Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded

[Virulent]

I am a journalist

When THAT is the case, who cares who owns them or how they are funded?

To be clear John, I'm sure you know an awful lot about journalism that I don't. Truth be told, arguments from authority are meaningless to me though - so please help me follow your logic.

Obviously the BBC and NPR do not cover 100% of news-worthy stories. Therefore, they must utilize a metric to determine which ones not to cover.

Is it completely irrelevant that they are funded by a government? Would it be irrelevant if they were funded by a corporation or church?

I always thought Noam Chomsky had it right, when he said that BBC anchors don't self-censor; they believe every word they're told to say... else, they wouldn't be BBC anchors.

[mkemse]

Me too; I hope "they" make it mandatory.

I don't have much affinity for politics personally. In America in particular, citizens have the luxury of choosing between any of the candidates that the capitalist politburo decides to field. Now available in multiple hues!

There is a reason why Ann Coulter and Dianne Feinstein are so hilarious - because they're in the entertainment business.

By the way John - both of your favorite news outlets are owned by governments and paid for by compulsory taxation?

I beg to differ, Anyone over the Age of 35, that is a Natural Citizen of The United States, by that it simply means any person Born in the United States and is born as a citizen and not Naturalized, can run for President which is 1 reason the Gov Of California could never run unlress the Constitution was changed , it is the American Electorae through Primaries that ultimately Decide which 2, 3 or 4 Perosn's actualy run in the gneral election, the Politcal Parties are simply an affiliation and do not dictate who runs in for thier Party, The Republican had countless Candidates which dwindeled down to a few as the Primary season continued, The Democrats the same scenrio, Neither Party dictated who would run, who could run or who could not run, this was decided by the Individuals and the Americna People utlimately decided who they wanted to run in each Party, so the Field of Contenders is based on who wants to Run andwho the American People decide to vote for, Neither the Repulican or Democratic Party make this decison til after the Coventions when the "Nonine In Waiting" is made offical, also if they can get enough support we have had many election with a Third Party Candidate not dictated by either Major Party
but you offer great comments

[John56{vg}]

I have studied Journalism for years. If a corporate news entity uses objectivity and telling the truth to the public, I have no problem with them. Therefor I give the same metrics to those owned by a government entity.

Our government has been suppressing the truth and objectivity for almost 8 years now. Corporations have been forcing the News oreganizations to "entertain" us for longer than that. A lot of Newspapers, owned by corporations, still do a passable job of keeping as objective as possible. (True objectivity is difficult at best. The reporter and the editorial board are always having to leave something out, etc. But nowadays there are not many News organizations in this country even attempting objectivity. They slant the news, skew it terribly in the direction of the administration or the corporations interests.

Again I do NOT consider Fox a news entity. It is an arm of the administration and not only skewed, facts are made up.

Where do you get your news and how do you determine who is telling the truth or not?

I research and study and look at what is really happening and how it is covered. I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded.

The Christian Science Monitor has been an objective news source for years. A VERY good Newspaper. I am not a CHristian Scientist and do not believe in what they believe in. But, the newspaper was (and perhaps still is) an objective News source.

[Virulent]

If a corporate news entity uses objectivity and telling the truth to the public, I have no problem with them. Therefor I give the same metrics to those owned by a government entity.

Ok... but how do you determine if they are objective and tell the truth? Further, how are you certain what the truth is? If you know what is true, why do you even need the news in the first place?

I research and study and look at what is really happening and how it is covered. I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded.

If you can look at what is really happening, why do you need any news at all (since, by definition, news is a filter)?

I'm suspicious that what you really do is you trust. You have faith in institutions like the BBC and NPR. Is it possible that could be accurate?

Where do you get your news and how do you determine who is telling the truth or not?

I wasn't sure if this was rhetorical or directed at me, but in case it was directed at me, I get my news from first-person accounts and video. When I want to know what is going on in Fallujah, or Ramallah, or wherever, I look for a blog of someone there. In my experience, amateurs who are merely chronicling their quotidian lives wear their biases on their sleeves, rather than trying to hide them like professional journalists.

I'm a huge fan and occasional participant in Jello Biafra's Camcorder Truth Jihad, an organization that flash-mobs events where State power might be used in an embarrassing way, and documents it with commentary-free video. One of my favorite incidents was during the '99 WTO conference in Seattle. Despite early reports by both NPR and the BBC reporting that the police were not using tear-gas, the CCTJ had 31 video-clips proving otherwise. Despite the New York Times claiming that a molotov cocktail was thrown at the police cordon, the CCTJ 24-hour multiple-camera coverage of the cordon demonstrated that this inexplicably false.

