Business & Finance10 mins ago
Why Are The Bbc Pushing The Story About Syrians Having No Food?
Also that around 400 people need rescuing or they may die. It's been on every bulletin this week but doesn't seem to appear on the ITN news. Typical BBC guilt trip.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
mikey looking for points as usual...he thinks words like spectacular bolster his case, hilarious...spectacular is a word I'd use to describe most of your abject failngs on here...still you keep on giving yourself back pats if it makes you feel good about yourself
the BBC have and in recent living memory a sickening and embarrassing left wing biased agenda, just because you wont admit it doesnt make it not true
the BBC have and in recent living memory a sickening and embarrassing left wing biased agenda, just because you wont admit it doesnt make it not true
About a week ago or so, a post popped up on my Facebook feed detailing the vicious right-wing agenda pushed by the BBC. THat post was as full of rubbish as the left-wing claims. The BBC is biased in neither direction -- or, rather, in both directions because it doesn't quite get how impartiality is supposed to work and gives equal weight to opinions that do not deserve them.
Here the issue of starving people in Syria has received attention from all sorts of media, so I just don't see how it's a BBC issue unless you are somehow blinkered about the reporting in your own papers. It's a humanitarian crisis that needs attention regardless of your position, anyway. Shame on those who don't seem to care.
Here the issue of starving people in Syria has received attention from all sorts of media, so I just don't see how it's a BBC issue unless you are somehow blinkered about the reporting in your own papers. It's a humanitarian crisis that needs attention regardless of your position, anyway. Shame on those who don't seem to care.
Sorry, but the luvvies at the BBC ar bent towards the liberal left wing.
Having said that I dont think this story falls into that category. Seems the town is under seige and thus folk are now starving, but this is war and unfortunately there will be innocent casualties. The problem with letting aid in is that those holding the town will eat it and not the townsfolk and if you let people out your likely to let out the 'other' side so I cant see either option as really working.
Difficult to see how this can have a happy ending.
Having said that I dont think this story falls into that category. Seems the town is under seige and thus folk are now starving, but this is war and unfortunately there will be innocent casualties. The problem with letting aid in is that those holding the town will eat it and not the townsfolk and if you let people out your likely to let out the 'other' side so I cant see either option as really working.
Difficult to see how this can have a happy ending.
BBC News is run by a Tory.
As jim says the Labour Left were up in arms last week about something or other, and there was an excellent Newsnight report the other night on the German refugee situation, which seemed to go out of its way to give the anti-immigration brigade their say.
I always maintain that the BBC always SEEMS to be "leftist" because so many people are used to have Tory tabloid news for breakfast, dinner and tea.
Anyway, regardless of that, yes of course it's a war in Syria and there will be casualties, but it isn't the BBC - or for that matter other news organisations - which are campaigning for this (and other similar sieges by all sides) to be relieved. They are reporting it because it is a news story, and so is everyone else so far as I can see. I first read about it in the not-very-left-wing Times.
Usually what happens in these cases is that a deal is negotiated, allowing the people to go free in exchange for some concession to the other side.
A shame in a way that this issue, bad as it is, has received such publicity, and rightly, but many of the other war crimes - inevitably - go unreported, as there simply aren't the resources to cover them.
As jim says the Labour Left were up in arms last week about something or other, and there was an excellent Newsnight report the other night on the German refugee situation, which seemed to go out of its way to give the anti-immigration brigade their say.
I always maintain that the BBC always SEEMS to be "leftist" because so many people are used to have Tory tabloid news for breakfast, dinner and tea.
Anyway, regardless of that, yes of course it's a war in Syria and there will be casualties, but it isn't the BBC - or for that matter other news organisations - which are campaigning for this (and other similar sieges by all sides) to be relieved. They are reporting it because it is a news story, and so is everyone else so far as I can see. I first read about it in the not-very-left-wing Times.
Usually what happens in these cases is that a deal is negotiated, allowing the people to go free in exchange for some concession to the other side.
A shame in a way that this issue, bad as it is, has received such publicity, and rightly, but many of the other war crimes - inevitably - go unreported, as there simply aren't the resources to cover them.
"As jim says the Labour Left were up in arms last week about something or other, and there was an excellent Newsnight report the other night on the German refugee situation, which seemed to go out of its way to give the anti-immigration brigade their say. ".
Was this the Evan Davis one on the 6th, Ichkeria, when the Cologne incident was discussed following the Diane Abbot interview? Or was it a different one?
Was this the Evan Davis one on the 6th, Ichkeria, when the Cologne incident was discussed following the Diane Abbot interview? Or was it a different one?
In fact I was referring to something even earlier -- although the far Left did kick up a fuss about that resignation of some random Shadow Cabinet Minister or other live on TV -- and the article that I was thinking of dates back as far as a year ago:
http://
It did only show up on my facebook feed at the end of December, and then in a "Jeremy Corbyn for PM" page that a friend of mine liked. The comments section was full of such as "I've said for several years the BBC are the mouthpiece of the government, but think Sky are too ... in fact I only watch [Russia Today] and Al Jazeera for news", or "I see no reason why the B.B.C. needs to exist. Close it down" (from a left-winger!), and some complaint about how the BBC had hired the "old estonian [sic] mate of David Cameron" Nick Robinson, and so on.
The irony of an article in the Guardian complaining about media bias aside, the basic problem seems to be that everyone these days has trouble processing the idea that (valid) differing opinions or perspectives can exist. People on the right might point out the trend common among younger people for "safe spaces" free from dissent, or no-platforming certain people -- is it really all that different from their shouts of "brainwashing" or the like? In a "safe space" you never even hear the different opinions. By calling out others for being brainwashed, you may still hear but you need never listen. The end effect of stifling, sometimes legitimate, debate is the same.
http://
It did only show up on my facebook feed at the end of December, and then in a "Jeremy Corbyn for PM" page that a friend of mine liked. The comments section was full of such as "I've said for several years the BBC are the mouthpiece of the government, but think Sky are too ... in fact I only watch [Russia Today] and Al Jazeera for news", or "I see no reason why the B.B.C. needs to exist. Close it down" (from a left-winger!), and some complaint about how the BBC had hired the "old estonian [sic] mate of David Cameron" Nick Robinson, and so on.
The irony of an article in the Guardian complaining about media bias aside, the basic problem seems to be that everyone these days has trouble processing the idea that (valid) differing opinions or perspectives can exist. People on the right might point out the trend common among younger people for "safe spaces" free from dissent, or no-platforming certain people -- is it really all that different from their shouts of "brainwashing" or the like? In a "safe space" you never even hear the different opinions. By calling out others for being brainwashed, you may still hear but you need never listen. The end effect of stifling, sometimes legitimate, debate is the same.
jim360/// the basic problem seems to be that everyone these days has trouble processing the idea that (valid) differing opinions or perspectives can exist.///
Speaking for myself, I'm just fine with people holding and spouting any and all opinions. Just don't get why I'm expected to subsidise one in particular.
BBC News is run by a Tory.
Where did that come from, ichkeria? The news boss is middle-of-the-road. I gather a lot of his staff are right-wing, though, and it's common knowledge that Nick Robinson, who was political editor for 10 years, was president of the young Conservatives. And still people rave on about left-wing bias, which is kind of hilarious.
Where did that come from, ichkeria? The news boss is middle-of-the-road. I gather a lot of his staff are right-wing, though, and it's common knowledge that Nick Robinson, who was political editor for 10 years, was president of the young Conservatives. And still people rave on about left-wing bias, which is kind of hilarious.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.