The BBC is Biased

[oggie505#2]

Heh, I actually read this on my own cause I have BBC as my home page and I'm American! I've always liked how BBC tends to stay relatively neutral in international affairs and most of all, they keep their articles short!

Just to let you know BBC is a biased new agency, they are also very Anti-American

[Sonthert]

Heh, I actually read this on my own cause I have BBC as my home page and I'm American! I've always liked how BBC tends to stay relatively neutral in international affairs and most of all, they keep their articles short!

Just to let you know BBC is a biased new agency, they are also very Anti-American

Its not really that biased. Its slightly left of the middle. The US News outlets are all right-wing. If you look at US news services and compare BBC, it seems biased and slanted, but if you consider the news from all over the world, put it into a big chart, with the most liberal on the left and the most conservative on the right, and number from one to ten, BBC is about a four, CNN a seven, CNBC and Fox eight to nine. If you are proposing that being biased is something exceptional, it isn't. Its like saying "Chris has two hands." Its a true statement, but not really that much of a revelation. As for them being anti-US, they are anti-US government, not anti-US people or even anti-American principles or systems. Even then, why wouldn't they? We are still at war with a Iraq, a country who was ostensibly attacked because a Saudi terrorist group, led by a Saudi, comprised mostly of Saudis conducted a terrorist attack against the US. In fact, they had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Of course, many credible journalists and advisers have come out and said Bush wanted to attack Iraq from the moment he was inaugurated...doesn't seem like 9/11 had anything to do with it (thats not just me saying that, thats the opinions of several observers). This same government also claimed there were indisputably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that they had no ability to direct them against the US had no bearing on anything. In that most of them couldn't have even been functional (biological and gas weapons) also wasn't persuasive. They even showed artist's renderings of mobile weapons production facilities and told the American people that these were a threat...even though they had never been seen whether in real life, on satellite or reconnaissance photography. The only evidence of their existence was those artist's renderings...really! The United Nations said there were not WMDs in Iraq. The US walked out, saying they weren't going to have the UN dictating their policy...turns out the UN was right. A whole war and no WMDs...even better, we're still fighting there, moving from one excuse for being there to another, finally settling on the same one we used for Vietnam, a total disaster, we can't leave now, everything we've done will be destroyed.

Now, we can dispute whether these things are true or not, but if you lived somewhere else, wouldn't you think our government was stupid and write articles about it being stupid? Everything I've mentioned is a matter of historical record. Its real, look it up, if you don't believe it. It makes us look stupid. That's not anti-American, thats good journalism.

[oggie505#2]

Ok, maybe I should have said anti-US Gov, you are right, but it is not because of the Iraq war and all that jazz, they have always been that way. Nothing wrong with it, I agree every news agency has their own opinions and ways of reporting. I still like BBC, I listend to it when I was in the box. I also like CNN and agree they are one sided, and fox is definitely one sided.

A whole war and no WMDs...even better, we're still fighting there, moving from one excuse for being there to another, finally settling on the same one we used for Vietnam, a total disaster, we can't leave now, everything we've done will be destroyed.

I will admit he has changed his whole reason for Iraq, which I will agree is messed up, and I voted for Bush twice..lol... But I would say Vietnam was started a bit different, the South wanted our help, but we first sent in advisor's to help train the south and things like that. But on the whole deal of not being able to leave, that is correct. We started this mess and we need to make sure it is finished, not that it can really ever be. Iraq is completely unstable, and as much as I would like our troops home, I do not think it can happen anytime soon. If we just pull-out as some would like. We will see a total disaster in that region, odds are Iran would definitely move in for the kill, I mean now that Iraq is not a threat to Iran anymore, they decided now is the time to start nuke reactor making and shit.

[ghostofdavid]

It is of my particular opinion that everyone is biased about everything and that our culture suffers from the lie of thinking that things can be approached in an objective fashion.

Mathematically, yes. Scientifically, often.

