The BBC..... Really

[TheVoice]

The "shooting them" was because they shot a black man with a tazer for simply wanting to retreat to his own house.

Besides the fact that I disagree with the way Taser (it's an acronym, there's no 'z') was deployed in that incident, it wasn't down to him "simply retreating to his own house". There's also no evidence that him being black had anything to do with the way he was dealt with.

You scream "logic" every 5 minutes yet you're only ever interested in your own rather peculiar brand of it.

 

[asim18]

Besides the fact that I disagree with the way Taser (it's an acronym, there's no 'z') was deployed in that incident, it wasn't down to him "simply retreating to his own house". There's also no evidence that him being black had anything to do with the way he was dealt with.

You scream "logic" every 5 minutes yet you're only ever interested in your own rather peculiar brand of it.

So what are you arguing against then? Semantics? Differentiation between Taser and Tazer is not connected to the point I'm making lol. And you wonder why I "cry" for logic

The fact he was black has nothing to do with the point lol, it's only you who identified that.

It's just the fact that he was tased and the POINT is that I believe people causing runway incursions should also be tased and removed immediately, as opposed to being allowed to have a party for seven hours.

Oh, you're next argument is going to be that "tased" isn't a word. Am I rite?

Also I didn't "scream" logic. Werewolf politely asked for some proof and I very calmly said it requires dependence logic to arrive at the proof, and it wasn't just a blanket "use logic" post, I explained the exact logic behind MY understanding of the situation. Stop bringing your pointless semantics based nonsense into this. Werewolf is a calm guy and if he wants to discuss something I'd love to discuss with him. You just come across as a bit of a troll when you post crap like "Logic. Uh huh.".

I'm always willing to explain, but you still haven't explained why you posted "Logic. Uh huh.", not only that you've followed up by going off on a complete tangent while avoiding the point, again, lol.

 

[TheVoice]

So what are you arguing against then? Semantics? Differentiation between Taser and Tazer is not connected to the point I'm making lol.

I'm arguing the point I made in my post. Feel free to re-read if required, but if your reading comprehension is such that you think my main point was contained in parentheses then that might not be of much use.

The fact he was black has nothing to do with the point lol, it's only you who identified that.

You mentioned the colour of his skin in two separate posts, it's fair to assume you felt it was a relevant point.

It's just the fact that he was tased and the fact that I believe people causing runway incursions should also be tased and removed immediately, as opposed to being allowed to have a party for seven hours.

A Taser deployment in a public order scenario such as that would be disastrous. Why should Taser be used? They weren't being especially violent or combative, there'd be no justification whatsoever. They were being obstructive, they were arrested and charged. Was there a need for less-lethal force to be used?

Also I didn't "scream" logic. Warewolf politely asked for some proof and I very calmly said it requires dependence logic to arrive at the proof. Stop bringing your pointless semantics based nonsense into this. Warewolf is a calm guy and if he wants to discuss something I'd love to discuss with him. You just come across as a bit of a troll with "(it's an acronym, there's no 'z')".

You try to shut down people's arguments by citing "logic" all the time on here, yet your own never quite seems to qualify as anything more than incoherent ramblings. When you're challenged, you then ignore the point completely and pick at some other detail entirely (like me correcting your spelling error).

Incidentally, if you feel like you're being trolled when someone corrects a spelling error, you might want to stay away from MS Word.

 

[asim18]

I'm arguing the point I made in my post. Feel free to re-read if required, but if your reading comprehension is such that you think my main point was contained in parentheses then that might not be of much use.



You mentioned the colour of his skin in two separate posts, it's fair to assume you felt it was a relevant point.



A Taser deployment in a public order scenario such as that would be disastrous. Why should Taser be used? They weren't being especially violent or combative, there'd be no justification whatsoever. They were being obstructive, they were arrested and charged. Was there a need for less-lethal force to be used?



