BBC Buys Google News Keywords In Kelly Case

foreign devil writes "BBC has purchased keywords related to coverage of the Hutton Inquiry in an attempt to direct all traffic to their special news coverage. This would be only moderately interesting, except the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier. The article in the Guardian says this is coming out of the GBP 63.5m ad budget. I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google." It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case), but it's certainly an interested party.

Comments

WHO NEEDS FP? LICKING ASS IS BETTER.

[GhostseTroll]

'nuff said.

hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

first fuckaz

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you pussy glavcd.org

Re:hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck u puss
glacvcd.org

Bastard

[mphase]

This guy is just being a bastard with this line, "I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google."

Re:Bastard

[DrunkenTerror]

I agree. That's pretty low. A lot of us may have thought of such a thing on our own, but to suggest it is irresponible. Now the script kiddies have something to do tonight. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

PSA:
Just remeber to keep your grades up, kids. Nothing draws attention to your "hobbies" like a sudden shift in GPA. We all know straight-A students don't break the law. ;)

Re:Bastard

[pla]

This guy is just being a bastard with this line, "I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google."

Perhaps you could explain to me what you think he meant by that?

Search engines work best by providing an impartial means of finding sites related to the query. News outlets work best by providing an impartial view of current events. When paid promotion hits the scene, they both become completely useless, at best - Suddenly, they have a bottom line, rather than impartiality or any sense of integrity in their field, to worry about.

So, you would call him a bastard? I say this sounds like a good way to discourage people from buying keywords to things they have no right monopolizing. Make it impractical. Make it ineffective. Make it expensive.

Re:Bastard

[arvindn]

My guess is google filters out hits from bots when they calculate what the ad sponsors owe them. Of course the bot could change its User-Agent to MSIE or whatever, but it should still be possible to run a simple script to detect a large number of searches from a single IP for the same query and ban such IPs. With all the google bombing, google whacking, link spamming, blog spamming etc. going on, its hard to imagine that they wouldn't have run into this already.

A related tidbit: apparently the top bid at overture.com is $50 for the search "mesothelioma lawyer". At that rate they had better have some way to filter out bots otherwise a competitor could do some serious damage.

Re:Bastard

[1u3hr]

Search engines work best by providing an impartial means of finding sites related to the query. News outlets work best by providing an impartial view of current events. When paid promotion hits the scene, they both become completely useless, at best

Not at all. The search results weren't affected, only the "sponsored links" clearly separated to the right.

The Guardian's suggestion that this was a way to take people's attention away from sites that might be critical of the BBC's role is just bullshit. As for the cost of advertising being from the public purse, so what? Google ads are pretty cost effective in being tagetted on people actually searching for a related subject, not spammed to any random page.

Re:Bastard

[ZarkDav]

The BBC advertising budget is not at risk here. Google Adwords pricing lets you set a daily budget and a cost per click. I also bet Google would be able to detect an automated hitting on those links and prevent it.

Re:Bastard

[madprof]

Absolutely. It is suggestive and this person MUST be politically motivated. The fact is that regardless of a leak in The Sun newspaper (and having heard the paper's political editor interviewed on the radio I am no closer to working out where the hell this leak came from) the report is NOT YET OUT at the current time.

Re:Bastard

[Anonymous Coward]

If the leak is acurate then it came from Downing St. Tony Blair is cleared by the Hutton enquiry and it magically gets leaked to the Sun on the same evening as Tony & Pals are voting on top-up fees, which may very well have come crashing down around his ears? Get real; No. 10 leaked it straight to the Sun knowing that they might need the extra cover to take the heat off of a defeat in the Commons and that the Sun would tear it's own hands off to back up Nu Labour and bash the BBC.

Re:Bastard

[westi]

ahh but surely they would have limited there daily spend. So all that automation would be for nothing!

Re:Bastard

[millette]

Joshua Marker, according to his website, did much worst then only suggest it. He actually put up the actual perl script on his webpage! How the f*k did /. let this one pass?

Re:Bastard

[sclarke]

Yo! Cash dollars.

Don't you know.

Cheer$,
- us guys

Re:Bastard

[madprof]

But they KNOW you'd think this. They're not stupid.

Re:Bastard

[joostje]

We all know straight-A students don't break the law. ;)

Correction: straight-A students are smart enough not to be caught breaking the law.

Re:Bastard

[azuretek]

I had Ds and Fs in school and I was never busted...

never will be either, straight-A students make me sick... homework *shudders*

Re:Bastard

[dindi]

Automated searches on google are not allowed - eg crawling google is not allowed.

Google ads are pretty correct with that: I use google ads, and there is a minimum number of hits that come from crawlers or strangely behaving browsers or automated gizmoz.
Once I reported one, they replied promptly asking for remote IP, browser version, part of my access_log, or anything I can provide to prove, that my ads were hit by somethin other than a browser looking for my products/services.

ps:since the click in question costed me less tan 10 cents, I dropped the case, but they were extremely helpful

Re:Bastard

[Anonymous Coward]

The author of the slashdot article is an idiot.

The situation is this:

1. A BBC reporter made a claim that the government lied.

2. The BBC has a policy of letting its journalists be as free as possible in their reporting (pro or anti government).

3. The government lauched a vicious attack on the BBC -- with Alastair Campbell (a notorious government Spin Doctor/Attack Dog) raised the temperature of the whole argument by openly attacking the BBC. Leading to an entrenched position.

4. The BBC, admirably enough, defended its reporter and refused to throw him to the government wolves.

So where did the BBC go wrong: It didn't check its reporter's story properly before jumping in with both feet in a fight against the government. It was quite right to tell the gobshite Campbell to go fuck himself at first (his job is to *continually* complain to the BBC about every story in an attempt to get everything his way)... but then BBC didn't get hold of Gilligan (the reporter) and go over his notes/story once the whole situation blew up. His story was clearly WRONG, and the BBC editors should have realised this and made a retraction.

All news outlets get things wrong. The problem for the BBC is that their news editors defended a reporter *past* the point of good sense. In a way that's an admirable committment to press freedom, but also silly, hence the resignations. What is sad is that right-wing idiots are portraying this as proof that the BBC is a lefty organisation.

umm...

[xao gypsie]

can someone explain what that all means? i mean, im not too dumb, but i seem to be out of the loop, and i think im not the only one. so for all the ignorant bastards out there like me, could someone clear this up?

Re:umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a slightly wordier verion of the 'is it wkack' troll? ;)

The BBC claimed the weapons dossier was sexed up, and claimed to have a HIGH RANKING official who told them this. As it turns out, Kelly was the source, and not only was he not nearly as senior as the BBC claimed that he was, but he was not in a position to know what he claimed to know. Then he suddenly winds up dead.

Imagine if SCO bought up key words on their suit against Linux. Now imagine they're a news outlet to boot. Kinda stinks, doesn't it?

Re:umm...

[cyril3]

Some CIA analyst knows WMD reports to GWB are sexed up and tells NPR who splash it out. NPR don't do much fact checking and may have sexed up the story even more. Refuses to name source in any case. White House knows its X. X is to be outed and smeared and GWB chairs the meeting where it was decided to go ahead. Once his name is out WH claims he's a know nothing low level analyst when in fact he is a key senior WMD analyst. After questioning by Independant Counsel and seeing his past demolished and his future destroyed he freaks and suicides.

Independant Counsel does a report for Congress on who knew what and when and who ordered what and why.

NPR buys keywords so they can ??

You get the picture. Fortunately nothing like this could ever happen in the US so go back to sleep citizens, theres nothing to worry about.

Only the names have been changed to protect the writer from defamation action.

Re:umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

You make it sound as though Dr. Kelly was bumped off. Lets be clear here; Dr. David Kelly commited suicide. Poor bastard.

Re:umm...

[Hittite Creosote]

The BBC claimed the weapons dossier was sexed up, and claimed to have a HIGH RANKING official who told them this

The actual phrase was 'senior official in charge of compiling the dossier'. Not 'high-ranking', which implies cabinet level. The actual embellishment (in my opinion at least) which Gilligan unjustifiably made was not the use of the word 'senior', but 'in charge' (Kelly, after all, was a former senior UN weapons inspector, so there is just enough wriggle room to call him senior). Gilligan's loose use of language, and the BBC's failure to act on this either before the broadcast or before they'd issued a strong statement of support is their failure, and one I fully expect Lord Hutton to have taken them to task for.

OK, this is being pedantic, but if you're accusing someone else of being loose with language, you have to be pretty accurate yourself.

Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case), but it's certainly an interested party.

What's with the sudden attack of journalistic integrity here? THIS IS SLASHDOT. You guys will post anything and not correct the headline, and all of a sudden you're going to temper wild baseless accusations?

Oh wait, this story isn't anti-MS, anti-SCO, anti-corporate, or anti-American. Carry on.

"It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet we'll publish it anyway.

Bah

[The-Bus]

The BBC is a giant entity, they can't magically coordinate all this... I'm sure somewhere in their halls there isn't a dogmatic poster proclaiming:

1. Sex-up Iraq dossier
2. ???
3. Profit!

With #2 circled and 'GOOGLE ADWORDS' scribbled next to it.

Re:Bah

[CelticLo]

The BBC didn't sex up the dossier. They accused the UK Goverment of doing so. The Hutton Report officially is released today, (28th Jan 2004), at 12:30[GMT]. One newspaper, (News International's The Sun), is claiming they have a leaked copy of said report, and according to them the BBCs reporter "Gilligan is effectively accused of LYING in a bombshell broadcast blaming Number Ten for "sexing up" a dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction." source http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004041477,00.h tml

Re:Bah

[gr0ngb0t]

... and we all know how reputable The Sun is

Re:Bah

[gr0ngb0t]

not that they are incorrect in reporting that the BBC accused the government of sexing up the report...

too quick on the submit button just then.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC didn't sex up the dossier. They accused the UK Goverment of doing so.

And the BBC blamed Kelly as the responsible party. Kelly couldn't take the pressure and media attention, and killed himself.

If the BBC hadn't created a work of fiction without evidence, Kelly would likely be alive.

Re:Bah

[C10H14N2]

...especially because AdWords hardly affect the general searches and Overture only places the top few spots. Sounds like someone just wasted a crapload of money for no reason.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

... and we all know how reputable The Sun is

mmmmmmmm.....page three.

Re:Bah

[Cipster]

Yes but you can't argue with their amazing hard work and determination when it comes to investigative journalism. I mean finding an attractive British female for every issue is simply astounding.

Re:Bah

[CelticLo]

The BBC didn't name Kelly. His name was leaked by the Goverment. He was subjected to Goverment's Foreign Affairs Committee on the 15th of July 2003, 24 hours later at the Goverments intelligence and Security Committee, the next day he was found dead. As for media attention it was a major part of his day to day life, there is plenty of evidence that Dr David Kelly met with a variety of journalists. "I have been involved with the press for ten to 12 years" - Dr David Kelly, FAC transcript Evidence from the Hutton Enquiry is here, with the report appearing at lunchtime in the UK. http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Gilligan is effectively accused of LYING

What about the Skipper, the Professor, Mr. Howell, Mrs. Howell, Ginger and Mary Anne?

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Also to be fair to the BBC they continued to refuse to confirm the name of their source even after the rest of the media knew it was Dr. David Kelly. There is still some journalistic integrety left..

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sun is hardly an unbiased party, since as part of Murdoch's News Corporation it has a standing brief to attack the BBC and promote Murdoch's pay-TV Sky channels at every possible opportunity.

On the odiousness scale of UK newspapers, the Sun is third-worst, beaten only by The Star (an even more downmarket and moronic knock-off of The Sun) and the irredeemably vile Daily Mail, the choice of reactionary right-wingers all over the country.

Re:Bah

[dipipanone]

If the BBC hadn't created a work of fiction without evidence, Kelly would likely be alive.

Hmm. You wouldn't happen to be training for a career in the media by any chance? Your reporting skills would almost qualify you for a job on the Sunday Sport.

Not only did the BBC *not* name Kelly, but the so-called 'work of fiction' you refer to was based upon an account of events provided to their reporter Andrew Gilligan *by* David Kelly.

Kelly killed himself because he had been outed as being a senior defence analyst who was leaking confidential information about his job to the media. While there may have been some minor hyperbole in the language Gilligan used (something that is only remarkable because it was the BBC -- because it's the norm in the rest of the British media), many other defence insiders supported the substance of Kelly's account and Gilligan's report. I mean, it may have slipped your attention but in the last week we've had both Bush and Powell acknowledging that there probably aren't any weapons of mass destruction -- do you really think that these intelligence reports had evidence of the weapons where no weapons existed, or is Gilligan's claim that the government 'sexed it up' the more likely explanation?

And what would you have the media do when defence insiders bring them stories of international importance concerning the preparations for war? Would you rather they sat on the stories and told us nothing?

Gilligan overstated his case in the first radio broadcast of the story -- and corrected it in subsequent broadcasts. He didn't 'make it up' and it wasn't a 'work of fiction'. Kelly hadn't gambled on being identified as the source of the leak, but if anyone gave him up, it was the government and not the BBC.

