reuters bias

I posted the link to the entire article, so your whole argument that im trying to "hide" the context and not simply trying to save thread space by skipping a few paragraphs is laughable.

Anyone is free to click through to the article. I'm not trying to take jackshit out of context. One click and you got the full article. Are you that lazy?
 
cogzinofa said:
can't fox news decide not to publish obvious liberal propaganda, or do their contracts with AP force them to print every tiny bit of liberalese they're sent?
Click to expand...

Well that's actually how wire services work - stuff on the wire AP/reuters, they send it out, and foxnews automatically puts the content on their web template and sends it out immedeatly. That's how we get fast news in this day and age.
 
so you're saying that fox news is being forced to reprint liberal propaganda and there's NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!! OH, THE HUMANITY (and colmes)
 
:lol: nice.

forced? thats a little harsh. im sure they could take it down if they wanted. do they have contracts with reuters/AP to put up wire photos and wire news? Of course they do, everyone does. Do a google news search for a random ap story, you'll find like 80 different pages with the same story on it.

Just because I linked to yahoo news doesn't mean yahoo specifically wrote or approved the story, lol.
 
Last edited:
triple said:
:lol: nice.

forced? thats a little harsh. im sure they could take it down if they wanted. do they have contracts with reuters/AP to put up wire photos and wire news? Of course they do, everyone does. Do a google news search for a random ap story, you'll find like 80 different pages with the same story on it.

Just because I linked to yahoo news doesn't mean yahoo specifically wrote or approved the story, lol.
Click to expand...

:shrug: if they're doing it willingly they're complicit in the spreading of liberal propaganda.
 
well first off, im not using the word propaganda, you are. im arguing liberal bias, which is a slight lean to the left in wording and phrasing of a story.
 
The poodle statement has no bias of the journalist whatsoever, it is a term that has been applied to Blair by critics, and by the British public.

The bias in 'so-called' isn't necessarily biased, although in many cases it implies a negative judgement. The problem is that the 'war on terror' is a coined term- meaning that it is called such by someone, or in this case an administration.
 
triple said:
CAPS LOCK DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE ANY MORE CORRECT THAN I AM.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. Reuters suggested that:

a. People have criticized Blair for being involved in a so called 'war of terror' (note they are reporting that the people criticizing Blair believe this)

and

b. People have publicly criticized Blair for being a poodle of Washington, which they HAVE for fucks sake, by lots of people both in the past and recently, including ex-President Carter.

and you think that this is bias? Fucking hell get your tinfoil hat off your head, its restricting the blood flow to your brain. Even a rudimentary grasp of the English language would have clued you into the fact that the reporter does not claim ownership of the statements; he is merely reporting that many people hold these views, and have recently made said views public. Once again you're wrong and once again when called out on it you simply ignore the issue and have a spaz attack calling everyone a liberal.
 
El Mariachi said:
The poodle statement has no bias of the journalist whatsoever, it is a term that has been applied to Blair by critics, and by the British public.

The bias in 'so-called' isn't necessarily biased, although in many cases it implies a negative judgement. The problem is that the 'war on terror' is a coined term- meaning that it is called such by someone, or in this case an administration.
Click to expand...

Take notes, patton.
 
triple said:
Some people have said good things about blair as well. Some people think this is a REAL war.

Did we get a mention? No.

Bias.
Click to expand...

Name five prominent politicians, either American or English that has stated that about Blair recently and you may have a point. The fact is that Blair's relationship with the American government has always been an issue of contention with many people, especially the British public and therefore deserves a mention. Blair is under a lot of pressure at the moment, so obviously the majority of people are criticizing him at the moment. Seriously you're chasing shadows, and if you knew anything about British politics you'd know that Blair is in deep shit at the moment and is losing support rapidly even within his own party.

As for the 'war on terror' comment, it isn't a real war in the traditional sense, and therefore it is not a biased term. A war is between two or more nations, the 'war on terror' is a war of ideologies and so the use of the word 'war' is similar to the usage of war in the term 'cold war.'
 
Not every news article is supposed to lay out both sides of the conflict.

The poodle statement was brought up as to the reasoning why Blair was defending himself in the first paragraph.

The article goes on to describe some of Blair's other statements and gives the whole ball of wax on the troubles Blair has gone through overall.

Using the term 'so-called' in reference to terror has been used by British press for quite some time, but not all the time.

I believe the term so-called was used in this instance to illustrate the amount of opposition to Blair.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top