Quote :

"It's to point out how you didn't read anything other than an original blog post that you won't tell us what it is"

did i read that blog post in october 2006 when the first 'BBC is biased' thread was posted and i had the exact same opinions in that thread?

what is your obsession with a blog that i supposedly read? i dont read blogs, i'm not that big of a loser, but apparently thats the only rational explanation for me knowing anything, even though the TWW thread linked earlier clearly shows I had the exact same opinions 8 months ago

And if I completely missed what Marr was saying, are you saying that the audience ISNT composed more of homos, minorities and youngsters than the overall population? is there that much of a difference between the audience and the BBC? let alone your whole point is meaningless because regardless of BBC or audience, the pathetic excuse given by the BBC is that with homos, youth and minorities, things will inherently be biased, which is a bullshit excuse

why wont you just admit that you're giving me a hard time personally regardless of what i post? probably one of the same reasons you wont admit who you're an alias for

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 4:43:17 PM

Quote :

"did i read that blog post in october 2006 when the first 'BBC is biased' thread was posted and i had the exact same opinions in that thread?"

Who gives a shit if your opinion is the same now as it was then. That is irrelevant to you reading a blog that reaffirmed your opinion where there were links to new information backing up your opinion. No one has a problem with that. What we do have a problem with, is when you try to pass it off like you were original about it when you weren't. I doubt you were just checking out the BBC press releases. I doubt you read the 5 pages of that summary. And I doubt you read any of the report that summary links to.

Quote :

"i dont read blogs, i'm not that big of a loser,"

But you still managed to find out about this report? Hmmmmm

6/21/2007 4:50:11 PM

Quote :

"What we do have a problem with, is when you try to pass it off like you were original about it when you weren't."

"we"? no, just you

and how the fuck can somebody pass something off as original when they include sources!

what is your fucking obsession with a blog that i didnt read?

wtf is your obsession with me?

holy shit you are worthless

6/21/2007 5:00:45 PM

Simple question, how did you find out about this report?

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : you're the only one that posts with any real frequency, and I find your paranoia entertaining]

6/21/2007 5:01:31 PM

Quote :

"Simple question, how did you find out about this report?"

i obviously read a blog on newsmax or some other neocon site

is that what you want to hear?

its not true but if it will get you to shut your fucking mouth then believe whatever you want

simple question for you

who are you an alias for?

$100 says you dont answer

6/21/2007 5:07:27 PM

So your posts are mostly fact free, is that correct?

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 5:11 PM. Reason : see, I can post like you too!]

6/21/2007 5:10:55 PM

Quote :

"who are you an alias for? $100 says you dont answer"

I'll go ahead and say pwnt because regardless of how many more times you post in this thread, none of them will admit your alias because you're just a little bitch hiding behind an alias

6/21/2007 5:17:55 PM

Anyway. Back on topic.

6/21/2007 5:22:01 PM

its a shame you felt the need to troll for a page and a half when the thread started off on topic

Quote :

"who are you an alias for? $100 says you dont answer"

I'll go ahead and say pwnt

6/21/2007 5:26:13 PM

That doesn't have anything to do with the thread topic, btw.

6/21/2007 5:33:29 PM

Quote :

"$100 "

6/21/2007 5:34:58 PM

That doesn't have anything to do with the thread topic, btw.

6/21/2007 5:37:40 PM

Quote :

"^^i guess wanting any type of semblance of unbiased news is wrong...also this is just another example of something being obvious to me and plenty of others for a long time...course when we said it before we got a bunch of "omg reality has a liberal bias""

Wanting any type of semblance of unbiased news is not wrong. It's just not going to happen.

This is a front-page picture from the Sun of Britain the day of the 1992 elections there. Kinnock was the Labour candidate. The Sun was then and still is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian that also owns Fox News amongst numerous other media groups.

Quote :

"Background: The Conservative Party under John Major was fighting to stay in power against a determined bid by the Labour Party. The Conservatives had held on to government control since Margaret Thatcher became Britain’s first woman Prime Minister on May 4, 1979. She had resigned two years earlier in November 1990. At the time most national newspapers, with the possible exception of The Independent , supported one of the three main political parties. The Sun and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, supported the Conservatives, mainly because they believed that the members of that party would support his growing media empire in Britain. (Later on The Sun came out in support of Tony Blair). Kelvin MacKenzie had little time for politicians of whatever party. He has been quoted as saying that: "As a newspaper is an unlicensed product . . . [it] can/will/must reflect the prejudices or delights of an editor or owner. This gives an editor a unique power . . . to damn or praise the most powerful in the land. And if you intend to give the mighty a mauling then the front page is the best place to do it." In this case, his target was Neil Kinnock who did lose the election."

