Reporting is generally based on opinion & as we all know, opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got one & they all stink to a greater or lesser extent.
Just the BBC words, that's why the rest are in gray. Those words are just there for others who seem them as not biased. Hell there are those that only see bias in FOX News.
It is why you never trust 'news' until independantly verified. You run off half cocked off the word of some scumbag (either behind the desk with teleprompter or a thug you grab off the street) and you are liable to be on a wild goose chase.
While the BBC is certainly biased, as is NPR, CNN, and even Fox, I do believe they have better NEWS, with less bias than most.
Some bias is certainly there, the heads of the BBC certainly have political goals, and do, to a certain degree, choose the coverage to suit their own bias. ( also true, even more so, on ABC, etc. )
And, now that I understand the news clearinghouse for mid-east news is owned by the Saudi's, not the BBC, you can'r expect even handed journalism from anyone using that as a source. ( I could be wrong on this, please correct me )
But.
After Arafat walked out of the Camp David talks, and declared war on Israel, I saw an interesting piece of footage. Every cable/broadcast news company I saw showed the exact same footage, cut the exact same way, except for the BBC.
Scene: podunk crappy typical middle eastern town. Junk all over, shot up buildings, poor people. Footage shows: "kids throwing rocks" cut "Israeli soldiers shooting" cut "man lying on ground, bleeding, wailing people standing over him, one guy trying to help" End footage.
On BBC... a little different.
Scene: same. Footage shows: "kids throwing rocks" swing to "Palestinian Police shooting from behind kids" swing to "Israeli soldiers ducking behind wall and waving at kids to get to safety....then Israeli soldiers shooting" swing to behind Israeli soldiers to "man lying on ground, bleeding, wailing people standing over him, one guy trying to help" End footage.
A bit different. Israelis not shooting at kids, but at bad guys using children as shields. Guy on ground was shot by Palestinian Police because they suck as marksman and missed the Israelis.
Deliberate cutting designed to show evil Israeli soldiers shooting at "innocent, understandably upset children" with careless, bloodthirsty Israeli's murdering innocent bystander. Obvious. well crafted. Except at the BBC.
So, while the editorial guys, the bosses, and the guys who decide what news fits their agenda may be all biased at the BBC, they are as close at it gets to real in Europe, and most of the world.
I have no idea if one or another English paper is "right-wing tabloid." Should I read the Daily Mail?
End rant on BBC.
As far as 734 ships, a jillion$ a second, or the actual details of how many snipers cover the Prez, it isn't that big a deal. He HAS to be protected, like him or not.
The Concrete Tunnel business? Now that's over the top. You can't get in an armored SUV?
The issue isn't the dollars, it's the utter lack of caring if you screw someone else's day up.
It seems to me that The Obama's have amply shown they don't give a damn about anyone else, but that's my Bias.
Sifo, I often see bias from Fox News talking heads. ..( bear with me )
While their Editorial stuff is indeed a bit different than, say, The View, the News guys mostly read whats handed to them. No choice, it's a 24 hour news cycle, and no one has enough reporters to cover it all, so they use the ( biased ) wire services.
When a pretty haircut reads the exact same piece from Reuters that the ABC haircut reads, it's the exact same bias.....and it seems to me they are too dim to have a clue they are spouting outright lies. ( sometimes )
To paraphrase the late President Regan, "distrust, but verify"
People also forget that "news" is a product like any other. Even NPR is a commercial venture (albeit barely marketable without much of its funding coming from Uncle Sam).
Just like Company A works to take sales from Company B by claiming that Company B is poorly made, tastes bad, or isn't as good a value, the dinosaur media seeks to keep people from seeking news from alternative sources that would undermine sales of their "product".
Fox ONLY exists because they fill a niche for news that DOESN'T come from a left leaning source. Were there a plethora of unbiased or right leaning news outlets, Fox News wouldn't exist.
The question isn't bias. The question is degree of bias and its interference with truth.
If Fox News spouted falsehoods, it wouldn't matter whether it had a liberal or conservative bias.
There is a reason no one watches MSNBC and only a few more watch CNN. It isn't because the populace is ignorant. The people know bullshit when they smell it.
I don't believe that there has ever been an outright attack on free speech and free press like there is currently.
Even when the NYT was leaking intel that was damaging to the efforts in apprehending Osama (wireless phone tracking, financial account tracking), there was never an attempt to silence the NYT.
