Discussion:
OT - Greg Dyke resigns from BBC
(too old to reply)
Andy Evans
2004-01-29 16:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Akiralx
2004-01-29 16:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
I'm not sad to see him go, he's presided over 4 years of gobbledygook
management-speak and dumbed-down television. The man is a tabloid-loving
oaf.
Tom Daish
2004-01-29 21:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Akiralx
I'm not sad to see him go, he's presided over 4 years of gobbledygook
management-speak and dumbed-down television. The man is a tabloid-loving
oaf.
Yeah, but it'll ruin future episodes of Dead Ringers...
--
Tom

Soundtrack Express, nice...
www.soundtrack-express.com
--
Terrymelin
2004-01-29 17:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
=== Andy Evans ===
I suspect you would be lauding the independent investigator if he had come to
the conclusion that you wanted.

Wouldn't want a few facts to get in the way of a desired outcome, would you?

Sad, very sad.

Terry Ellsworth
Alan Watkins
2004-01-31 00:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
=== Andy Evans ===
I suspect you would be lauding the independent investigator if he had come to
the conclusion that you wanted.
Wouldn't want a few facts to get in the way of a desired outcome, would you?
Sad, very sad.
Terry Ellsworth
Facts never bothered Mr Hutton QC when he was defending British
soldiers gunning down Catholics...I think in 2004 it is called the
Saville inquiry?

He worked for whoever hired him...as I do. Prostitutes, both of us.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
d***@yahoo.com
2004-01-31 10:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
Facts never bothered Mr Hutton QC when he was defending British
soldiers gunning down Catholics...I think in 2004 it is called the
Saville inquiry?
He worked for whoever hired him...as I do. Prostitutes, both of us.
You hit the nail on the head, Alan.

This matter is far from over. The entire newspaper industry in the UK
sees this as a report which was bought and paid for by the government,
with all that statement implies.

TD
Ian Pace
2004-01-31 12:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Alan Watkins
Facts never bothered Mr Hutton QC when he was defending British
soldiers gunning down Catholics...I think in 2004 it is called the
Saville inquiry?
He worked for whoever hired him...as I do. Prostitutes, both of us.
You hit the nail on the head, Alan.
This matter is far from over. The entire newspaper industry in the UK
sees this as a report which was bought and paid for by the government,
with all that statement implies.
Yes, not least the avowedly Conservative but highly principled Max Hastings,
former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard, who expressed
precisely such sentiments earlier this week (and this wasn't about simple
partisan point-scoring on his part, he's a man of much greater integrity
than that).

Ian
Terrymelin
2004-01-31 14:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Watkins
Facts never bothered Mr Hutton QC when he was defending British
soldiers gunning down Catholics...I think in 2004 it is called the
Saville inquiry?
He worked for whoever hired him...as I do. Prostitutes, both of us.
Kind regards,
Funny that no one complained until after the report came out.

Why is it that we all know that if the report had severely criticized the Blair
government that you would all be telling us what an exemplary and honest report
it was?

Terry Ellsworth
John Harrington
2004-01-31 15:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Alan Watkins
Facts never bothered Mr Hutton QC when he was defending British
soldiers gunning down Catholics...I think in 2004 it is called the
Saville inquiry?
He worked for whoever hired him...as I do. Prostitutes, both of us.
Kind regards,
Funny that no one complained until after the report came out.
Why is it that we all know that if the report had severely criticized the Blair
government that you would all be telling us what an exemplary and honest report
it was?
Perhaps because, under those circumstances, the report would indeed be
exemplary and honest?


J
Ian Pace
2004-01-31 15:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Alan Watkins
Facts never bothered Mr Hutton QC when he was defending British
soldiers gunning down Catholics...I think in 2004 it is called the
Saville inquiry?
He worked for whoever hired him...as I do. Prostitutes, both of us.
Kind regards,
Funny that no one complained until after the report came out.
Why is it that we all know that if the report had severely criticized
the
Post by s***@earthlink.net
Blair
Post by Terrymelin
government that you would all be telling us what an exemplary and honest
report
Post by Terrymelin
it was?
Perhaps because, under those circumstances, the report would indeed be
exemplary and honest?
J
Which is a conclusion the ordinary (wo)man-on-the-street can easily reach
when confronted by the discrepancy between the reasons presented for going
to war (WMDs) and the reality of the situation (no WMDs).

All those who want a REAL inquiry, please do sign the petition at the
following:

http://www.owos.info/petition/index.php

Ian
Terrymelin
2004-01-31 23:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harrington
Perhaps because, under those circumstances, the report would indeed be
exemplary and honest?
J
No, it would just show how intellectually bankrupt and dishonest you are.

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-01-31 20:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Alan Watkins
Facts never bothered Mr Hutton QC when he was defending British
soldiers gunning down Catholics...I think in 2004 it is called the
Saville inquiry?
He worked for whoever hired him...as I do. Prostitutes, both of us.
Kind regards,
Funny that no one complained until after the report came out.
Why is it that we all know that if the report had severely criticized the Blair
government that you would all be telling us what an exemplary and honest report
it was?
Terry Ellsworth
Such a stupic comment!

Why am I not surprised?

It can only come from someone who knew nothing about "Lord Hutton" in
the first place. Read Alan Watkins comments more carefully in order to
"inform youself".

TD
Terrymelin
2004-01-31 23:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Such a stupic comment!
Why am I not surprised?
It can only come from some
Yep, it was as "stupic" as comment as I could come up with that I thought you
might have a chance of understanding.

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-01 01:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Such a stupic comment!
Why am I not surprised?
It can only come from some
Yep, it was as "stupic" as comment as I could come up with that I thought you
might have a chance of understanding.
Terry Ellsworth
My ability - nay, the ability of any reasonably intelligent member of
this forum - to detect your own intellectual inadequacies is hardly in
question.

Each and every utterance from your keyboard paints a picture of
rampant ignorance.

The best thing you can do is to remain quiet in debates which are
above your abilities. That, in fact, should keep you silent for
decades to come.

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-01 06:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
My ability - nay, the ability of any reasonably intelligent member of
this forum - to detect your own intellectual inadequacies is hardly in
question.
Oh, look ... our resident Jew-hater is back. Did you get your marching orders
from Goebbels today?

Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
2004-02-01 06:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The best thing you can do is to remain quiet in debates which are
above your abilities. That, in fact, should keep you silent for
decades to come.
TD
It doesn't seem to have stopped you. Shoved any Jews into the ovens lately, you
anti-Semitic piece of garbage?

You are disgusting. Crawl back into your toilet bowl.

Terry Ellsworth
Alan Watkins
2004-02-01 22:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Alan Watkins
Facts never bothered Mr Hutton QC when he was defending British
soldiers gunning down Catholics...I think in 2004 it is called the
Saville inquiry?
He worked for whoever hired him...as I do. Prostitutes, both of us.
Kind regards,
Funny that no one complained until after the report came out.
Why is it that we all know that if the report had severely criticized the Blair
government that you would all be telling us what an exemplary and honest report
it was?
Terry Ellsworth
As the proud holder of a Republic of Ireland passport I would not have
expected an exemplary and honest report from Mr Hutton, either way.
Go read the transcript of his defence of British soldiers. Blair does
not matter in Ireland and nor does Hutton and hopefully that will
remain so.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Alain Dagher
2004-01-29 17:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
Andy - you think you're disgusted now. Look at this:

http://www.breedar.co.uk/news.bbc.co.uk/1/uk_politics/3441181.html

ad
Akiralx
2004-01-29 18:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
http://www.breedar.co.uk/news.bbc.co.uk/1/uk_politics/3441181.html
Yep took me in for a minute too! Great spoof.
Akiralx
2004-01-29 18:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
http://www.breedar.co.uk/news.bbc.co.uk/1/uk_politics/3441181.html
Yep took me in for a minute too! Great spoof.
Dan Koren
2004-01-29 19:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
http://www.breedar.co.uk/news.bbc.co.uk/1/uk_politics/3441181.html
And what do you find so 'disgusting' about it?