Re:Bah

[mr_stark]

The Sun is a tabloid rag. Its (in)famous for gross distortions, hysteria and outright lies. Believe nothing that you read in it.

Re:Bah

[OriginalArlen]

Yeah, what he said! No-one's accusing the BBC of sexing up the dossier, indeed as the dossier was written by HMG and the intelligence agencies I can't imagine how they could have any input. Story poster obviously hasn't been following the story at all.

I also don't understand how the BBC can be accused of ANYTHING, after all they (accurately) reported a story, namely that an intelligence source (now known to be Dr Kelly) had told them that Campbell et al had sexed up the dossier. Whether or not that allegation was true is irrelevant, the story was that an intelligence source was making this allegation, which was definnitely true and gives a good indication that in fact the intel orgs (*or at least some small part therof) felt they were being inappropriately manipulated for political ends - ie to con the British people into supporting Dubya's latest colonial war.

Re:Bah

[unapersson]

"I also don't understand how the BBC can be accused of ANYTHING, after all they (accurately) reported a story, namely that an intelligence source (now known to be Dr Kelly) had told them that Campbell et al had sexed up the dossier."

That's the crux of the matter though, the BBC Journalist who did the interview is unreliable at best and is believed to have invented the important sexing up quotes. So Kelly never actually said them.

Re:Bah

[Heggsy]

Be aware also of the role of the BBC Governors - they have a somewhat schizophrenic task: they are responsible for ensuring that the BBC sticks to its Royal Charter (unbiased, public service broadcasting, etc), but they are also responsible for defending the BBC against the attacks of the insidious^Wgovernment.

In this particular incident, the Governors didn't exactly cover themselves with glory when they leapt to the defence of Gilligan without, apparently, making any attempt to investigate the veracity of the report (or the reporter).

Re:Bah

[R.Caley]

... and we all know how reputable The Sun is

I'd normally agree with you, but it seems The Sun was correct.

BBC report of Hutton's conclusions.

Re:Bah

[Oligonicella]

Falsifying the quotes or facts of a story makes the story *inacurrate*. Gilligan was known for this, especially concerning Iraq.

Those who have a conspiracy theory about the death of Dr.Kelly at the hands of the gov need also consider the theory of his death at Gilligan's hands.

Same evidence. None.

Re:Bah

[armb]

> I also don't understand how the BBC can be accused of ANYTHING

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3434661.s tm
"BBC castigated in Hutton report

Lord Hutton has criticised the BBC as he cleared the government of embellishing its Iraq weapons dossier in his long-awaited report on the death of Dr David Kelly."

Yes, that's the BBC reporting criticism of the BBC. They accept they made mistakes.

"complicit in his death" is bullshit though.

from the fair-and-balanced dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fair and balanced dept seems to be shrinking these days.

Re:from the fair-and-balanced dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the google results are rigged, great, not exactly new news though. Time for a new community run search engine.

Makes one wonder

[Pac]

So the Englishmen went the pond to buy themselves some keywords to use over tea and received the merchandise in a Kelly case - it takes a lot of money to buy keywords in such magnificent cases, I tell you. News indeed. I wonder if my rights online are part of their deal.

Re:Makes one wonder

[Anonymous Crowhead]

it takes a lot of money to buy keywords in such magnificent cases

Anyone who is interested in what they might cost can see for themselves at Adwords for free. Just click on the 'Click to begin' button. You can set up an ad, plug in keywords, max cost per click per keyword and see what your daily cost would be. They don't ask for a credit card until the very end so you get a feel without the slightest commitment (not even a name or email address is required until the end.) It's really pretty interesting.

Re:Makes one wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

clicks avg cost rank
a day price a day
blair 46.0 0.04 1.84 1.2
hutton enquiry 1.3 0.04 0.06 1.1
kelly 160.0 0.04 6.40 1.2
Overall 207.3 0.04 8.30 1.2

Re:Makes one wonder

[tomalpha]

Bizarrely, the search term "Hutton Report" brings up an adword link to http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/ Pretty sure it wasn't doing this first thing this morning. Own up, who's taking the piss ...

Re:Makes one wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

am I the only one that read that http://www.FAGSLAYER.com/BAKLAcensorship

that picture haunts me to this day..

AdWords

[Anonymous Coward]

All your Dr. Kelly are belong to us. - BBC

Re:AdWords

[WiI Wheaton]

rofl. But really, how should I react to this sort of thing?

The BBC killed him with a TOASTER!

[Anonymous Coward]

toaster,toaster toaser, do you have toast in you yet i think
so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Im not a toaster!!!!!!!!!!And one more
thing........YOUR A TOASER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND A COOKIE WITH MILK SOAGE
MILK!!!!!!!!!!AND A BUTT WITH POOP IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay fine

[KalvinB]

"alledgedly"

Ben

Re:Okay fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wanted to let you know that at least one person here got the joke.

Now if only they would bring back Angus..

Sexy BBC?

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier.

One could argue that the Beeb pushed Dr. Kelly to suicide, but calling them "complicit in ... the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier" is somewhat bizarre. Are we missing a relative clause here or what?

Re:Sexy BBC?

[fopa]

> The BBC is complicit

Actually, I don't think the BBC is being accused of any crime at all. Sure, they had some questionable reporting, but this case is about the governmet.

The question is wether or not the government, specificallly Blair, released Dr. Kelly's name to the press, which caused all the hype about him and may have lead to his suicide.

The BBC has a vested interest in this both because they want it to be someone else's fault and because they are staunchly anti-government and anti-Blair. The BBC wants to nail him on this 1.

I'm not totally familiar with this case, but I think that's the gist. If I'm wrong, somone with details please correct me.

Re:Sexy BBC?

[eyeye]

Its about as accurate as claiming buying some adwords is equivalent to "an attempt to direct all traffic to their special news coverage". Does the article submitter even understand adwords? I could understand if google was one of those search engines that allows paid listings mixed in with real results.

The article poster is a dimwit and/or troll IMO.

Re:Sexy BBC?

[TomV]

Given the draconian way the Libel laws work here in the England/Wales jurisdiction, the Slashdot editors may not have been very clever in posting this story as worded. Very, very unwise in fact. Especially as the Hutton Report won't be published until 12:30 GMT and it's currently 07:20 GMT.

At the moment it's an unfounded allegation, and the sort of allegation that could lose Slashdot hundreds of thousands in punitive damages.

Big whoops, editors.

Re:Sexy BBC?

[BobTheLawyer]

I shouldn't worry: libel generally only applies to individuals and not organisations; it's most unlikely it's possible to libel the BBC.

Re:Sexy BBC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pushed him to suicide by continually refusing to reveal his name to the rest of the worldwide media? The bastards!

No one "pushed" Dr. Kelly to suicide, but lets be clear; the BBC should have done far more thorough fact checking and less sensationalist journalism, and the Government were seriouly wrong in allowing Dr. Kelly's name to be confirmed to the press (Wether Mr. Blair ordered it or not). Both sides are equally to blame for the death of Dr. Kelly.

Re:Sexy BBC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell Private Eye that it only applies to individuals...

Re:Sexy BBC?

[BobTheLawyer]

you misunderstand: it's not generally possible for an organisation to *make* a libel claim. It's perfectly possible, and indeed common, for an organisation to *be* sued for libel.

I'm pretty sure Private Eye has never sued anyone for libel, but if they ever do I'm sure it will be fun to watch.

Not anymore.

[Jason Pollock]

Seems their adword budget ran out. The adword links don't appear on "hutton report" or "hutton enquiry" anymore. At least not on google.co.nz, google.com or google.co.uk.

The top non-ad links are the BBC, but that is more than likely due to the fact that the BBC is generally considered a _very_ good source of news, with a great reputation.

As for the whole sexing up discussion, I'll wait until after I've seen the report. :)

Re:Not anymore.

[DeepRedux]

On the other hand, many view the BBC as a biased source of news:

'Angry' Ark Royal crew switch off BBC
The BBC has been axed from the nation's flagship naval vessel following claims of pro-Iraqi bias. The Navy says it has switched off News 24 aboard HMS Ark Royal after complaints by the crew.
...
One senior rating said: "The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side. It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting. A lot of people on board are very unhappy."

They turned on Murdoch's Sky News instead.

Re:Not anymore.

[LostCluster]

But that brings up an interesting question... why buy the AdWords keywords when you're already the natural #1 hit result?

Re:Not anymore.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, those guys sure are dumb. That's the Royal Navy for you.

Re:Not anymore.

[drinkypoo]

Maybe your opinion of the BBC is a little different from mine, but I consider the BBC only possibly a small notch above CNN, which is to say, completely full of horse pucky. Not only that, but I have the CNN sidebar turned on for my slashdot view, and they're constantly reporting on things which were news on /. over a week ago, and which weren't really fresh here then, so they're stupidly behind.

As for quality, I only regularly read their sci-tech news, but I have yet to see a sci-tech article that got all the details right. Or, usually, even a majority of them. I can only assume that if they can't do fact-checking on technical questions whose answers can readily be found using google (how topical!) that they don't do adequate fact-checking on their other commentary as well. This might be an invalid assumption but if they're neglecting their editing duties in one place and maintaining them in others, that's not very professional. Which brings us back to square one.

Really, I think it's awfully naive to trust any major media outlet. Where you're then supposed to get your news, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to believe anything coming from the BBC.

Re:Not anymore.

[JoeBuck]

Yes, the war hawks called the BBC biased because it did not slavishly repeat the Pentagon line at the height of the war, as Fox/Sky, CNN, and MSGOP did. They aired both pro- and antiwar views, and for those who cannot tolerate the latter, that made them biased.

Re:Not anymore.

[Anonymous Coward]

"doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting"

Good. Thats exactly what a good journalist is supposed to be doing; ask questions and investigate the answers.

Re:Not anymore.

[Mr Windows]

They turned on Murdoch's Sky News instead.

But then turned back to the BBC.

Re:Not anymore.

[Slashamatic]

Murdoch wants his broadcast privileges in the US and does not want to come under scrutiny for his cross-media ownership in the UK. He therefore likes to be very freindly with the government.

Many from the military were very unhappy about being told that there was no legal justification for the war and there would be a lot of civillian casualties. They really didn't want to hear this news.

Re:Not anymore.

[Hittite Creosote]

On the other hand, many view the BBC as a biased source of news:

Yes, but then again many people appear to define 'biased' as 'not agreeing with me'.

Re:Not anymore.

[LordKronos]

Seems their adword budget ran out. The adword links don't appear on "hutton report" or "hutton enquiry" anymore. At least not on google.co.nz, google.com or google.co.uk.

Not necessarily. One of the features of the Google AdWords system is that it will automatically drop a particular ad when the click through rate on that ad goes below a certain percent.

Re:Not anymore.

[R.Caley]

On the other hand, many view the BBC as a biased source of news

Trivially true since:

Many [people] believe/view X XXX.

is true for almost all values of XXX. This is a simple consequence of there being a hell of a lot of people.

In this case this statement is irrelevent to the current topic, since the accusation against the BBC is not that they were biased, but that they were sloppy.

Re:Not anymore.

[Bob Uhl]

Ummm...considering that the BBC is government-run, and considering that Great Britain was at war, broadcasting both sides isn't exactly cricket. Also, consider that in many cases the BBC was behind in reporting the facts, simply because it disliked them (well-documented; search on National Review from the war period).

Re:Not anymore.

[FurryFeet]

Reminds me of the definition of biased most people use: "Someone who doesn't agree with me".

BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC is known to be utterly biased (to the socialist left, that is) for years. It's stuffed with grey-haired sixties people who keep on re-fighting socialist "yawn" subjects. BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters". It puts every fact - when issued by the Blair govt - in quotes, to make it look suspicious; and if you look at their coverage of the Kelly-case, it is very disturbing to see how they selectively brought the facts, cautiously steering the public opinion.

So, when this overfunded club of liars is spending taxpayers' money to direct traffic to their hippy-shit, yes, I think that is bad.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[xilmaril]

no one worth there own pocket change claims the BBC has no bias. it just has bias similiar to a lot of people who read news

everyone is bias, as some dead person once said.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the Palestinians are not freedom fighters, what are they? Terrorists? After all, they were living on the land before and have to defend themselves somehow. They aren't the ones bulldozing down houses or killing children who pelt rocks at them. They are speaking out and it's working. Every country except for the US is against Israel.

BBC shows the fact like it is. It isn't a CNN or Fox News, which are both controlled by the US.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[rhakka]

"BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters""

history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA call them revolutionaries now, and revere them. During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.

Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.

Uh, it would be less accurate because we have history. By your logic, we could call anyone who kills people a "freedom fighter". The reason we call our forefathers heroes is because, in hindsight it looks like they did good things. We can't say that here. So, reserve all judgement on the palestinians because we just don't know, and won't for quite a while.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA call them revolutionaries now, and revere them.

You contradict yourself. Terrorists attack civilians, while the military are always legitimate targets.

Palestinian groups don't attack the Israeli military - the military has lots of guns, and shoots back. Blowing up Israeli children is so much easier.

