Slashdot Mirror
BBC Hails "fair" Microsoft XP SP1
Richard Bown writes "Continuing their current trend of only giving you half the story the BBC have
this article on how fair and equitable Microsoft are these days. No mention of EULA changes."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Nice to see that slashdot is finally picking up the BBC's bias on certain issues. Those who watch/listen to BBC news will know how biased they are on, for example, the Euro. It seems the Americans can't do anything right in their eyes, either...
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
Trust the English Not... with their Tea Tax and what not...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Isn't Slashdot calling somebody "biased" a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Slashdot considers anything that doesn't take the "Microsoft is the Great Satan" position "biased".
;-)
Moderators: Please do not moderate me up.
I don't think you'll have a problem with that, given what you posted
I read BBC news and Le Monde (the french newspaper) mostly every day.
BBC's international coverage, although exhaustive, is not very fair: it is pro-blair & pro-american, which is a pain.
I would criticise the BBC for being a little too close to the british government's stand on everything.
Take for example Irak: most labour MPs don't wan't a war there, but does that transpire clearly in the BBC's reporting?
Of course the bias not as blatant as CNN or other american news sources, and the coverage is very exhaustive (you can find a helluva lot of stuff on their website), but by european standards it's a bit mild--it's almost a legacy of BBC world service, trying to evangelise the british point of view abroad.
yours ever, fz.
I've seen his wife, no one could fuck her sober.
I live in the UK and I am sick and tired of the BBCs biased reporting. When brown people are killed or whatever it hardly makes the news, but when something happens to a couple of white people it's a top story (I'm white by the way). The BBC is notoriously anti-nuclear. I used to work in the nuclear industry and the BBCs lack of knowledge and the superstitious drivel it spouts about civillain nucelar power is embarrassing and makes me very angry because it panders to the luddites and ignoramuses and anti-nuclear lobbyists. They have a tendency towards subtle sensationalism in other areas too. I could go on at length but this is a rant and I don't have time. Oh and they're scared of GM food, mobile (cell) phones, pro-Microsoft, and their science coverage is generally ignorant, wrong or just plain dumbed down to kiddie level. ...and I have to pay for this since I have a television set and therefore a TV license.
Stick Men
Don't worry. The Bush's are catching up.
It was embarassing to watch GW Bush stand next to Tony Blair at Camp David over the weekend. Mr. Blair was so eloquent in his answers to the press. Meanwhile, GW Bush looked like he was in pain as he struggled to string three words together without pausing, biting his lip and looking like a retard.
When Bush is allowed to speak extemporaneously, his staff must be cringing. I guess that's why he rarely does news conferences, unlike previous presidents. Even when he does official events he rarely takes questions. It's a shame that the so-called leader of the free world is an illiterate boob.
I'm sure Tony Blair must have been laughing his ass off on the way back home.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
in which Britain was primarily responsible for the destruction of a European country
Yeah, 'cause the Balkans were peaceful before British intervention, right?
I think that your assertions are unlikely to be borne out by the facts. Coverage of the Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor murders was very extensive. The Soham murders may have been covered more thoroughly, but that is due to the story itself -- Amanda Dowler's case was and continues to be lower profile than the killings of the two black boys I mentioned above. If you're talking about deaths around the world, I think that your charge is equally insubstantial -- there's plenty of news stories from right around the world, but the front page reflects the likely predominant interests of either UK or non-UK readers (and can be changed, should you wish to do so).
The fact that the BBC provides airtime for people whose viewpoints you disagree with may irritate you but is in fact a testament to impartiality. Every person with a special interest in a story will complain about an opposing viewpoint being put forward, will be able to adduce some evidence of inadequate treatment of their pet topic and will explain exactly how it is ridiculous to even begin to consider the views of the other as respectable. This is how Israelis, doctors, businessmen, Lib Dems, environmentalists, hunt sabs and any other group you care to mention feels. I can't see that scientists are treated any worse or more sceptically than any of the groups (or their oppositions) that I listed above. And opposition to the implementation of a particular technology does not, a priori, make one an ignoramus. In case you've forgotten, while the implementation of technology is frequently beneficial to us, occasionally it's not (viz Zyklon B, thalidomide, Bhopal). Finally, of course, if you really don't like the BBC, you could always sell your telly. There's bugger all on that's worth anyone's time anyway.