All news is biased. Us as consumers would just be better if they all told us before their stories a disclaimer saying "we tend to be liberal" or "we tend to be conservative". That way we can make up our minds on the story. The bias is not in itself wrong, it's operating under the guise they are neutral and independent that is wrong. People ask me how I could give an ounce of credibility to Wikipedia. I tell them I take it with a grain of salt and then read. That's how you should treat your news.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 5:51:01 PM

Well, I gotta go with Blind Hate on this one. The quote TreeTwista is creaming himself over doesn't really say what he thinks it means. It only says that people that work for BBC may have a "liberal" bias, it doesn't say that BBC's coverage of news and events is biased. Really, the coverage is all that matters, not the political beliefs of the company's employees.

Yep. Chances are that Tree snatched this off some blog without reading it. Damned shame.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ``]

6/21/2007 6:04:08 PM

TreeTwista10

Your thread title falsely summarizes the article quoted. Did you even read the article? Because I just read it all, and i'm really confused as to how you conclude that BBC admits having any bias, liberal or otherwise.

the most evidence i could find for an admission of bias by the BBC is this:

Quote :

"Impartiality is a core value for the BBC which is non-negotiable and central to its relationship with licence fee payers. We recognise that, as audience behaviours change and the media landscape develops rapidly, the BBC has to keep asking itself how best to safeguard impartiality in this digital age. The new audience insights from this study of external research and the guiding principles will help us do that. --Mark Byford, BBC Deputy Director-General "

this, like the rest of the article, describes the thorough and very transparent steps the BBC is taking in order to ensure that they remain as unbiased as possible.

if i didnt know any better, i would think that you posted this thread as a flame bait to try and start a fight, where you could ... oh, i dont know, maybe claim you were being trolled.

but of course you would never do anything like that.

unfortunately, the question then remains, which article did you read? because you sure didn't read the one cited in your original post. at least i hope for your sake you didnt.

so maybe you could post the actual article you read that has something to do with the BBC's alleged confession to having a liberal bias?










[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 7:34 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2007 7:24:38 PM

you guys really love to ignore everything after the first link dont you? Read the press release article in the first link and then ignore when I post the link to the actual report because I didnt do it in my initial post? Why dont you look at the actual BBC report which clearly undoubtedly and unequivocably admits the BBC has a liberal bias? I posted the PDF link to that within 5 minutes of creating the thread. Everything you need is linked in the thread if you choose to look at more than the thread title and the first post

let alone your obsession with claiming I read something in a blog which, even though I didnt, is completely irrelevant...have you already forgotten the TWW thread from 8 months ago that made this same claim? Why are you so insistent that I "read something in some conservative blog"? All I'd have to do is glance back through My Topics. I guess its inevitable though...the same people who denied the media was largely liberally biased back then are sticking to their guns now, or trying to say all media is biased while ignoring that the majority of news outlets are biased to the left...I will commend the ones who have admitted it, regardless of how completely different their opinion was 8 months ago, even though I had the exact same opinon

I mean have yall seen the campaign contribution numbers of newscasters and news reporters as far as what party the vast majority of them endorse? joe_schmoe do you still think life is liberally biased? it probably is, to you, since you are a liberal

6/22/2007 9:32:47 AM

Yes or no, is Fox News biased towards conservatives?


If you say yes, then you realize all media is biased and so whether the BBC is liberal or not is immaterial. All media is biased, so it follows that BBC would have one.

If you say no, you're no better than the liberal media and you need to go shirk off to a hole.


TV and newspapers are the instruments of corporations. (BBC is owned by the UK, but it's a stand-alone organization pretty much.) Corporations have goals and desires that they want to fulfill.

If you do not realize that point, it pains me to realize you got your degree from the same school I did. If you realize that point for liberal media but yet disavow it for conservative media, you're no better than a lemming that jumps off a cliff. That last sentence also applies to liberals that don't realize their news org they use most is liberal. Get your asses out of the 1950s. An independent and non-biased media that is owned by Fortune 500 companies is a fantasy and a farce, period.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2007 9:42:18 AM

of course Fox News is biased towards conservatives

But as far as news outlets being biased to the left or right, Fox News is in the minority

Many more news outlets are biased towards the left

and you forgot to mention that TVs and newspapers are also the instruments of politicians and people with political agendas, not just corporations, although they're fairly interrelated

6/22/2007 9:45:17 AM

You're quickly becoming the next salisburybot with the way you ignore people's key questions.