Everything else? Not necessarily. Humans like to dump their two cents in. Subversive or not.

[oggie505#2]

It is of my particular opinion that everyone is biased about everything and that our culture suffers from the lie of thinking that things can be approached in an objective fashion.

i agree with you, its all about money, thats why everyone especially news agency's have different opinions

[Jamal]

I would say the BBC is very unbaised due to the fact the British public pays for it through TV licences so it represents everyone. Although personally for me they did seem pro-war at the beginning, their attitudes towards it have changed better for the worse.

[Sonthert]

It is impossible to say that everyone is biased. Maybe there is exactly one person who isn't biased (I'm not him, but I tend to be more objective than most people I know). You can't say with any certainty that nobody is biased. What about a guy, born brain dead? I know its a stupid example, but there are no universal absolutes.

Actually, Vietnam started the same way. The U.S. overthrew their dictator, the same way we overthrew Saddam Hussein, at the time there was alot less press on it, so it remained hush-hush. In the 40s, after WWII, the entire area was more or less under French rule, as it had been for a long time (like 150 years?) after the Vietnamese independence (1945, recognized, 1954?) the government bounced around for awhile, but surprise! American backed forces assassinated the president of South Vietnam and installed a puppet government:

"Thus, on November 1 1963, with secret blessing from the U.S., South Vietnamese generals led by DÆ°Æ¡ng Văn Minh overthrew Ngô Đình Diệm and killed both him and his brother, who was also his official advisor, Ngô Đình Nhu."

Taken from Wikipedia. I know its not scholarly, but its so darned convenient!

So, same thing, they needed our help otherwise, we were promised some dark specter would materialize if we didn't send troops and participate in a war. In the 60s, it was the domino theory. Give me something solid, some justification to continue this war (or Vietnam). Iraq's government will collapse...good! I'm not convinced it will, if it does, its because the people of Iraq want a different government. If a government fails, its because it doesn't work well for the people. It's that fuckin' easy. Under Hussein, terrorists were unable to grow, there was no sectarian violence, as such, there was no civil war. Now, its a big shit storm. The US backed puppet government is completely ineffectual and lacking popular support. We need to leave, let them have some problems for a few years and develop their own natural government, whatever works for them.

The war in Iraq is the same, more or less, to the war in Vietnam. Its a bunch of smoke and bullshit. It was before, it is now. US thinks it knows better, forces a coup 'd tat that succeeds in getting the US power, but practically fails, lacks popular support or real power and the US has to pump billions in to keep this sinking ship afloat. Given enough time, after military contractors make millions off the whole parade, the US has to, of course, leave anyways and then the ship sinks. Without a military presence, you can never keep a puppet government in place, the Soviets could tell you thats true, in at least eight cases...of course, Mongolia is still (?) chugging along, but I don't think a country that is almost all desert, landlocked and 1/3 of its 2.8 million people are nomadic. I don't think a country that small, population-wise really cares what kind of government they have. (If you were watching the BBC, you might see this. Watching US Bullshit news, you won't see any connections like that made. Winners:Our military contractors, Losers:The American people, the people of whatever poor country has us on their ass. Of course, since the largest companies, that own major TV networks also own military manufacturing companies...what side of the story do you think you're going to hear? Edited August 2, 2007 by Sonthert

[PerznPerversion]

id have to disagree with sonthert, maybe your right maybe there isnt someone who isnt biased. But its human nature to be biased. But its human intelligence to sort out the biasedness and to make a balanced view.

And yes every news agency is biased, some more so than others. CNN and fox and the BBC are biased as hell but i will say BBC isnt as biased as CNN.. thats for sure lol The best sort of news is to look at both sides of the spectrum, research whats happening and to accept that some things on the news can and will be little white lies that can influence a nation.

[Sonthert]

id have to disagree with sonthert, maybe your right maybe there isnt someone who isnt biased. But its human nature to be biased. But its human intelligence to sort out the biasedness and to make a balanced view.