You try to shut down people's arguments by citing "logic" all the time on here, yet your own never quite seems to qualify as anything more than incoherent ramblings. When you're challenged, you then ignore the point completely and pick at some other detail entirely (like me correcting your spelling error).

Incidentally, if you feel like you're being trolled when someone corrects a spelling error, you might want to stay away from MS Word.

Are you still whining about unrelated points?

The point is that someone causing a runway incursion needs to be removed immediately and not allowed to party for SEVEN HOURS. Whether they have to taze them to remove them depends on the situation but the main point here is removal of the incursion/tresspasser. Now you're just going off on another tangent whining about when a tazer is necessary, who cares?

But keep going off on your tangents. You still haven't provided any logical reason as to why those particular people were allowed to party on the runway for SEVEN hours.

So yeah if you want to discuss the TOPIC feel free. Stop whining about me lol.

 

[Arazi]

It is not hard to see the clear bias the BBC portray in their broadcasting of "news", I will also include CNN in the same category, they both push an agenda, you cannot call the BBC "balanced" when for example everything they report regarding anything Trump it is ALWAYS a negative and done in a negative tone, again CNN are exactly the same.

Has anyone ever seen the BBC or CNN report positively on anything regarding Trump, it is always negative, that is not balanced reporting. If you think they are balanced and not biased well you need to see a Dr.

I've got to say i agree on most of the things ASIM has posted, which is rare for me

 

[Andy_82]

It is not hard to see the clear bias the BBC portray in their broadcasting of "news", I will also include CNN in the same category, they both push an agenda, you cannot call the BBC "balanced" when for example everything they report regarding anything Trump it is ALWAYS a negative and done in a negative tone, again CNN are exactly the same.

Has anyone ever seen the BBC or CNN report positively on anything regarding Trump, it is always negative, that is not balanced reporting. If you think they are balanced and not biased well you need to see a Dr.

I've got to say i agree on most of the things ASIM has posted, which is rare for me

Offcourse there is a bias, there always is depending on the individiuals writing the story. Everyone sees an event differently. Sure they get facts wrong just like any other organisation. Lets be honest, its pretty much impossible to be neutral, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that the story is wrong, it is that you're looking at it from a different point of view.

What is there that Trumpt has done that is positive. Even if you agree with his actions, he's made a complete mess in implementation, ignoring advice from legal officials etc. Also, he doesn't engage with the media, he instead shouts them down and bullies and belittles them. How can you have a meaningful relationship when he won't allow it. Again anyone who has a contradictory view (legimately) is dismissed as fake.

The BBC and other news organisations are also only focusing on the stories that they think the people want to here. BBC less so as it has a legal responsbility to cater to all, which it does fairly well depending on whitch commentators and show you watch listen to.

The fact is news organisations aren't any different now than they were a hundred years ago. We just have access to much more varied sources, which can only be a good thing.

 

[TheVoice]

So yeah if you want to discuss the TOPIC feel free.

I'm trying, but as soon as someone refutes any of your points you act like you never said it or didn't consider it relevant in the first place. It's a particularly childish way to have a discussion, really.

 

[diamount]

It is not hard to see the clear bias the BBC portray in their broadcasting of "news", I will also include CNN in the same category, they both push an agenda, you cannot call the BBC "balanced" when for example everything they report regarding anything Trump it is ALWAYS a negative and done in a negative tone, again CNN are exactly the same.

Has anyone ever seen the BBC or CNN report positively on anything regarding Trump, it is always negative, that is not balanced reporting. If you think they are balanced and not biased well you need to see a Dr.

I've got to say i agree on most of the things ASIM has posted, which is rare for me

Another post from Arazi without citations to illustrate his point.

 

[asim18]

I'm trying, but as soon as someone refutes any of your points you act like you never said it or didn't consider it relevant in the first place. It's a particularly childish way to have a discussion, really.

You cant be serious. Tazing isnt the point so why refute tazing and ignore the actual point which is that it should take 10 mins tops to clear a runway in the middle of London.