Quote :

"unfortunately, the question then remains, which article did you read? because you sure didn't read the one cited in your original post. at least i hope for your sake you didnt. so maybe you could post the actual article you read that has something to do with the BBC's alleged confession to having a liberal bias?"

It's simple. How did you arrive at the BBC web page where they did a study about impartiality?

6/22/2007 9:52:12 AM

^^ Of course they're interrelated, who gives campaign donations to the politicians?

And for there being more left than right news orgs, if there was more desire from right-leaning viewers for right-leaning news, there would be more right-leaning news orgs!

All news organizations are filling a spot in the marketplace, and their share is due to how many people want to watch or read them. If a person reading the New York Times is disgusted that they're liberal, they can throw away the paper and go buy the New York Post. More people buy the New York Times than the New York Post though so that means more newspaper readers are liberal and agree with the Times and not the Post on most issues, otherwise they would go buy the Post (or the Daily News or Newsday or the Star-Ledger, etc.).

That's how the marketplace works! I thought you were a capitalist?

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 9:55 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2007 9:53:57 AM

Quote :

"the way you ignore people's key questions."

how is that a key question? you're the one ignoring the thread topic by harping on your own stupid questions

does the report say the bbc admits they're liberally biased or not? who gives a fuck how i found the report?

yet you're obsessing over your troll question but thats all you do

but just for kicks

Quote :

"How did you arrive at the BBC web page where they did a study about impartiality?"

i went back through my topics to the old thread and read through it and realized the time was abot up...satisfied? of course not cause you're just an alias troll

Quote :

"if there was more desire from right-leaning viewers for right-leaning news, there would be more right-leaning news orgs!"

thats complete bullshit...you were just saying the news organizations did what the politicians and corporations wanted...now you're saying they do what the viewers want? completely contradicting yourself

6/22/2007 9:54:24 AM

Quote :

"I mean have yall seen the campaign contribution numbers of newscasters and news reporters as far as what party the vast majority of them endorse?"

i'd be curious to see the campaign contributions of newscasters and news reporters for fox news. i really don't think the rank and file of fox news and cnn are much different. it's the leadership that is different. they are the ones who decide what the tone is going to be on the air.

6/22/2007 9:59:17 AM

Quote :

"thats complete bullshit...you were just saying the news organizations did what the politicians and corporations wanted...now you're saying they do what the viewers want? completely contradicting yourself"

They do. The goal of corporations is to make money. They make money by running advertisements. Advertisers pay based on how many people are watching. Corporations when they have eyeballs glued to them can then in subtle ways imply their opinions so they can convince their viewers to a certain point of view that is good for the corporation. Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs, and Bill O'Reilly for example. Corporations also give money to politicians they like or who are good for business. In the picture I posted above, Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Sun ran the Kinnock headline cause he thought the Conservatives would be better for business. The next day The Sun boasted for its front-page headline "It's The Sun Wot Won It".

If there was a market for right-wing news and there was no right-wing news channel, one would sprout up, which did happen. The Australian/Chinese-owned and controlled Fox News filled that gap.

If you're a capitalist you would realize this.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2007 9:59:53 AM

^^i'd imagine most fox news journalists who made campaign contributions contributed to republican candidates or the republican party, although of the journalists MSNBC identified, seven times more of them contributed to dems http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

^you keep mentioning capitalism as if the news outlets arent biased and they simply do what their viewers want...the BBC already admitted they were biased based on who works there, not their audience...we agreed that fox news is biased for the right...yet you're trying to say its simple economics of the market? the news outlets have a huge impact in determining how people view certain issues. its the news outlets that decide what they want to put out based on their own biases and their own agendas...its not dictated by what the audience wants...if it was, they wouldnt be biased!

6/22/2007 10:04:12 AM

^ If the people that watch BBC or read their website are disgusted with their liberal bias, they would stop watching and reading.