That someone whom you personally dislike got
the job?

Get a life, Docteur Daguerre.




dk
Thomas Müthing
2004-01-29 19:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Koren
And what do you find so 'disgusting' about it?
That someone whom you personally dislike got
the job?
Get a life, Docteur Daguerre.
Errr, it was a joke.

You get a life. "Trailer Trash" Dan.

Thomas
Dan Koren
2004-01-29 20:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Müthing
Post by Dan Koren
And what do you find so 'disgusting' about it?
That someone whom you personally dislike got
the job?
Get a life, Docteur Daguerre.
Errr, it was a joke.
You get a life. "Trailer Trash" Dan.
Jawohl, Gauleiter!



dk
Iain Neill Reid
2004-01-29 19:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Koren
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - hasbeen
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on tothis spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
http://www.breedar.co.uk/news.bbc.co.uk/1/uk_politics/3441181.html
And what do you find so 'disgusting' about it?
That someone whom you personally dislike got
the job?
Get a life, Docteur Daguerre.>
dk
I'm glad to see, Mr Koren, that you are maintaining your scintillating
wit and your penetrating and perceptive grasp of essential facts.


Neill Reid - ***@stsci.edu
Alain Dagher
2004-01-29 22:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has
been
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Andy Evans
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to
this spin
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Andy Evans
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in
this chain
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Andy Evans
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
http://www.breedar.co.uk/news.bbc.co.uk/1/uk_politics/3441181.html
And what do you find so 'disgusting' about it?
That someone whom you personally dislike got
the job?
Get a life, Docteur Daguerre.
OK I think I see the problem. Your disc drive is having trouble keeping
up with your burner. Since you're fairly sure your drive is the best
there is, you'll have to slow the burner down. Good luck.

ad
s***@earthlink.net
2004-01-29 18:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due).
I'd agree with you, wasn't for the tiny problem of the BBC-News having
taken their usual degree of "artistic freedom" in news-reporting, which
was considerable to begin with, to new heights of creativity and
unchecked imagination.
Post by Andy Evans
No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
One can't help but wonder: had the Hutton report blamed Blair, and had
Blair's adepts protested it, how many of those "disgusted" today would
have adopted the line "the full inquiry had found Blair guilty so
there's nothing anymore that can be said on Blair's behalf" etc. etc.
and stuck to it like superglue?

regards,
SG
Terrymelin
2004-01-29 19:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
One can't help but wonder: had the Hutton report blamed Blair, and had
Blair's adepts protested it, how many of those "disgusted" today would
have adopted the line "the full inquiry had found Blair guilty so
there's nothing anymore that can be said on Blair's behalf" etc. etc.
and stuck to it like superglue?
regards,
SG
You actually have to ask? The answer is obvious.

Terry Ellsworth
Alain Dagher
2004-01-29 22:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by s***@earthlink.net
One can't help but wonder: had the Hutton report blamed Blair, and had
Blair's adepts protested it, how many of those "disgusted" today would
have adopted the line "the full inquiry had found Blair guilty so
there's nothing anymore that can be said on Blair's behalf" etc. etc.
and stuck to it like superglue?
regards,
SG
You actually have to ask? The answer is obvious.
You two might be interested to know that there have been many very
strong attacks on the Hutton report in Britain. Most of these have come
from conservative journalists.

You also seem to forget why Dr Kelly went to the BBC in the first place
and what he told them.

ad
Philip Peters
2004-01-29 03:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Dagher
Post by Terrymelin
Post by s***@earthlink.net
One can't help but wonder: had the Hutton report blamed Blair, and
had Blair's adepts protested it, how many of those "disgusted" today
would have adopted the line "the full inquiry had found Blair guilty
so there's nothing anymore that can be said on Blair's behalf" etc.
etc. and stuck to it like superglue?
regards,
SG
You actually have to ask? The answer is obvious.
You two might be interested to know that there have been many very
strong attacks on the Hutton report in Britain. Most of these have come
from conservative journalists.
You also seem to forget why Dr Kelly went to the BBC in the first place
and what he told them.
ad
I plucked this from the www. I post it for informational purposes. Gain
from it what you will.

<http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284545.html>http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284545.html
Who Is Hutton? - revealing history
28.01.2004 22:50
A history of Hutton's life, from Bloody Sunday cover up to Pinochet
affair to Iraq war lies.

So Who the Hell is Hutton?
By Re-Sista! 28/1/04

Upon his resignation as BBC chairman Gavyn Davies commented on the
irreconcilable contradictions between Hutton's "bald conclusions" and
the balance of evidence presented to the actual Inquiry.


Even BBC political editor Andrew Marr comments on Huttons underlying
assumptions and background, making him more likely to believe and trust
certain social groups: "again and again, he comes down on the side of
politicians and officials."


So who is Hutton, and what is in his background to come to these
extraordinary conclusions? What has lead to the reports extraordinary
absolution of Blair's war lies and attack on journalistic freedom?


The 72 year old Baron Hutton of Bresagh, County of Down, North Ireland,
is a classic representative of the British ruling establishment. A
member of the Anglo-Irish elite, he was educated at Shewsbury all boys
boarding school, and then Balliol, Oxford, before entering the exclusive
club of the British Judiciary. Whilst British
Judges are overwhelmingly conservative, upper class, white, male and
biased, Hutton's background is even more compromised.

His name will be familiar to residents of the Six counties of Ulster.
During the bloody thrity years war Hutton was an instrument of British
state repression, starting in the late 1960's as junior counsel to the
Northern Ireland attorney general, and by 1988 rising to the top job of
Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.


Hutton spent his career as Judge and Jury in the notorious northern
Ireland kangaroo 'Diplock Courts'. These were special non-Jury courts,
condemned by human rights advocates for their miscarriages of justice.
He was hated for this role by the families of the many innocent
catholics wrongly convicted here.

Hutton distinguished himself after the Bloody Sunday massacre of civil
rights protesters in 1972. He played a key role in the ensuing judicial
cover-up called the Widgery Inquiry which absolved British troops of
Murder. This miscarriage of justice is only now being investigated by
the current Saville inquiry.

Then in 1978 he represnted the British Government before the European
Court of Human Rights, defending it against a ruling that it abused and
maltreated detainees from the conflict.

However, he will be remembered in the rest of the UK for his role in the
1999 Pinochet affair. Another senior Judge, Lord Hoffman had contributed
to the decision to arrest and extradite the notorious former dicator of
Chile and mass murderer General Pinochet during his visit to Britain.

As a law lord, Hutton led the rightwing attack on Lord Hoffman, on the
excuse that Hoffman's links to the human rights group amnesty
international invalidated Pinochets arrest! Lord Hutton said "public
confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice would be
shaken" if Lord Hoffman's ruling was not overturned.

More recently, Hutton was also involved in the ruling that David
Shayler, the former MI5 agent, could not argue he was acting in the
public interest by revealing secrets.

This history of intimate links with, and knowledge of Britains secret
military intelligence operations meant he could be a trusted pair of
hands when it came to the Kelly affair.
Terrymelin
2004-01-30 16:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Dagher
You also seem to forget why Dr Kelly went to the BBC in the first place
and what he told them.
ad
Sadly, it would appear that what Dr. Kelly told the BBC and what they decided
to broadcast were two entirely different things.

That's exactly what was wrong with the BBC.