The objective truth is, most media outlets print exactly what their primary sources tell them to print... and more often than not, their primary sources are members of the entrenched establishment; police, government agents, statist propagandists. When you believe what they print, you're practicing second-hand gullibility.

[denuseri]

This is so much fun....really

I would just like to thank everyone involved in this intellegent debate.


That said; I am a proud subscriber to the Christian Science Monitor. I am not, as previously stated, a proponent of thier church. All I was saying is that even the most unbiased of news sources is not 100% without its (the individual journalist's) opinion and or that of his or hers publisher's.

[John56{vg}]

You may believe what you want. I look at many sources for my news. But I don't trust everything I see on video and I rarely trust a blog. I have many sources to get to what the truth is and what is objective or not.

I was providing info for those that get their news from the major news outlets or, God forbid, Fox News.

You may get your news where you like. Your cynicism may make you feel COOL and IN but I am NOT gullible. I research everything I have said. You may not agree with me, I don't really care.

Your agenda is not to believe ANYTHING but what you WANT to believe in. That is fine, but it doesn't make your "truth" any more believable than mine.

Generalizing: All police are bad, All Government is bad, All Media is bad, is more gullible and sad than doing research and is not ANYWHERE near the truth either. The truth IS ellusive, the truth is not always pure and unadulterated. But it is too easy to be cynical and negative about everything. I refuse to play that game.

You MAY take exception to what I have posted. But there just may be those that will appreciate it. It was, in fact, written for those people, not for you. You seem to have all the answers, don't you?

[Virulent]

Your agenda is not to believe ANYTHING but what you WANT to believe in.

I try to be open-minded, I just seem to disagree with you on some things. Believe me, I am very happy to continue this discussion; I do have a specific question for you about the BBC:

Do you remember when the BBC reported that Tony Blair's statement that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes was exaggerated? Do you remember how Tony Blair got really angry, and then the chairman and director general of the BBC both resigned, and its vice-chairman publicly apologized?

Why were they sorry? Was it in fact true that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes? If a news source made a factual criticism (and, as we all know, a massively understated one), and then people got angry... and members of the staff were fired... doesn't that demonstrate that the angry people have some sort of executive oversight?

I really don't know how to interpret the above, recent example except by concluding that people at the BBC should be afraid of losing their livelihoods if they challenge the government line.

Generalizing: All police are bad, All Government is bad, All Media is bad, is more gullible and sad than doing research and is not ANYWHERE near the truth either.

That is indeed a generalization. I will agree with the "all government is bad" part though, if by government you mean compulsory statist authority and by bad you mean unethical.

You MAY take exception to what I have posted.

Not at all! You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine, and (I believe) we're welcome to criticize each other's. No-one need ever worry about offending me; I've got very thick skin.

It was, in fact, written for those people, not for you.

I think you were actually talking to me if you look back. I asked: "Is it completely irrelevant that they are funded by a government?" and you said "I make my determination from that, not from who owns who or how it is funded." I was the first person in the thread to bring up funding's influence. Or maybe your post was a complete non sequitur?

You seem to have all the answers, don't you?

That is kind of a thought-terminating cliche, not really a question. Put another way, maybe you meant "you're very opinionated". Indeed, I am! You are too.

[Logic1]

I have BBC as the startup page on my browser and I do consider them to be the least biased news that you can find and they have been called that for years. Just because those news happens to be payed for by the taxes paid by the Brittish population doesnt make it tilted as such. That all depends on how the government dictates the newsagencies rules of conduct as such.
Sweden also has state owned tv channels and radio stations and they criticise and investigate both government and everything. I find them pretty unbiased and trustworty too but for me the BBC wins for non domestic news.
I truely feel that tax paid news is better than company owned cause they arent as dependant on what news that sells and what doesnt. They also dont have to sell advertizing that makes them even more dependant on others.
As for blogs, sure they can have a part in news and I do check out a few just to get another view on things.

I never heard of the "christian science monitor" though but it sure doesnt sound unbiased but I might be wrong there. Perhaps it is this country having so little religiosity that makes me think that.
Ill take a look at it.

debates are good denuseri

[claire]

Believe it or not the "Christian Science Monitor" is a very good news source. Despite its religious connections it is not a fundamentalist or religiously biased news organization. I rated it up there with the BBC, which is also one of my preferred news sources.

