Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Talk about BBC bias, here's an article on climate change:

    Link

    Out of the 4 people who are quoted in the article, every single one is critical of George Bush. Since when does reporting only require presenting one side of the issue? Furthermore, most of the people quoted bashed Bush, and did not say anything about climate change. A reasoning for America's stance on the issue is not given and no expert who supports America's position is quoted. Pure propaganda.

    I doubt they would be able to find any pro-Bush or pro-US people on this issue. Denying that the world is getting warmer is downright moronic and protecting your self interest will not get you many supporters. Especially when you are the president of a country which has the 4% of the overall population and produces 25% of overall CO2 emissions.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    No, it doesn't. A vote of a Rhode Islander is worth more than that of a New Yorker. You forget that electors are chosen based on the amount of Congressmen and Senators each state has. If it was only based on the former, each vote would be worth the same. But since each state has the same amount of Senators regardless of the population, people in small states have proportionally more votes than people in large states.
    I didn't forget anything, and it's not "congressmen", it's "representatives". The reps represent the districts, the senators represent the states, the sum of the reps and senators are congressmen/woman, which represent the number of electoral votes for the Prez, what's the problem?

    Bush increased spending by 25% in the last 4 years. What's your point?
    25% of what?
    Offline

    0
    Originally Posted by Iz the Wiz a long ass time ago
    I bet it will consist of the doctrine "criticizing the White House = anti-Americanism."
    Nope, I believe they criticized the U.S.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    I didn't forget anything, and it's not "congressmen", it's "representatives". The reps represent the districts, the senators represent the states, the sum of the reps and senators are congressmen/woman, which represent the number of electoral votes for the Prez, what's the problem?
    The problem is that Rhode Island has 0.7% of the vote despite having 0.3% of the population.

    25% of what?
    Federal spending was $1.8 trillion in 2000. $1.8 trillion in 2000 is worth $2 trillion right now according to this handy calculator. Federal spending in 2005 is $2.5 trillion. Do the math. Go to Section 1 for the stats.

    (Original post by Alexdel)
    I doubt they would be able to find any pro-Bush or pro-US people on this issue. Denying that the world is getting warmer is downright moronic and protecting your self interest will not get you many supporters. Especially when you are the president of a country which has the 4% of the overall population and produces 25% of overall CO2 emissions.
    Well, you know, they could have asked someone from the Bush administration. Members of all the major British political parties are quoted.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Wasn't confetti supposed to fall from the ceiling once this thread hit 2,500 posts?
    I noticed that almost 1000 people have voted in this (hate America) poll, a pretty good sample. I wonder if it's representative of all the limeys in Limey land....and other non Americans. 31% is a pretty good slice of the pie.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    I noticed that almost 1000 people have voted in this (hate America) poll, a pretty good sample. I wonder if it's representative of all the limeys in Limey land....and other non Americans. 31% is a pretty good slice of the pie.
    I've seen polls showing that only about 50% of Brits support the US (which is sadly more than all but a handful of countries), though the question wasn't phrased as harshly as this one.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I've seen polls showing that only about 50% of Brits support the US (which is sadly more than all but a handful of countries), though the question wasn't phrased as harshly as this one.
    I wonder if the BBC is a big contributor to the anti Americanism?....along with the Guardian and other British left wing media.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    I wonder if the BBC is a big contributor to the anti Americanism?....along with the Guardian and other British left wing media.
    Yup, they are part of the hate-america brigade. This is a great website where an american living in London does a great job documenting and countering all the BBC's misinformation about america:

    http://www.theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Yup, they are part of the hate-america brigade. This is a great website where an american living in London does a great job documenting and countering all the BBC's misinformation about america:

    http://www.theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/
    Interesting link. I think I now know why the Brits think all republicans are religious zealots.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Interesting link. I think I now know why the Brits think all republicans are religious zealots.
    I'm already 1/4 of the way down the page. There is some really funny stuff here. This is my favorite thus far:

    Beware the ellipses
    The BBC today dowdifies a quote from Donald Rumsfeld.

    Qouth Rumsfeld:

    You just can't hear day after day after day after day things like that that often aren't true, with a lack of balance, and not come away thinking, gee, that must not be a very good country.