And yes every news agency is biased, some more so than others. CNN and fox and the BBC are biased as hell but i will say BBC isnt as biased as CNN.. thats for sure lol The best sort of news is to look at both sides of the spectrum, research whats happening and to accept that some things on the news can and will be little white lies that can influence a nation.

Is that like Its the nature of Persians to be violent? That's been bantered about for years since Xerxes. I've never met a non-violent Persian, so it must be true. There may be a non-violent Persian, but its Persian nature to be violent. Saying something is human nature is bullshit, its another way of saying thats your opinion and you have nothing to back it up. I don't believe its human nature for people too be biased. At least I don't either way. I would tend to doubt it. If it were true, I think it would be true because of a numbers game. There are so many intellectual vs. emotional arguments, even with an incredibly objective individual, a few biases creep in. Like I said, a guy who is a complete mental vegetable is unbiased...if it were human nature, he would be biased (of course, how do we know he is unbiased??? Obviously, he has no intellect. With learning comes bias, potentially, but not by requiem).

[PerznPerversion]

id have to disagree with sonthert, maybe your right maybe there isnt someone who isnt biased. But its human nature to be biased. But its human intelligence to sort out the biasedness and to make a balanced view.

And yes every news agency is biased, some more so than others. CNN and fox and the BBC are biased as hell but i will say BBC isnt as biased as CNN.. thats for sure lol The best sort of news is to look at both sides of the spectrum, research whats happening and to accept that some things on the news can and will be little white lies that can influence a nation.

Is that like Its the nature of Persians to be violent? That's been bantered about for years since Xerxes. I've never met a non-violent Persian, so it must be true. There may be a non-violent Persian, but its Persian nature to be violent. Saying something is human nature is bullshit, its another way of saying thats your opinion and you have nothing to back it up. I don't believe its human nature for people too be biased. At least I don't either way. I would tend to doubt it. If it were true, I think it would be true because of a numbers game. There are so many intellectual vs. emotional arguments, even with an incredibly objective individual, a few biases creep in. Like I said, a guy who is a complete mental vegetable is unbiased...if it were human nature, he would be biased (of course, how do we know he is unbiased??? Obviously, he has no intellect. With learning comes bias, potentially, but not by requiem).

lol first off ive never even heard of "persians being violent" specifically, now if you were to say its human nature to be violent then maybe you would be making sense. You cant sort out a "race" and say they are a violent people its in their blood! Violence is learnt, and id have to disagree with ur (persians being violent people if you arnt trying to be funny) but that is for a different thread.

Your right its been fought for many many years about "human nature" since the times of great thinkers. But MOST of the world is biased towards something or another. And the point of you bringing up a vegetable is invalid, you knew we were talking about human intelligence, not a brain dead person who cant think or even act on his urges. Its like claiming a potato has no bias! of course not, it doesnt have a brain to function with.

Ive had this discussion before in my classes and im pretty sure its agreed that everyone is biased/prejudice torwards something! Whether its over ham or turkey. Or hookah vs no hookah. if theres a preference theres a bias hence everyone has a bias/preference towards something or another.(minus the vegetables or the mentally handicapped in some cases and even some extremely rare cases of perfect people)

Bias-A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

[Sonthert]

Well, if it were covered, then I'm sure it can be said the preference doesn't equate with bias. Bias is a preference, but it is a more specific case than preference, all biases are preferences, but not all preferences are biases. So your statement does not establish that all people are biased. Your statement that bias and preference are interchangeable is non-sequitur. Bias is a subset of preference, that is, it would be like saying humans are multi-cellular organisms and all multi-cellular organisms are human. Humans are analogous to bias, MCOs are analogous to preference.