If your group claims to be "freedom fighters" in an allegedly legitimate resistance, deliberately attacking innocent civilians makes you a terrorist group.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Wyatt Earp]

Yes...sniping at officers who are in uniform by other solider is acceptable.

Sniping at civilians isn't. Now if you are an irregular not in uniform and snipe and are caught, you can be summarily executed.

That's an accepted fact for the last...3-400 years.

Now during the American Revolution...very limited warcrimes were carried out by both sides as did irregular operations against other irregulars and against uniformed soldiers. Fellas like Nathan Hale were hung by the British for being soldiers out of uniform...thus a spy.

The North did carry out military operations against logistical targets in the war, however they did not attack civilian targets for the sake of attacking civilian targets, and the North isn't hailed for it's operations in the war...it's considered an agressor and in large parts of the country...they are considered war criminals...no matter how clean a campaign might have been.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[User0x45]

...Terrorists attack civilians, while the military are always legitimate targets.

I have often wondered if the U.S. Military HQ the pentagon is considered a "Legitimate" target. If it were the only 9/11 target would we all respect and admire UBL as an equal adversary on the battlefield? Don't think so. If *you* don't like them then you rationalize that they are evil.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[cranos]

Let me guess, you think Fox News is "Fair and Balanced" right?

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[dont_think_twice]

It puts every fact - when issued by the Blair govt - in quotes, to make it look suspicious

Yea, that really bothers me too. Things like Saddams WMDs. I wish they had just reported as fact that Saddam had WMDs, like we did here in the US. It is totally rediculous that a news agency would question the government.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[goon america]

It puts every fact - when issued by the Blair govt - in quotes, to make it look suspicious;

The BBC puts everything in quotes.

At the time of writing the following headlines on the BBC news page contain quotes:

Mydoom virus 'biggest in months'

Martha Stewart 'lied about tip'

'Several dead' in Baghdad blast

'Bribery' halts Kenya graft probe

Obviously the put those headlines in "scare quotes" to make them seem more suspicious!

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the Palestinians are not freedom fighters, what are they? Terrorists?

Yes, they* are terrorists. Murdering innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympic games is a terrorist act. Throwing a wheelchair-bound person off of the Achile Lauro cruise ship into the sea during a hijacking is a terrorist act. Hijacking airliners are terrorist acts. Deliberately targeting civilians are terrorist acts. If you don't believe me, go ask Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.

*(by they, I mean groups such as Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, etc. The majority of Palestinians are civilians.)

There are civilized ways to engage in warfare, and there are barbaric ways. The Palestinian groups have chosen the path of barbarism to try to get their way.

Now, let's talk about the Palestinian claim to a homeland (which is different from discussing how the Palestinians try to obtain said homeland):

After all, they were living on the land before and have to defend themselves somehow. They aren't the ones bulldozing down houses or killing children who pelt rocks at them.

The "we were here first" argument isn't a good one for you - the Jews were there thousands of years before the Muslims & the Arabs. Islam is only 1400 years old.

The UN (in the 1940s) divided the British Mandate of Palestine into 2 countries, one Israeli, one Arab. This was unacceptable to the Arab nations, and they chose the path of war. And lost many times.

The central issue is not Israel's borders, not land, not water, not the wall, not Jerusalem. The Arab grievance is that Israel exists.

They are speaking out and it's working. Every country except for the US is against Israel.

So, if speaking out is working, why are they blowing up innocent civilians? A recent suicide attack in Haifa killed more Arabs than Jews.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[da cog]

"Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes."

Well, I would think that one small difference between the Americans and the Palestinian "freedom fighters" is that the Americans did not sneak into Britain and blow up random civilians, though when you think about it this had been an option available to them at the time. In fact, it would have been stupid for them to have done so because it would have just made Britian much angrier and more inclined to smash the colonies into the ground, just as the acts of many of the Palestinian "freedom fighters" has caused Israel to get really angry and bitter and respond with military action.

Personally I agree with you though about the North attacking civilian targets in the South -- this is a part of American history which I am not particularly proud of.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[MadCow42]

>> palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters

well, anyone that blows themselves is pretty flexible to say the least... and not likely to ever leave their own home. So, I doubt they'd be very effective freedom fighters.

As for blowing innocent babies... that'll get you 25 to life here in America. :)

MadCow

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have often wondered if the U.S. Military HQ the pentagon is considered a "Legitimate" target. If it were the only 9/11 target would we all respect and admire UBL as an equal adversary on the battlefield? Don't think so. If *you* don't like them then you rationalize that they are evil.

The Pentagon is a military installation. If only the Pentagon was attacked on Sept 11th, I don't think UBL would be respected & admired as a result, he's still the enemy.

But it would be difficult to call it a terrorist act. Terrorists attack random civilians.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when this overfunded club of liars is spending taxpayers' money to direct traffic to their hippy-shit, yes, I think that is bad.

Obviously the guy who fucked you in the ear didn't have any trouble getting it out the other ear.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.

I'm sorry, but someone has to draw a line in the sand here. The American revolutionaries wanted freedom from the British, and they fought the superior enemy's military and won. That is a HUGE fucking difference than sneaking men and women onto busses with explosives and killing dozens of innocent people, or blowing up religious dinners (but no, they don't hate jews, just "zionists"), or hiding with sniper rifles behind kids throwing rocks hoping one of the IDF accidently hits a 12 year-old.

The Palestinians don't want freedom from Israel, if they did they would have taken the offer of a state they got 3 years ago instead of launching this latest jihad. The palestinians want to destroy Israel because they hate Jews. Do some research and find out about how many of the founding members of the PLO helped recruit soldiers for the Waffen SS. The Mufti of Jerusalem even lived in Berlin during the war, helping Hitler organize military units. Oh yeah, he was related (uncle I believe, it's been awhile) to Arafat. Oddly enough Arafat doesn't use his real name anymore because it ties him directly to the Nazis.

If the revolutionaries in america had said "No thanks, we'll just destroy your country instead" when the British gave up, THEN they'd be no different than the palistinians.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[fenix down]

Now that's Jerk City dialogue if I've ever heard it.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Aardpig]

Well, I would think that one small difference between the Americans and the Palestinian "freedom fighters" is that the Americans did not sneak into Britain and blow up random civilians

Your point would be relevant, if it were the case that Britain had belonged to America 50 years prior to the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, although the case in Israel, which belonged to the Palestinian peoples until 1946, it was not the case in the US. Hence, your analogy is completely flawed, and all statements you make after the one I quote above are meaningless.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[nfotxn]

What is up with the American fear of quotations? Honestly, this is entirely annecdotal but so many Americans seem to assume they mean more than they do. As if they denote passive aggression or something.

Frankly I see it as an indication of the poor state of public education in the country.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to what PBS and NPR? Name 2 regular conservative hosts on PBS, assclown.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[JeanPaulBob]

You're missing the main difference. The American revolutionaries did not target civilian restaurants and schoolbuses. That's what makes the suicide bombers so despicable. It's who they're killing, not just that they're killing at all.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The North did carry out military operations against logistical targets in the war, however they did not attack civilian targets for the sake of attacking civilian targets"...please explain the burning to the ground of the entire city of Atlanta, Georgia by Union forces, good sir.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point would be relevant, if it were the case that Britain had belonged to America 50 years prior to the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, although the case in Israel, which belonged to the Palestinian peoples until 1946,

Bull. The land belonged to the British, and the Ottoman empire before that. And if you want to make the "we were here first" argument, you lose, since the Jews were on the land thousands of years before the Muslims & Arabs.

And it was the UN which divided the British Mandate territory into 2 states. This was unacceptable to the Arabs, and they declared war. And lost many times.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.

Actually, even at that time, this tactic was very controversial in the North. And in the South of course it was reviled and led directly to the conspiracy to decapitate the federal government.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[bm_luethke]

history is written by the victors man.

I've ceased to believe this. After looking at the current state of the world I find that the victors write thier history and think that no one else knows any different while the victims (and much of the rest of the world) remember. It's not hard to find grudges in europe that go back thousands of years where the victors thought they wrote history and it turns out that 300 generations later thier decendandts still remeber the old hatred.

At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time.

Not really, I've heard this one said many times. While it wasn't normal it was by no means so extraordinary that one would call it "terrorism". That statement needs a little more backing up than "I said so". The British at the time used it as propaganda but pretty much every known army has *always* done so, it so foolish not to that any and all commanders know to do it.

During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.

Have you ever been to the south? Having grown up there and currently living there I can tell you that is a *very* reviled thing that Sherman did. It went well beyond "unconventional warefare" even for it's time. Grant tried to reign Sherman in and was pretty much unable to. It is probably the number one reason for resentment between the north and the south today. Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.

Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.

The reality is that for one side they do, that doesn't make it legitamate. Our American forefathers fought pretty much within the rules of war, many other revolutionaries have also.

A large part of terrorism is attacking civilian targets (not as collateral targets, but as the main targets), as far as I know they didn't attack innocent civilian targets over in england. Neither did the British for the most part. Most of the civil war was fought in the same way, in the places civilians were specifically targeted the victims hate the agressors (no need to look further than native americans for another example). There are few recent wars where people did and in most of those cases it was normal rules of wars (WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever).

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[admbws]

BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters".

Erm, no. They call people who blow themselves up, "suicide bombers". They call the militants, "militants". In Iraq, they call the insurgents, "insurgents". Compare to the completely unbiased and independent American media, who refer to all of those under the collective term, "terrorists".

It puts every fact - when issued by the Blair govt - in quotes, to make it look suspicious;

Has it occured to you, that they might be using quotes because they are quoting someone?

and if you look at their coverage of the Kelly-case, it is very disturbing to see how they selectively brought the facts, cautiously steering the public opinion.

The coverage of the Dr. Kelly affair was incredibly poor. That's a large part of the Hutton Inquiry, right?

However, I get the impression, sir, that you are simply part of the angry right complaining that the BBC is not biased to the right enough.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[zulux]

As for blowing innocent babies... that'll get you 25 to life here in America. :)

But blowing up guilty babies... that'll get you a 10% discount at Wal*Mart (TM).

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

How dare you compare our American heroes to terrorists!

I am an ex-New Yorker, I remember the World Trade Center!

People like you make me wish the stuff about Ashcroft putting American dissidents in camps was true. (but only for a bit, when I'm really angry - so don't flame me to death).

Seriously, Al-Qaeda hates freedom and wants us all dead. Far cry from a people that wanted to be free.

Fighting FOR freedom is MUCH different than fighting AGAINST freedom.

As politically incorrect as it may be here on Slashdot, and unfortunately most of society, I am still going to say it:

*GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!*

Ever wonder why people risk their lives trying to get IN to this country, and risk their lives trying to get OUT of many others?

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's supposed to be "insightful", is it? Some half-arsed dipshit who mouths off because he doesn't like the angle the Beeb took on one or two stories?

Here's "insightful" for ya: the Beeb is actually very good by industry standards. Actually, it tends to be rather rightist in the angles that it takes. It's "left" of Fox, but "right" of the Guardian. Various individuals in the organisation make dubious decisions, just as with any organisation, but generally, their facts are more accurate than the vast majority of what passes for "news" these days.

However, if it comes down to believing CNN, Fox, or the Beeb, I'll take the Beeb, thanks.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[pla]

The Palestinians don't want freedom from Israel, if they did they would have taken the offer of a state they got 3 years ago instead of launching this latest jihad.

No, I suspect you have that correct - They don't want "freedom from Israel"... They want their damn land back! Why should they accept a tiny strip of land, rather than insisting on what they had before?

If I came to your house, kicked you out into the dog-house, and then offered you a "peace treaty" to let you keep the dog-house, would you walk away smiling at your great success at the negotiating table?

I suspect you'd see that situation as a tad bit different.


We hear a very one-sided view of this particular situation, because news outlets (other than the GP's claim about the views of the BBC) greatly fear the "anti-Jewish" label. I used to fear similarly as well, suffering a tad bit of cognitive dissonance as a result, until I realized something VERY important... "Israel" does not equal "Jews" (although it has done its best to blur that point, hoping our memory of WWII will keep us from protesting their actions that, performed by any other country, we would consider as bad as Saddam treated the Kurds). "Israel", though made up of a large number of Jews, exists as a political entity, with its own goals and means, entirely separate from either the race or the religion.

You can observe that "Israel" commits atrocities that make people wonder if they've copied a few pages from Hitler's playbook, without it meaning that you want to put Jews back in camps. You can say "Sharon should stand trial for his actions against the Palestinians", and it doesn't mean you have close-cropped hair and discuss the Final Solution while goose-stepping around your bunker.

See the difference? Try it a bit, and you might feel a lot better. Israel can err. It can commit crimes against humanity. You can admit that, and it doesn't make you a Jew-hater, because Israel has as much to do with Judaism as a philosophy, as Stalin's regime did with actual communism - Just a name.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

It puts every fact - when issued by the Blair govt - in quotes, to make it look suspicious;

Has it occured to you, that they might be using quotes because they are quoting someone?

