!!!!!!1!!!
Is this for real???
The mind boggles if so.
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 5 February 2004 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 5 February 2004 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 5 February 2004 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)
― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 5 February 2004 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)
― hmmm, Thursday, 5 February 2004 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 5 February 2004 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)
― hmmm, Thursday, 5 February 2004 16:57 (twenty-two years ago)
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 5 February 2004 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 5 February 2004 18:03 (twenty-two years ago)
Anyway, your answer is in the last flag-on-lapel bit: BBC World apparently gained viewers in the US during the war, this is a five-minute-hate by Fox to ensure that more people don't stray.
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 5 February 2004 18:17 (twenty-two years ago)
no love lost, then. Andrew i think BBC World viewership did go up, but so did viewership for Fox News, CNN, and all the rest. i haven't seen any reliable figures and i'm not sure they exist.
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 5 February 2004 18:25 (twenty-two years ago)
Mark Ames' description of Chuck Klosterman actually applies to that guy.
― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 5 February 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)
― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Thursday, 5 February 2004 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 5 February 2004 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 5 February 2004 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)
― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 5 February 2004 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)
The BBC presumably. Remember who owns Fox News and who owns Sky TV.
― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 6 February 2004 09:50 (twenty-two years ago)
even the currant bun wouldn't run an opinion like that...
what's all that crap about the iraqi troops? i didn't know gilligan was out there...
― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 6 February 2004 10:58 (twenty-two years ago)
I hope people in mainstream America can learn to take owner's opinions into account. In broadcasting, where it's easy to get sucked into seeing is believing, I don't think most of us really process that (anecdotally I meet people who made me put these concerns).
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 6 February 2004 11:04 (twenty-two years ago)
(oh hang on: the American mainstream have never seen Citizen Kane, so fair enough)
― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 6 February 2004 11:08 (twenty-two years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Friday, 6 February 2004 11:29 (twenty-two years ago)
― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 6 February 2004 11:38 (twenty-two years ago)
― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 6 February 2004 11:39 (twenty-two years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Friday, 6 February 2004 12:10 (twenty-two years ago)
we get fox on our sky digital, it's scary dude...
― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 6 February 2004 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)
― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 6 February 2004 12:18 (twenty-two years ago)
You can spot who listens to Baker in the mornings, can't you? It's like the Sinisterines with their inverted badges.
― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 6 February 2004 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)
― omg, Friday, 6 February 2004 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)
must-see alert: pres. bush is on meet the press on sunday. russert will destroy him.
― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Friday, 6 February 2004 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 6 February 2004 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Friday, 6 February 2004 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)
UK media watchdog Ofcom has criticised US cable channel Fox News over views a presenter expressed about the BBC. Ofcom said Fox News breached guidelines when commentator John Gibson claimed the BBC had displayed "a frothing-at-the-mouth" anti-American bias.
Gibson made the comments on the day the Hutton Report, which found a BBC report on Iraq was "unfounded", was published.
Gibson's comments were broadcast on The Big Story: My Word - a personal comment section at the end of an hour-long news programme - on 28 January.
The strength and number of allegations... meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond
Ofcom report The Hutton Report into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly contained criticism of BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and the corporation's "defective" editorial processes.
In his show, Gibson said the BBC displayed anti-Americanism that was "obsessive, irrational and dishonest".
He also said the corporation "felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives".
A total of 24 viewers complained to Ofcom that the piece was "misleading" and "misrepresented the truth".
Fox News said the basis for Gibson's piece was the fact the BBC had appointed an executive, Malcolm Balen, to act as a consultant on its Middle Eastern coverage.
'Bashing'
The network also said searching for the phrase "BBC anti-American" into the Google internet search engine resulted in 47,200 hits.
They added that the BBC "continually bashed" American policy.
And although Fox accepted Gilligan had not actually used the phrase attributed to him, it maintained Gibson had paraphrased the BBC reporter.
But Ofcom did not accept the argument that BBC's decision to monitor for "pro-Arab" bias backed up Fox's assertion that it proved an "obsessive, irrational and dishonest" anti-Americanism.
'Bashed'
The network also failed to provide evidence that the BBC "bashed" US policy or ridiculed the US president without any analysis, the watchdog said.
Ofcom also said it did not accept that the Hutton Inquiry supported the statement that the "BBC felt entitled to lie".
The regulator said: "Even taking into account that this was a 'personal view' item, the strength and number of allegations that John Gibson made against the BBC meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond."
A BBC spokesman said: "We have noted Ofcom's findings."
― Newshound, Monday, 14 June 2004 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)
― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Monday, 14 June 2004 18:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Monday, 14 June 2004 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)
― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 14 June 2004 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 05:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― New No New Age Advanced Ambient Motor Music Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Tuesday, 15 June 2004 05:58 (twenty-one years ago)