I know that Fox news caters for the bottom half of the American population, but it seems to insult the intelligence even of its target market of trailer trash.Are Americans in general aware that the owner of Fox, Rupert Murdoch is locked in a bitter commercial battle withthe BBC ? Fox froths at the mouthTHe BBC is hardly anti American, it is however anti whatever the government's policy happens to be at any time.

http://www.bbcwatch.com/

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperGet rid of the BBC licence fee.Ms Amiel is of course 100% correct on this. In additionThe Times, 24th September 1999, revealed that the Foreign Office had accused the BBC of pro-Russian bias during the cold war.The BBC has a pro-EU biasThe BBC has an anti-Jewish and anti-Israel biasYes of course she was !! LOL Of course the BBC is biased against Israel because it tries to give a balanced view rather than a FOX tv approach.

so you believe evry slogan you hear or read ? All around the world, more people listen to the BBC for its news service because they know its balanced. Rather than the claptrap that gets pushed by FOX ...

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperthat's an unfortunate choice of words, firstly because Fox News' slogan is "fair and balanced"Remember "Pravda"? I don't they where really interested in printing the truth regardless of the name. I am also wary of countries that include the words "democratic" or "people" in their names. They are usually anything but democratic and the people usually have very little say in the government. They real measure of "fair and balanced" or any other such label is what is their actions are. Nothing else.Regards,Niclas

daveangel - I can't argue with your C++ tips but I have to disagree with you here.The real tragedy of the conflict is that both sides feel they are the true victim, and truly balanced coverage would show this. Unfortunately, the death of all civilians (Palestinian and Israeli) is usually followed by wailing Palestinian mothers, not Jewish ones. Rarely have I seen a Likud spokesman given enough time to make a point on the BBC. When they do get an Israeli its usually some fringe of society left wing political scientist with his own axe to grind bashing Sharon or Likud - and that misrepresents Israeli society as a whole.OH yeh, and Orla Guerin depresses me......I'd like to see her cover Prince Harry's birthday bash or somthing, maybe she'd be able to relax her eyebrows abit.

QuoteOriginally posted by: brontosaurusdaveangel - I can't argue with your C++ tips but I have to disagree with you here.The real tragedy of the conflict is that both sides feel they are the true victim, and truly balanced coverage would show this. Unfortunately, the death of all civilians (Palestinian and Israeli) is usually followed by wailing Palestinian mothers, not Jewish ones. Rarely have I seen a Likud spokesman given enough time to make a point on the BBC. When they do get an Israeli its usually some fringe of society left wing political scientist with his own axe to grind bashing Sharon or Likud - and that misrepresents Israeli society as a whole.OH yeh, and Orla Guerin depresses me......I'd like to see her cover Prince Harry's birthday bash or somthing, maybe she'd be able to relax her eyebrows abit.1. The kill and injury ratio is 3:1 (Palestenians vs Israeli) since the intifada started.2. If the Palestenian mother is wailing she has a bloody good right to... every suicide bombing is usually shown by the BBC with distraught Israelis.3. I disagree on the Likud spokesman. Gerlad Kaufman's documentary gave many of them a fair airing. Radio 4 always has the Israeli ambassador or some other spokesman on to counterbalance the Palestenian point of view.4. You obvioulsy did not watch the program on BBC 4 last week about the conflict... it was the best piece of filmmaking on the issue that I have ever seen.5. I love Orla Guerin.

here are a few very brief points dave:1. The kill and injury ratio is 3:1 (Palestenians vs Israeli) since the intifada started.The palestinians walked away from negotiations at Camp David with no counter-proposal, and opted for the intifadah. It is now openly admitted by Arafat aides that this was a strategic mistake. They chose this intifadah, and the responsibility for their deaths falls squarely in the hands of their leaders.2. If the Palestenian mother is wailing she has a bloody good right to... every suicide bombing is usually shown by the BBC with distraught Israelis.You missed my point. Of course she has the right to wail, and the BBC is right to show her wailing. But you are wrong to assume that Israel gets the same treatment. I cannot even count the number of times images of a bus carcass have been followed by images of these palestinian mothers. If there was true objectivity then every time a Palestinian got killed they would show a funeral that happened the same day in israel. You don't see it because the BBC doesn't show it. THATS BIASED.3. I disagree on the Likud spokesman. Gerlad Kaufman's documentary gave many of them a fair airing. Radio 4 always has the Israeli ambassador or some other spokesman on to counterbalance the Palestenian point of view.In general I would agree that programmes such as Newsnight balanced (and I don't listen to radio 4), but the majority of BBC viewers get there dosage at 6 ocklock. My complaint is mainly against their popular TV news.4. You obvioulsy did not watch the program on BBC 4 last week about the conflict... it was the best piece of filmmaking on the issue that I have ever seen.I didn't see it - what did you like about it?5. I love Orla Guerin. Well, you have to admit that it would be interesting to see her reporting Prince Harry's birthday.

