Rules
Terms of Use

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#164809 - Fri Mar 28 2003 06:51 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Coolupway Offline
Prolific

Registered: Mon Aug 26 2002
Posts: 1131
The Beeb's own front-line defence correspondent, Paul Adams, ripped into his employer because of its evident anti-coalition bias. See second article

Top
#164810 - Sat Mar 29 2003 02:20 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
BaronTR Offline
Participant

Registered: Wed Oct 30 2002
Posts: 40
Loc: Arlington TX
My thought on the coverage is that a conclusion I came to a long time ago, that they are trying to fit 10 minutes of legitimate info into 8 hours of air time, still holds true, and I've watched very little of it as a result. That applied to the 91 gulf war, and even applied to 9-11, by late evening after the president had spoken that night.
As to pro/anti media bias, simply take the comments from the 2 sides, change pro to anti and vice versa where appropriate, and they are saying the exact same thing. It's all in what you want to see and hear.

Top
#164811 - Tue Apr 01 2003 08:49 AM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Islingtonian Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Thu May 16 2002
Posts: 403
Loc: Er, Islington.
London, UK
I wouldn't say the BBC are anti-war - rather, they're anti-everything. They take a confrontational stance on any particular interview (war, railways, the unacceptably high price of Big Macs). I think someone took an editorial decision that the only way to get anything useful out of an interviewee is to talk to them as if they were a five year old. At the moment this involves haranguing military personnel for failing to win the war in 10 minutes.

To be fair on them, they gave Tariq Aziz a pretty hard time last time he was on, but he's not on the London interview circuit at the moment.

Top
#164812 - Wed Apr 09 2003 02:17 PM Re: Is all this coverage good?
Jon_Defined Offline
Participant

Registered: Wed Oct 16 2002
Posts: 31
Loc: Arlington, Texas
Quote:

My thought on the coverage is that a conclusion I came to a long time ago, that they are trying to fit 10 minutes of legitimate info into 8 hours of air time, still holds true, and I've watched very little of it as a result. That applied to the 91 gulf war, and even applied to 9-11, by late evening after the president had spoken that night.
As to pro/anti media bias, simply take the comments from the 2 sides, change pro to anti and vice versa where appropriate, and they are saying the exact same thing. It's all in what you want to see and hear.




I disagree Baron. I think the media is extremely biased. There is a big difference between 10 minutes of Fox coverage of a story and 10 minutes of ABC coverage of the same story. The reason is that ABC, although they want the USA to win the war, they do not want a decisive victory for George Bush. So they put a negative slant everywhere and any time they can. However, I believe that strategy is not working.

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Moderator:  ladymacb29, sue943