You say again, it is generally held...actually "Pretty sure its agreed"...by whom? It isn't generally held by me, so your statement is erroneous. You can't just believe something's true and say its commonly known. This device was used not so long ago: "Pretty much everybody agrees that blacks are inferior." Same logic. I'm sure you could go on down south and find that whole areas of people white or black would agree with that statement. Its sloppy thinking, its reckless reasoning. You could do it with anything. "Everybody agrees John Brown was insane, thats why he attacked Harpers Ferry." "Its commonly believed that people during the time of Christopher Columbus people believed that the world was flat." All lies, foisted off (I guess John Brown being crazy is a matter of interpretation, kinda moot anyhow) on school kids...Who believes that Christopher Columbus was one of the few people that believed in a round Earth? Its not true. The Greeks demonstrated the Earth was round (Eratosthenes proved it around 250 B.C.). The catholic church in the 1400s said it was true(although they still believed that the sun rotated around the Earth). Its commonly known that Columbus had to convince Queen Isabella that the world was round (roundish, actually) to get the money to sail and discover the new world. "Commonly held"/"Everybody Agrees" is a manner in which lazy, atavistic professors and teachers make points without backing them up. Of course, who cares? Right? If you go to Oxford or Harvard or some such school, they won't fudge like that. Lesser schools are for indoctrination, for mental conformity...they certainly can't get you to believe lies or extremely biased supposition without false proof...which would be easily discovered. They need something to feed you so they don't have to prove it. Next time it comes up..."Everybody knows" ask them to back up their point, "What evidence is there that this is the case?" its reasonable in a college class, ask them how thats true and what evidence is there for it being true. Sometimes, you'll get "well, who believes that's true?" More intellectual terrorism, of course. Everybody raises their hand...they haven't proved that the point is true, just everybody believes it.

The Persian Empire was a particularly bloody one and people held for a long time that the Persians were ignorant, savage and violent (Of course, compared to the Greeks, everyone was...and the Greeks did win...making whatever they say about the Persians slightly suspect)...of course everyone knows Persians are violent (in Greece anyways)!

How can you back up human nature, more superstitious, mystical mumbling. No proof. There is a good body of theory that says there is no human nature. We, humans, have no instincts, and we have no human nature. You can infer there is, but if your bias is that real...how could you know? You are sucked into a paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

[nestormakhno]

Eric, I think you're confusing Persians with Assyrians. The Persian Empire had a fairly live-and-let-live environment. They were the first to just exile Jews instead of killing them, for instance.

But anyway. Bias is symptomatic of every thinking person. Even history is written with bias. And while news networks can purport that they're "fair and balanced," there isn't a single network that actually is.

[Sonthert]

The Persians? Darius...Xerxes? Not violent? They conquered half the known world...not violent? That would be equivalent to saying the Romans weren't violent.

I don't know, man, I'm not sure you can make a statement that all people are a certain way. Biased people might influence their children, but I don't think its inherent. I think a man has the ability to be not biased if he chooses to be. Edited August 8, 2007 by Sonthert

[camelflage]

The Persians? Darius...Xerxes? Not violent? They conquered half the known world...not violent? That would be equivalent to saying the Romans weren't violent.

I don't know, man, I'm not sure you can make a statement that all people are a certain way. Biased people might influence their children, but I don't think its inherent. I think a man has the ability to be not biased if he chooses to be.

absolutely right. but to make that decision, a man has to be educated outside his immediate and inherited knowledge. falsehoods are easier to believe if you are never confronted with truth.

[Sonthert]

"For those who would say that bias is inevitable, I would scold, for then the ordained providence of humanity is to commit suicide and all our greatest monuments and achievements can only serve as gravestones above a fine rubble; for bias begets prejudice, prejudice begets hatred, and hatred begets destruction."