I know the BBC is liberal biased, and I am a libertarian! I still go there to read sports news and to read what's going on in the world cause American news does not cover world news as much as the BBC does. Here's their headlines right now:

"25 Afghans dead in Southern Afghanistan"
"BP sells Siberian oil field to Russian national oil company"
"North Korea ready to shut down reactor"
"Al-Qaeda gunmen killed in Iraq"
"Chinese human rights activist beaten in jail"
"EU leaders struggle over treaty"

Is it so hard for you to realize that some people might realize their biased, and are intelligent enough to still read realizing that point? That is what disgusts me about people like you and the DailyKos people. "Such and such is biased against us." No s***. Just don't go there if you can't accept that.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2007 10:08:12 AM

^^i'm not saying that it's not biased. i'm just saying it's not the reporters themselves who are causing the bias at fox news. rupert murdoch isn't exactly your typical owner. he is very hands-on and i could see his influence trumping that of most of his reporters.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2007 10:08:18 AM

^oh ok yes i completely agree with that...however by that same logic, wouldnt murdoch be more likely to hire conservatives, and vice versa if you had a more libeal person running a different news outlet, wouldnt they be more likely to hire liberals

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2007 10:10:41 AM

^ Yes, they would.

6/22/2007 10:13:24 AM

i think journalists as people (not necessarily in their reporting) would tend to be more liberal, simply because it's a fairly idealistic idea to be a journalist. that's not to say that after a while the conservatives of the journalists might gravitate towards fox news more because they agree with the network's politics.

6/22/2007 10:14:55 AM

Quote :

"how is that a key question? you're the one ignoring the thread topic by harping on your own stupid questions does the report say the bbc admits they're liberally biased or not? who gives a fuck how i found the report?"

It is a key question because I imagine someone out there has read over the guts of this and summarized the contents a little more than "bbc admits liberal bias". Because I know you didn't read any of it. I like to do a bit more than read headlines and make partisan hacked threads that are worthless, then call people trolls when I don't want to answer their questions that I got called out on.

Quote :

"yet you're obsessing over your troll question but thats all you do"

Why don't you shut the fuck up with your paranoia and labeling everything I post as trolling you fuckbag. You are the one that made the thread, then linked a page that doesn't say shit about admitting bias. You fucked up. I asked legit questions trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about, so I could add valid shit to the debate, not just "durr, we all knew this".

Quote :

"i went back through my topics to the old thread and read through it and realized the time was abot up...satisfied? of course not cause you're just an alias troll"

That still leaves questions open. How did you arrive back at that web page, because it wasn't posted anywhere on their main page. I highly doubt you spent your time exploring the site looking for that information, especially as misinformed as you were about the first link you posted, then how you didn't correctly interpret Marr's comment. It doesn't show you did any researching or studying of the report. I can't help that your credibility here is terribly lacking.

But, keep labeling what I am doing as trolling if that is the only way you can avoid looking like an even bigger fool.

6/22/2007 10:43:50 AM

Quote :

"its not dictated by what the audience wants...if it was, they wouldnt be biased!"

I can't imagine any capitalist thinking, "you know, there are a lot of liberal media outlets here, I think we could capture the conservative voter/viewer and then sell air time for commercials and make a lot of money on this proposition, especially since competition for those conservative viewers is currently low right now"

I just can't imagine that. A capitalist wanting to make money and all, the thought is just absurd.

6/22/2007 10:48:18 AM

^^how is it anything but trolling when that entire post was again obsessing over one point, that one point being where I heard about the BBC report? The same report, btw, that was discussed for pages and pages a number of months back on TWW, in a thread I posted in with the same exact viewpoint...This entire thread you've taken one COMPLETELY insignificant point and ran with it...your comments on the actual thread topic have been minimal, as you instead choose to obsess over irrelevance...yet you claim you're not a troll, when everyone on TWW knows you are...hence why all your other accounts have been suspended for trolling yet, surprise surprise, my only account (that I've had for over 6 years) is still active...hmmm

6/22/2007 11:08:19 AM

Quote :

"^^how is it anything but trolling when that entire post was again obsessing over one point, that one point being where I heard about the BBC report?"

Just answer the damn question. How did you arrive at that link in your first post.

Quote :

"The same report, btw, that was discussed for pages and pages a number of months back on TWW, in a thread I posted in with the same exact viewpoint..."

No, you are lying and don't know what the fuck you were talking about. That thread from October was about an internal memo that was leaked about this report. At the time of that thread, this report was not public, or readable in any way. Furthermore, if we follow the link in the first post of that thread to the Daily Mail, in search of some way you could have landed on the link in your post above, the best google search term I could imagine was bbc impartiality summit. The first 10 results from google for this, don't lead to your link from above.

Quote :

"This entire thread you've taken one COMPLETELY insignificant point and ran with it...your comments on the actual thread topic have been minimal,"

You mean, YOU MEAN, pointing out that certain media outlets are liberal biased is more significant? Ha, you are delusional.