[John56{vg}]

Yes, claire is right. The CHristian Science Monitor has been at the top of the heap of great Newspapers for YEARS.

[Logic1]

Never too late to learn something new
thank you guys

[John56{vg}]

Logic,

I know I was surprised when I got into Journalism school way back when and found out about the Monitor. It doesn't SOUND like a respected paper, does it? LOL.

I have added thank you to your posts but never formerly thanked you. Good info about the BBC and other things. Thanks my friend.

[Logic1]

Logic,

I know I was surprised when I got into Journalism school way back when and found out about the Monitor. It doesn't SOUND like a respected paper, does it? LOL.

lol that was my point too . Well surprises like those arent bad at all.

Thank you too John!

[denuseri]

way back in the day, or so my favorite american history professor would say, the Monitor used to report the news like this:

So and so on the following date at the following place and time said this: "whatever speach etc it was in its orriginal entirety" , no editorial comments no explanations that was it, the speakers words, no sumations , no "spin" etc,,,,,,,

that is why it originally achieved its stunning reputation as an unbiased news source

today the Monitor has a single page ussually dedicated to airing its own views on an issue, with a light religious overtone, if yu dont want to read it yu just skip to the next article,, i havent seen them use the "quote alone style" in thier reporting recently but that doesnt mean they have completely abandoned it eaither

i have seen them allow more reporters to editorialize pieces though, and they dont allways try to balance the piece with an opposing view point,

as far as political leanings i havent noticed the Monitor take a stance one way or the other (alltough the individual contributors sometimes do) and in that respect i think its one of the best newspapers out there and as non-partisan as it can be without resorting to thier old format (which my professor said was frankly a little lengthy and boreing as they didnt edit the reports)

i love the bbc and npr as well as colours television , pbs and link, all of which i get on satilite i also have several news blogs on my email page and i am an avid reader of a variety of books and information sources (though i will argue wikipedia is hardly a credible source as any tom dick and harry can amend whats in it) though wiki is trying to change that,,

of course an individuals perspective is dependent on a wide variety of things from the way they were raised to peer pressure ,to thier intelectual capacity etc etc, all parts of the whole,, i really dont believe any one person should be catagorized simply based on a single belief in a single topic or generalization,,, which is why it may sound like i snub ya if yu call me a radical, and i call ya one back (thats to anyone not any one)

the only way a news source could be completely "free" is if it was completely economically, culturally, politically and socially independent,

it would also have to be held to the highest ethical standards

these are things many claim (because who would claim not too) yet few approach

i have seen blatent bias in every majior news channel on tv even from cnn to fox, from msn to (my beloved) dailey show even cctv and yes on occasion bbc and npr (yes i find news on the dailey show sometimes more accurate than the regular channels)

the ultimate judge on your news is you,, take it or leave it, with or without the grain of salt

[John56{vg}]

i have seen them allow more reporters to editorialize pieces though, and they dont allways try to balance the piece with an opposing view point,

The Monitor received its reputation by doing great stories not just by regurgitating quotes. They have been a great newspaper for over 40 years.

Also, editorializing on the editorial page is perfectly legitimate and there is no need to have opposing viewpoints to editorials and opinion pieces.

And this brings up one of the MANY problems with FOX. They pride their lies and half-truths on the fact that they are "Fair and balanced." Meaning, to them it seems, that if you have some Liberal on you can say anything because you have an opposing viewpoint.

Objectivity is NOT balanced and not even fair a good part of the time. It is telling the truth of the situation as close to impartial as possible.

The way it was explained to me in J-school. If a serial killer is murdering people and he is discovered and tried and found guilty. His "side' of that issue is moot. Being fair would be him given voice to say how he lovede killing so he is not really at fault for anything.

Yes, the reporter may give us insight into why the man did it, but we do not have to give him voice to all his crazy "reasons."

And even though FOX news claims it is fair and balanced it is neither. Fox News is total fiction 99 per cent of the time.

the only way a news source could be completely "free" is if it was completely economically, culturally, politically and socially independent,

And even then personal bias would be at work. Don't get me wrong. Objectivity is almost impossible to achieve. But it is worth striving for and their ARE news organizations out there that are striving for that.

the ultimate judge on your news is you,, take it or leave it, with or without the grain of salt

I take exception to this because a person may look at the 700 club as their news source or FOX as their news source.