Terry Ellsworth
s***@earthlink.net
2004-01-30 03:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Dagher
You two might be interested to know that there have been many very
strong attacks on the Hutton report in Britain. Most of these have come
from conservative journalists.
I don't doubt that may be true. However, have you considered the
possible explanation (by no means the only one, but a valid one) of Tony
Blair being at the moment attacked both by by his own party -- as
exposing too conservative politics for the Labor Party -- and by the
conservatives -- who would prefer that a nominal conservative politician
be the one to enact those policies, and therefore preferring a fallen
Blair, because of his party appurtenance rather than of Mr. Blair's
personal political options?

regards,
SG
Simon Roberts
2004-01-30 14:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
Post by Alain Dagher
You two might be interested to know that there have been many very
strong attacks on the Hutton report in Britain. Most of these have come
from conservative journalists.
I don't doubt that may be true. However, have you considered the
possible explanation (by no means the only one, but a valid one) of Tony
Blair being at the moment attacked both by by his own party -- as
exposing too conservative politics for the Labor Party -- and by the
conservatives -- who would prefer that a nominal conservative politician
be the one to enact those policies, and therefore preferring a fallen
Blair, because of his party appurtenance rather than of Mr. Blair's
personal political options?
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue Alain's
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official report
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime minister
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries when
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a chance of
its findings being fatal."

Simon
EG
2004-02-01 07:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue Alain's
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official report
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime minister
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries when
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a chance of
its findings being fatal."
Simon
In other words, the report's conclusions were well known in advance...
(at least to Tony Blair)
but only a few days ago no one seemed to know what would be in
Hutton's report.
The very same BBC was blasting that Tony Blair faces the most
difficult week of
his political life, in fact he is dead meat already!

If indeed the report was cooked and Lord Hutton is a scumbag washing
Tony's dirty
laundry then perhaps the british system is far more rotten than it
appears to be.
(W. should send in the troops to establish democracy in the British
isles once and for all.)
However, only a few days ago before the conclusions came out one
could hear nothing but
great respect for the authority and independence of Hutton from every
source, BBC included.

In essence, the above quote from the Telegraph is an indirect,
somewhat cowardly attack
on Hutton's integrity.
Dan Koren
2004-02-01 07:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by EG
If indeed the report was cooked and Lord Hutton is a
scumbag washing Tony's dirty laundry then perhaps the
british system is far more rotten than it appears to be.
(W. should send in the troops to establish democracy in
the British isles once and for all.)
Naah, we should better wait and
give Ian Pace and his Kant Army
a chance to fix things first ;-)



dk
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-01 14:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue Alain's
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official report
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime minister
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries when
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a chance of
its findings being fatal."
In essence, the above quote from the Telegraph is an indirect,
somewhat cowardly attack
on Hutton's integrity.
Nothing cowardly about it.

The Daily Telegraph realizes full well that Tony Blair is in the
process of establishing a kind of police state. First the BBC will be
emasculated, then the press, one by one, until the whole media
establishment is brought to heel.

Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.

All part of the Cheney-Perle plan.

TD
Floyd Patterson
2004-02-01 15:16:54 UTC
Permalink
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLASSICAL RECORDINGS??? and yes I know I am
shouting, I am just d#$n tires of all the off topics in this ng. This is NOT
the only newsgroup on the internet...honest.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue Alain's
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official report
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime minister
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries when
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a chance of
its findings being fatal."
In essence, the above quote from the Telegraph is an indirect,
somewhat cowardly attack
on Hutton's integrity.
Nothing cowardly about it.
The Daily Telegraph realizes full well that Tony Blair is in the
process of establishing a kind of police state. First the BBC will be
emasculated, then the press, one by one, until the whole media
establishment is brought to heel.
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
All part of the Cheney-Perle plan.
TD
John Harrington
2004-02-01 16:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Floyd Patterson
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLASSICAL RECORDINGS??? and yes I know I am
shouting, I am just d#$n tires of all the off topics in this ng. This is NOT
the only newsgroup on the internet...honest.
Why do you read threads with "OT" in the subject line? And are you aware
how filters on your news reader work?


J
Owen Hartnett
2004-02-01 19:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
Every President has done this. Read Howard Kurtz's "Spin Cycle" for
ways to manipulate the press.

-Owen
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-01 20:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Owen Hartnett
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
Every President has done this. Read Howard Kurtz's "Spin Cycle" for
ways to manipulate the press.
-Owen
I think that you will find that Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
Bush I, and Clinton did NOT ostracize their critics in the press from
the WH press briefings no matter how critical the voices were.

Perhaps you just weren't around at the time to witness these events.

TD
Owen Hartnett
2004-02-02 04:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Owen Hartnett
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
Every President has done this. Read Howard Kurtz's "Spin Cycle" for
ways to manipulate the press.
-Owen
I think that you will find that Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
Bush I, and Clinton did NOT ostracize their critics in the press from
the WH press briefings no matter how critical the voices were.
Everyone of these Presidents rewarded reporters who were good to them,
and punished those who they thought were unfair. Whether it was moving
them to the back of the press room, or not giving hints of a breaking
story, or not giving them information on background that they can write
stories about. I'd say that moving to the back of the room is not
quite as bad as keeping them out of the loop for a breaking story, and
letting their favorites in.

As I said, Kurtz details the process in "Spin Cycle," particularly
about Clinton's press secretaries. The important thing to a reporter
is the story, getting something to write about. Any good reporter
would sacrifice a front row seat for a hot scoop.

-Owen
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 14:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Owen Hartnett
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Owen Hartnett
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
Every President has done this. Read Howard Kurtz's "Spin Cycle" for
ways to manipulate the press.
-Owen
I think that you will find that Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan,
Bush I, and Clinton did NOT ostracize their critics in the press from
the WH press briefings no matter how critical the voices were.
Everyone of these Presidents rewarded reporters who were good to them,
and punished those who they thought were unfair. Whether it was moving
them to the back of the press room, or not giving hints of a breaking
story, or not giving them information on background that they can write
stories about. I'd say that moving to the back of the room is not
quite as bad as keeping them out of the loop for a breaking story, and
letting their favorites in.
As I said, Kurtz details the process in "Spin Cycle," particularly
about Clinton's press secretaries. The important thing to a reporter
is the story, getting something to write about. Any good reporter
would sacrifice a front row seat for a hot scoop.
In that case, Helen Thomas will be coming out with something startling
any time soon.

Incidentally, rather than such vague notions, perhaps you can come up
with some hard examples. Sam Donaldson was never ostracized, although
he criticized relentlessly. What ARE you talking about, I wonder. Wish
fulfilment?

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 01:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
Post by d***@yahoo.com
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
She was relegated to the back of the room because she is a miserable, old,
crone who asks loaded, stupid and non-objective questions.

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 01:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
Post by d***@yahoo.com
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
She was relegated to the back of the room because she is a miserable, old,
crone who asks loaded, stupid and non-objective questions.
Terry Ellsworth
Only a dumb fuck like you would make such a stupid comment like that.

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 02:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Only a dumb fuck like you would make such a stupid comment like that.
TD
Are you taking time off from painting swastikas on synagogues to go back to
your computer? Or didn't your daily pizza order arrive?

Go back to your styrofoam piss cup and leave the normal people alone.

Terry Ellsworth
A. Brain
2004-02-02 01:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
Post by d***@yahoo.com
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
She was relegated to the back of the room because she is a miserable, old,
crone who asks loaded, stupid and non-objective questions.
Yeah, Thomas bothers to ask questions beyond stuff
like "how are you feeling Sir; is your faith helping you deal
with things?"

Miss America contestants get tougher questions than
"Boy George".
--
A. Brain

Remove NOSPAM for email.
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 02:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by A. Brain
Yeah, Thomas bothers to ask questions beyond stuff
like "how are you feeling Sir; is your faith helping you deal
with things?"
Miss America contestants get tougher questions than
"Boy George".
--
A. Brain
They don't call you "no-brain" for nothing.

