8 thoughts on “The BBC Spins – Again

  1. Hello everyone,
    I can’t believe that the BBC (not to forget al-jazeiraa sur seine = Le Monde) are just a band of liars!!
    Maybe you’re right, every country refusing to get involved in this “story” is blinded, and only a happy few people in the U.S can see, know and produce the Truth.

  2. Vincent, you are brainwashed. I have responded to all your claims with facts – you failed to even attempt to refute any of them.
    You are definately brainwashed – here’s the most recent example. You are not even bothering to reply to Jay’s post, instead you just ramble on..
    Why not actually comment on the substance of Jay’s post? Did you see the photos?

  3. Cropping pictures from yahoo, in order to illustrate another fact on the BBC is clearly not a professional move.

    But cropping a californian kid final exam on “WMDs and Irak” from 1992, and call it a recent expert report in order to go to war like the Britts did? What about that?

    And what about that other guy that cropped ideas from that very faked report? Do you think he’s any better? To think that the American people are forced to pay for these lies with mandatory income tax…

  4. Waaaaait a second. We can always get to you allegations later. But lets stick to BBC since that was the topic of the post. So you do admit that they are not very credible?

  5. any newspaper in the world can hire some lazy dude by mistake, like it happened in the NY Times recently (I guess it was the Times…). It doesn’t mean the whole thing is a piece of crap.

    And anyway, on every channel in the world, you see the same images, but the comments are different in every single country, and channel. Who knows who get the real images with the adequate story? You? Me? Hoaxbuster? Jay?

  6. any newspaper in the world can hire some lazy dude by mistake

    You would definately have a point if this was an isolated incident.

  7. Christ on a crutch. Glenn Reynolds — a man who is never above selective quotation, manipulation of sources and ‘disinglennuousness’ — has obviously never worked in a newsroom. Or a newspaper.

    I have. In fact, I’ve worked in the BBC News Online newsroom, and I can tell you what happens. A story breaks, the copy is written, and the CMS template demands a photo. So a photo will be dug out from either the dispatch itself, or from the image library, then cropped to fit, and published online.

    Because of the short lead-time, images are usually revised from archive footage to documentary footage, once it comes in: for instance, if George Bush were to be shot, but there were no cameras to capture the moment, the story would break with a picture of George Bush looking rather unshot. Which Glenn Reynolds could then accuse of ‘distortion’ by the standards he uses for this particular screed. But in pieces like the one he cites, where the subject is not a news ‘event’, but the discussion of an ongoing ‘sitation’, you’re left resorting to archive footage.

    Take a look in a newspaper. Any newspaper. Especially the business sections of the weekend press, where tired subeditors will throw in quarter-pagers with only the most tangential relationship to the story. Take a look at a news network. Any news network. Even Fox. And you’ll see the use of stock and archive footage to illustrate stories where no actual footage exists. Images are not always used to show stories. In short, SOP.

    If Glenn can come up with a picture either of Afghan girls being intimidated, or of Afghan girls not being intimidated that he’d use, then he’s welcome to post it. Somehow I think that sort of documentary footage is thin on the ground.

    Frankly, to quote Dubya, for Glenn to make a big issue out of this — what newsgatherers around the world do on a day-by-day basis — while playing fast and loose with the actual factual content on his own site is like telling people to pluck the motes out of their eyes while headbutting a pair of chopsticks.

    Says Glenn:

    To me, the difference is noticeable, though as I say above, this is a fairly minor example. But you can follow the links and decide for yourself.

    Um, no Glenn, it’s not that noticeable. But who cares when you’ve already smeared the organization out of sheer ignorance of newsgathering. ‘I’ve Decided, Now I Report’ appears to be your motto.

    Now, can anyone take issue with the reporting of the story itself? It’s sufficiently even-handed for even the most spittle-flecked reactionaries: HRW issues a report, the Afghan minister denies it. In fact, it’s the denial, not the report, that forms the lede. Would you prefer ‘pinko human rights group issues more anti-American propaganda’?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.