Any journalist can tell you those two are not valid news sources. An expert can help people refine their choices to include TRUTHFUL sources.

[Thorne]

a person may look at the 700 club as their news source or FOX as their news source.

Any journalist can tell you those two are not valid news sources. An expert can help people refine their choices to include TRUTHFUL sources.

It seems to me that ANY news source which happens to coincide, most of the time, with a person's own beliefs will always be considered valid by that person! Those news sources which tend toward the conservative side, such as FOX, are considered reliable and trustworthy by conservatives because they say what those conservatives want to hear. Those news sources which tend to be liberal are considered equally valid and reliable by liberals.

Claiming that FOX News "makes up 99%" of their stories is both irresponsible and unjustified. They would not hold on to their audience if that were true. What they MAY do, however, is only tell those parts of a story which focus on their own prejudices and agendas. This is true of ANY news media.

I'm often struck when reading articles in a newspaper or magazine by the fact that, whenever something particularly nasty and "juicy" occurs, reporters frequently claim that "so-and-so did not immediately return calls made to confirm or deny this story" or something to that effect. This tells me that the reporter or editor didn't want to print any dissenting views so they called after business hours, or at a time when no one was likely to answer and didn't wait for any return call. It's far more important to them to get the story out there, first, before someone comes along and tells the truth. Whether this is so or not I can't say, but that's what I feel when I see that, and I immediately suspect whatever story they are trying to sell me.

The only way you can hope to get the true story is to get it from many sources, both pro and con, and bet on the fact that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[John56{vg}]

Of course they would hold their audience. COmpletely because, to their base they ARE telling them exactly what they want to hear.

AND there are a lot of news sources that focus on objectivity and not their own prejudices.

You are welcome to believe that FOX is telling the truth. A lot of misled people do believe this. But Roger Ailes is biased and the facts they DO cover ARE colored by their own prejudices.

But my point is that what FOX does is NOT news. There are few REAL journalists over there. And most experts will bear this out.

And to generalize that ALL news sources do what FOX does is irresponsible and totally unjustified.

And yes, that is the problem today. Many News organizations, are more concerned with getting the story out there quickly and beat the non-News orgs to the story. There was a time when Network News organizations were not messed with. But now they have to make a profit. Therefore most news orgs sensationalize and comment on the news like FOX does.

But to generalize and say everybody does it is wrong and unjustified. BBC does not, NPR is still fairly good at getting it right. But even they have responed to the false claims of a Liberal Bias and have backed off of stories to not leave that impression.

But Fox news is NOT to be trusted. It IS by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that it is worth being trusted.

[denuseri]

this reminds me of mien kamf where hitler keeps repeating the same statement over and over in different ways every few paragraphs to make sure the propaganda sinks in

what i am saying is every single journalist out there regardless of the type of media he or she uses for comunication is not perfect and not being perfect does in fact weather inadvertantly or overtly taint the information they are reporting with a slant of some kind

even when they think they are not, and btw i wasnt talking about the editorial page which is purely an opinion piece earlier, i was talking about editorialized news stories, which is what editing is: when you change and report anything else than just the facts, reduce a statement considered news worthy or change in anyway the details even by omission of events occured, even routine sumarizations for space are a form of editoral use

now i get it you hate fox news,lol,, but i agree with Thorne on this one and i dont even watch fox news, the few times i did see it it was just like cnn or msnbc, same sheet different day,

and as far as a made up liberal slant for npr,,pfft, i dont care what one party or the other says about it, they are like a juicey version of pbs, except i can allways call in on a saterday morning to find out what is wrong with my car

[John56{vg}]

So the Hitler references come out. classic.

I only repeat myself when what I am saying is misinterpreted. You are welcome to believe what you want. ANd since you bring out propaganda and hitler references, just like with Virulent I will stop wasting my breath.

This all came about because I gave my expert opinion about valid News Sources. And I don't trust Fox News and never will. But not because I simply hate them. I have my reasons and it has to do with my profession. FOX has sullied the reputation of good strong journalists.

Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch have a major agenda. You belittle those that don't agree with you, I get it. But whether you believe it or not I know what I am talking about.

BUt why I am a wasting my breath. You are well-entrenched in your opinion and you WANT me to be wrong.

[John56{vg}]

I am so sorry everybody for giving my opinion of valid News Sources.