Yeah but when their TV reporters do "air quotes" it looks really suspicious...

+1 attempted humour

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every country except for the US is against Israel.

The historical European attitude towards Jews (oh sorry, Zionists) is well known.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[ozric99]

Score +5 Funny.

Dude, you forgot to use the phrase "In this post September 11th world."

Maybe only +4 Funny instead...

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Mr12inch(Powerbook)]

Whoa buddy, God has NOTHING to do with these United States of America. And you know what, these terrorists don't give a rat's ass about you or I, or especially our freedom. You have been soaking in too much propaganda. America is a victim of terrorist attacks because of our government's greedy capitalist tactics that trash poorer developing countries and humiliate proud people. I am not defending terrorist tactics by any means, but you should know that from every other country's perspective, the US is the largest terrorist threat in the world (and has killed more foreign people and destroyed more foreign property during "peace" time than any one else).

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[lordDogma]

US is the largest terrorist threat in the world (and has killed more foreign people and destroyed more foreign property during "peace" time than any one else).

Whatcha been readin? Oh, Noam Chomsky - figures. In your effort to cut through all the propaganda of the US govt. you've allowed yourself to be propogandized by someone else.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Bill_Royle]

"BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters"."

It could be said that anyone that's capable of blowing themself isn't a freedom fighter - just very talented.

It certainly should be said that anyone blowing innocent babies should be blown up, Palestinian or not.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Mr12inch(Powerbook)]

Its called historical fact. Documented, historical fact. Have you heard of Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama (and much of Central America)? Ask people that live in these places about US terrorism. Or even our very own Native Americans, hmm were we at "war" with them. Damn, too bad because apparently then we would have been totally justified in slaughtering entire races of people, to suit our greedy-ass ever expanding needs. I mean, we should have been at war, after all, they were living on OUR property and using OUR natural resources. Just like those damn Iraqi's holding all of our oil under their sand. And if you think this war was not about oil, then your head is in the sand. Read a book or two that you were not allowed to read in high school. Now, one can argue with the meaning of documented facts, but one cannot refute their existence. OK, whatever, one can do whatever the hell one wants, but it does tend to make one look silly and ignorant to deny what plainly exists.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[admbws]

If you want to make the "we were here first" argument, you lose also. It's plain you haven't done your bible reading! You forgot about the people who were there before the Israelites... the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, the Jebusites... - And no doubt, there was other people living there prior to them as well.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

You underestimate the resentment Israeli actions have created!
Stupid dont you think:
giving away a coutry that isn't yours.
surely americans and their concept of ownership should understand this situation

sure Jews have a "right" to a "homeland", they just do not have the right to occupy, and disrupt an entire peoples.

so

the word freedom fighter is in order.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[some guy I know]

The North [...] did not attack civilian targets for the sake of attacking civilian targets

How ironic that your sig contains a quote by Sherman, who did exactly that in his famous "march to the sea".

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Bill_Royle]

Losen up and read the quote more carefully, instead of taking the first opportunity to pipe in on Palestine vs Israel.

It's a shame that Slashdot doesn't inject prozac into the cookies they serve.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right -- the Pentagon is a military installation. (The New York WTC of course was not.) Even so, by the usual "laws of war", only a government fight a legitimate war. If some hick from Alabama decides to go on a shooting spree at a Canadian military base, it does not mean that he is a military adversary... he is just a nut, terrorist, or insurrectionist; take your pick.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point would be relevant, if it were the case that [blah]

In what way does X or Y being "the first" to live in a spot of land make irrelevant the essential differences between organised serial mass murders of civilians based on race and religion and regular warfare?

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its called historical fact. Documented, historical fact. Have you heard of Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama (and much of Central America)? Ask people that live in these places about US terrorism.

I wouldn't call most of those terrorist acts, they are Acts of War.

When Bill Clinton ordered the bombing (with a cruise missile) of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, that wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an act of war, not terrorism.

Hypothetically, if Clinton supported a guerrilla group that went and bombed the pharmaceutical factory, then they would be supporting terrorism.

Notice that the result is the same - a blown up pharmaceutical factory. Terrorism is a tactic, it is not a goal in and of itself.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Compare to the completely unbiased and independent American media, who refer to all of those under the collective term, "terrorists".

Bull-fucking-shit. From an AP press report: (link may break in the future)

Also Tuesday, two CNN employees were shot and killed by unidentified assailants on a highway, just outside Baghdad when they were driving back from an assignment.

Car bombs have become a favorite weapon of insurgents fighting a guerrilla war against U.S.-led coalition forces since the ouster of Saddam Hussein's regime last April. They have usually targeted U.S. troops and Iraqi police, but often Iraqi civilians have been the victims.

A suicide car bomb at the gate of the U.S. compound in Baghdad on Jan. 18 killed at least 31 people and injured more than 120 Iraqis.

Descriptions of three different attacks in Iraq -- no references to terrorism. (The last attack was probably a terrorist act, unless the goal was to somehow get the car to a military facility.)

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats an uncredited Associated Press report, which has been picked up by several newspapers. It was probably not written by an american.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Fr33z0r]

Relating this to today's events, my dictionary defines "terrorism" as

"the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments"

One man's terrorism is another man's "shock and awe"... It sounds almost friendly in comparison, doesn't it? :)

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

> "BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters""

>history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and
>sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA
>call them revolutionaries now, and revere them. During the civil war, the north took a radical
>step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would
>have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.

>Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy.
>Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american
>forefathers heroes.

I noticed a lot of people use the word 'terrorism' with out really knowing what it means, a lot like say 'rascist' or 'nazi'. You see sniping officers isn't terrorism, becouse they are, beyound any doubt, legitimate military target, blowing up innocent babies is terrorism and so is attacking civilian targets by union forces.

Likewise attacking a american military vessal isn't a terrorist act, slaming civilian airliners into civilian or military buildings is.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

>I have often wondered if the U.S. Military HQ the pentagon is considered a "Legitimate" target. If it
>were the only 9/11 target would we all respect and admire UBL as an equal adversary on the battlefield?
>Don't think so. If *you* don't like them then you rationalize that they are evil.

The pentagon is indeed a legitimate military target, however a civilian airliner isn't. Try again

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

"BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters""

history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA call them revolutionaries now, and revere them. During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.

Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.

For another example see this

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes that must explain why Israel was created under a British mandate when Britian pulled out of its middle eastern teritory at the end of WW II. Because we hate them, we gave them their own country.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Savage-Rabbit]

"Every country except for the US is against Israel."

Not every body is against Israel. Just like it is possible to dislike communism without hating Russians in general it is quite possible to dislike Ariel Sharon, his fanatical Zionist cronies and their landgrabbing in the occupied territories without at the same being against Israel and hating all Jews.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[dipipanone]

Palestinian groups don't attack the Israeli military - the military has lots of guns, and shoots back. Blowing up Israeli children is so much easier.

Yeah, right.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[dipipanone]

Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.

Do you suppose it makes you feel more happy or less happy than the descendants of the slaves that they kept?

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[OriginalArlen]

"BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters""

Well, so they are. What's your point?

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[haggar]

So blowing up babies is OK? Just answer yes or no.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[isorox]

Compare to the completely unbiased and independent American media, who refer to all of those under the collective term, "terrorists".

They call the IRA (you know, that group that blows up little kids) "Freedom fighters" though

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Mateito]

> There are civilized ways to engage in warfare,
> and there are barbaric ways.

Yes. Civilised warfare is when you sit in your plane, miles above the enemy, and bomb him to kingdom come with superior technology.

Barabaric warfare is what you do when you don't have million dollar computer controlled ICBMs, and are reduced to strapping TNT to your chest and blowing yourself up in a way that will, hopefully, draw international attention to the plight of your oppressed people.

I'm not saying that the Palestinian extremists are any more "in the right" that the Israeli or USA extremists, only that when you are confronted with superior weaponry, you really don't have a lot of choice.

Remember David vs Goliath? David defeated superior physical strength with superior weaponry. The story now paints him as a hero... even though he didn't following the chivalrous rules of engagement.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[aeryn_sunn]

Do you have any cites that support your accusations of the BBC?
What information can you point to that the BBC is known to be utterly biased? socialist?
Where is your direct proof that the BBC thinks that Palestinian suicide bombers are "freedom fighters"?
Where is your proof that the BBC is an overfunded club of liars?

You do not have any, that is why...you are only regurgitating other conservative pundits that also have no supporting proof of their rhetoric. Just like the one about NPR being some left wing biased news program.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[haggar]

If I came to your house, kicked you out into the dog-house, and then offered you a "peace treaty" to let you keep the dog-house, would you walk away smiling at your great success at the negotiating table?

However, the palestinian arabs were not kicked out. They left their homes voluntarily, thinking it would be just a temporary move, so to allow the arab coalition to bomb the jews into smithereens, and then move back. Even many pasestinian arabs have documented these events from 1948 and explicitly said that their leaders asked them to leave their homes and allow the arab armies and cannons a free playing ground.

This tactic miserably misfired, as the jews held, against incredible odds.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Wyatt Earp]

"How ironic that your sig contains a quote by Sherman, who did exactly that in his famous "march to the sea"."

Ah, but he didn't. The popular understanding of Sherman's March to the Sea is that he raped and pillaged Georgia. He didn't. The Army attacked Confederate infrastructure while on the march, freed slaves and burned cotton and other goods the state depended on while knocking out communication (railroads and telegraph) while living off the land as they marched.

The living off the land by foraging was a time-honored tradition for an army it's just been made controversal during the March to the Sea.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Oligonicella]

No, it is not; and no, it does not.
Terrorism is the use of terror. It will not work against a competent army, only against civilians.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[rhakka]

Our forefathers did, however, lynch Tories here in the colonies.

Civilians die in war. Whether it's intentional or not doesn't really matter all that much when it comes down to it; we just killed more civilians in Iraq than the palestinians can kill in a decade. I'm not saying I agree with the palestinians, I'm just saying whether someone is a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist" depends solely on the perspective of the writer. Really the lines aren't all that clear.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the IRA are not freedom fighters, what are they? Terrorists? After all, the Irish were living on the land before and have to defend themselves somehow. They aren't the ones who invaded someone else's country and intentionally starved the native populace. They are speaking out and it's working. Every country except for the UK knows that Northern Ireland is illegally occupied territory.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time Palestinians warned the Israeli establishment to evacuate because there was a bomb?

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[rhakka]

I said nothing about al qaeda, new york, or the WTC. Other than that, brilliant comment.

Though if you are an impoverished arab male watching the americans oddly side with the only white country in your area, your long time hated enemies... are you striking a blow the only possible way against a hated enemy, or are you a "terrorist"?

all a matter of perspective. Perhaps, before you get your panties in a bunch, you would like to consider that between Iraq and Afghanistan, we've killed more than 5 times as many civilians as died in the WTC. You say intent matters, I say intent does not matter to the civilians who are now dead, nor their families.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's typical bbc-like: questioning everything, even 1+1=2 if it doesn't suit their taste. You must be blind... His post probably hurt you for some reaseon?

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's totally ridiculous that anyone still thinks 'rediculous' is a word.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you say the palestinean animals blowing themselves up are "terrorists", then you are suspended, sent to re-education camp, and then forced to pay a fine.

If you say the Isrealis are just part of the Zionist conpiracy, that fits what the BBC believes is the "truth".

Hey, Fox is biased, but then we all know about that. The BBC has fallen a long way.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is by George TECUSAH Sherman.

He is a general who knew how to KICK ASS.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bub,

We all die. Get over it. But we want to die as free Americans.

People who think about killing for Allah... they're rats. And we'll kill them like the vermin they are.

One more attack, the entire middle east is smoking, radioactive glass.

Don't think or a moment we won't do it and then feel bad about it. Be we'll do it. Don't push us.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, as long as the baby is in uniform, holding a gun.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[rhakka]

and if we did, we'd be neither heroes nor terrorists for doing it, or both, depending on your perspective, which is the entire point.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Jagasian]

The "we were here first" argument isn't a good one for you - the Jews were there thousands of years before the Muslims & the Arabs. Islam is only 1400 years old.

First off, Muslims are not the same thing as Arabs. In fact, the term "Arab" seems to be used to describe Semites living in the Middle East. Well, non-Jewish Semites have been living on the land now known as "Israel" far before the Judaism took over. In the Torah and Old Testament of the Bible, stories are told of the Jews destroying Canaanite cities, killing Canaanites, etc... until the Jews took over.

While religious texts aren't necessarily historical, plenty of scientific evidence exists which supports the existence of non-Jewish Semitic civilization in Israel for thousands of years before Jewish control. Furthermore, scientific evidence also suggests that these Canaanites were Semitic and ancestors of both Jews and modern-day Palestinians.

It turns out that "Palestinians" have been living their since pre-history. These people's culture and religion has slowly changed, some became Jews, some Christian, some Muslim... whatever...

In this day, why does the current government of Israel apply two different standards: one to Jews and another to "Palestinians"? They are both people of the same land. There is a word for such a thing: apartheid.