    And after coming through the BBC quotation grinder:

    You just can’t…not come away thinking, gee, that [the US] must not be a very
    good country.


    To be totally fair, the mangled quote appears in a quote box on the side of the article, and the body of the article does contain the full, proper quote. But the quote box is highlighted and in bold, and is the first thing the eye is drawn to apart from perhaps the headline and the photo of Rumsfeld. And in it the BBC has altered what is an implicit criticism of the media into an unqualified and derogatory observation about the US itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Talk about BBC bias, here's an article on climate change:

    Link

    Out of the 4 people who are quoted in the article, every single one is critical of George Bush. Since when does reporting only require presenting one side of the issue? Furthermore, most of the people quoted bashed Bush, and did not say anything about climate change. A reasoning for America's stance on the issue is not given and no expert who supports America's position is quoted. Pure propaganda.
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Douglas
    I wonder if the BBC is a big contributor to the anti Americanism?....along with the Guardian and other British left wing media.



    Yup, they are part of the hate-america brigade. This is a great website where an american living in London does a great job documenting and countering all the BBC's misinformation about america
    Every single example of "anti-Americanism" offered by you all has been criticism of George Bush. Nothing more than that. How is criticism of Bush tantamount to anti-Americanism? What is he, our Fuhrer? Identifying a leader with a nation---to the extent that an attack on the leader equals an attack on the nation---is a fascist/totalitarian trademark. It is not in the character of a free republic.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Every single example of "anti-Americanism" offered by you all has been criticism of George Bush. Nothing more than that. How is criticism of Bush tantamount to anti-Americanism? What is he, our Fuhrer?
    Did you even click the link before typing your post? There are many examples of the british media's "anti-americanism" on that website and many of them have nothing to do with bush.

    Identifying a leader with a nation---to the extent that an attack on the leader equals an attack on the nation---is a fascist/totalitarian trademark. It is not in the character of a free republic.
    A leader that was democratically elected by most Americans. If they hate him, then they have to hate the people that voted him into power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Nope, I believe they criticized the U.S.
    Nope. Here's what you actually posted:

    On the BBC site I found:

    1) BBC's reporting of U.S. President George Bush's pledge of $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa makes a good case study. Approximating as it does to four times the entire GDP of Zambia, one might expect that such a gigantic aid package would be reported positively. However, a search of the BBC's Web site reveals an altogether different picture.

    >Of the articles that relate to the AIDS initiative, one reports President Bush's summer tour of five African countries, entitled: "Is the US Africa's friend or foe?" Within the piece its author remarks: "others saw ulterior motives behind Mr. Bush's visit. Some of the AIDS cash is dependent on deals with U.S. pharmaceutical companies, while others saw America's thirst for oil as the key motivation. Meanwhile the U.S. has refused to commit help to Liberia during [the] recent heavy conflict."

    >This is one way that the BBC achieves "impartiality" -- countering positive, real news about the U.S. with hostile "quotes" ascribed to anonymous "sources" or rent-a-rant pressure groups.
    This is all criticism of Bush.

    What you call "positive, real news about America" and "hostile 'quotes,'" I call reporting Bush's public relations effort while voicing reasonable criticism. Why do you label the criticism "hostile"? Hostile to whom?

    "Anti-Americanism" would consist of an attack either on our national identity (e.g., "Americans are stupid"), or on our framework (e.g., "constitutional republics are bad"), or on ideals most of us share (e.g., "freedom of speech is a terrible thing"). Because you could make a sensible case that things such as these (our identity, structure, and ideals) constitute Americanism. But George W. Bush's tour of Africa does not constitute Americanism. Criticism of our president's actions is not an attack on our nation. Many, many Americans are critical of his actions as well. I'm critical of the myself, and I am definitely not anti-American.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A leader that was democratically elected by most Americans. If they hate him, then they have to hate the people that voted him into power.
    Who says they hate him? They disagree with him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Did you even click the link before typing your post? There are many examples of the british media's "anti-americanism" on that website and many of them have nothing to do with bush.
    I just did click on it. Please.