Evidently it doesn't matter where you get your news. As long as they are telling you what YOU want to believe in, then it is a good news source.

An expert opinion will just get you into trouble because they might say some things that don't meet your view of how things are.

Truth and objectivity don't matter, only that they can give you what YOU want to hear.

[Thorne]

I am so sorry everybody for giving my opinion of valid News Sources.

Evidently it doesn't matter where you get your news. As long as they are telling you what YOU want to believe in, then it is a good news source.

An expert opinion will just get you into trouble because they might say some things that don't meet your view of how things are.

Truth and objectivity don't matter, only that they can give you what YOU want to hear.

John, I wasn't disagreeing with you about Fox. In fact, I do agree, though perhaps not as vehemently as you would like. Their straight news programs are relatively truthful even though they are biased and slanted towards the conservative viewpoint. Those other programs, such as Hannity's, are NOT news programs. They are, without apology, politically motivated.

What I was trying to say, and thought I had said, is that, to one degree or another, ALL news sources are biased, at least somewhat. Some are more-so than others, true, but they are all guilty of the same thing. That's why I said people should get their news from many sources, and not depend on just one or two which feel comfortable.

And, while you may be an expert witness in this issue, it is obvious that you bring your own prejudices into this discussion. There's nothing wrong with that, we all do it. It's natural. Just try to understand that other's don't necessarily see things in the exact same light. That doesn't make them wrong, just different.

[Logic1]

Personally I like to get as unbiased and in depth news as possible. I dont care much for the 2 minute news and then jump to another topic.
Also there is a HUGE difference between different news sources in how biased and trustworthy they in fact are.
BBC has great news and so does Swedish tax paid news but there are some not so great news sources in both Britain and Sweden alike just like there are in the US.
I used to get Fox news (as a mistake by the cable company ) for about 6 months and to me those news were a joke.
CNN is decent compared to that but still were talking about 2 minute stints about something and then jump to something different and no real in depth information about anything really.
I dont really care if the news isnt to my liking opinionwise but as long as it is solid news, trustworthy and to the point.
Every news is going to be slanted somewhat but as I said, there is a huge difference between the different news agencies, newspapers and tv news.

What I find kinda funny is how little of international news you get in the US when you look through some US newspapers. The news is pretty much US only. Isn´t the american people interested in news that isnt domestic?

gotto love a good discussion. Kinda strange though that a discussion that started off at waterboarding continued on to be about what is news and not

[claire]

Logic1, you are right, as far as American news sources go, the rest of the world doesn't exist or at least rarely and you can totally forget about the southern hemisphere. Again another reason why I like the BBC.

All good conversations drift from their original topic.

[Logic1]

Logic1, you are right, as far as American news sources go, the rest of the world doesn't exist or at least rarely and you can totally forget about the southern hemisphere. Again another reason why I like the BBC.

All good conversations drift from their original topic.

Why is that?. I mean I know you will find news from Iraq or Afghanistan since you have an interest there so to speak but the rest of the world?
Isnt the american populace interested in what is happening or is the domestic news "enough".
I know that it would be simple enough to just write about what happens in this town only, that has less than 300k inhabitants and still make a decent enough newspaper but people here actually wants to hear/read/know what happens around them.

Drifting further away happily ^^

[claire]

Why is that?. I mean I know you will find news from Iraq or Afghanistan since you have an interest there so to speak but the rest of the world?
Isnt the american populace interested in what is happening or is the domestic news "enough".
I know that it would be simple enough to just write about what happens in this town only, that has less than 300k inhabitants and still make a decent enough newspaper but people here actually wants to hear/read/know what happens around them.

Drifting further away happily ^^

I don't think there is a simple answer to that question. I think you are partially right about there being enough domestic news. Europe and the USA are very roughly the same size - about 10,000,000 km2 (4,000,000 sq mi). Our largest state, Texas, is about the same size as the largest country in western Europe - France at roughly 700,000 km2 (260,000 sq mi). We are so used to being surrounded by people who are more or less of the same culture and speak the same language, that we forget about what else is out there. Also I think Europeans got used to having interests in the rest of the globe during the colonial period and that interest and awareness has stuck.

Hopefully the elections this fall will give us an administration that will be willing to work with the rest of the world, rather than the spoiled brat, self centered approach we've had for the last 8 years. Then perhaps we and our news media will realize that there are other people out there and that they matter very very much. Whether we like it or not we are going to have to learn to share and get along.