Quote :

"as you instead choose to obsess over irrelevance...yet you claim you're not a troll, when everyone on TWW knows you are...hence why all your other accounts have been suspended for trolling yet, surprise surprise, my only account (that I've had for over 6 years) is still active...hmmm"

That's funny you keep talk about obsessing, when in every post you can't keep yourself from calling me a troll (keep saying it over and over, maybe even you will believe it) and pointing out crap about alias this and alias that.


The question remains, how did you land on that link above. Google search (if so, what was your search term)? Directed from another blog you read (which blog)? Just generally searching the BBC web site (can you show me how to get there via the front page)?

This isn't hard man. But for someone that can't correctly interpret what he reads, and can only call people asking legit questions a troll, you owe this section an attempt at establishing some credibility, because you have none.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 11:48 AM. Reason : *]

6/22/2007 11:47:35 AM

Quote :

"The question remains, how did you land on that link above"

good thing that question only matters to you and nobody else...you continue to harp on irrelevance, which is obvious trolling to everyone on TWW

how come my account has been active for 6 years while you get account after account suspended and create multiple alias accounts? probably because you're a pathetic troll

ps: you have no credibility yourself, nor do your other suspended troll alias accounts

maybe if you just manned up and showed you had a pair of testicles and admitted to the message board which alias you're hiding behind today, people would think of you as more than just a pathetic alias troll...maybe not, but its worth a shot

Quote :

"$100"

6/22/2007 12:15:13 PM

You're such a dick bag dude. Hell, half your trolling techniques aren't even original. Grow up, get original, and post something of relevance.

6/22/2007 12:17:54 PM

6/22/2007 12:18:39 PM

Your thread failed, just like 98% of your other threads.

6/22/2007 12:19:23 PM

grow a set of balls

you're an alias troll...nothing more...you're worthless

6/22/2007 12:21:19 PM

Why are you the most hated TSB poster?

6/22/2007 12:25:11 PM

Quote :

"you're an alias troll...nothing more...you're worthless"

Yea, what, ~20 posts responding to me in this thread alone worthless? That worthless?!!

6/22/2007 12:29:13 PM

why are you an alias troll thats scared shitless to admit your previous accounts' identity?

why are you on my nuts so hard? did i piss off one of your many other alias troll screennames back in the day or something? i wouldnt know, since you're too much of a pussy to admit who you are

Did the perception of being pwnt by a "stupid stoner" sometime in the past piss you off that much? Sorry I pwnt one of your aliases back in the day, you need to give it a rest

6/22/2007 12:29:47 PM

Why are you the most hated TSB poster?

6/22/2007 12:39:58 PM

I'm not but I'm sorry I pwnt your aliases back in the day but you need to give up your obsession and move on...its not healthy

6/22/2007 12:51:08 PM

Here you go Tree-- they deliver if you're too embarrassed to buy them in person:

http://shop.mywebgrocer.com/ProductDetail.aspx?&sid=16397252&sid_guid=ee53bf14-3a4b-487d-b646-750b1b84ac8d&strid=4FA6804&pid=13491

6/22/2007 12:54:21 PM

when you ordered yours did they ship them in an indiscrete package?

are you sticking up for him because you share political views, or because you know what its like to be an alias?

6/22/2007 12:56:01 PM

You need to take your own advice

Quote :

"you need to give up your obsession and move on...its not healthy"

When you actually post threads with integrity, I won't have to question your credibility. You call it obsession, I call it a desire to not have clowns like you fuck up any thread they post in.

6/22/2007 12:59:11 PM

funny how you just cant help but post in a thread that i created

i'm sorry i pwnt your aliases back in teh day...but give it a rest...go wear a scarf and get laughed out of europe faggot

you continuing to post in this thread is like you continuously calling me on the phone and asking why im obsessed with you...even though you're the one calling my phone

from a private number on caller id and a voice disguising machine no less (since you're a pussy alias)

6/22/2007 1:00:09 PM

Quote :

"you continuing to post in this thread is like you continuously calling me on the phone and asking why im obsessed with you...even though you're the one calling my phone"

Apparently, you're too retarded to see simple irony. JUST STOP POSTING. JUST STOP RESPONDING YOU STUPID CLOWN.

Wait, no, please respond, to tell me I am obsessed and you aren't. How much more childish and absurd can you be?

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 1:12 PM. Reason : dick waste]

6/22/2007 1:12:00 PM

so who are you an alias for? i'll bet you're too pussified to admit it

6/22/2007 1:16:16 PM

You're right. I am too pussified to admit it.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : So stop asking and keep sleuthing since you are obsessed, loser.]

6/22/2007 1:21:11 PM