Blatant

Well, I was just going to post a list of interesting links, as I've been pretty busy today, but I can't pass on a recent blatant demonstration of bias. BBC News is one of my many sources for world news. They have tremendous global resources and it's news that's presented from another point of view. However, they have done some really ridiculous things in the realm of political reporting. It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse here, but until it is realized by the average person that the news you hear everyday has a slant (left, right, pro, anti, etc.) then I shall keep bringing it up.

Alright, so I noticed this headline from the BBC the very hour it came out ( and yes I do work, but luckily I have great access to news while at work :-D ) . I figured the political blogs would be all over it by that evening, and sure enough they were.

President Bush gave a big speech on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war and, like you would expect, he pointed out the gains that have been made. Well, this prompted the BBC to produce this wonderful headline as their leading story on their webpage:

Hmmm... the President hails "victory"? Really?? Actually, no. This is what the BBC story states that Bush said,

He said recent troop reinforcements had brought about "a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror".

However, this is what he really said,

The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around – it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. [edit: emphasis mine]

So, what happened after somebody higher up at the BBC realized just how blatantly deceitful this headline was? They quietly changed it:

The change came only after scores of commenters on the BBC blasted Bush for being "delusional", "psychotic", "completely out of touch", etc. etc. etc. However, there's no doubt that these people, like many (most?), just read the headline and perhaps the first few sentences of this story. Thus, they pictured in their heads all the violence and carnage in Iraq, then saw this picture of Bush with a headline declaring "victory". Well, of course this is going to reinforce any prior hatred of this man! I understand that many, many people don't like President Bush, fine. That's not my point, rather my point is that this guy could cure cancer and it will be spun in such a way that you'll only hate him more. This kind of crap just isn't needed in legitimate journalism. There are so many more instances I could provide of things like this, and maybe I will, we'll see. But, remember that it's quite easy to reinforce your already firmly held opinion (i.e. hatred of Bush), but it's much, much harder to question that very opinion.

To be an equal opportunity knocker, I will say that Foxnews' coverage of the Obama/Grandmother episode was over the top and almost on par with the supermarket tabloids in their coverage. They spent two hours on their morning show discussing the fact that Obama called his Grandmother a "typical white person" because she was afraid of passing a black man on the street. Concerning the Grandmother issue, I personally believe that Obama misspoke, (you can take that as he politically misspoke, or he genuinely misspoke). This was newsworthy, but definitely not two hours newsworthy.

Cheers!