In my opinion, two nations (Israel and Palestine) is not a solution, it is a further institutionalization of the problem. The true solution is one nation as has always been the case. Call it Israel, call it Palestine, call it Judea, whatever... BUT _everyone_ should be equal under the law and _everyone_ should have religious freedom. Religious sites should be respected and shared in such a way as to respect each religion's beliefs.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[rhakka]

is it ok for us or our friends to blow up babies? answer yes or no.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[rhakka]

"Hypothetically, if Clinton supported a guerrilla group that went and bombed the pharmaceutical factory, then they would be supporting terrorism"

like we have done in several of the countries the previous poster mentioned?

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[lordDogma]

Have you heard of Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama (and much of Central America)? Ask people that live in these places about US terrorism

Like I said, you've been propagandized by Chomsky and the gang. I'm not denying that any of that happened; I'm saying that you have shown zero perspective and zero ability to grasp the complexity of those situations.

The US may have been involved in some covert operations here and there, but you fail to look at it in perspective. Lets take Vietnam for example. Before US involvement communist insurgents were infiltrating South Vietnam, assassinating leaders, and trying to spark a communist revolution. The US reacted with support to the South Vietnamese govt. and later with direct military force. Perhaps it was wrong to get involved and escalate the war in Vietnam, but you can hardly say we started it. You could fault North Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union more than you can fault the US for the clusterfuck that ensued. Same with Korea. You talk about "documented, historical fact" and then try to equate our defense of South Korea (which was invaded) with terrorism? Any serious student of historical fact would laugh you off the stage for that one. Lets examine South/Central America for a minute. Ok, so we supported guerilla fighters in an effort to combat Communism. You think those South/Central American govts were just naturally inclined to adopt communism, or do you think the Soviets had their own brand of covert activity going on? Had we not acted, its likely we would have a bunch of despotic Fidel Castro wannabes down there throwing people in prison for daring to criticize their govts. For all the crap you leftists spew about human rights and social justice, you don't seem too keen on defending those rights when the bullets start flying. Christ you even mentioned Cambodia, as if the US is to blame for Pol Pot's raving mad left-wing genocide. You could argue that he came to power when CIA meddling backfired in Cambodia, but I could argue that CIA meddling was a result of a need to establish a pro-US govt, which in turn was the result of Chinese and Soviet meddling in SE Asia. As for bombing the shit out of eastern cambodia, I could argue that if the Vietnamese "terrorists" would not have violated the sovereignty of cambodia then the US would not have done the same. For all your bullshit fingerpointing, I can point fingers right back.

You aren't wrong to criticise the US for our activities over the years, but you are living in la-la land if you think those activities were a sole result of US "terrorism". It takes two (and more often than not three or four) to dance. You have not recognized that fact and for that you get a big fat F in your history class.

Or even our very own Native Americans, hmm were we at "war" with them. Damn, too bad because apparently then we would have been totally justified in slaughtering entire races of people

I have two points: (1) If you feel so guilty about what your/our ancestors did then you're welcome to leave the country and go back to Europe (or wherever you came from). And while you're at it why don't you take your car and your bank account and give it to the Native Indians as a down-payment on reparations? (2) You're argument about the US taking land from natives is harldy evidence that the US is any worse than other countries. As long as you're criticising us, why don't you talk about the land "stolen" from the Aztecs, Incans, Mayans, etc. in central/south America. Why don't you call out Canada for the same crimes? Oh, and make sure you tell the Aussies that they should give Australia back to the Aboriginees.

-- LD

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Mr12inch(Powerbook)]

You are missing the point, all of this US military activity was about one thing, money. We weren't trying to stop the evil commies, or bad guy X, out of the goodness of our hearts, if that were true why did we wait so long to get involved in WW2? Because it wasn't profitable for us to do so. The US has a lengthy and vicious track record of exerting our political and military might to "capitilize" the rest of the world. Using military tactics for monetary gain is terrorist activity IMHO. As far as your assertion that I should move to another country, how about I keep working on making this country what it CLAIMS to be and you try to notice when Big Money/Big Government (they are one and the same) tells you what to think.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[lordDogma]

If that were true why did we wait so long to get involved in WW2?

*SIGH* God almighty. This is what passes for critical analysis in your mind? It was because we had an "isolationist feeling" at the time. We wanted to stay out of foreign entanglements, aliances and wars, particularly the neverending, bloody European ones. We'd just gotten over WWI, why the fuck would we want to repeat it? I suppose the attitude was that if the Europeans were so stupid as to wind up fighting the same damn war over again after just 20 years then then they were a lost cause and we should just let them destroy each other.

Unfortunately we found out the hard way that if we don't join the party on our own then the party will come knocking at our door anyway (witness Pearl Harbor).

I don't know where you got the profit BS from. No doubt you read it in a book written by communists or socialists. What better way to bring harm to the reputation of capitalism than to blame all wars on a naked motivation for profit by capitalist countries? I find it very interesting that left-wing thinkers tend to blame the the US for Korea, Vietnam, et. al, while conveniently leaving out the other side. It would look too bad if a communist country was actually to blame for a war; no sir can't have that can we Mr. Chomsky?

The [INSERT ABOUT A DOZEN COUNTRIES HERE] has a lengthy and vicious track record of exerting our political and military might to "capitilize" the rest of the world.

Wow, what a genious you are for pointing that out. I didn't know that. Yes, we're such bad imperialists. We leave our footprints in the sand to be discovered. Everyone else makes sure to conceal theirs.

By the way, if war is so profitable then why are people complaining about the $200+ billion we're sinking into Iraq. By your accounts the war should miraculously pay itself off.

-- LD

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[Imran]

Very nicely put. Likely to fall on deaf ears, but I wholeheartedly support the opinions you have expressed.

Bravo.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[mcpheat]

BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters"

I've never heard the BBC call suicide bombers "freedom fighters". Can you provide even one example of a BBC report that says that? Don't think so.

Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA!

[bm_luethke]

Probably about the same I would suppose.

As far as I can tell I haven't been dreamily talking about raping, torturing, or killing slaves. But I sure do understand them greatly dislikeing those that do - I empathise with that fairly well.

I do not like the practice of slavery and do not feel bad about the end of civil war (that is, the south loosing - it was the best and correct outcome). Grant did the correct thing and even though he defeated us few have animosity towards him (in fact many show affection based on his treatment of the south). Sherman did the wrong thing and is reviled here. Just as there were slaves that stayed with thier former masters there were ones that immediatly left. I would suppose the treatment and resentment is similar to the difference in Sherman and Grant.

The BBC IS complicit.

[Cosmik]

I'll go to a new source other than the BBC, since they are obviously trying to skew the news surrounding the case by buying up these Google results.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

According to the newspaper (the Sun), Lord Hutton criticised the BBC and its reporter Andrew Gilligan over a broadcast suggesting Downing Street inserted a claim that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.

"I am satisfied Dr Kelly did not say the Government probably knew or suspected the 45-minute claim was wrong before the claim was inserted in the dossier," Lord Hutton is reported as finding.

"The allegation reported by Mr Gilligan that the Government probably knew the claim was wrong or questionable was unfounded."

As a result, the program's listeners were given a misleading impression that the Government "embellished" its dossier.

The British newspaper, The Sun, has gotten its hands on a leaked copy of the report, from which this above information is drawn. Dr. Kelly killed himself after it was claimed he was the one to give the 45 minute quote. Therefore, the BBC is complicit.

Re:The BBC IS complicit.

[Cosmik]

Bah. Insert a after the second last paragraph - "misleading impression that the Government "embellished" its dossier.

Re:The BBC IS complicit.

[LochNess]

Calling The Sun a "newspaper" is being more than a little generous.

I wouldn't believe anything in that rag unless I could confirm it in about five other, indipendent, sources.

Re:The BBC IS complicit.

[AVee]

But it wan't the BBC that revealed the name of Dr. Kelly. That was the British Government, the BBC wouldn't have released it.

It's still dubious to, out of all news, pick this story to advertise form.

Re:The BBC IS complicit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes

How many politicians could launch a hot dinner in 45 mins?

The whole point of this story was the spin that Only a weapons expert would realise that launching nuclear weapons in 45 minutes was an unlikely capability whne it s perfectly obvious that this would require the weapons to be On armed, fitted on fuelled up planes, with pilots in and the engines running

Given that past experience showed Iraqi planes with fuel and Pilots would defect in less than 45 minutes, this has to be a claim so stupid only politicians would believe it. However: asking for an inquiry which repeats the mantra that "only an expert could find out the claim was stupid" creates the image that an ordinary person would never guess that this was an absurd claim, and thus the politicians were really misled, and not lying through their teeth.

Can someone find out whether SCO have a patent on "lying through their teeth"?

Re:The BBC IS complicit.

[OriginalArlen]

Bollocks. Dr Kelly decided to kill himself because he was caught out lying in public. More fool him. No-one else is responsible for his actions. All the BBC did was report his allegations - quite correctly in my view as they were extraordinary and went to the heart of the debate then raging about the legitimacy of the Iraq war. Whatever happens post Hutton this story won't die until the guilty parties in the HMG / the US govt are banged up for war crimes.

Re:The BBC IS complicit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the Sydney Morning Herald report you are quoting is incorrect. The Sun does not claim to have access to "a leaked copy of the report". They only claim to have access to a precis of the conclusions.

You know what'd be great?

[rasafras]

BBC should track the referrers. If the person comes from Google, instead of displaying a news page, they should display a giant banner proclaiming

"You are the victim of a shameless advertising experiment.
Footnote: We are not liable for any self-inflicted damage after reading this page"

Re:You know what'd be great?

[Guppy06]

" they should display a giant banner proclaiming

"You are the victim of a shameless advertising experiment. "

Isn't that the web in general nowadays?

Correction...

[jmv]

...except the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier...

Actually, the BBC was citing Dr. Kelly to criticize the 'sexing up' done by the british government. Then the government revealed the name of Dr. Kelly as the source, leading to pressures on him. So I don't think the BBC is really complicit in his death and it's definitely haven't 'sexed up' the Iraq dossier.

Of course, I still find what they're doing with google questionable at best.

Re:Correction...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck can you be 'complicit' in a suicide in the first place?

Re:Correction...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Dr. Kelly made some comments criticizing the government. The BBC then "sexed up" Dr. Kelly's comments and his reported position in the government in order to increase ratings and further the reporter's agenda and career. (They essentially took comments from a CIA Analyst level expert, spun them, and reported them as anonymous comments from a Cabinet level member.)

When the BBC heads found out about this they closed ranks and defended the reporter's falsification of information. Compare this with the NY Times reaction when it was discovered that a black reporter was falsifying stories.

Whether "complicit" is the right word relative to the death is open to debate and the report will hopefully tell more about how much pressure ther BBC put on Dr. kelly to spin things in a way that would preserve the BBC's reputation. Regardless, the BBC was complacint in falsifying and exagerating information, and reporting based upon a personal or insitutional bias and not being neutral (as required by British law).

The fundamental problem, is that ever since Watergate journalists don't feel that they have "made it" in their profession unless they can bring down a government. So, this type of slanted reporting and lying to the public, under the arua of nuetrality is rewared. When the politicians lie and spin, I expect that of them. They are acting like wolves in wolves' skin. The reporters, especially in this case, acted like wolves in sheeps' skin.

Re:Correction...

[Anonymous Coward]

They essentially took comments from a CIA Analyst level expert, spun them, and reported them as anonymous comments from a Cabinet level member.

Except, oops, they didn't. There goes your entire post.

Re:Correction...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah but they did.... There goes your post.

29 May: BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan tells the Today programme that a senior British official has told him that the government's dossier on Iraq...

BBC web page timeline

July 7: The government says the official is not one of the senior officials involved in drawing up the September dossier, but an expert who has advised ministers on weapons of mass destruction.

MediaGuardian.co.uk timeline

Re:Correction...

[MarkusQ]

How the fuck can you be 'complicit' in a suicide in the first place?

Easy. You print lies about someone in such a way that they feel their life is no longer worth living.

-- MarkusQ

P.S. This has been known to drive some poor souls into hiding in the woods and stabbing themselves repeatedly in the chest, etc.

Re:Correction...

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres no name in there you idiot. RTFA

Re:Correction...

[corian]

How the fuck can you be 'complicit' in a suicide in the first place?

Easy! Either you, or your wife Cherie, calls up MI5, and asked them to quiet a certain Dr. Kelleyp. And then you add "if you can make it look like a suicide...all the better".

Or somesuch.

Re:Correction...

[dipipanone]

Hang on.

You claimed that the BBC presented this guy (a civil service defence analyst -- somewhat akin to your CIA analyst, I suppose) as an anonymous cabinet minister.

He says that what you say isn't true.

You post some links that you feel are a rebuttal, but your links don't actually don't say anything about the guy being reported as a cabinet minister.

In fact, Kelly *did* contribute to the production of the report. He may not have been an author, but the officials certainly ran it by him and sought his opinions on the contents. Their refusal to take his advice is what almost certainly led to his interpretation that the facts had been 'sexed up' and his leaking the story to the media.

On balance, I think you lose.

Re:Correction...