Terry Ellsworth
A. Brain
2004-02-02 02:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by A. Brain
Yeah, Thomas bothers to ask questions beyond stuff
like "how are you feeling Sir; is your faith helping you deal
with things?"
Miss America contestants get tougher questions than
"Boy George".
--
A. Brain
They don't call you "no-brain" for nothing.
Now I'm wondering...having just seen Janet
Jackson on tv and convinced that the stories about
no one ever having seen her and Michael in the
same place at
the same time are mistaken. But are Terry
and DK the same or just examples of how
the "angry white males" who doggedly embrace
Bush can't respond to legitimate points except
by ugly personal insults?

Some of those "angry white males" are increasingly
angry about Bush, and no longer identify with him
just because he is an ignoramus. The upcoming
contrasts between Bush and Kerry, Bush and Clark,
Bush and Edwards, or even Bush and Dean, are not
going to help the guy who was born on third base
and thinks he hit a triple.
--
A. Brain

Remove NOSPAM for email.
John Harrington
2004-02-02 04:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by A. Brain
Post by Terrymelin
Post by A. Brain
Yeah, Thomas bothers to ask questions beyond stuff
like "how are you feeling Sir; is your faith helping you deal
with things?"
Miss America contestants get tougher questions than
"Boy George".
--
A. Brain
They don't call you "no-brain" for nothing.
Now I'm wondering...having just seen Janet
Jackson on tv and convinced that the stories about
no one ever having seen her and Michael in the
same place at
the same time are mistaken. But are Terry
and DK the same or just examples of how
the "angry white males" who doggedly embrace
Bush can't respond to legitimate points except
by ugly personal insults?
You can bet they'd respond some other way if they had some other way to
respond.


J
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 14:28:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 04:35:09 GMT, "John Harrington"
Post by John Harrington
Post by A. Brain
Post by Terrymelin
Post by A. Brain
Yeah, Thomas bothers to ask questions beyond stuff
like "how are you feeling Sir; is your faith helping you deal
with things?"
Miss America contestants get tougher questions than
"Boy George".
--
A. Brain
They don't call you "no-brain" for nothing.
Now I'm wondering...having just seen Janet
Jackson on tv and convinced that the stories about
no one ever having seen her and Michael in the
same place at
the same time are mistaken. But are Terry
and DK the same or just examples of how
the "angry white males" who doggedly embrace
Bush can't respond to legitimate points except
by ugly personal insults?
You can bet they'd respond some other way if they had some other way to
respond.
But they don't, so they can't.

Garbage in, garbage out. Old Chinese Saying.

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 15:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by A. Brain
But are Terry
Post by A. Brain
and DK the same or just examples of how
the "angry white males" who doggedly embrace
Bush can't respond to legitimate points except
by ugly personal insults?
The funny thing is that whack jobs like you and Harrington and Deacon actually
think that you are making legitimate points. ROTFLOL.

Your kind of hate mongering can only be responded to in the spirit in which it
is offered.

One would think you'd understand that. Not.

Terry Ellsworth
John Harrington
2004-02-02 17:54:14 UTC
Permalink
"Terrymelin" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@mb-m26.aol.com... <snips, slight
paraphrase>
Harrington and Deacon actually think they are making legitimate points.
I can't speak for what Deacon thinks, but I think my points are legitimate,
yes. If they weren't legitimate, you'd have something to offer in response
other than childish insults.


J
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 19:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harrington
I can't speak for what Deacon thinks, but I think my points are legitimate,
yes. If they weren't legitimate, you'd have something to offer in response
other than childish insults.
J
Just goes to show how unbelievably stupid you truly are. If your points were
legitimate, then one would take the time to argue with them.

But your so-called "points" are just childish little rantings from the keyboard
of a dope so all they deserve are "childish insults."

Afterall, one wants to make sure you can actually understand what is being
said.

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 22:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by John Harrington
I can't speak for what Deacon thinks, but I think my points are legitimate,
yes. If they weren't legitimate, you'd have something to offer in response
other than childish insults.
J
Just goes to show how unbelievably stupid you truly are. If your points were
legitimate, then one would take the time to argue with them.
But your so-called "points" are just childish little rantings from the keyboard
of a dope so all they deserve are "childish insults."
Afterall, one wants to make sure you can actually understand what is being
said.
Terry Ellsworth
That would require you to have sufficient intelligence to say
something intelligible.

Impossible. Just won't happen. Ever.

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-03 00:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
That would require you to have sufficient intelligence to say
something intelligible.
Impossible. Just won't happen. Ever.
TD
Impossible. Just won't Happen. Ever.

Were those supposed to be sentences?

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 14:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by A. Brain
Some of those "angry white males" are increasingly
angry about Bush, and no longer identify with him
just because he is an ignoramus. The upcoming
contrasts between Bush and Kerry, Bush and Clark,
Bush and Edwards, or even Bush and Dean, are not
going to help the guy who was born on third base
and thinks he hit a triple.
Just the other day I was thinking that if push establishes an
"Intelligence Committee", he might just find that he is the subject of
a major inquiry. He doesn't have any, you see.

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 15:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Just the other day I was thinking that if push establishes an
"Intelligence Committee", he might just find that he is the subject of
a major inquiry. He doesn't have any, you see.
TD
Push? Freudian slip? Were you thinking Jesse Jackson? Or did your hand slip on
the keyboard while it was engaged elsewhere?

Terry Ellsworth
Bob Harper
2004-02-02 14:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
Post by d***@yahoo.com
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
She was relegated to the back of the room because she is a miserable, old,
crone who asks loaded, stupid and non-objective questions.
Terry Ellsworth
Cruel but accurate.

Bob Harper
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 15:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Bush has done the same in the USA. Helen Thomas, who dared to ask some
Post by d***@yahoo.com
pertinent questions, has been relegated to the back of the room.
Reporters who write unflattering stories are routinely denied access
to the briefing room. Etc. Etc.
She was relegated to the back of the room because she is a miserable, old,
crone who asks loaded, stupid and non-objective questions.
Terry Ellsworth
Cruel but accurate.
Bob Harper
No, cruel but inaccurate.

Moreover, she remains the doyenne of the WH press corps and has
written in print that Bush is without a doubt the most incompetent
president she has ever covered and she goes back to Kennedy.

But of course the right wing fascists always draw their swords
whenever her name is mentioned. Almost on command. Like Pavlov's
little dogs.

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 15:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Moreover, she remains the doyenne of the WH press corps and has
written in print that Bush is without a doubt the most incompetent
president she has ever covered and she goes back to Kennedy.
So, you think since she has stated her political biases upfront and makes no
secret of her non-objectivity she should be given a place of honor at press
conferences to ask her stupid questions?

Is that your idea of objective journalism?

And, yes, Deacon, that was a rhetorical question. We know that your model of an
ideal journalist is Goebbels.

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 15:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Moreover, she remains the doyenne of the WH press corps and has
written in print that Bush is without a doubt the most incompetent
president she has ever covered and she goes back to Kennedy.
So, you think since she has stated her political biases upfront and makes no
secret of her non-objectivity she should be given a place of honor at press
conferences to ask her stupid questions?
Is that your idea of objective journalism?
There IS no such thing as objective journalism.

There are only opinions.

And yours, incidentally, are worthless, coming, as they do, from a
mental retard.

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 16:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
There IS no such thing as objective journalism.
There are only opinions.
And yours, incidentally, are worthless, coming, as they do, from a
mental retard.
TD
As I said, Goebbels is your role model and you certainly prove that with your
Nazi-like statements above.

Why don't you go back to your cross-burnings and leave the civilized world to
the rest of us?

