Is this guy for real?

Captain John Gibson refered to a specific act by that specific person of reporting the Iraqi troops were holding off the US forces. Now either this is true or untrue and if true why is this man still a reporter for the BBC?

 

The problem is that what we hear (even in britain) is filtered through the eyes and pens of journalists, which is already a problem in everyday news reporting, but it becomes and even bigger conflict of interests with this story, since it concerns journalists. Thereofore, we will probably never know what the 100% truth of the facts is. Either we get the news from pro-BBC journalists or anti-BBC ones.

 

Also let's not forget the main issue here.
Information that was already filtered by other people gets filtered again by our own brains, according to our beliefs, to our education, our culture. And that's the real problem. When any kind of information gets into our brains, we will take it differently from one another. Look at the guy who keeps posting conspiracy theories on here about 9/11 and such... In his brain, any kind of information gets filtered in such a (sick and disturbed) way that whatever he hears he will only believe "there's someone behind it"... Even if he reads a report from EVERY objective and independent source there is on the planet, he will only believe what he wants to believe.

That's the worse kind of "filtering".

 

err but since what kelly said "the 45 mins thing is bull" , is now being "confirmed". how exactly is gilligan lying ? Hutton didnt take two bits of evidence, he didnt take into account the newsnight reporters TAPED conversation with kelly in which he reitterated the 45 min claim but distanced himself from specifying campbell as being the "sexer upper" . hutton also didnt listen to gilligans boss who said , "yes the 6am broadcast was unscripted and not 'checked' but the next one was scripted and checked"..

also greg dyke has resigned so he can complain about how one-sided the ruling is/was..........and when the chairman resigned he said "i'm an honorable man who believes that whatever referee is chosen you should abide by their ruling"..
so how exactly does this show bad about the bbc ? it's certainly better than sky-news coverage
shit didnt realise this guy had topped himself :-O
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds11910.html
-dave-

 

Another lovely look at the Hutton Report

 

Not again keep that out of here, please

 

Here's a link that illustrates the BBC bias - link. The important point is that it was inconcievable that the American forces had stormed into Baghdad and had taken the airport. This was funny, because I had actually seen this on TV. During the war I flipped between the various US News Channels, CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, and the BBC occasionally.

 

Yea the BBC did not do a good job handling the whole WMD affair, there was a negative slant each and every night. When the nuclear centrifuge was found, they mentioned it briefly in passing, then zilch. No mention of terrorist camps, or the illegal missiles when they were found etc etc One really needs to be nonbiased in handling facts and stories that pretty much everyone else picked up on.

Then the Hutton affair was badly handled. They leaked info, directly implicating their sources. That was more or less illegal, and unethical. It was never proven to be the BBC afaik, but it was obvious nonetheless.

The actual war coverage was fine, though I felt Fox News did the best job of the major networks (assuming you forget about the annoying rhetoric). Fox is best on mute!

The nice thing about the BBC, is they actually put on some good debates. Often its less rhetorical and more academic than the American counterparts

 

I often feel they allow pundits to fight souly for entertainment value.

 

Hutton report a complete whitewash.

Let's not forget that Blair lied, just as George W. And let's not forget that Blair had his minions assassinate David Kelly, because he exposed that the dossier was 'sexed up,' no we must blame the BBC because it's all their fault. PLEASE!!!!