[Hittite Creosote]

They essentially took comments from a CIA Analyst level expert, spun them, and reported them as anonymous comments from a Cabinet level member.)

I'm not aware of when they did that. Gilligan said
I've spoken to a British official who was involved in the preparation of the dossier
quote taken directly from Transcript of Gilligan's report on the Today programme

If you believe that they meant a cabinet level official from that, well then I'd suggest that's your problem. If they said it elsewhere, well I'd like to see a transcript of when they did.

How to see the adverts?

[derek_farn]

I have tried the obvious search strings "kelly suicide", "Hutton report", "Iraq war", suicide, murder, bbc, labour government, in various combinations without seeing any adverts. Perhaps the ads are only being targeted at non-UK residents, or perhaps they only start appearing after the report is published in a few hours time? Has anybody actually seen Kelly/BBC related ads on Google yet?

Re:How to see the adverts?

[Cosmik]

Nope, I haven't. And I've been trying to find the source of where this submission came from. Google news only has one article on BBC buying up Google ads - and it's this Slashdot article.

So, the only mention of BBC buying up Google ads I could find was this url: http://news.google.com/url?ntc=0MZA1&q=http://yro. slashdot.org/yro/04/01/28/049235.shtml%3Ftid%3D126 %26tid%3D149%26tid%3D153%26tid%3D95%26tid%3D99

To the submitter, if you are out there, where'd you get this information from?

Re:How to see the adverts?

[eean]

Um, the Guardian? RTFA. And considering there is a quote in the Guardian from BBC concerning the manner, it likely quite accurate.

I think the BBC probably canceled the ad-words after Guardian's article.

Re:How to see the adverts?

[Cosmik]

What? I have to RTFA? I can't handle that much multi-tasking!

Re:How to see the adverts?

[Mr2cents]

I can't handle that much multi-tasking!
Be careful, you could damage your flash filesystem and enter a reset loop!

I, for one, don't see the point.

[-kertrats-]

I hardly ever read the colored boxes on the right. They're more ads than anything. Getting results like 'Read the gravitational fields Ebook on Amazon.com' doesnt entice me to look to the right side of my screen. I'll read the normal results over the right-hand side results any day of the week, thank you.

Re:I, for one, don't see the point.

[MrsPReDiToR]

I actively dont go to the ads on the right. If they need to get my attention that much then their content cant be that impressive on its own! Like you Im happy with the straight links.

Re:I, for one, don't see the point.

[marauder404]

You're in the very small minority. Run a few AdWord test campaigns and see what you get. I'm privy to data from a few different search engines and you would be amazed at the inane things that people search for and what they actually click on.

Re:I, for one, don't see the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. In case Google hadn't noticed, people reading English read from left to right.

Google...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is unacceptable! I can understand paid links being exclusive but getting redirected just puts me off. Honestly, google better watch it because if someone better comes along I'm leaving.

Re:Google...

[Slashcrunch]

Have you tried it?
I googled for "hutton inquiry" and did not get redirected. The ads appear right at the top, but no redirection.
If you're going to cry, "unacceptable!" here, try it out first.

Does anyone have a clue what they mean?

[harlows_monkeys]

Buying Google keywords doesn't redirect searches. It just determines what sponsered links show up.

Re:Does anyone have a clue what they mean?

[pipingguy]

Buying Google keywords doesn't redirect searches. It just determines what sponsered links show up.

And most people that are looking for unbiased information (and know what they are doing) ignore the sponsored links for the most part because they are obviously "payed-for" (sic).

Abuse of Google?

[unboring]

Doesn't this qualify as an abuse of the Google search service?
I (and I'm sure millions of others) browse through Google results to get the articles and opinions from over the world. Allowing this would mean no fair-an-balanced news via Google anymore.
Google would be wise to come up with way to prevent such abuse IMHO.

Re:Abuse of Google?

[Clinoti]

I don't think its abuse of the searching system. This is along the same grounds as a link to vendmachines.com on the right of the screen that you get when you submit a search for vending machines.

Other information is there to be viewed but you dont have to click on the sponsored link, the option of where you want to follow up is up to you.

The danger is that the BBC is so large of a company and some feel that this move is not a sponsporship of events by their history division (for example) but rather to cull popular opinion to their spin of the story.

Re:Abuse of Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

you, sir, are a clueless n00b.

your ignorance is pathetic.

RTFA!

Unfair and imbalanced

[r_j_prahad]

I once tried watching the news on BBC America and Fox News in the same evening but it made my head implode.

If they get any further apart they're going to meet.

Re:Unfair and imbalanced

[Anonymous Coward]

It reminds me of when eastern bloc reporters used tocome to north america and wonder how we managed to have all these newscasts repeating the 'party' line without any threats or coercion.

Then of course they got a course in Soros style journalism where now they teach them how to be good reporters like north americans.
Criticize some things, minimize the importance of others and always be politically correct when you criticize certain favored groups.

I also remember a german friend who lived in NYC and told me that he couldnt stop laughing whenever a yank would praise Charlie Rose as representing a different viewpoint.
Sure Charlie wasnt FOX caliber but he's the same corporate flack as Jennings, Brokaw and the rest.
Radio Pacifica and Rush are extremes of the spectrum but the spectrum is heavily on the right here.

don

Re:Unfair and imbalanced

[zoney_ie]

I once tried watching the news on Fox News but it made my head implode.

Re:Unfair and imbalanced

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that Fox News was a news channel. I also thought that Iraq had a huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Seems I am wrong on both counts.

Obviously you think differently...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think there's a fine line of distinction between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists." You can't deny that the palestinians want to have freedom from Israel. Just because we, as a populace, have a postive image of the term "freedom fighters" (aka Star Wars) doesn't mean they're nice and happy people.

Anyway I'd prefer a left bias to a right bias. At least with a left bias, the arguments are intelligible. With a right bias, reason is thrown out the window, facts are ignored, and science is tossed in the fire.

Re:Obviously you think differently...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because we, as a populace, have a postive image of the term "freedom fighters" (aka Star Wars)

Actually, I believe term "freedom fighters" became common during the Reagan administration - they used it to describe the Contras.

The term was mocked by many: crime fighters fight against crime, fire fighters fight against fire, so what do freedom fighters fight against? :)

Re:Obviously you think differently...

[wass]

At least with a left bias, the arguments are intelligible. With a right bias, reason is thrown out the window, facts are ignored, and science is tossed in the fire.

You've never read Indymedia, have you?

Re:Obviously you think differently...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think there's a fine line of distinction between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists." You can't deny that the palestinians want to have freedom from Israel.

So you're equating "the palestinians" with "suicide bombers" (massmurdering terrorists) then?

Yes, the Palestinians (well, an overwhelming majority of them anyway) want freedom from Israel.

Not all Palestinians want all Jews to die or think that the way to Palestinian liberation is by killing as many Israelis as possible.

Anyway I'd prefer a left bias to a right bias. At least with a left bias, the arguments are intelligible. With a right bias, reason is thrown out the window, facts are ignored, and science is tossed in the fire.

Fuckwit. Judging by your post, I take it you have a "right bias" then, by your own troll definition.

Re:Obviously you think differently...

[cHiphead]

I for one get more than enough trolling at the top of each /. article comments.

AdWords doesn't play that...

[LostCluster]

I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google

Google would pull the ad as soon as it appoaches the daily limit. You might be able to mute the ads by seeing to it that you're the only one who sees them, but you wouldn't be able to drive them over their budget.

Bush pays too...

[George_007]

Type "miserable failure" into google and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky".

Re:Bush pays too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the Internet, Grandma!

Re:Bush pays too...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuk u bitches

glacvcd.org

LOOKS LIKE KERRY TORE DEAN A NEW GOATSE

[CmdrTaco (troll)]

Re:LOOKS LIKE KERRY TORE DEAN A NEW GOATSE

[Anonymous Coward]

fuk u - u slow troll bitch
glacvcd.org

I bet he gets slashdot sued for millions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, idiots.

So what?

[Ossifer]

Why would anyone assume that the "sponsored links" are somehow independently managed by an editor? So what if the BBC comes out on top--it just means that they paid the most.

In my mind a news organization has the right to actively defend itself when it itself is being accused of a crime--just as any other entity would...

Misread

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least Google doesn't has as much power as I originally thought when I read this headline. Seeing the phrase "Buys Google" really caused be to tense up. The thought of a major media outlet buying Google is unthinkable.

BBC unbiased?

[Anonymous Coward]

can you morons stop buying into all the BS the BBC publishes?

Panorama

[Aardpig]

Before we all don our tin-foil hats, its worth pointing out that the episode of Panorama (a highly-respected current affairs programme) which aired last Wednesday was highly critical of the BBC involvement in the Kelly business. Which channel did it air on? That would be BBC One. Don't beleive me? Check out this story on the BBC website.

In light of this, it's pretty peverse to suggest that the BBC has gone to any lengths to hide or downplay their involvement in the whole affair. I myself think the Google ad buying is simply part of the BBCs shift towards positioning itself as more of a 'regular' media player (albeit with public funding), as opposed to the state-run service which it originated as.

Re:Panorama

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankyou, you seem to be the only person here who isnt a retarded retard. Im shocked at the ammount of dumb comments on this story, get a fucking clue guys.

Re:Panorama

[happyhippy]

If I had mod points to give....

Even Newsnight, the BBC2 news program critised the BBC on a number of occasions.

Re:Panorama

[j1mmy]

If memory serves me correctly, the BBC did start out as a regular media player before it become the government-funded service it is today.

Re:Panorama

[ultrasound]

The BBC is NOT government funded. It operates under a Royal Charter with no oversite or control from the government, and no tax payers money from the treasury. The money comes from the licence-fee, payed by everyone with a television. Although this appears similar to a tax the important point is that the BBC budget is not controlled by the government and therefore they can't threaten budget cuts in order to rein them in. Although they may be able to influence the terms of the charter at its renewal in 2006.

Some people object to being forced to pay GBP 116 (about $210 at todays prices) per year for this service even if they dont watch it. I think it is a small price to pay for some of the highest quality TV in the world, with no brainless adverts interrupting the programs every 15 minutes. For this money we get two main terrestrial channels + 6 other channels (News 24 etc), and 10 high quality radio stations including the BBC World Service, Radios 1 to 4, all again with no adverts.

MOD PARENT DOWN - READ REPLIES

[Anonymous Coward]

JUST READ EM

Things that were missed

[FlukeMeister]

Reading this article I'm surprised that The Guardian (very respected UK daily newspaper) have missed one of the more important aspects of the BBC (must highly respected news broadcaster in the world) buying Google search keywords related to the Hutton inquiry. This action will cause the BBC to appear as a link on any website mentioning the Hutton inquiry that uses Google advertising banners on its pages, not just on Google search results pages.

In taking this action, the BBC will be inexorably linked with the Hutton inquiry as a source of information, rather than having an major role in the events that have led to it.

I would also question the use of the phrases "buying up all internet search terms relating to the inquiry" and "anyone searching for "Hutton inquiry" or "Hutton report" on ... Google is automatically directed to a paid-for link to BBC Online's own news coverage of the inquiry."

The first of these phrases implies the BBC is attempting to prevent others from using these keywords by buying Google's entire stock. This is obviously false, as anybody can buy Google's keywords and there is an unlimited supply.

The second of these phrases states that uses will atuomatically be directed to the BBC Online site when searching for 'Hutton enquiry'. This is blatantly false. Instead, a link to the BBC Online coverage will be displayed amongst a separate list of clearly demarcated sponsored links.

Buying advertising to negate the effect of negative crticism is a well-established business practice for which The Guardian (and indeed all other media which provide advertising facilities) have long served as a platform for.

What's far worse than the implied misdirection by the BBC in The Guardian's article is the blantant misreporting of opinion as fact in the Slashdot headline. Stating that the BBC is 'complicit' in the death of Dr Kelly is factually incorrect, not to mention libellous in the extreme.

Re:Things that were missed

[Beautyon]

You shouldnt be surprised by this at all. Read this piece of trash that recently appeared in The Guardian. These people are internet and computer illiterates; nothing wrong with that, until of course you portray yourself as a source of correct information about this very important subject and the way it can influnce the flow of news.

What is amazing is that there is not one person on The Guardian's staff that can get the facts right when they write about anything related to the internet or computers, even on a most important and politically sensitive subject like this.

We need to remember that at the end of the day, The Guardian is just another newspaper. Whilst we may have applauded it for its recent coverage of the Iraq debacle, its still run by the same sort of people who run The Telegraph and The Times; Fleet Street Journalists - for whome "truth" and "accuracy" are just pawns on a chessboard.