Terry Ellsworth
John Harrington
2004-02-02 17:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
There IS no such thing as objective journalism.
There are only opinions.
And yours, incidentally, are worthless, coming, as they do, from a
mental retard.
TD
As I said, Goebbels is your role model and you certainly prove that with your
Nazi-like statements above.
And you think repeating this lie is going to help you how?


J
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 19:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harrington
And you think repeating this lie is going to help you how?
J
A lie? ROTFLOL. Or are you just in sympathy with the anti-Semitic piece of
garbage?

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 22:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
There IS no such thing as objective journalism.
There are only opinions.
And yours, incidentally, are worthless, coming, as they do, from a
mental retard.
TD
As I said, Goebbels is your role model and you certainly prove that with your
Nazi-like statements above.
Why don't you go back to your cross-burnings and leave the civilized world to
the rest of us?
Canada has no history of such events, thank God. You Americans seem to
have invented such activities and still glory in them, I understand,
as the KKK is still alive and well.

TD
John Harrington
2004-02-02 17:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Moreover, she remains the doyenne of the WH press corps and has
written in print that Bush is without a doubt the most incompetent
president she has ever covered and she goes back to Kennedy.
So, you think since she has stated her political biases upfront and makes no
secret of her non-objectivity she should be given a place of honor at press
conferences to ask her stupid questions?
Why do you call her correct observation that Bush is the most incompetent
president of the last 45 years "political biases"? I find journalists who
take this unelected chimp seriously politically biased.
Post by Terrymelin
Is that your idea of objective journalism?
Yes. Objective journalism is about reporting the truth, even when it is
politically incorrect.
Post by Terrymelin
And, yes, Deacon, that was a rhetorical question. We know that your model of an
ideal journalist is Goebbels.
Do we? Can you cite a post from GoogleGroups where Deacon says or implies
that?

No, of course you can't.


J
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 19:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harrington
Do we? Can you cite a post from GoogleGroups where Deacon says or implies
that?
No, of course you can't.
J
You obviously haven't been around here very long. Deacon's violent strain of
Nazi-like anti-Semitism is lengendary in these parts.

Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 19:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harrington
Why do you call her correct observation that Bush is the most incompetent
president of the last 45 years "political biases"? I find journalists who
take this unelected chimp seriously politically biased.
Post by Terrymelin
Is that your idea of objective journalism?
Yes. Objective journalism is about reporting the truth, even when it is
politically incorrect.
Post by Terrymelin
And, yes, Deacon, that was a rhetorical question. We know that your model
of an
Post by Terrymelin
ideal journalist is Goebbels.
Do we? Can you cite a post from GoogleGroups where Deacon says or implies
that?
No, of course you can't.
J
I always appreciate it when people who are mental midgets post crap like the
above and just prove the case that is made against them.

I need not say anything more. You have showed what an asswipe you truly are.

Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
2004-02-02 15:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Terrymelin
She was relegated to the back of the room because she is a miserable, old,
crone who asks loaded, stupid and non-objective questions.
Terry Ellsworth
Cruel but accurate.
She's of the school who thinks a legitimate way of asking questions is
something akin to "do you still beat your wife?"

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-02 22:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Terrymelin
She was relegated to the back of the room because she is a miserable, old,
crone who asks loaded, stupid and non-objective questions.
Terry Ellsworth
Cruel but accurate.
She's of the school who thinks a legitimate way of asking questions is
something akin to "do you still beat your wife?"
Terry Ellsworth
Well, do you?

TD
Terrymelin
2004-02-03 00:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Well, do you?
TD
Do you still beat yourself?

Terry Ellsworth
d***@yahoo.com
2004-02-03 00:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Well, do you?
TD
Do you still beat yourself?
Terry Ellsworth
No, but since you haven't answered, you obviously still beat your
wife, presuming, of course, that any sane woman would ever live with
such a complete moron.

Come to think of it, no.

You don't still beat your wife. Nobody could ever stand to live with
you.

TD
Matthew Silverstein
2004-02-03 01:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Terry and Tom wrote:

[snip]

Children, children, please! Take it outside!

Matty
John Wiser
2004-02-03 04:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Silverstein
[snip]
Children, children, please! Take it outside!
Matty, I suspect that you are too young
to fully appreciate their brilliant, faultlessly timed
evocation of Gumby Theatre. Relax and enjoy!
--
John Wiser
***@frontiernet.not
John Harrington
2004-02-01 16:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue Alain's
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official report
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime minister
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries when
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a chance of
its findings being fatal."
<snips>
Post by EG
However, only a few days ago before the conclusions came out one
could hear nothing but
great respect for the authority and independence of Hutton from every
source, BBC included.
Okay, so it turns out they were wrong.


J
EG
2004-02-02 01:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue
Alain's
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official
report
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime
minister
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries
when
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a
chance of
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
its findings being fatal."
<snips>
Post by EG
However, only a few days ago before the conclusions came out one
could hear nothing but
great respect for the authority and independence of Hutton from every
source, BBC included.
Okay, so it turns out they were wrong.
J
Of course, we know what the conclusions should have been.
Because that Hutton guy wrote something different, it proves
that he is dishonest.
Bob Harper
2004-02-02 14:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue
Alain's
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official
report
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime
minister
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries
when
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a
chance of
Post by EG
Post by Simon Roberts
its findings being fatal."
<snips>
Post by EG
However, only a few days ago before the conclusions came out one
could hear nothing but
great respect for the authority and independence of Hutton from every
source, BBC included.
Okay, so it turns out they were wrong.
J
What a nimble mind you display--just like the Left the day before, then
the day after, Germany invaded the USSR in 1941.

Bob Harper
s***@earthlink.net
2004-02-02 18:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
What a nimble mind you display--just like the Left the day before, then
the day after, Germany invaded the USSR in 1941.
What are you referring to, please? (I really don't know)

regards,
SG
s***@earthlink.net
2004-02-01 14:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by s***@earthlink.net
Post by Alain Dagher
You two might be interested to know that there have been many very
strong attacks on the Hutton report in Britain. Most of these have come
from conservative journalists.
I don't doubt that may be true. However, have you considered the
possible explanation (by no means the only one, but a valid one) of Tony
Blair being at the moment attacked both by by his own party -- as
exposing too conservative politics for the Labor Party -- and by the
conservatives -- who would prefer that a nominal conservative politician
be the one to enact those policies, and therefore preferring a fallen
Blair, because of his party appurtenance rather than of Mr. Blair's
personal political options?
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue Alain's
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official report
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime minister
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries when
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a chance of
its findings being fatal."
That's a possibility, of course, as much as that is possible that the
gentleman you are quoting thought: "OK, Tony's in trouble with his own
party, let's punch him in the nose ourselves".

I trust that you may find the following comment in today's Telegraph
both more reasoned, elaborate and less partisan:

Since Lord Hutton published his report on the circumstances surrounding
the death of Dr David Kelly, he has been smeared as an Establishment
toady and charged with conspiring in a whitewash. It has been
entertaining to see those who initially hailed the former Law Lord as a
sea-green incorruptible now turning on him as a credulous lackey - for
the simple reason that his report criticised the BBC and exonerated the
Government.

For a start, it is preposterous to accuse the man who organised the most
transparent inquiry in modern times of toadyism. The Government was
deeply embarrassed by Lord Hutton's admirable decision to release
thousands of highly sensitive documents on the inquiry's website. This
unique archive shines a pitiless light on to the inner machinations of
the Blair administration. It is precisely because Lord Hutton chose to
make this material available that others are now able to take such
vigorous issue with his findings.