    This website quotes coverage that is not Republican in tendency. It paints the U.S. as being far more religious than Europe ... which it is. It quotes the BBC quoting Kofi Annan---so what? Sure, maybe this stuff wouldn't go over big in Des Moines, but Des Moines is not coextensive with America.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    I just did click on it. Please.

    This website quotes coverage that is not Republican in tendency. It paints the U.S. as being far more religious than Europe ... which it is.
    There are several examples of journalists going out of their way to paint as as a bunch of bible thumpers, even going as far as making up facts, if necessary.

    I have dual citizenship (yeah, that's right, the USA isn't the only place I can vote :eek: ) and have been to many countries in Europe. I live 30 miles north of New York City and there is no way the 100 million or so that live in the north east, west coast or south Florida are, on average, more religious than people in Greece or Italy. Anyone that argues otherwise hasn't got a clue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    There are several examples of journalists going out of their way to paint as as a bunch of bible thumpers, even going as far as making up facts, if necessary.

    I have dual citizenship (yeah, that's right, the USA isn't the only place I can vote :eek: ) and have been to many countries in Europe. I live 30 miles north of New York City and there is no way the 100 million or so that live in the north east, west coast or south Florida are, on average, more religious than people in Greece or Italy. Anyone that argues otherwise hasn't got a clue.
    Look at the nation as a whole. Look at figures for religious belief---any figures you like. Then compare them to those of the other "First World" countries.

    You ought to get out of Westchester and the Westchester mindset once in a while. I live about 2 miles west of New York City, and I've lived all over the Northeast (mostly in NYC itself). But my job prospects and financial bracket has been such that I've never part of the "laptop at Starbucks" crowd. I know what you people are like, though, since I go to school: you make outrageous generalizations about "the East Coast" and "the East Coast mentality," referring to maybe the top 20% in income and completely ignoring everyone else.

    When you talked about NYC, the Northeast, & South Florida just now I bet you completely forgot about the huge black and Hispanic populations. Guess what? Those people are very religious. Check the figures, or better yet, talk to some of them. As are working-class white people (yes, they exist).

    The East Coast isn't where you'll find too many peple who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, but that's the Bible-thumping stuff and at that we do exceed the developed world.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    There are several examples of journalists going out of their way to paint as as a bunch of bible thumpers, even going as far as making up facts, if necessary.

    I have dual citizenship (yeah, that's right, the USA isn't the only place I can vote :eek: ) and have been to many countries in Europe. I live 30 miles north of New York City and there is no way the 100 million or so that live in the north east, west coast or south Florida are, on average, more religious than people in Greece or Italy. Anyone that argues otherwise hasn't got a clue.
    You're one of the useless people. :p:

    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    You out to get out of Westchester and the Westchester mindset once in a while. I live about 2 miles west of New York City, and I've lived all over the Northeast (mostly in NYC itself). But my job prospects and financial bracket has been such that I've never part of the "laptop at Starbucks" crowd. I know what you people are like, though, since I go to school: you make outrageous generalizations about "the East Coast" and "the East Coast mentality," referring to maybe the top 20% in income and completely ignoring everyone else.
    Perhaps some day you can get an education and well-paying job. Then you might stop complaining that the world is unfair and that everyone is trying to keep you down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Perhaps some day you can get an education and well-paying job. Then you might stop complaining that the world is unfair and that everyone is trying to keep you down.
    You've misunderstood me.

    I wasn't complaining. I don't aspire to be part of the laptops/Starbucks crowd and I'm glad that I'm not. I never said anything like "the world is unfair and everyone is trying to keep [me] down." I am happy with the experiences I've had and I feel that the insularity of more well-off people impoverishes them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    You've misunderstood me.

    I wasn't complaining. I don't aspire to be part of the laptops/Starbucks crowd and I'm glad that I'm not. I never said anything like "the world is unfair and everyone is trying to keep [me] down." I am happy with the experiences I've had and I feel that the insularity of more well-off people impoverishes them.
    Considering your support for socialism, you apparently want to add to that impoverishment. You complain about the system being unfair, yet you don't do anything to take advantage of the system. It seems that your only real complaint against the well-off is that they try to gain wealth while you don't.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.