"Perhaps a man without bias does not exist, but at the very least we, wary of our shortcomings, can control them in the best way we know how. In magnification, I don't believe in the nadir of mankind, How a man is scared in solitude, violent when isolated, men unified are grand and noble. I believe men released from a yoke of superstition and mysticism can make their minds as great as their will allows and this so-called bias will disappear. To believe his bias is inescapable is an odious proposition, it fails to acknowledge the ability of men to determine their own course and pleads ignorance to improvement. It reduces the great strides of humanity to an oily haze of accidental brilliance, rather than acknowledging them as affirmative and conscious defiance of stagnancy. If the growth of humanity is but a well-played hoax then there would be no need for children, or children would be identical to their parents in each case. Children differ from their parents because our race is predisposed to improvement and their nature is a symptomatic to deny a pandemic of bias, for children don't understand such things. If children don't know bias, it can't be inevitable or inescapable; it can't be something borne of the animal."

"I believe a race of animals great enough to cure diseases and chart the course of celestial bodies that we will not stand on in our lifetimes can make himself into whatever he chooses. Humanity marches upward, in glory, to climb to the top of a high mountain, only so, from its divide, we can scout the next, higher mountain for us to climb. If there is a nature of man, climbing the next, greatest peak, traversing the deepest gorges, then human weakness is just another plateau to stand on top of."

You say bias is human nature, then you might as well say racism is, too. Bias is the heart of racism. The problem is, if you're wrong, you make bias/racism OK, not something that needs to be controlled/corrected and if everyone agrees, hope for a better future is lost. Whether its possible or not. On the other hand, if you deny that racism/bias is human nature, and you're right, you make improvement possible, if your wrong, then we lose nothing. I would much rather be wrong on this side of the point than be right on your side of the point.

[camelflage]

ah, let me clarify. i was not trying to imply that bias is a part of human nature. my comment was directed towards the necessity of broader experience in helping people understand and evaluate their viewpoints. by contrast i think racism and bias are not a part of human nature, but are a product of fear installed at an early age.

[shisha fan]

i think the media should should provide people only with facts, so that everyone can make up their own opinions. BBC tends te be a bit left-wing, but overall they are a good source for international news.

[Johnny_D]

The BBC have allways been biased.

There coverage of 'middle east' issues is a bloody joke. I can't even stand to watch it anymore

JD

[Firm Young Carrot]

There are some news outlets that are biased, Fox being an example, but many others, such as the BBC aren't biased as such, but they do have a perspective.

I watch several news channels daily and find that almost all either have a bias or a national perspective. My favourite channel is very international, has the best presenters and journalists, matched with incredible technical standards. More importantly, it doesn't have a national perspective. That's why I enjoy al Jazeera International.

[Persianguy]

Eric, I think you're confusing Persians with Assyrians. The Persian Empire had a fairly live-and-let-live environment. They were the first to just exile Jews instead of killing them, for instance.

But anyway. Bias is symptomatic of every thinking person. Even history is written with bias. And while news networks can purport that they're "fair and balanced," there isn't a single network that actually is.

The Persian Empire never exiled the Jews, they actually freed the Jews from Babylon, and there are many Iranian Jews living in Iran to this day.

[Persianguy]

The Persian Empire was a particularly bloody one and people held for a long time that the Persians were ignorant, savage and violent (Of course, compared to the Greeks, everyone was...and the Greeks did win...making whatever they say about the Persians slightly suspect)...of course everyone knows Persians are violent (in Greece anyways)!

I think you should watch less 300 (a racist film that butchers history) and study what actually happened. You see, in our previous discussion you were saying that your justification for calling the Persian Empire "violent" had something to do with them going to war, and the fact that they actually "killed in wars". This made your statement seem pretty neutral/general, and it could be applied to any nation that ever engaged in a war. But here in your post, you state "particularly bloody".

I fail to see how the Persian Empire was "particularly bloody" or "bloodier" than any other empire that waged wars. They were actually far less brutal than the Romans or Greeks (Spartas slaves/child fatality practices? Romes conquests?). I don't know who you're talking about when you refer to "people holding the idea that Persians were savage", as most historians will tell you that the Persians were far from savage or ignorant.