It should never be forgotten, furthermore, that this was a judicial
inquiry rather than a political show-trial. Its purpose was never to
draw conclusions about the character of the Blair Government, or its
past transgressions. As Alasdair Palmer argues in this newspaper today:
"The reality is that Lord Hutton treated Government officials and
ministers in exactly the same way as he treated the BBC: unless facts
showed otherwise, he accepted that the evidence they submitted to him
was truthful."

The problem for the BBC was that the facts were devastating to their
case. Mr Gilligan's defenders argue that, irrespective of the flaws in
his report on the Today programme on May 29, he performed a great public
service by bringing to light the alleged tensions between the
intelligence services and Number 10 during the preparation of the
September Iraq dossier. In fact, this allegation was an old one. It had
been made, for example, in The Observer in February and The Independent
on Sunday in April.

Everything that was new in Mr Gilligan's report has been shown to be
wrong. The 45-minute claim was inserted late in the process of the
dossier's drafting, not because Number 10 was growing desperate for
material, but because the new information was not received by MI6 until
August 29, 2002. It was inserted by the Joint Intelligence Committee
itself, not foisted upon the JIC by Alastair Campbell and his
colleagues. And Mr Gilligan's claim in his 6:07 am broadcast that the
Government "probably knew" that the intelligence was wrong has been
shown to be utterly unfounded.

Lord Hutton was quite right to conclude that "the BBC failed to ensure
proper editorial control over Mr Gilligan's broadcasts on 29 May". What
is no less remarkable is that - once the Government issued its complaint
- the BBC failed to subject Mr Gilligan's incendiary report to any form
of serious scrutiny. Greg Dyke, who resigned as the Corporation's
director-general on Thursday, did not read the transcript until four
weeks after the broadcast.

Mr Gilligan's notes - which Lord Hutton found unsatisfactory - were not
examined. Last week, Mark Byford, the BBC's acting director-general,
announced a full inquiry into the Gilligan case. The truth is that -
given the gravity of the allegation - that investigation should have
been held last June. Mr Dyke was right to quit his job. The question is
why the BBC governors, who, with the honourable exception of Dame
Pauline Neville-Jones, accepted Mr Dyke's unsatisfactory account at
their emergency meeting last July, feel that they should remain in their
posts.

Since the Hutton Report's publication, it has been routinely claimed
that the BBC still inspires unrivalled trust in the public, and that a
pro-Corporation "backlash" is somehow inevitable. Last Friday's YouGov
poll in The Daily Telegraph showed that 67 per cent trust the
Corporation "a great deal" or a "fair amount". It is striking, however,
that that figure has fallen from 81 per cent since March (the eve of the
Iraq war). O

ver the same period, the percentage of those who trust the BBC "not
much" or "not at all" has risen from 18 to 31. In contrast, another poll
in yesterday's Daily Telegraph showed that the percentage of those who
regarded the Government as "honest and trustworthy" had risen by four
points since the Hutton Report. It would be rash, in other words, to
assume that the public has reflexively rushed to the Corporation's
defence in its moment of trial.

Certainly, the report's verdict that there was nothing underhand about
Number 10's "naming strategy" to confirm Dr Kelly's identity has laid
Lord Hutton open to the charge of naivety. In this respect, his findings
conflicted sharply with the stench of deviousness which emerged from the
inquiry itself. It is not true, however, that the Government has emerged
from the Hutton Report scot-free and liberated from all the problems
which have afflicted it since the Iraq war. Gavyn Davies, the former BBC
chairman, Mr Dyke and Mr Gilligan have all lost their jobs. But so too
did Mr Campbell, the Prime Minister's former director of strategy and
communications, who is now reduced to selling his memories in a "one-man
show".

The very narrowness of Lord Hutton's remit, moreover, means that the
Government will still have to answer difficult questions about the
failures of intelligence that may have led it to overstate the scale of
Saddam Hussein's WMD programme. In this case, that alleged failure did
not lead to disaster: the Iraq war was just and predicated on Saddam's
criminally evasive behaviour as much as the evidence of his deadly arsenal.

Everyone, including France and Germany, agreed that the Iraqi dictator
had such an arsenal: the question was what to do about it. The action
which the US coalition took, in this case, was undoubtedly correct. The
danger, however, is that faulty intelligence might in future lead to the
prosecution of an unjust war. This is a challenge which all Western
governments must now address as a matter of urgency.

The events of the past week have spawned a gooey sentimentalism about
the BBC and a host of lurid warnings about prospective dangers to press
freedom. In practice, neither is in the slightest danger. The
Corporation will reform its procedures, as it must, and continue its
work under a new chairman and DG.

It is preposterous to present Lord Hutton as the villain of the piece.
Had Mr Gilligan told his bosses in June what he later admitted to Lord
Hutton then Mr Davies and Mr Dyke would still be in their posts and one
of the nation's greatest institutions would not have been plunged into
crisis.
Simon Roberts
2004-02-01 16:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Simon Roberts wrote:>
Post by Simon Roberts
Sure, but as the former editor of the Daily Telegraph (to continue Alain's
example) observes in today's Telegraph: "Can anyone think of an official report
commissioned by a prime minister that seriously criticises that prime minister
while he is still in office? Prime ministers commission these inquiries when
they are in a tight spot, but they would never do so if there were a chance of
its findings being fatal."
That's a possibility, of course, as much as that is possible that the
gentleman you are quoting thought: "OK, Tony's in trouble with his own
party, let's punch him in the nose ourselves".
I trust that you may find the following comment in today's Telegraph
More elaborate, anyway....
Since Lord Hutton published his report on the circumstances surrounding
the death of Dr David Kelly, he has been smeared as an Establishment
toady and charged with conspiring in a whitewash. It has been
entertaining to see those who initially hailed the former Law Lord as a
sea-green incorruptible now turning on him as a credulous lackey - for
the simple reason that his report criticised the BBC and exonerated the
Government.
But that's not "the simple reason why." And what's the evidence that those who
are criticizing the report previously hailed Hutton as "sea-green
incorruptible"? And even if he is incorruptible in at least one sense, it
hardly follows that he's unbiased and that his biases didn't get in the way even
subconsciously. Wouldn't the report be more credible/persuasive if it been
written by a diverse panel of at least three with an opportunity for dissent?

Simon
Ramon Khalona
2004-02-02 18:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Wouldn't the report be more credible/persuasive if it been
written by a diverse panel of at least three with an opportunity for dissent?
Exactly right. This is the crux of the matter.

It would also have been better if the panel had been appointed
independently by the judiciary, as opposed to commissioned by the PM.
This is why Bush's appointment of a "bipartisan" commission to look
into the WMD fiasco, by executive order, will not satisfy the majority
of the American people. Tying their hands behind their backs
(restricting the commission to look only into "faulty" intelligence,
but not on how intelligence was cooked to justify the war, and
restricting them to report AFTER the November election) will only add
doubts to what's already shaping up as a massive coverup.

RK
Alain Dagher
2004-01-30 15:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
Post by Alain Dagher
You two might be interested to know that there have been many very
strong attacks on the Hutton report in Britain. Most of these have
come from conservative journalists.
I don't doubt that may be true. However, have you considered the
possible explanation (by no means the only one, but a valid one) of Tony
Blair being at the moment attacked both by by his own party -- as
exposing too conservative politics for the Labor Party -- and by the
conservatives -- who would prefer that a nominal conservative politician
be the one to enact those policies, and therefore preferring a fallen
Blair, because of his party appurtenance rather than of Mr. Blair's
personal political options?
Well then politics is nothing but pure emotion. You either support the
red team or the blue team, for whatever reasons, and there's no more
point in debating it than last weekend's football game. The fact is that
the criticisms of the Hutton enquiry are substantive. The clincher for
me is that he is the one who came up with that wonderful argument to let
Pinochet go: "someone in Amnesty international can't judge Pinochet
because they are going to be biased against dictators."