1. This is a myth propagated by Israelis. The deal on offer to Arafat was an effective Bantusitisation. They would have vast tranches of their land gouged out and in return they were offered a few sandy acres in the negev. The "big lie" is that the deal was too good and Araft was stupid to turn it down. 2. I think you are been selctuve about what you see.3. Perhaps you should listen to Radio 4 its on the internet.4. This documentary (and I am trying to find out what it was called) was deeply moving. It looks at the conflict from the point of view of the families of Palestenian and Israeli victims. The Palestinian was a demonstartor and the Israel a soldier. Amongst the main sad and troubling points that it highlighted was that the friend of the Israeli soldier had committed suicide soon after his friends death. Tragic. The soldier's father was simply a destroyed man.

The thing is the way the Israeli's behave is a disgrace. They have a string of UN resolutions condemning their behaviour too long to paste in a single go here. The ICRC has condemned their behaviour. Amnesty has a string of complaints against them. They are the bad guys here.I dont want the BBC to be objective about Pol Pot, I dont want them to be objective about Idi Amin and I sure as hell think it's an irrelevance when people claim they should be "unbiased" about the Israelis. I dont want them telling me that Hitler got the trains running on time or that Stalin was nice to his mom. I want good solid moral reporting - and god bless them for being as objective as they are!

1. This is a myth propagated by Israelis. No its not. I said they gave no counter proposal. Whether what was offered was or wasn't good enough is a different question. This intifadah was a strategic choice at the highest level for the palestinians. They figured with world opinion on their side they could get more thru violence.The deal on offer to Arafat was an effective Bantusitisation. They would have vast tranches of their land gouged out and in return they were offered a few sandy acres in the negev. The "big lie" is that the deal was too good and Arafat was stupid to turn it down. Arafat knows he can't get much more than that......he turned it down because he knows Muslim history better than you do (Anwar Sadat).2. I think you are been selctuve about what you see.I'm mainly talking about their coverage during the intense periods of the intifada.3. Perhaps you should listen to Radio 4 its on the internet.Well, CNN, CBS, FOX do give me a headache, maybe its just the accent.4. This documentary (and I am trying to find out what it was called) was deeply moving. It looks at the conflict from the point of view of the families of Palestenian and Israeli victims. The Palestinian was a demonstartor and the Israel a soldier. Amongst the main sad and troubling points that it highlighted was that the friend of the Israeli soldier had committed suicide soon after his friends death. Tragic. The soldier's father was simply a destroyed man. One of my best freinds was in a suicide bombing and the girl next to him died. He's never been the same. I also heard an eyewitness account of a palestinian demonstrator whose hed got shattered by a bullet at a recent demonstration against the wall. The occupation is a Moral problem for Israel, but the culture of martydom is also a Moral problem for Palestinans.I would like to see mainstream Israeli feelings expressed in the news. The problem is that Israel is too uptight to give a shit about what they are doing to the palestinians, and vice versa. Reporting one side, in my opinion, only exacerbates the problem. linuxuser99 - without understanding Israels point of view youll never get any co-operation from them. (hitler? where are the gas chambers? Idi Amin? have you heard of entebbe? you have a shallow understanding of current affairs - maybe because of the BBC)

>> linuxuser99 - without understanding Israels point of view youll never get any co-operation from them. (hitler? >> where are the gas chambers? Idi Amin? have you heard of entebbe? you have a shallow understanding of >> current affairs - maybe because of the BBC) Well - NO.There are no gas chambers (thank god!) - but there is apartheid, opression of a race because of its race and descrimination unparalleled elsewhere in the world.Entebbe was a disgrace - and I think it was reported as such. Idi Amin doesn't get a good press from the Beeb either - that's my exact point. No one pertends that the BBC should try to give a balanced view on this mad man!I just thank the lord that Morrow and Schrier in 1940 didn't try for some moral equivalence by portraying the unacceptable as normal that people seem to urge the BBC to do in occupied Palestine.The thing about terrorism that people forget is that the Palestinians believe in it because it was used against them very effectively to take their country in 1948 - no wonder they engage in it now.

QuoteOriginally posted by: linuxuser99>> linuxuser99 - without understanding Israels point of view youll never get any co-operation from them. (hitler? >> where are the gas chambers? Idi Amin? have you heard of entebbe? you have a shallow understanding of >> current affairs - maybe because of the BBC) Well - NO.There are no gas chambers (thank god!) - but there is apartheid, opression of a race because of its race and descrimination unparalleled elsewhere in the world.Entebbe was a disgrace - and I think it was reported as such. Idi Amin doesn't get a good press from the Beeb either - that's my exact point. No one pertends that the BBC should try to give a balanced view on this mad man!I just thank the lord that Morrow and Schrier in 1940 didn't try for some moral equivalence by portraying the unacceptable as normal that people seem to urge the BBC to do in occupied Palestine.The thing about terrorism that people forget is that the Palestinians believe in it because it was used against them very effectively to take their country in 1948 - no wonder they engage in it now.oh dear.look, its so easyto fall into a cycle of verbal violence. The Zionists did not terrorize the Arabs anymore than the Arabs did to them. I'm holding myslef back from getting into this argument because I don't think its constructive. I just think both sides nead to be aware of eachother.