagreeing with the opinion that the beeb is very biased

[BarkingSquirrel]

Disagreement is the essence of democracy.

[cut]

Disagreement is the essence of democracy.

then disagree but don't slag off a national institution while doing it

[BarkingSquirrel]

The only institution I slagged off was CBS. I did however comment on the behavoir of BBC being not unlike that of some people here, but as the article itself says, they decided to change.

I had apologized for the confusion on my part and agreed with you about disageements. Why the renewed attack?

[Jobu]

The BBC is definitely biased. It is clearly anti-Israeli, anti-US, pro-EU, etc.

Just read the articles or watch their news programs. Their bias is as clearly recognized as FOX's.

[cut]

The only institution I slagged off was CBS. I did however comment on the behavoir of BBC being not unlike that of some people here, but as the article itself says, they decided to change.

I had apologized for the confusion on my part and agreed with you about disageements. Why the renewed attack?

coz I've been drinking wife beatah (stella), fair play, I'll let you off

[BarkingSquirrel]

Fair enough ;)

[Gyles84]

The only institution I slagged off was CBS. I did however comment on the behavoir of BBC being not unlike that of some people here, but as the article itself says, they decided to change.

I had apologized for the confusion on my part and agreed with you about disageements. Why the renewed attack?

coz I've been drinking wife beatah (stella), fair play, I'll let you off

Good stuff!

A man of good taste. ;)

[cut]

The only institution I slagged off was CBS. I did however comment on the behavoir of BBC being not unlike that of some people here, but as the article itself says, they decided to change.

I had apologized for the confusion on my part and agreed with you about disageements. Why the renewed attack?

coz I've been drinking wife beatah (stella), fair play, I'll let you off

Good stuff!

A man of good taste. ;)

not good taste, my friend, necessity... stella is by far the best value for money in this town, I wish I could be drinking more expensive stuff but my pockets have a unprecedented lack of depth at the moment.

[Migman]

The cartoons I watch late at night has more unbiased and correct information than any news network.

Fo shizzle.