In any case, I've always supected that Tony Blair was the Thatcher inner
circle's way of keeping power. They found him when he was young, trained
him extremely well, hired the best spin docs for him, and infiltrated
him into the Labour party. He is even a client of the same media baron.
Only it worked too well. Now he is despised by people of all political
persuasions, just like Maggie.

ad
Terrymelin
2004-01-30 16:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Dagher
In any case, I've always supected that Tony Blair was the Thatcher inner
circle's way of keeping power. They found him when he was young, trained
him extremely well, hired the best spin docs for him, and infiltrated
him into the Labour party. He is even a client of the same media baron.
Only it worked too well. Now he is despised by people of all political
persuasions, just like Maggie.
ad
If you believe even half of the above then you are either seriously disturbed
and in need of restraints or your lithium prescription has run out.

Terry Ellsworth
Alain Dagher
2004-01-30 19:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terrymelin
Post by Alain Dagher
In any case, I've always supected that Tony Blair was the Thatcher inner
circle's way of keeping power. They found him when he was young, trained
him extremely well, hired the best spin docs for him, and infiltrated
him into the Labour party. He is even a client of the same media baron.
Only it worked too well. Now he is despised by people of all political
persuasions, just like Maggie.
ad
If you believe even half of the above then you are either seriously disturbed
and in need of restraints or your lithium prescription has run out.
I have a theory that I can treat humourlessness with Botox. I propose to
inject all the "sad" facial expression muscles, which would leave the
patient perpetually smiling. The patient would see him or herself in the
mirror smiling every morning and they would eventually develop a sunny
disposition. The scientific basis is rock solid. If you or dk want to be
the first subjects I'll do it free of charge.

ad
Terrymelin
2004-01-30 21:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Dagher
I have a theory that I can treat humourlessness with Botox. I propose to
inject all the "sad" facial expression muscles, which would leave the
patient perpetually smiling. The patient would see him or herself in the
mirror smiling every morning and they would eventually develop a sunny
disposition. The scientific basis is rock solid. If you or dk want to be
the first subjects I'll do it free of charge.
ad

Sounds like you already tried it on yourself and it didn't work. Go back to the
lithium. It will probably prove to be safer.

Terry Ellsworth
Andy Evans
2004-01-29 20:48:05 UTC
Permalink
I'd agree with you, wasn't for the tiny problem of the BBC-News having
taken their usual degree of "artistic freedom" in news-reporting>>

Yes, of course Samir, I was waiting for this point. While I used the words
'artistic freedom' in the larger sense that media is (arguably) arts and the
whole question is that of the BBC's independence, the narrow point is exactly
that 'news' should be accurate. However, I defend my disgust in the face of
Alastair Campbell - whose very job in Govt. was manipulating facts - accusing
the BBC indignantly of manipulating facts. Ludicrous. I was pleased when one
interviewer noted 'there is something about all this that might remind one
strongly of Jonathen Aitken'. We can accept that governments lie and spin, but
there's something about spin doctors 'righteously' turning on journalists who
are actually mostly trying to take some care to tell the truth that leaves a
very bitter taste indeed.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Dan Koren
2004-01-29 21:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
I'd agree with you, wasn't for the tiny problem of the BBC-News having
taken their usual degree of "artistic freedom" in news-reporting>>
Yes, of course Samir, I was waiting for this point. While I used the words
'artistic freedom' in the larger sense that media is (arguably) arts and the
whole question is that of the BBC's independence, the narrow point is exactly
that 'news' should be accurate. However, I defend my disgust in the face of
Alastair Campbell - whose very job in Govt. was manipulating facts - accusing
the BBC indignantly of manipulating facts. Ludicrous. I was pleased when one
interviewer noted 'there is something about all this that might remind one
strongly of Jonathen Aitken'. We can accept that governments lie and spin, but
there's something about spin doctors 'righteously' turning on journalists who
are actually mostly trying to take some care to tell the truth that leaves a
very bitter taste indeed.
As you just pointed out, the media (and
especially national news organizations
like the BBC) are held to higher standards
than government -- as indeed they should be.



dk
s***@earthlink.net
2004-01-29 21:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
I'd agree with you, wasn't for the tiny problem of the BBC-News having
taken their usual degree of "artistic freedom" in news-reporting>>
Yes, of course Samir, I was waiting for this point. While I used the words
'artistic freedom' in the larger sense that media is (arguably) arts and the
whole question is that of the BBC's independence, the narrow point is exactly
that 'news' should be accurate. However, I defend my disgust in the face of
Alastair Campbell - whose very job in Govt. was manipulating facts - accusing
the BBC indignantly of manipulating facts.
But we should indeed be more indignant of a state-run news organisation
"putting a spin on facts" than of a government of a specific coloration
doing the same. Please note I am not talking about lying, but about
"interpretation". For the governing political party, it is just natural
to claim that the abundance of apples on the market is proof that the
government is doing something right. For the opposition it's just
natural to claim that we are facing an apple crisis, insofar the fall of
the apple prices will take us to an apple disaster. BBC ONLY HAS TO
REPORT THAT THERE ARE MORE APPLES THAN USUAL ON THE MARKET. I find it
ludicrous to treat BBC and whatever political party happens to govern at
a given moment) as political adversaries, both entitled to that same
"fair" amount of spinning! After all, politicians have to struggle to be
elected, to remain in power. A certain amount of "blowing their own
horn" is in the nature of the game. When BBC though implicitly claims to
take part in the political process by manipulating facts and putting a
gross spin on their news reporting, as it happened more and more
evidently in the past decades (the Kelly affair was only the cherry on
the cake), saying, "yeah, but politicians are doing that too", while
often true, is not a valid argument in my book.
Post by s***@earthlink.net
I was pleased when one
interviewer noted 'there is something about all this that might remind one
strongly of Jonathen Aitken'. We can accept that governments lie and spin, but
there's something about spin doctors 'righteously' turning on journalists who
are actually mostly trying to take some care to tell the truth that leaves a
very bitter taste indeed.
Well, the opinions are quite divided on what the journalists involved
were "mostly trying to take some care of". In my personal opinion,
telling the truth wasn't exactly their no. 1 priority. Disliking a prime
minister as you do doesn't mean agreeing with the BBC willfully trying
to bring down that prime minister. Tomorrow it may be your all times
favorite prime minister to be caught in the same foul game. . .

regards,
SG
Alain Dagher
2004-01-29 21:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
But we should indeed be more indignant of a state-run news organisation
"putting a spin on facts" than of a government of a specific coloration
doing the same. Please note I am not talking about lying, but about
"interpretation".
While I agree completely with you in principle, I wonder whether it is
possible to achieve LTFSFI any more than LTMSFI.

ad
Andy Evans
2004-01-29 22:11:57 UTC
Permalink
opinions are divided on what the journalists involved were "mostly trying to
take some care of". In my personal opinion, telling the truth wasn't exactly
their no. 1 priority>

Hello Samir - Gilligan in this instance may have been pushing a bit harder than
his facts could support. But think back to the Balkan war where the BBC was
practically regurgitating NATO PR word for word as 'news'. In that war the BBC
could not have been more subservient to the government line. Does Blair show
any recognition of this? No. How soon one forgets.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Philip Peters
2004-01-29 03:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
opinions are divided on what the journalists involved were "mostly trying to
take some care of". In my personal opinion, telling the truth wasn't exactly
their no. 1 priority>
Hello Samir - Gilligan in this instance may have been pushing a bit harder than
his facts could support. But think back to the Balkan war where the BBC was
practically regurgitating NATO PR word for word as 'news'. In that war the BBC
could not have been more subservient to the government line. Does Blair show
any recognition of this? No. How soon one forgets.
To be sure nothing like the Kelly affair will happen again he saw to it
that Alistair Campbell will run the BBC.