[denuseri]

sorry you feel that way John the hitler reference wasnt "aimed" at you specifically so much as i was making a observation about everyones tendency to say the same things over and over again in a very emotional manner, if i wanted to bring such an allegation to your doorstep i would do so with verve and put your name on it, i will say however that it seems you only seem to want to state your opinion and then jump on anyone that disagrees, which is a typical human response,

well as far as international news i have seen a tendencey in smaller countires to kind of, hold a few sources for themselve and then just adopt a larger countires majior news for thier own outlets like in japan you got three channels in japanese and one in english at least when i lived there,

i also have noticed most countries ussually have news channels and or papers in thier own language and not much to offer in any tounge forgien to thier own , which is quite natural
the news sources available to americans are actually pretty broad, i can get information in a very wide variety of languages and from a wide variety of countries, especially on sattelite dish, not to mention the internet,, and if i could read arabic or russian i am sure i could find publications if i wanted too from those areas, you just have to look for them because they are not right up in your face like cnn or fox

main stream media in every country has a tendency to cater to thier audience,, i dont go to japan expecting to see stories on the usa all the time etc,

though i do agree with claire in that i think the majority of americans dont pay attention to any news other than what the big mainstream media scources are presenting them,
which is ussually the case in everycountires population to some degree which may indeed be changeing as populations become more cosmopolitain and people expand thier intrests outside thier own boarders more often

which brings us to eurocentric thinking and how america has adopted this tendency by proxy as scions of their european forefathers,

hows that for a possible thread drift?

[John56{vg}]

I promised myself I wouldn't post but I won't let this stand. Reading back over the thread it becomes VERY obvious where the Hitler reference was aimed.

[Virulent]

I promised myself I wouldn't post but I won't let this stand. Reading back over the thread it becomes VERY obvious where the Hitler reference was aimed.

If you think its obvious, then you must see the reasoning behind it; you do repeat your claims quite a bit. I don't understand why the correlation seems to concern you so much. The fact that Hitler was repetitious has nothing to do with why he is vilified.

I'm a non-smoking white male vegetarian of north European extraction; so was Hitler. Ergo, it is perfectly accurate to say that I have an awful lot in common with Hitler! Despite that, I am not a genocidal fascist.

just like with Virulent I will stop wasting my breath.

I don't understand this either. I think I've been pretty civil; further, I'm not making esoteric claims, but rather asking concrete, refutable questions. I do appreciate that you won't answer them though, and I respect your choice. For what it's worth, I am sorry that I've offended you, it was never my intention.

[John56{vg}]

If you think its obvious, then you must see the reasoning behind it; you do repeat your claims quite a bit. I don't understand why the correlation seems to concern you so much. The fact that Hitler was repetitious has nothing to do with why he is vilified.

I'm a non-smoking white male vegetarian of north European extraction; so was Hitler. Ergo, it is perfectly accurate to say that I have an awful lot in common with Hitler! Despite that, I am not a genocidal fascist.



I don't understand this either. I think I've been pretty civil; further, I'm not making esoteric claims, but rather asking concrete, refutable questions. I do appreciate that you won't answer them though, and I respect your choice. For what it's worth, I am sorry that I've offended you, it was never my intention.

Again I find it necessary to respond. I have answered eveything you have asked. I explained why the BBC and NPR are two good news sources. You not accepting those answers is not the question. So your assumption is wrong IMHO.

And if I repeat myself it is because what I have said has been misinterpreted and misrepresented because of the prejudices of the posters. I have written THIS before. I DO have strong opinions and I don't like repeating myself. But if I am misrepresented I will answer that charge even if it means repeating myself.

[Virulent]

I have answered eveything you have asked

One, in particular you did not answer that I was wondering how you explained is below; I think this came after you started giving me the silent treatment.

Do you remember when the BBC reported that Tony Blair's statement that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes was exaggerated? Do you remember how Tony Blair got really angry, and then the chairman and director general of the BBC both resigned, and its vice-chairman publicly apologized?

Why were they sorry? Was it in fact true that Iraq could have WMDs ready in 45 minutes? If a news source made a factual criticism (and, as we all know, a massively understated one), and then people got angry... and members of the staff were fired... doesn't that demonstrate that the angry people have some sort of executive oversight?

I really don't know how to interpret the above, recent example except by concluding that people at the BBC should be afraid of losing their livelihoods if they challenge the government line.