When Fox News has as many journalistic scandals to its credit as the BBC, then I'll consider not listening to it.

The BBC is the unofficial media arm of the Labour Party, nothing more. As politically correct as they come.

And....Al Jezeera?!?!?!

Are you fucking SERIOUS?!?!?!

They may call it a "warning" but it sure comes across sounding loud and clear like a threat:



Especially when combined with a posting of a photograph of what happened to Theo Van Gogh. To say that ain't some kind of threat is just baloney. Especially when the intention clearly was to intimidate.

But many thanks for clearing up the rest of that matter. I had no idea that this threat had been issued by a nut who happens to be a recent convert to Islam. As a skeptic, I should have checked it out. Hails to you, sigur, for doing so.

-- Nephele

Until after the imminent election...

The BBC's Head of Corporate Affairs might disagree with you. Incidentally, this is the same BBC that held the Labour Government's ridiculous "45 minutes" Weapons of Mass Destruction claims up to scrutiny and is constantly attacked by the Murdoch-owned media (Fox News, The Sun "newspaper", The Daily Mail, etc). I won't argue the BBC has a liberal bias, but it is a bias reflecting most (not necessarily) of what the majority of regular British people actual think and feel (despite what The Daily Mail would have everyone believe). It's why we'd rather have The Doctor as our patron saint. At least I know I would.

As for the censorship thing, I do agree with you that it's completely fucking reprehensible. The group in question may not have made any overt threats but reading between the lines the message is frightfully clear; "we don't like what you said and a nasty incident may possibly quite likely befall you, though we're not directly threatening you honest!" It's like a protection racketeer who looks around your shop while fiddling with a zippo and casually remarks "lot's of flammable stuff in here." I'm very much against censorship on the grounds that if you don't like something you have to freedom to not-watch it. For example I don't like scat-porn He-Man fanfiction (to name a completely random example) because it sullies my precious childhood memories, so I don't read it. I mean it's not rocket science, right?

However, I would like to remind everybody here that Islam is an Abrahamic faith rooted in Judaism (like Christianity) with many sects (like Christianity) and a psychopathic lunatic fringe (also like Christianity). I don't judge every Muslim by the words and actions of a bunch of nutters, just as I don't judge every Christian by the actions of abortion clinic-bombers or the Westboro Baptist Church.

Good grief, I didn't mean to write that much.


Theo Van Gogh was hardly a saint.

The time for government-owned media has LONG passed in democratic countries.

If there is just ONE Briton that disagrees with the far-left editorial position of the BBC, it's profoundly IMMORAL to take one bob in tax money from him to support it.

I rember you using this exact line before, and I remember pointing out that the BBC has scandals because they appologise for their mistakes, while Fox just ignores them and keeps on spewing their "fair and balanced" filth.

I disagree with the government. Is it profoundly immoral to tax me to support it?

Spoken like someone with sod-all understanding of how public-service broadcasting actually works. The BBC is very far from the sort of state-owned Soviet-style media you're thinking of inside that tinfoil-lined skull of yours. Incidentally if you think the BBC is far left you should see Channel 4, set up by none other than Maggie "Milk Snatcher" Thatcher back in the 80s. They show stuff that would blow your reactionary little mind.


Exactly. "Due to the unique way the BBC is funded" they're publicly accountable if they stray from the requirements in their Royal Charter. To whom are Fox News accountable, other than their shareholders?

Apologies to everyone for the derail.

You may be right (since I've honestly never heard of this dude before this) but I sure as hell have heard of Vincent van Gogh.

And I like his stuff.

Gonna get old quick if this turns out to be a Fox vs BBC debate.

On the other hand, this never gets old:

American News Puppies vs. BBC News Apocalyptic Rave.

You go, Bill Bailey.

-- Nephele

Theo van Gogh was a film maker (director), but also made tv shows (he had an interview show, and I think he also directed series). Furthermore, he used to write a type of short opinion acticles (here, they are called 'columns' but I'm unsure that's English). In general, he held very strong opinions. About a lot of things, like religions (and then not only muslims). He could very vividly describe his views on those subjects, and probably insulted of lot of people (and again, not only muslims). And he received lots of threats for expressing those opinions.

Together with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, he made a short film, called submission, about - if I remember correctly - the position of women in islam. They both received death threats for that; Theo van Gogh was murdered shortly the film was on tv and Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs protection to this day. So no, he was certainly no saint, but threating to kill someone and actually doing it are also very, very wrong.

And I think Trag said some wise words about censorship, threats and islam.

That's true, all one has to do is go to bbcwatch.com to get a fuller story than I can provide.

Reading through THAT you'll see that it was NO random co-incidence that made Sigur pair the BBC with Al Jezeera....the visious anti-semitism of BOTH 'news' [sic!] organizations is almost up front and barely concealed.

But the British left has always has an anti-semitism problem, and it's actually pretty serious.

-- Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:28 pm --

Oh, and, PLEASE:

If someone even WHISPERS the 'It's not anti-semitic, it's anti-Zionist!', my HEAD WILL EXPLODE!!!

I can only take so much BS in a single day.....

":lol:" indeed. The entire content of that site, barring the author's LONGER biography is

I think the obvious reason for it is that Al Jezeera, while strongly pro-Islam, is still less obviously biased and treats it's audience with *some* degree of respect, just like the BBC. Fox give none and get none in return.

So the liberals have been anti-semitist, while the right wing (also known as fascists) have been what? Anti-nazi? Seriously.... what the hell are you smoking? At *best* a case could be made for the BBC being anti-Israel, but how does that directly equate to anti-Semitism? Most people tend to take issue with artillery bombardments of civilian areas after all.

You promise?

Then why keep linking to it?

That's interesting, because Arab Media Watch makes the opposite claim about the BBC. They are complaining that "the BBC bends over backwards to accommodate Israeli claims" and that the BBC provides "an echo chamber for Israeli propaganda."

-- Nephele
Who generally avoids teevee news reporting and prefers first person accounts, very much missing Riverbend's old blog, and hoping that, wherever she is, she's okay. (Wiki article)

Which is why I consider the BBC to be doing a good job at being as objective and impartial as they can. If they're pissing everybody off in equal measure on all sides, they're doing something right.