BBC bias against Trump
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 10 Aug 16 10.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
I just scrolled through the first 3 pages of the BBC's YouTube channel [Link] and attached a screenshot. It has 5 stories on Donald Trump – all negative. It also has a positive story on President Barack Obama of the Democrats. Where's the balance? Edited by Penge Eagle (10 Aug 2016 6.10am) Is it bias, if the candidate is effectively creating all these stories. Its not bias, for example, if as to day, Trump implies gun owners assassinating Clinton. Its like saying the BBC is biased against Gazza because it has more stories about Gazza than other ex-England footballers.... Its no balanced, if you have to create stories to seem fair handed. Of course the BBC is pro-Clinton over Trump, but I can't think of a more reasonable stance to have. Even his own party are trying to sabotage his chances as president.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Penge Eagle Beckenham 10 Aug 16 10.54am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Is it bias, if the candidate is effectively creating all these stories. Its not bias, for example, if as to day, Trump implies gun owners assassinating Clinton. Its like saying the BBC is biased against Gazza because it has more stories about Gazza than other ex-England footballers.... Its no balanced, if you have to create stories to seem fair handed. Of course the BBC is pro-Clinton over Trump, but I can't think of a more reasonable stance to have. Even his own party are trying to sabotage his chances as president. There is a hell of a lot of material the BBC could use on Hillary. It's called journalism to find it and produce a video clip. No wonder people in the UK think Trump is a maniac and Clinton is an angel - and that could not be further from the truth. The BBC is a public service provider and is meant to be free from political bias and provide quality journalism. There's no mention of the very revealing Julian Assange interview posted on this thread from RT? Edited by Penge Eagle (10 Aug 2016 10.56am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Aug 16 12.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
There is a hell of a lot of material the BBC could use on Hillary. It's called journalism to find it and produce a video clip. No wonder people in the UK think Trump is a maniac and Clinton is an angel - and that could not be further from the truth. The BBC is a public service provider and is meant to be free from political bias and provide quality journalism. There's no mention of the very revealing Julian Assange interview posted on this thread from RT? Edited by Penge Eagle (10 Aug 2016 10.56am) I agree, and they should be, because Hilary Clinton has some serious s**t on her. But economically Trump is a gift that keeps on giving, on a daily basis. In terms of investigative Journalism, you won't see too much of that done by a UK news source, on a foreign election unless something really juicy comes up. More than anything, they'll pick up their news from US based sources and media. The terrible reality is that I want Clinton to win, not because she's an angel, but its the lesser of two evils. I seriously think that the US has put up only two presidential candidates that 'deserved' and have actually fared well 'Bush Snr' and 'Obama' since 1980. None of the others were adequate as leaders or politicians, and were egocentric in their motivation and driven by self interest more than political duty.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
nairb75  Baltimore 10 Aug 16 3.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
'trump couldn't be more pro war, even nuclear'. And your evidence for this is? in addition, he's stated that he doesn't care about our defense agreements. our nuclear pacts included. so if you're japan, south korea, etc, then you may have no nuclear defense. so those countries must think about if they need to start their own nuclear programs.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nairb75 Baltimore 10 Aug 16 3.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rubin
I'm sorry, there's evidence for all the points in my post, most of it in the emails, as well as other sources. Why be in denial? You should also look in to Haiti, and how aid money has disappeared and land rights have been given away to people close to the Clinton's, and watch the video 'Clinton Cash' on YouTube to see their links with African dictators and warlords amongst other things. It's really not progressive to support Hillary, regardless of one's view of Trump. i didn't say it was. clinton has been around a long time. plenty of corruption to be sniffed out. but the accusations are so ridiuculous at this point that i almost believe none of them. the bit about her "stealing the election" is regarding the super-delegate model, which is perfectly legal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 10 Aug 16 3.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Now you gotta think, punk, if you're going vote for me or not, if not this is a magnum 375 you could get lucky or - go on make my day, punk. The 'Dirty Harry Trump' election.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 10 Aug 16 3.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I agree, and they should be, because Hilary Clinton has some serious s**t on her. But economically Trump is a gift that keeps on giving, on a daily basis. In terms of investigative Journalism, you won't see too much of that done by a UK news source, on a foreign election unless something really juicy comes up. More than anything, they'll pick up their news from US based sources and media. The terrible reality is that I want Clinton to win, not because she's an angel, but its the lesser of two evils. I seriously think that the US has put up only two presidential candidates that 'deserved' and have actually fared well 'Bush Snr' and 'Obama' since 1980. None of the others were adequate as leaders or politicians, and were egocentric in their motivation and driven by self interest more than political duty. Ronnie Reagan? I think his legacy is looking better all the time.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Aug 16 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
Ronnie Reagan? I think his legacy is looking better all the time. State sponsor of terrorism by the UN, weapons to Iran against their own embargo, to fugnd the contras (a UN declared terrorist organisation) and the rise of Neo-Conservatism. Grant rigging, the Inslaw affair, savings and loans bailout, Operation Illwind and debate gate
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 10 Aug 16 5.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
State sponsor of terrorism by the UN, weapons to Iran against their own embargo, to fugnd the contras (a UN declared terrorist organisation) and the rise of Neo-Conservatism. Grant rigging, the Inslaw affair, savings and loans bailout, Operation Illwind and debate gate Well Bush Snr was around when the arms to Iran was going on.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 10 Aug 16 5.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
Ronnie Reagan? I think his legacy is looking better all the time. The Force Awakens was alright.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Aug 16 6.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
Well Bush Snr was around when the arms to Iran was going on. He was Director of the CIA, who weren't involved. It was the national security council. The CIA in 1986 did ship some missiles to an Iranian official, as ahe reward for involvement in freeing US hostages - and to allow him to save face and preserve his position (as an asset). The CIA was funding the Contras, until the UN declared them a terrorist group and censured the US for state sponsoring of terrorism. In response, unable to filter funds via the CIA legally, the National Security Council took to selling weapons to the Iranians for money to fund the Contras (and knowingly illegally). Of course, the CIA wasn't entirely squeaky clean, as they'd been involved in the transfer of cocaine sold in the US, to fund paramilitary death squads in south America....
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Aug 16 6.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
State sponsor of terrorism by the UN, weapons to Iran against their own embargo, to fugnd the contras (a UN declared terrorist organisation) and the rise of Neo-Conservatism. Grant rigging, the Inslaw affair, savings and loans bailout, Operation Illwind and debate gate Oddly, Nixon, wasn't actually all that, compared to the s**t that Regan, Clinton and GW Bush got away with, and can probably feel a bit hard done by, given he'd racked up some credible foreign policy achievements. Of course, he looked like a crook, spoke like a crook, and kind of got caught with his hand in the jar. Edited by jamiemartin721 (10 Aug 2016 6.04pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.