The concern here is the length of time they were allowed to party on the runway and the amount of time, in hours, they were provided with high level media exposure.

You are literally clutching at a straw while ignoring the point and latching onto the hyperbole where I said people stupid enough to trespass on a runway should be tazed and then accusing me of discussing like a child.

 

[asim18]

Another post from Arazi without citations to illustrate his point.

Why do you need a citation to validate Arazi's claims?

the jist of his post is cnn hates on trump. That doesnt require a source. You just need to watch CNN. Especially since Trump has been calling out on fake news its clear how much CNN is hating on trump.

 

[diamount]

Why do you need a citation to validate Arazi's claims?

the jist of his post is cnn hates on trump. That doesnt require a source. You just need to watch CNN. Especially since Trump has been calling out on fake news its clear how much CNN is hating on trump.

I'm very aware of CNN's biases, however this is in regards to the BBC and their 'negative' reporting on Trump as some sort of bias, despite it being factual. Unless you're a subscriber to /r/The_Donald there is literally no positive thing he has done nearly a month in.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I'm very aware of CNN's biases, however this is in regards to the BBC and their 'negative' reporting on Trump as some sort of bias, despite it being factual. Unless you're a subscriber to /r/The_Donald there is literally no positive thing he has done nearly a month in.

Whilst I agree the BBC and of course most or even all media has inherent bias, it does seem harsh to criticise the BBC and CNN for not reporting positively on President Cheeto when he hsn't done anything positive. To do otherwise would be fake news, wouldn't it Arazi? Or are we ok with that if it's his favour?

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

In between.

There's a simple way to prove it, left wingers say "Right wing sources like FOX and the BBC are biased!", right wingers say "Left wing sources like RT and the BBC are biased!". When both sides claim you're biased against them that means your neutral/balanced.

Here's a chart that explains it quite well:

I like that chart A shame the Daily Mail isn't on there, but I would place that near the bottom right, do you think?

 

[pingu666]

While ive not watched much al jazera, what i have seen has been really good.

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

I fail to see how in any way the BBC can be called left-wing biased.

I just can't see anything they push as enforcing that view. Can somebody provide an example of something that proves this? I hear it a lot but I never seem to get any evidence.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I fail to see how in any way the BBC can be called left-wing biased.

I just can't see anything they push as enforcing that view. Can somebody provide an example of something that proves this? I hear it a lot but I never seem to get any evidence.

They report immigrants as humans instead of saying 'get orf my land' which should be the immediate response when anyone brings it up.

 

[unwashed potato!]

It is not hard to see the clear bias the BBC portray in their broadcasting of "news", I will also include CNN in the same category, they both push an agenda, you cannot call the BBC "balanced" when for example everything they report regarding anything Trump it is ALWAYS a negative and done in a negative tone, again CNN are exactly the same.

Has anyone ever seen the BBC or CNN report positively on anything regarding Trump, it is always negative, that is not balanced reporting. If you think they are balanced and not biased well you need to see a Dr.

I've got to say i agree on most of the things ASIM has posted, which is rare for me

What you're saying is the BBC are biased if they say for instance report only the mess killings done by say a group of terrorists and don't list the good things those terrorists have done too. It's unbalanced blah blah blah. The BBC give trump as fair unbiased reporting as possible. If he wants to make up stuff that they then show, maybe he should stop making up stuff.

 

[Silly Goose On The Loose]

What I don't understand about this so-called bias is that the BBC, being a TV corporation, means that everything they report is filmed so you can literally see what is going on.

Is Trump going to claim next that the BBC doctor their video? Did he not personally attack one of their reporters? Was that all acting?

 

[sasdor]

The BBC is as biased RT or any other government funded news agency

 

[scorza]

The BBC is as biased RT or any other government funded news agency

No, just no. RT isn't even news, it's just pure propaganda - they should have taken it off air years ago. The BBC has its institutional biases no doubt, but the stories they put out are at least put under proper editorial scrutiny and are managed in an "arms-length" way away from government.