Re:Things that were missed

[ctid]

I think that it's a bit unfair to criticize the entire Guardian staff based on something that Jack Schofield says about Free or Open Source software. The man is fanatical in his hatred of FOSS; the only interesting question about this is, "why?" I personally believe that he's simply "trolling" for readers. There are lots of people like me who tend to read his column in Guardian Online on Thursdays, just to see what boneheaded nonsense he has come out with this time. (I have, however, stopped buying the Guardian on Thursdays as I don't want to financially support them while they print such rubbish). Other people believe that his behaviour is more characteristic of a person who is scared in some way. He is clearly very familiar with Windows and he might be one of those who would prefer not to learn another operating system (in which case you might reasonably ask why he's a technical journalist, of course!) Another school of thought about his hostility is that when he first tried to install Linux he couldn't for some reason. When he went to the communities for help, somebody was a bit horrible to him and he's been bearing a grudge all these years. This is by far the most amusing theory!

I've just thought that there are some clued-up journalists who work for The Guardian and The Observer (for you non-UK readers, these papers are in the same ownership). Glyn Moody wrote the excellent, Rebel Code and he sometimes writes in The Guardian. And on Sunday there is the incomparable John Naughton, who wrote a compelling history of the internet. Naughton's column appears in the Business section of the Observer. It is required reading, IMHO.

Re:Things that were missed

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that article was exceptionally good. What, precisely, about an article that even got the origins of the "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" nomenclature war correct led you to believe that the writer was an "internet and computer illiterate"? I think your bias is obscuring your view: simply because Mr Schofield isn't a rah-rah cheerleader for Open Source or Free Software and concludes that the jury is still out on thether the methodology will survive, you get all angry and post little rants to Slashdot.

Re:Things that were missed

[Beautyon]

Hmmmm, this man is so offensive and serially wrong that you stopped buying the paper on the day he writes!

Printing a few articles because they are funny is one thing, but the evidence is that the editors do not understand that this man is a joke which is evidenced by the sort of article that we are talking about right now.

Keeping him on while he perpetually writes nonsense simply doesnt cut it; the other, clue purchased, writer you mentioned writes only occasionally, then there is Naughton who is probably not read as widely because his work appears in the vestigial Observer; either way, he is obviously not on the "consult before print" list.

The way you "do it" is get columnists who know what they are writing about to contribute regularly, and make sure that they are consulted so they can correct and doublecheck everything written by staffers related to their expertise before it appears in the paper.

For the record, I dont care that the Schofield article is about Linux. Its the fact that its factually upside down that is so...surprising.

The UK is in the middle of deciding if it will accept biometric passports and ID cards or not. The public, for better or worse, relies on papers like The Guardian to give them the information they need to make informed decisions. If Jack Schofield is the one who is deli^H^H^H filtering and munging this information, that is a BAD THING, and the editors at The Guardian clearly dont have anyone else (or anyone at all) that they call on to set their internet/computer stories straight - if they did, they could not have printed this BBC Google story in that form.

That is what the problem is the editors, true to form, are not paying attention. Just ask the guy who used to run Demon Internet, who was accuesd of porn crimes because his company ran USENET servers. His company and his life were almost destroyed because of newspaper people who CANT (or willfully refuse to) READ. That is wrong, and theres no two ways about it.

Re:Things that were missed

[saforrest]

Yes, he isn't a rah-rah cheerleader, and I don't blame him for questioning the future of development without a profit motive, but he seems a bit pessimistic even for that.

He suggests that all or most successful open-source programs are, at best, black-box rewrites of successful commercial programs. Any number of counterexamples can be provided against this; the best ones are perhaps Apache and Perl.

Sure, there were webservers before Apache, and IIS now has equivalent functionality, but describing Apache as 'just a copy' of IIS or some other commercial webserver is ridicuolous.

In any case, I don't agree with him, but he's so much more on the mark than 95% of popular media accounts of tbe software industry that I, for one, am not going to complain.

Oh give it a rest, moderators.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, it's clear what the guy wrote was what he thought. But by all means let's not beat him up over the quality of his conclusion jumping but rather his unwillingness to pretend a wink-and-a-nod for the sake of appearences. Clearly it's alleged. (stated as fact without proof), if it was proven I imagine the trials would be pretty much over. Please for the children, who bruise like grapes, and most of all appearences, let's make pointless redundancy mandetory, because the last thing we should be doing is expecting people to act like adults.

Yes Timothy, its fair

[Lawrence_Bird]

The BBC misrepresented Kellys statements and views (largely by ommision) and created the furor that led to him losing his grip. If you are going to claim the Iraq dossier controversy pushed him over the edge, then you have to put a lot of the blame on the BBC for turning what was a difference of interpretation into worldwide controversy. REF

Re:Yes Timothy, its fair

[MosesJones]

what was a difference of interpretation into worldwide controversy

Err no, what was a complete and utter load of bollocks that was presented as a fact. The 45 minute claim was a single sourced piece of information about battlefield weapons that the UK goverment led people to believe refered to long-range weapons.

It was pure and simple rubbish, if it had been in a company report then you'd be calling for them to be prosecuted for fraud.

The initial fact is not in doubt. Iraq had _no_ WMD that could be ready in 45 mins, and had no long range capabilities.

The BBC was not _wrong_ in its report.

Re:Yes Timothy, its fair

[pmc]

he BBC was not _wrong_ in its report.

Well, actually they were. The wrongness was the claim that the Government knew that this claim was false.

The facts available at the time did not allow them to draw that conclusion. In other words it is perfectly possible that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the government actually believed at that time that the claim (aka complete load of bollocks) was true.

Technically, this argument only works for Governments. If, say, a five year old child, tried it - "Johnny didn't steal my doll, but you were wrong to say that I lied when I claimed he did, because I didn't know that he hadn't" - they would be sent to bed without any supper.

Re:Yes Timothy, its fair

[Savage-Rabbit]

The Blair government did just as much by implying that 45minute timeframe applied to longer ranged strategic weapons. The 45 mintues may have applied to tactical weapons such as mortar bombs, aircraft bombs and artillery shells, yes but not Scuds, modified Scuds or any of the other missiles the Iraqui's may have had in the pipes. It has been comical to watch how the Bush-Blair alliance went from touting WMD as the cause for going to war to using the humanitarian angle of getting rid of one of the most cruel mass murderering tyrants of the 20th century as a fallback position! I won't miss Saddam Hussein and I do not think the war in Iraq was wrong. Saddam got what was coming to him. I just wish Bush-Blair had gone to war a honestly claiming they wanted to rid the world of a murdering tyrant rather than half truths and spin about WMD which is looking more and more like a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.

Re:Yes Timothy, its fair

[dipipanone]

The facts available at the time did not allow them to draw that conclusion.

You mean "facts" like relying on some speculative student dissertation from the internet, while at the same time, disregarding the expert views of experienced Iraq analysts like Kelly himself?

Funny how those same "facts" allowed them to draw the conclusion that Iraq would be ready to launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 mins, but when their expert advisors tell them that such claims are almost certainly bullshit, they can rely on being able to claim that 'we don't know this for a fact'.

In other words it is perfectly possible that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the government actually believed at that time that the claim (aka complete load of bollocks) was true.

It is perfectly possible if the government happens to be either made up of the educationally subnormal, or are so ideologically committed as to be completely unable to evaluate evidence with any degree of objectivity.

But Kelly was just one of several experienced government defence advisors who told them that their report was complete bollocks and unjustified by the available evidence. That counts as both 'knowing' and as 'sexing it up' in my book.

Re:Yes Timothy, its fair

[OriginalArlen]

No they did not misrepresent him, the Newsnight reporter (Susan Harris) who also interviewed him at the same time has a tape recording of him making the same allegations!

Re:Yes Timothy, its fair

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're correct, then why did the BBC chairman Gavyn Davies resign over this today??

BBC Buys Google? News Keywords? In Kelly Case?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they DO that?

helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

this should shed some light on the story

How is this a problem of censorship?

[happyhippy]

They are going to have to report the facts anyway no matter how they turn out, all they are trying to do is make sure they get the top link.

And I think they are betting that the Hutton report would be favorable to them (which it seems it isnt) and blames Tony Blair for Dr Kellys death (which it seems it isnt too).

Complicit in a suicide huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly I get the impression this guy killed himself just to stick it to the government, to create a huge scandal. If it turns out he was murdered, that's another story, but the only person complicit in this man's suicide is himself.

Re:Complicit in a suicide huh

[happyhippy]

Nah, he was being fucked with, by both. One minute his name wasnt going to be released to the press, the next minute he it was. The press actually played 20 questions with the govt (absolutely true!) to guess his name.

Re:Complicit in a suicide huh

[jdunlevy]

Now that the Hutton Report's been released, it turns out the BBC (from Andrew Gilligan all the way up to the BBC governors) does come in for considerable criticism (while Blair's been exonorated, and the the Minister of Defence hasn't been held personally responsible for the criticisms of his Ministry). See "BBC chairman quits after Hutton clears Blair" in The Guardian .

[Lord Hutton] said that nobody involved in the controversy could have "contemplated Dr Kelly would take his own life", no matter what pressures he had been put under.

"Whatever pressures and strains Dr Kelly was subject to by the decisions and actions taken in the weeks before his death, I am satisfied that no one realised or should have realised that these pressures and strains might have driven him to take his own life or contribute to his decision to do so," Lord Hutton said./blockquote

a picture of kelly for those interested...

[Anonymous Coward]

seems like a nice guy...

Re:a picture of kelly for those interested...

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD DOWN, Not Informative. Link to freaky guy.

Re:a picture of kelly for those interested...

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are quite the troll. Keep up the good work.

-- Ghostse

Wow. Evil. Google is no longer your friend...

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The scary part about this is it is an electronic form of Newspeak. If you can't FIND something on the web through a search engine, then it technically DOESN'T EXIST. Sure: you might know intuitively of other articles on (subject), but if the wealthy powers that be who are impacted by (subject) buy all the possible references to (subject) then it makes it nearly impossible to research (subject) in any rational manner. This Is Bad. Very extra special bad. Logically extend it. Microsoft (or any other transnational pigfucker) buys all references to Microsoft, Windows, etc. (orwhatever the transnational pigfucker's upset about) and routes all inquiries to their website. This is NOT a good thing. Google should be prevented from doing this in the interest of the common good. they may be "just a corporation looking at the bottom line" but their decisions have political impact, and being typical geeks, they don't want to "go there". But they really need ot take responsibility for their actions and remove this feature of their system. The implications are stupefying. RS

whoa...google read /.

[nlh]

Did anyone else notice that when you google "Kelly", this story (as in, this /. story) comes up under 'News'?

I guess I knew that googleheads read slashdot, but now google does too!

Re:whoa...google read /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting slashdot stories as news? How irresponsible!

uhh, no shit sherlock

[Anonymous Coward]

it has for like ever since its inception..

Right.

[aardvarkjoe]

It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case)

Yeah, I'd hate for slashdot to become known as a place where people make false claims and jump to unjustified conclusions.

Re:Right.

[Rexz]

It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case)

It has been proven by the Hutton inquiry, according to a leak in today's papers that is likely to be confirmed when the report becomes official. That's what the Hutton enquiry was all about: finding out who was to blame for Kelly's death. And anyway, whether the BBC are at fault or not is irrelevant to this story. The point is that the BBC are using taxpayers' funds to divert the public to coverage of news (and probably bad news) about themselves.

Key differnce

[Galvatron]

Sorry, I used to think that was a reasonable stance to take, but I've reconsidered. The difference is that terrorists have NO CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY. No one can be negotiated with. What could Israel do to make the terrorist attacks stop? Nothing. They could create an independent Palestinian state, and that might make some would-be terrorists reconsider, but there are others who hate Israel merely for existing, and would continue the attacks anyway.

With terrorist groups, there's no way to parlay, no way to set peace conditions. In the Civil War, when Robert E. Lee surrendered, the war was OVER. In the Revolutionary War, when the British pulled out, it was also over (at least until the British started enslaving American sailors to fight Napoleon, sparking the War of 1812). With terrorists, there's no victory or defeat, only eternal terror for both sides.

Re:Key differnce

[Aardpig]

The difference is that terrorists have NO CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY.

A bald assertion which is demonstrably untrue. How shall I demonstrate this? With two words, m'lud. Sinn Fein.

Thanks for playing, good luck!

Re:Key differnce

[Cecil]

They could create an independent Palestinian state, and that might make some would-be terrorists reconsider, but there are others who hate Israel merely for existing, and would continue the attacks anyway.

First of all, prove it. Secondly, this is a terrible rationalization for ignoring what they are demanding, which is a palestinian state. What you're saying is roughly equivalent to suggesting that there is no point in making abortion illegal because while anti-abortionists who kill doctors may reconsider, but there would still be murderers who kill people for whatever reason.

Please forgive that I am taking hypothetical sides in another very emotionally charged issue, but it's the closest approximation I could think of. I am pro-choice myself, but let's not get into that.

With terrorists, there's no victory or defeat, only eternal terror for both sides.

That's simply not true. You've got two types of terrorists. Those who have demands, and those who simply hate you and want you to die. If you look closely, almost *ALL* terrorists are doing what they're doing because they want their demands to be met, they want something to change. Hatred doesn't just appear one day. "Oh shit, I feel like destroying the USA today." Osama bin Laden/al-Qa'ida have an agenda. Yasser Arafat/Hamas have an agenda. The IRA have an agenda.

