Does BBC TV news emanate from 10 Downing St. or White Hse?

Every time I tune into BBC TV news on my PBS station, they continually follow the Downing Street or White House line. This has been going on for so long, even before the war. It is sickening beyond belief. Every Repuke they interview from Washington is a member of the flying monkey right. They'll always pick somebody like Saxby Chambliss, Newt Gingrich, or Tom DeCay for "commentary" on an important story they just reported on. And the Democrats they choose are hard-hitting politicians like Zell Miller, Max Baucus, or John Breaux.

Every time I hear liberals say how great the BBC is, I want to gag. What is so great about them? They treated Colin Powell's UN presentation of Feb. 5 as if it was Gospel.

The other night they acted like Arnold Schwarzenegger was Moses about to liberate the people of California. The BBC just doesn't get it. Critical analysis, forget it.

The BBC is not overly biased. They don't say openly that Dubya is a prick but they are not that favorable either.
They report that news as they get it. They will interview people but they are very professional.
They did cover Arnie but in a way that said "This could only happen in Hollywood,Americans are mad and blinded by showbiz." stance. Arnie a man with no policies, a rap for groping was the winner. They showed the vile way her acted Arianna Huffington, which was chilling and nasty. At the end of the day, it is a election in another country, BBC coverage is not going to influence politics in California.


If you saw programmes like Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman, you would see someone that is caustic and tough.That is where the analysis can be found. Or Question Time were ministers face public questions etc. The BBC When he pointed out to Ruth Wedgewood that Bush has a very black and white view of things, she told him he was being negative because Bush was from Texas and lacked correct elecution. That is what often happens is a British journalist tries to question Dubya, they get elitism thrown back. I suppose they interview the people that are available to them.

the only show I get is anchored by Mishal Husain. I just get tired of their choice of DC politicians to interview - they are always on the far right, and then Mishal moves onto the next story without rebuttal.

A BBC journalist will generally let the interviews speak for themselves. Someone like Jeremy Paxman maybe caustic and attacking,he will provoke people and that can be revealing. He will expose contridictions,if he sees them but he doesn't editoralise.
A newsreader in any British news programme with not say what they think about a story. Their job is to deliver the news, outside reporters will tell the story as they saw it happened, they will interview those that are avaliable and let the debate speak. They can mold a debate by asking questions, give swiping comments about those involved as part of an interview but they will have to move on to the next story. They are not like what I have seen of CNN, where the anchors will comment. The expection maybe Breakfast TV, where people
send in comments. GMTV(not a BBC programme) does have a Conseravtive bend for Daily Mail readers but that exposes the presenters as unprofessional and often uninformed when they make swipes and politicians.

the question, like, 27 times in a row on the evening national news. It was a big story for days.

It was actually quite stunning the way the Tory wouldn't just answer the question. Paxman wouldn't let it pass. It was a very important moment.

I thought about it many times during the 2000 Presidential debates when Bush wasn't answering questions and Jim Lehere let it pass, and I really thought hard about Paxman the one moment when Gore pointed out that Bush hadn't answered a question and Leher said, "OK, let's move on."

In one interview, he accused him of rewriting history, undermining Allende and supporting Pinochet, and justifying the Tiananmen Sqaure massacre; asked whether he felt a fraud for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize; accused him of a wilful misreading of history (Kissinger: "It may be a misreading but it wasn't wilful"), and then of killing hundreds of thousands in Cambodia.

The BBC described it as a "challenging conversation".

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1999m07.b/msg00148.htm

BBC TV: Bush blocked Bin Laden probes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram

BBC TV: Theft of the Presidency
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram

BBC TV: Bush Energy Plan: Policy or Payback?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1315000/video/_1319141_payback_vi.ram

Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm

Florida election
http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsifs&tab=news&q=florida+election&x=0&y=0

on my local PBS station is constantly asking hard questions, not buying into the Bush party line. They also bring on voices and viewpoints simply not heard on U.S. media.

on it. However I think this fact is instructive. BBC used to broadcast on shortwave frequencies all over the US. A couple years ago they decided that they didn't want to cut into the market for the licenses they sell to NPR and PBS stations for feeds of their world service programmes, so they sold all their SW frequencies to Radio Netherlands.

I don't think that that kind of profit motive is compatible with their mission as a public broadcaster. Also, anytime anything gets a big audience, the RW starts to invade it in realization that it's a public opinion manipulator.

Other bits of evidence that something is wrong: I find their Africa coverage since about 98 to be incredibly pro-imperialist. There's a bunch of other stuff too, including my perception that a lot of what the BBC is doing now is part of a strategy to control BBC entertainment assests when they're privatized. I think BBC insiders probably would prefer a Tory government to sell them the assets at below-market values (ie, rip off the public, who own BBC now). But the Tories would probably sell them at below market values to Rupert Murdoch.

So I think there's a real triangulation of interests between the BBC, Tories and Labour. I definitely don't think they're a totally impartial reporter of the news (I think the whole Giligan has really brought that fact to the forefront).

......Bush House, London............really.

http://home.houston.rr.com/edmayberry/International%20Listener--A%20Visit%20to%20Bush%20House.htm

There have been the odd moments when I have been a little irratated by their coverage, but then again there have been occasions when knowing as i do that both Labour and the Conservatives are queueing up to totally emascalate the BBC, I have been quite gobsmacked at the liberties they were taking.