Civilization itself is said to have originated in the fertile crescent, and Persians have been responsible for many of the early inventions and theories that make todays technology possible. They are renown scholars, scientists, and philosophers. This weak and feeble baseless flawed joke of an insinuation that we were "savage" is nothing more than a racist Frank Miller wet dream.

As far as the "Greeks winning", Alexander was Macedonian. and he was a Persiaphile so to speak. He worshipped Persian gods, adopted Persian cutoms at his court, and likened himself to a Persian king. He was more of an admirer than an enemy, and by the time he came around Persia was already crumbling from within due to infighting and problems all empires face. So there was no "giant epic battle". The Greeks did not take Persia at its height. When Persia was at its height, Macedonia was ruled by a Satrap lol. Edited August 17, 2007 by Persianguy

[nestormakhno]

The Persian Empire was a particularly bloody one and people held for a long time that the Persians were ignorant, savage and violent (Of course, compared to the Greeks, everyone was...and the Greeks did win...making whatever they say about the Persians slightly suspect)...of course everyone knows Persians are violent (in Greece anyways)!

I think you should watch less 300 (a racist film that butchers history) and study what actually happened.

Because God knows that any movie based on a comic book inspired by a historical event is usually flawlessly accurate.

[Persianguy]

The Persian Empire was a particularly bloody one and people held for a long time that the Persians were ignorant, savage and violent (Of course, compared to the Greeks, everyone was...and the Greeks did win...making whatever they say about the Persians slightly suspect)...of course everyone knows Persians are violent (in Greece anyways)!

I think you should watch less 300 (a racist film that butchers history) and study what actually happened.

Because God knows that any movie based on a comic book inspired by a historical event is usually flawlessly accurate.

Too bad the majority of Americans took that movie as a history lesson. And the comic book itself was just as racist.

[nestormakhno]

The Persian Empire was a particularly bloody one and people held for a long time that the Persians were ignorant, savage and violent (Of course, compared to the Greeks, everyone was...and the Greeks did win...making whatever they say about the Persians slightly suspect)...of course everyone knows Persians are violent (in Greece anyways)!

I think you should watch less 300 (a racist film that butchers history) and study what actually happened.

Because God knows that any movie based on a comic book inspired by a historical event is usually flawlessly accurate.

Too bad the majority of Americans took that movie as a history lesson. And the comic book itself was just as racist.

The majority of Americans? Yes, I'm sure they believed that it was devious Persian wizardry that impeded the efforts of Leonidas so much... And that flute-playing goat. Yeah, those dumb Americans... They'll believe anything.

As for the comic book being racist, please get over it. It's a comic book. As in, for entertainment purposes only. As in, not to be taken seriously.

But march on, dude. I'm sure you'll really get somewhere by taking everything so seriously.

[ghostofdavid]

When any word is tossed around a lot it completely loses its meaning. If you keep tossing the word racist around, it does the same. I do not think 300 to be historically accurate. Anyone who reads criticism of the film or a single exerpt history book knows that the battle was much different. I am curious to know what you think is racist about the film. It is portraying the Spartans (and by proxy the Greeks) as the good guy... and why wouldn't it? The movie is told from the Greek perspective. If the movie was entitled Xerxes the Great, the movie would label (probably) the Spartans are homeland terrorists. Being neither Greek nor Persian (or modern Iraqi/Iranian/Aryan?), I found nothing offensive in the whole of the movie, from a racial stand point. In fact, it showed Xerxes as actually being an immense warrior/king. As a student of the Bible, Xerxes is lauded with praise and fairness. It is refers to him as one of a single handful of godly Goyim that graced the pages Hebrew Scriptures.

The modern firearm movement has latched on to the story of the Battle of Thermopylae as a symbolic battle cry for those who do not wish to be disarmed by the government or masses. Nothing racist from that perspective.

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I respect you and your opinions but I don't see anything racist about the movie.