« Giuliani remains ahead of Clinton and McCain | Main | Joseph Loconte: No Iron Lady This Time Around »

Comments

Teddy Bear

You've got it wrong malcolm, it's really - Is that the best that YOU can do?

You think that giving a known inciter of terrorism - Bakri Mohammed a platform to air whatever views he chose without proper journalism to show the truth can be dismissed as 'not showing them in good light'.

What will it take to convince you, a call for daily prayers in Arabic from Bush House?

You offer nothing to refute these stories, and they stand with hundreds of others to show further appeasement of despotic militant Muslim agenda for the BBC's own media hegemony.

I knew you wouldn't be able to refute it, and just trying to dismiss it in an offhand way as you do without INTELLIGENT retort shows you up for what you really are.

malcolm

No Teddy Bear I just have a reasonable command of the English language, clearly you don't .I'm still waiting for to produce a credible example of the BBC 'BEING A MOUTHPIECE FOR ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM' or acting'AS ANAGENT OF THE enemy'.Is that really so hard to understand?
I am sorry you find my replies to be 'ignorant' or 'unintelligent' but if this really is the best you can do it is rather pathetic in my opinion.

Steevo

Clearly Teddy doesn't have a reasonable command of the language? Malclom you're going nowhere.

The examples paint a very clear picture of willful partiality -the resulting impression obvious. You're saying you want the BBC to say "yeah, we're a mouthpiece for Islamic Fundamentalism."

Would is surprise you of the BBC's own acknowledgment of any bias/agenda?

malcolm

Clearly Steevo, you don't have a very good command of the English either. I am well aware that the BBC is biased with a fairly left wing perspective. I don't approve of that biase as I've twice made clear. But the fact that it is biased is very different from agreeing with as Teddy Bear does mamapajamas half witted original post.
None of Teddy Bears example come any where close to proving his/her point and it seems to me the height of foolishness to pretend otherwise.
Your last sentence Steevo is unintelligble but fyi the BBC routinely denies any institutional bias in its political coverage although it has made the occasional apology over specific news items.

Steevo

Malcolm your mentality is becoming typical in what to expect: reduced to sarcasm and simple-minded 'you're not convinced' Those examples are the tip of an iceberg and a smack in the face for anyone with sense these days. You don't see agenda because you don't wanna believe it.

Also, how come you get off on a grammar mistake from someone in disagreement with you? The extent of my school-taught English is 10th grade. Big deal. You fall short of your own immature judgment by not showing command of the English language too. And since my last sentence is "unintelligible" that doesn't surprise me either. Time to grow up.

Your final sentence does prove how ignorant you are, even to this American. Kabeesh?

btw Teddy is a man

Teddy Bear

'There's none so blind as those who will not see'.

I gave you examples that shows where the BBC assists terrorists and terror regimes. For whatever reason you prefer to live in denial or have your own agenda. You resort to insults instead of reasoning because you're either incapable or void of real argument. Either way - you're not wasting any more of my time - we see you.

mamapajamas

Malcolm, "None of what you write puts the BBC in a good light"

... not "in a good light" would be catching one of the BBC newsreaders biting his fingernails or picking his nose.

Giving free access for commentary to a major terrorism antagonizer is treason against the people the BBC is supposed to be serving.

Your sense of perspective is WAY out of line on this!

Once upon a time, the BBC had a reputation for being a fair and accurate news agency. Today, it is so politicized that it can't be called either.

malcolm

No Teddy Bear you don't of anything of the sort. You know it, I know it. Any reasonable person would assume that acting 'as a mouthpiece of Islamic fundamentalism' would involve the regular broadcasting of a fundamentalist take on the Koran and presenting it as either fact or a good thing the BBC has as far as I'm aware never done that nor do your examples show otherwise. Acting as an agent of the enemy I would assume would mean that it has broadcast something prejudicial to our troops or our government, none of your examples remotely meet that criteria.
How you have the gall to call me blind is amazing. At least Steevo and mamapajamas are American and presumably do not see our media on a regular basis, you have no such excuse. I'm not suprised you choose to post under pseudonym with opinions like yours I'd be ashamed to reveal myself to the world too.

Teddy Bear

Malcolm - try and find somebody intelligent to explain the import of the examples I gave you to understand why they increase the rise of Muslim Fundamentalism.

You like to refer to people you disagree with here as idiots and morons while you have little in the way of reason and logic to refute anything - your own unfounded arrogance prevents you from seeing who really is, but like I say - we see you ;o)

Steevo

Malcolm you also don't know the BBC as well as this American as far as what their own words say concerning their motivations. Figure it out.

Also you don't know Teddy. It wouldn't surprise me that he is much more known than you, and for his views (increasingly those of many).

This is my last post here but I wanna offer a different angle. In the US we criticize the media all the time. Its understood by the overwhelming percentage of folks there is bias and the majority know it as coming from the left. Whether from left or right we understand journalists, by and large, as some of the most opinionated, even untrustworthy individuals in a most powerful profession. Their agenda: wanting Bush to fail; wanting Christians marginalized; wanting Hillary to fall on her face; wanting Hollywood to go to hell... whatever, is never portrayed with 100% advocacy. In order to influence the public you need the air of impartiality to be believabl. That's fact, in an open society. Rarely would anyone go out of their way as you have here to stick up and side with them. It can even look weird if but for one reason: you are in significant agreement with their left-wing agenda. And the implicit moral judgment here becomes a judgment on you... one that you'll never accept.

malcolm

Jesus Steevo,not only do you have a problem in writing you seem to have a problem reading as well, I made it clear I do not approve of the left wing stance of the BBC.How much clearer than I be??? So therefore I am not 'in significant agreement with their left wing agenda'.

Teddy Bear

"How much clearer than I be???"

What goes around.....:o)

Steevo - I really think this poster has an agenda that makes any attempt at reason futile as far as they're concerned. Otherwise anybody who really understands what 'left-wing agenda' really entails would know full well the negative consequences of this type of thinking, particularly by those who exploit this weakness within our society.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker