Irrefutable proof

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
That our major newspapers have an agenda. I try to avoid that bandwagon yet it keeps passing by with savory wares to entice one to hop on & enjoy.

Notice the time stamp. xxx704 is 15 hours older than the xxx604
 
You overlooked the change to the story? The exact same story. The exact same timestamp.
 
timestamp just declared 'last updated' when i go to the same story as it is today it is now reading as revised this afternoon, at 4.18pm.

most of the circled stuff is on the second paragraph, it just appears to have been edited. it barely changes the direction of the piece, merely omits a nytimes quote and other attributed info. probably the bbc editing for tightness or just to cover their arses.

as for newspapers having an agenda, i thought that was the point of choosing the evil right/left organ of your choice - so you can read stuff that convinces you of what you already feel :D
 
The timestamp is the same on both sources. Thus, it shows the BBC attempting to misdirect. Had they edited the story it's no big deal. Since they edited it & tried to show it as the exact same piece it's censorship.
 
the presumption is that it is the same piece, without seeing more than page 1 of the earlier one it is not possible to say what was changed entirely. for all we know the timestamp may have been accidentally left unchanged when revised.

the removal of the nytimes para is hardly censorship. the piece is editorial, presenting a viewpoint on the current elections. the remaining substance and direction of the piece seems unchanged, save for a small part that, for all we know, was refused publication by the nytimes and the bbc were forced to subsequently remove.

as the timestamp has now been changed (certainly the version i have seen does) there is certainly now no attempt to misdirect.

i am not sure how changing their own editorial could be described censorship.
 
its the ole left wing cover up for the dems in the press, right? I personally agree with the ppl above this isn't censorship unless the core of the article was based on the part that was omitted! :winkkiss:
 
i think if the nytimes had been told by the bbc to remove the quote from their own press or site then perhaps the bbc could be accused of censorship. if the nytimes want to make that quote public then they have the press and their own website at their disposal, and nobody is preventing them.
 
news isnt supposed to have an agenda but each story has a slant. there is an agenda for everything. the news is jsut an outlet for it.
 
freako104 said:
news isnt supposed to have an agenda but each story has a slant. there is an agenda for everything. the news is jsut an outlet for it.
Click to expand...
Well Yes and No I mean how do you explain some of the BBC's comments about how PM Tony Blair and Parliment handled a expert on iraqi weapons that they later had to eat
CNN said:
LONDON, England (CNN) -- The BBC has apologized to the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair following a damning report into the suicide of a British expert on Iraqi weapons.
Click to expand...
SOURCE
 
the hutton enquiry is a whole different business, and there was a great deal about his conclusions that appear to be conflicting (gilligan's testimony was flawed and incorrect, nearly identical testimony from another bbc journo who interviewed kelly was reliable and trustworthy). a great number of people here think the government was remarkably lucky not to have any blame proportioned in the report - including dr kelly's family, who certainly took the view that the government were culpable.

it would be idiotic to say the bbc don't have an angle, all news does. i do think it says a great deal that a public-funded organisation is able to be so critical of the hand that feeds it.
 
Thats kinda what I was saying there is a slant to news reporting but I was also trying to point out some are more extreme than others (BBC vs Algazera or etc..)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top