It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


BBC questions american media's seriousness

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 12:36 AM
BBC Chief questions american media's seriousness, blames them of urging to war.

posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 04:10 AM
Great Great Great Great find!!!!!!!!!! I hope the media is changed in here and is more like the bbc. I know the bbc isnt perfect, but it is better than the news we have now.

posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 04:25 AM
It is true that the more than slightly odious Dyke said this.
However, it is worth remembering that his vast salary is cushioned by the fact that the British public pays for the BBC through the licence fee.
Someone who is above the market-place should reflect a little before commenting upon those in it - even swine of the ilk of Turner and Murdoch.
And Dyke should reflect upon his own lamentable conduct when working in the commercial British media.
It is also worth remembering that the International supremacy of the BBC is almost entirely a result of World Service Radio.
There you are not enslaved to flickering images and telegenic drivel-hacks.

posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 04:28 AM
I completly agree, but the bbc is the lesser of the two "evils".

posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 04:31 AM
America's sharp antitrust laws should provide for a little rampaging in the media skyline, or have they been dullened ?

BTW, are there *real* polls somewhere on the net ?

[Edited on 29-4-2003 by Maxwell Smart]

posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 04:38 AM
Quite so: both are very "serious": they're just "serious" about different things.


posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 04:42 AM
The BBC haven't really pleased either end of the political spectrum. A couple of the anti-war marches started at the BBC headquarters because of their biased pro-war standpoint. Then the government accuses them of being too left wing.

Personally I think their biggest case to answer for is the lack of notable anti-war spokepeople on their news broadcasts, but a tendency to provide a platform for any right-wing warmonger that the US had to offer.

But perhaps most powerful Americans are right wing warmongers, so it's not so misrepresentative.

Oh, and the other thing was that the BBC didn't cover the war marches particularly well once war had started. There were only brief mentions, and disparaging ones, about the March 22nd peace march... I think that pissed a few people off in the anti-war movement.

I know that my partner thinks the BBC's coverage was pretty good, but she's not heard of Scott Ritter or Chomsky, and I think she'd like to have heard more of that particular viewpoint before (and during) the war...

top topics


log in