Philip
Dan Koren
2004-01-29 22:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
Post by s***@earthlink.net
I'd agree with you, wasn't for the tiny problem of the BBC-News having
taken their usual degree of "artistic freedom" in news-reporting>>
Yes, of course Samir, I was waiting for this point. While I used the words
'artistic freedom' in the larger sense that media is (arguably) arts and the
whole question is that of the BBC's independence, the narrow point is exactly
that 'news' should be accurate. However, I defend my disgust in the face of
Alastair Campbell - whose very job in Govt. was manipulating facts - accusing
the BBC indignantly of manipulating facts.
But we should indeed be more indignant of a state-run news organisation
"putting a spin on facts" than of a government of a specific coloration
doing the same. Please note I am not talking about lying, but about
"interpretation". For the governing political party, it is just natural
to claim that the abundance of apples on the market is proof that the
government is doing something right. For the opposition it's just
natural to claim that we are facing an apple crisis, insofar the fall of
the apple prices will take us to an apple disaster. BBC ONLY HAS TO
REPORT THAT THERE ARE MORE APPLES THAN USUAL ON THE MARKET. I find it
ludicrous to treat BBC and whatever political party happens to govern at
a given moment) as political adversaries, both entitled to that same
"fair" amount of spinning! After all, politicians have to struggle to be
elected, to remain in power. A certain amount of "blowing their own
horn" is in the nature of the game. When BBC though implicitly claims to
take part in the political process by manipulating facts and putting a
gross spin on their news reporting, as it happened more and more
evidently in the past decades (the Kelly affair was only the cherry on
the cake), saying, "yeah, but politicians are doing that too", while
often true, is not a valid argument in my book.
Post by s***@earthlink.net
I was pleased when one
interviewer noted 'there is something about all this that might remind one
strongly of Jonathen Aitken'. We can accept that governments lie and spin, but
there's something about spin doctors 'righteously' turning on journalists who
are actually mostly trying to take some care to tell the truth that leaves a
very bitter taste indeed.
Well, the opinions are quite divided on what the journalists involved
were "mostly trying to take some care of". In my personal opinion,
telling the truth wasn't exactly their no. 1 priority. Disliking a prime
minister as you do doesn't mean agreeing with the BBC willfully trying
to bring down that prime minister. Tomorrow it may be your all times
favorite prime minister to be caught in the same foul game. . .
Except that Mr. Arafat is not likely to
become Prime Minister of the UK anytime
soon.



dk
Alan Watkins
2004-01-30 00:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@earthlink.net
I'd agree with you, wasn't for the tiny problem of the BBC-News having
taken their usual degree of "artistic freedom" in news-reporting, which
was considerable to begin with, to new heights of creativity and
unchecked imagination.
Same in music! If you wanted Dvorak 6 with artistic freedom or even
new heights of creativity and unchecked imagination you might go for
Ancerl

If you prefer a straight performance without artistic freedom,
creativity or unchecked imagination you could go for Kertesz. I
understand that Kertesz is the more popular.

Kind regards,
Alan M.Watkins
Jeffrey Smith
2004-01-29 18:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and very much on the subject of
artistic freedom, I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager - has been
manipulated into resignation (license talks due). No mud sticks on to this spin
crazy government, but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link in this chain
- one of these days mud is going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
I do not like Grogg Dick. I have never liked Grogg Dick. I am pleased
that Grogg Dick has now gone, although it would have been much better
for everyone concerned if he had never been appointed in the first
place.

I do not like Phony Blur. I have never liked Phony Blur. If it had to
be that one or the other had to go, it would have been much better if
Phony Blur had gone and Grogg Dick had stayed. After all Grogg Dick
has only screwed up the BBC, as he was always going to. Phony Blur has
screwed up the whole country, as he was always going to.

Jeffrey Smith.

To reply by email, remove the four XXXX characters.

'It is hard to be brave', said Piglet, sniffling slightly, 'when
you're only a very small animal'.

A.A. Milne.
Andy Evans
2004-01-29 20:52:08 UTC
Permalink
After all Grogg Dick has only screwed up the BBC, as he was always going to.
Phony Blur has screwed up the whole country, as he was always going to.
Jeffrey Smith.>>

I think Bambi had a honeymoon period where he looked quite good. I suspected a
rat when he looked a bit unctious over Diana's death. When he plunged us into
the Balkans he sank without trace off my radar.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Dan Koren
2004-01-29 19:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Following on from the Tony Blair thread, and
very much on the subject of artistic freedom,
What does truth in reporting have to do with
"artistic freedom"? Or do you consider them
equivalent?
Post by Andy Evans
I'm disgusted that Greg Dyke - a popular manager
- has been manipulated into resignation (license
talks due).
How do you know he was "manipulated"? Considering
the conclusions of the Hutton investigation, what
else was he supposed to do?
Post by Andy Evans
No mud sticks on to this spin crazy government,
?!? There seems to be a lot more mud sticking on
Tony Blair and his government than they deserve.

And how about the BBC itself? The BBC appears to
be a lot more "spin crazy" than a news agency
should ever come close to.
Post by Andy Evans
but the Hutton whitewash won't be the last link
Whitewash? The case went to an independent
investigator, and you call it a whitewash
simply because the outcome does not match
your preconceived notions of the case ?!?
Post by Andy Evans
in this chain - one of these days mud is
going to stick and I hope that day is soon.
Hope the mud stick to you, Andy. Your article
is proof of prejudice and political fanaticism.



dk
Andy Evans
2004-01-29 20:56:56 UTC
Permalink
What does truth in reporting have to do with "artistic freedom"? Or do you
consider them equivalent?>

See my answer to Samir. Over here where we had wall to wall coverage of the
affair it was fairly clear that the raw facts had been 'sexed up' by Campbell.
Bear in mind that he resigned. Are you pretending that Dyke was right to resign
and Campbell was wrong to do so, or would that be too uncomfortable to
contemplete?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Dan Koren
2004-01-29 21:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Koren
What does truth in reporting have to do with
"artistic freedom"? Or do you consider them
equivalent?>
See my answer to Samir.
No. Answer my question. Or shut up.
Post by Dan Koren
Over here where we had wall to wall coverage of
the affair it was fairly clear that the raw facts
had been 'sexed up' by Campbell.
Sounds like a circular argument. Not to mention
that your 'fairly clear' did not stand the test
of an independent inquiry by one of the country's
highest ranking jurists.
Post by Dan Koren
Bear in mind that he resigned. Are you pretending
that Dyke was right to resign and Campbell was
wrong to do so, or would that be too uncomfortable
to contemplete?
The media are held to a higher standard than
government, as indeed they should be. All the
more so in a country where the national news
organization dwarfs every other media source
and has enormous influence over public opinion,
based largely, if not entirely, on fairness and
objectivity that have long been a thing of the
past.

Wake up, Andy. The BBC is a left wing political
organization. Ministers, governments and cabinets
will always be political, whether right, left or
worse. The national media should be rigorously
free of political dogma and indoctrination.

The BBC no longer passes the test of reasonable
objectivity -- for 50 years already.



dk
Andy Evans
2004-01-29 22:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Answer my question. Or shut up.>>

Your culture may make no distinction between debate and insults. In my culture
we like to make such a nuance.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Dan Koren
2004-01-29 22:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Answer my question. Or shut up.>>
Your culture may make no distinction
between debate and insults. In my
culture we like to make such a nuance.
Your culture may make no distinction
between truth and fiction. In my
culture we like to make such a
nuance.

To which one might add that your culture
relies all too often on the distinction
between debate and insults to hide the
distinction between truth and fiction.



dk
Andy Evans
2004-01-29 22:43:42 UTC
Permalink
...relies all too often on the distinction
between....

Refer previous post

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...