Re: ABC Bias? ROTFL

Clare Short (commenting on the villification of the BBC): "It's all part of a distraction from the real issues: How did we get to war in Iraq?"

Lindsay Tanner (commenting on the villification of the ABC): "Senator Alston should apologise and get back to tackling the big issues in his portfolio instead of pursuing this vindictive war against the ABC"

Rod Speed wrote:

B J Foster wrote in > message news: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com... > > >>"In the report, the BBC said Britain's intelligence services > > > Terminally stupid posturing claim. There is no way > that the BBC could ever have known that, whatever > Kelly might or might not have claimed to them. > > >>were concerned that Blair aides had 'sexed up' >>claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction >>in a dossier justifying the case for war. > > >>Gerald Kaufman, a member of Parliament >>from Blair's Labor Party, accused the BBC >>of engaging in 'tabloid' journalism > > > Corse they did, even if Kelly had claimed that to them. > > >>and called for a review of the publicly >>financed corporation's status. > > >>The BBC...has also come under fire from critics >>in the United States, where some conservatives >>accuse it of a leftist, anti-Israel bias. > > > Corse they are biased. > > >>Gilligan, the BBC reporter, is standing by his story. > > > Completely irrelevant. Its obvious to anyone > with a clue that Kelly was never in any position > to be able to say anything about what "Britain's > intelligence services" believed about anything. > > >>'I want to make it clear that I did not misquote >>or misrepresent Dr. David Kelly', Gilligan said. > > > Easy to claim now. And it was a stupid claim to make anyway. > Kelly was never in any position to be able to say anything > about what "Britain's intelligence services" believed about anything. > > >>Blair's critics want questions over the government's case >>for war answered through an independent, public inquiry, > > > Who cares ? > > >>and are calling for Hutton's investigation to take the broadest >>possible look at Kelly's death and the events that led up to it. > > > Who cares ? > > >>Clare Short, > > > Terminally woolly minded fool... > > >>who recently resigned from Blair's cabinet, where >>she had been the international development secretary, >>said the attack on the BBC was misplaced. > > > Who cares what that terminally woolly minded fool said ? > > >>'It's all part of a distraction from the real issues: >>How did we get to war in Iraq?' Short told BBC radio. > > > Pathetic, really. > > >>In another radio interview, a member of Parliament from the >>opposition Conservative Party, Oliver Letwin, echoed that concern. > > > Who cares ? > > >>'While there certainly does need to be an inquiry into the >>circumstances surrounding Dr. Kelly's death', Letwin said, >>'there are a very large number of questions which all center >>on the issue of whether the public can trust what the >>government tells it and which relate to the information given >>to Parliament and the public during the lead-up to war in Iraq'". > > > Hardly surprising that a member of the opposition > would attempt that sort of mindless stuff, stupid. > > >>
formatting link
> > > yawn > > > >>B J Foster wrote: >> >>>"Governors back BBC in row over Iraq dossier >>>... >>>The BBC's governors sought to gain the upper hand in the Iraq war >>>dossier row last night with a pugilistic statement demanding that >>>Downing Street retract its claims of bias against the corporation's >>>journalism. >>> >>>After two weeks in which the BBC has appeared to be on the back foot, >>>the corporation's governing body turned the tables on No 10 and >>>delivered an unexpectedly robust defence of the story at the centre of >>>the dispute. >>> >>>Hours before the foreign affairs select committee is due to publish its >>>report on the affair, the governors maintained it was 'in the public >>>interest' to report the claim by an intelligence source that Downing >>>Street exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. >>> >>>In a Guardian interview today, the former Commons leader Robin Cook >>>makes a withering attack on Tony Blair's credibility, and says the key >>>dossier justifying war was inaccurate. >>> >>>He accuses Alastair Campbell, director of communications at Downing >>>Street, of using his row with the BBC as a 'red herring' to distract >>>attention from the real issues". >>>
formatting link
>>> >>>Anyone see any resemblance here? >>> >>> >>>B J Foster wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"ABC review rubbishes claims of war bias >>>>... >>>>The ABC's complaints review arm has rejected Federal Government >>>>allegations of widespread bias in its coverage of the Iraq war, >>>>finding no evidence of systemic anti-Americanism. >>>>... >>>>Labor's communications spokesman, Lindsay Tanner, said: 'Senator >>>>Alston should apologise and get back to tackling the big issues in his >>>>portfolio instead of pursuing this vindictive war against the ABC'". >>>>
formatting link
>>>> >>>>KP would probably agree. >>>> >>>>Then there's that half-pregnant underachieving monopoly telco, the >>>>drag on rollout of new technologies like digital TV and broadband, the >>>>exporting of jobs to India, the halt to capital investment because >>>>analysts say Telstra is a "utility", the directories monopoly. It goes >>>>on and on. >>>> >>>>But never mind, just roll out a spanking new fibre network in Tassie >>>>and everyone will be onside again. >>>> >>> > >
Reply to
B J Foster
Loading thread data ...

Who cares ?

Who cares ?

Reply to
Rod Speed

I don't understand how there is any argument the 45 minutes claim was sexed up. Can't possibly see how any intelligence agency, however imcompetent, would have given that advice to its government. Smacks of politician's manipulation to me and every one else. Its been a long 45 minutes so far. ;-)

regards Xylord

Reply to
xylord

"Two leaders politicized intelligence to sell a war. But while one has suffered a catastrophic loss of public trust, the other hasn't, at least not yet.

Are Prime Minister Tony Blair's troubles the shape of things to come for President George W. Bush? ... The government's aim seems to have been to discredit the BBC. After attributing the report to Kelly, officials questioned whether the BBC had accurately reported what Kelly said. They also suggested that he was at too low a level to know how intelligence on Iraqi weapons had been put together.

But this attack has backfired badly. The broadcaster apparently has evidence, including a tape, that Kelly made the key allegations it reported. Moreover, Kelly was, in fact, in a position to know what he claimed. More information may emerge as a judicial inquiry proceeds, but at this point the BBC seems largely in the clear, while the government looks like a villain. ... And when it comes to domestic spin, Blair isn't remotely in Bush's league. Whether pretending that the war on terror - not tax cuts, which have cost the Treasury three times as much - is responsible for record deficits, or that those hugely elitist tax cuts are targeted on working families or that opening up wilderness areas to loggers is a fire-prevention plan, Bush has taken misrepresentation of his own policies to a level never before seen in America.

But while Bush's poll numbers have fallen back to prewar levels, he hasn't suffered a Blair-like collapse. Why?

One answer, surely, is the kid-gloves treatment Bush has always received from the news media...

What must worry the Bush administration, however, is a third possibility: That the American people gave Bush their trust because in the aftermath of Sept. 11, they desperately wanted to believe the best about their president. If that's all it was, Bush will eventually face a terrible reckoning". (Paul Krugman, NYT)

"Even though it expects the economy to speed up sharply starting this summer, the Bush administration now says the budget deficit will hit $455 billion this year and $475 billion in 2004. ... Not to worry, President Bush told reporters last month, 'What I am telling the American people is that we will grow our way out of our deficit'. But we didn't just grow out of the Reagan-era deficits. There were spending cuts--mostly in defense--plus income tax hikes in 1982,

1990, and 1993, and, most important, a huge increase in Social Security payroll taxes in 1983. This produced the trust-fund surpluses that, over the years, have covered deficits elsewhere in the budget.

Chronic deficits can even stifle growth because they steal capital from private investment..."

formatting link

But, hey that base is covered too - with Bernanke's solution - just print money, i.e. steal savings, i.e. a de-facto tax on everyone.

B J Foster wrote:

Reply to
B J Foster

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.