Contrary to what you think, they are not killing people for shits and giggles. They can be negotiated with. However, as we are all so fond of hearing in movies "The United States does not negotiate with terrorists." which is a valid point of view, albeit a little short-sighted. What you have to realize is that the only reason you've been unable to negotiate with terrorists is because you don't want to set a bad precedent, so you don't even try. They are perfectly willing to negotiate. That's why they're doing what they're doing, so they can get someone to listen to them, so they can get to a negotiation table and voice their (often unreasonable and/or ignorant) demands.

The question you really have to ask yourself is whether the "terrorists" have legitimate greivances. Ignore their disgusting methods of getting their attention for just long enough to think about what they're asking for. The people who have committed and organized terror acts are criminals, no doubt about it. But let's face it, they wouldn't be killing themselves and others for a cause if they didn't believe in it just a little. If you want to end terrorism, give an ear to the problems that drive them to it.

You can't fight what you don't understand. (By the way "They want to kill us because they are jealous of our freedom!" is not even remotely considered understanding)

Re:Key differnce

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try: Real IRA (RIRA); a.k.a. True IRA

Re:Key differnce

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the 9/11 hijackers entered the US and went to flight school in spring 2000. The Camp David negotiations (held by President Clinton) between Arafat and Barak took place July 2000. (There were further negotiations in Dec. 2000) The second intifada started September 2000.

So, despite bin Laden's later claims (in fall 2001), the primary motivation for the 9/11 terrorists was not sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. The attacks were planned when it still looked like a agreement could be reached.

Furthermore, in a January 2004 tape apparently featuring bin Laden, he says:

There is also the fierce attempt to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque and destroy the jihad and the mujahideen in beloved Palestine by employing the trick of the roadmap and the Geneva peace initiative.

Note that the Palestinian government has agreed to the roadmap to peace. What they want is for Israel to fulfill its end of the bargain. Bin Laden on the other hand is not happy with any agreement that leaves westerners or Israelis anywhere in the Middle East. This is clear from the tapes he has released through the years. Satisfaction of his grievances is simply not an option.

Re:Key differnce

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to end terrorism, give an ear to the problems that drive them to it.

Another section of the bin Laden tape I quoted in my other reply:

The struggle between us and them, the confrontation, and clashing began centuries ago, and will continue because the ground rules regarding the fight between right and falsehood will remain valid until Judgment Day.

Take note of this ground rule regarding this fight. There can be no dialogue with occupiers except through arms.

This is what we need today, and what we should seek. Islamic countries in the past century were not liberated from the crusaders' military occupation except through jihad in the cause of God.

Under the pretext of fighting terrorism, the West today is doing its utmost to tarnish jihad and kill anyone seeking jihad.

The West is supported in this endeavour by hypocrites.

This is not someone you can negotiate with.

Re:Key differnce

[Fr33z0r]

You have to stop thinking of it as "war on terror" - a ludicrous, made-up, sensationalistic term at best

Swap "terror" for "murder" and re-read your post with a different, de-centralized group of reprehensible people in mind.

"War on terror" is just a marketing term.

Re:Key differnce

[Galvatron]

Actually, that was kind of my point, that it's not a war in any meaningful sense of the word. It's just murder. It is not an effective means of securing political aims, like war can be.

Re:Key differnce

[Aardpig]

Nice try: Real IRA (RIRA); a.k.a. True IRA

...not a credible terrorist force by any measure. In any case, you've not refuted my point that Sinn Fein are/were the negotiating face of the Provisional IRA.

Re:Key differnce

[Gauchito]

Actually, there is a central authority. The problem is, those central authorities exist solely to commit terrorist actions! They won't stop because blowing themselves up is their whole reason for being, and the only thing that gives those in control of those organizations the power that they wield.

What is needed is to undermine public support for these groups, which is where the Palestinian state comes in. It won't be immediate, but slowly people would realize that they haven't solved anything, but that independence might. If no one followed Osama, for example, he would just be another nut spewing bullshit on the streets of Riyadh (or a nightclub, I guess, he did live in a rich family).

Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks guys, for responding to my original WHAA post. But I am amazed how some people who probably have soup in their heads, think that blowing up innocent children is okay. THOSE people are terrorists. It is SICKENING to see that these dumb people compare it with the civil war. If that dumb person has a baby, would he want his baby to be blown into 1000 pieces?

Re:Thank you

[blackpaw]

Yet the Israelis, who blow up Palestinian babies and other non-combatants far more efficently and in greater numbers than the Palestinians, you think they are not terrorists ?

Thats right, I forgot - they're government sanctioned, so its OK.

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but he probably wouldn't want baby kiiled by an attack helicopter, either.
There is barbarity on both sides.

No kidding

[autopr0n]

It's especially sad when someone reads one piece of propaganda and goes psycho without considering the motives behind it. The Guardian hates the BBC, and they along with Rupert Murdoch have been trying to get the British government to shut down the BBCs great website, so that more people go to their services.

What exactly is wrong with advertising your side of the story. Most advertisers are interested parties, and the article made it sound like they were preventing other voices from being heard, which is ridiculous.

Finaly

"I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google."

Absolutely nothing.

Re:No kidding

[Aardpig]

The Guardian hates the BBC, and they along with Rupert Murdoch have been trying to get the British government to shut down the BBCs great website, so that more people go to their services.

Fuck me, I never thought I'd see The Guardian and Rupert Murdoch mentioned in the same breath. 'Scuse me while I look outside and check whether the guy driving the snow-plough (East-coast ice storm at the 'mo) is wearing a red leotard and pointy horns.

Re:No kidding

[erobertstad]

Yeah I hate it when people read something and take it right as fact... like slashdot news. I dropped the search into google, and honestly only found a few bbc links in the seraching I did. And so what if they paid to have an 'ad link' on google.. isn't that is what google makes their money off? The point of a search is to find something that relates to what your searching for. It's related, and they paid to have a 'click though' to their site.. supporting google that we use for free all day and night, and we are upset by this?

And besides, who cares what version of this story people read? If they arn't smart enough to actualy read both sides of a story anyway, and then try to comment on it, having an ad or not isn't going to stop people like this from being one-sided in the first place.

Sorry, it just had to be said.

Re:No kidding

[Rayonic]

> What exactly is wrong with advertising your side of the story.

Perhaps the fact that they're using taxpayer money to do it? And the fact that their public charter requires that they be fair and unbiased on everything they report on?

So yes, technically speaking, the BBC should not have a "side" of the story -- even if they are involved. Their journalists should report this Hutton Inquiry news in a factual and even-handed manner. No slant.

The BBC is in a unique position, and is bound by rules that other news organizations are not. Whether they've been abiding said rules is a another story altogether.

Re:No kidding

[autopr0n]

Perhaps the fact that they're using taxpayer money to do it? And the fact that their public charter requires that they be fair and unbiased on everything they report on?

Well, the BBC does make money outside of taxes, but whatever, if british voters really wanted it gone, it would be. Obviously the BBC fucked up by "sexing up" the government sexup chargers, but not by advertizing on google...

Re:No kidding

[eyeye]

The article submitter also seems to suggest that the BBC was complicit in sexing up the Iraq Dossier!

As someone who pays for the BBC every month I am very grateful to their reporting, not always the best but it serves the important role of being a news organisation that is not a slave to shareholders/owners etc..

Re:No kidding

[pagaman]

Yeah just do a search on "David Kelly" or "hutton inquiry" The BBC is mentiod down the page, bellow the Guardian

Re:No kidding

[erobertstad]

Ok besides the fact that in the end, your tax money just went to google.. a good thing..

There is *NO* news source out there that you could say does not have a 'side' to a story. No matter how you say how something happen, there is someone else saying 'but my story is better', and so on. Thus why we have that whole free speech thing.. To say that the BBC can't have an ad up just becuase you don't 'agree' with it, is what fighting 'big media' was suposed to be about.

The point comes down to, it's an ad on google. MANY MANY different links are right there, for the user, to click on. And google of all places is about the best thing for them to put it on. Google, puts right up, and infornt.. "hay I'm an ad, paid for, by some company". You might even have a glimps of a change of this agument if it was a banner ad, tricking the user, or a normal link.

They did a good thing with your tax money (google rocks), and they are getting 'their side' out to the public, being wrong or right. If this was a topic yourself felt was 'under known in the news', you'd be happy for the extra bit of coverage.

Re:No kidding

[nickco3]

So yes, technically speaking, the BBC should not have a "side" of the story -- even if they are involved. Their journalists should report this Hutton Inquiry news in a factual and even-handed manner. No slant.

Which is exactly what has happened. The BBC has been widely praised in other sections of the media for accurately reporting both sides of the story, particularly the Panorama programme on Jan 21 which heavily criticised the BBC's bosses for not checking the facts before opening their mouths.

Re:No kidding

[SQL Error]

"What exactly is wrong with advertising your side of the story."

When you're a taxpayer-funded media empire and the subject of a serious investigation, there's a HELL OF A LOT wrong with it.

Re:No kidding

[AntonVoyl]

The Guardian hates the BBC.

Nonsense. Their Left-of-New-Labor editorial lines are strikingly similar. And the BBC has for years recruited almost exclusively from the 'Grauniad'. In American parlance, think of the Guardian as the BBC's farm team.

Granted there's certainly envy of the BBC at the Guardian, but there isn't the ideological opposition to everything the Beeb represents that one finds at the Murdoch papers.

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

..there isn't the ideological opposition to everything the Beeb represents that one finds at the Murdoch papers.

The only ideological opposition from Murdoch is that it is the one media corporation he can't buy out and break up. Thank fucking God.

Re:No kidding

[kinnell]

And the fact that their public charter requires that they be fair and unbiased on everything they report on?

I believe the BBC recently produced a Panorama report criticising the way the whole Kelly/WMD issue was reported by the BBC.

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

>Perhaps the fact that they're using taxpayer money to do it? And the fact that their public charter requires that they be fair and unbiased on everything they report on?

"tax" ne "tv license fee"
I don't pay the TV license fee, they are using none of my money.
It is not taxpayer's money which is being spent, it is the money which people have paid for their TV license. That license allows the license payer to have 2 (somewhat shoddy) TV channels, which have absolutely no outside advertising on them. If they wish to use that money to get their coverage more noticed so be it. That's what I say. But then again, I don't pay the license ;)

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

2 (somewhat shoddy) TV channels

8. BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC3. News24, Parliment. CBeebies, CBBC.

Something like 9 national radio stations. (BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Live. BBC Digitial Radio 6, 7, Asian Network.) I don't know how many local radio stations (Although personally, I believe they're all crap). A world-renouned website.

All without advertising. That'll do me.

Re:No kidding

[stonedCoder]

Please mod parent up - that's one of the most important details!

This is just an another example in a long list of the bbc's conflicting interests. Somehow they seem to just get away with this stuff despite their original charter (and justification for subsidisation).

I'm sure if the UK government was using public money to advertise their side of the case via google or any other BLATANT commercial method, there would be more people complaining, and justifiably so.

(and yes, I am one of 'those' who evades the bbc's fake-inverse-TEMPEST-detection technology for exactly this kind of reason ;))

Re:No kidding

[awol]

There is *NO* news source out there that you could say does not have a 'side' to a story.

you are right in the sense of editorial opinion, but the issue with the BBC is that it's charter demands that it gives unbiased coverage, that means that if they do provide an "article" that is covering one viewpoint then they are under a fairly strict obligation to provide access to the alternative view. Now this is no perfect world so it does not work perfectly but the BBC is pretty unbiased when it comes to most news coverage

The difficult thing in this case is that the organisation is the subject of the news story itself. A very difficult position. There is a very fine line that it must pursue and it is one that it largely pursues well. There are other such issues, it's just that this one strikes so fundamentally at the heart of how the current Uk government has fscked up in its duty to the public particularly with respect to its use of non public service and non elected people in the process of government. They were so horrified at the way the last labour government got presented to the public that they went way overboard doctoring every emission from the channels of government to be "on message" and "controlled" by head office that they lost sight of their duty. The Kelly case is a tragic example of this and it is my great fear that the lumps that the BBC will take for their handling of a very difficult situation (where the government essentially accused them of lying and making statements without evidence, when the evidence was from the person in question, Dr Kelly, who subsequently killed himself [conspiracy theories aside]) will only serve to detract from the disgraceful way the current government has handled itself over the last two terms, culminating in the naming of this source of information about the dubious nature of the Iraqi "45 minutes to launch chemical weapons" claim and the tragic consequences.

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, what the Guardian and Murdoch object to is that the BBC has a huge revenue fund (in the form of the license fee) that anyone who owns a TV in Britain has to fork over. (This includes people who, like myself, were foreigners living in the UK.)

Don't pay the license fee, you get a hefty fine and are likely to go to jail. They have trucks cruising around the country looking for non-registered TVs, and you are guilty until proven innocent when the Telestapo raids you for non fee-payment.

The BBC swears it won't survive without the license fee, but it said the same thing when there was a similar fee for radios, which was abolished decades ago. Supposedly, the money the BBC makes from licensing the various properties it owns (Dr. Who, Blake's 7, etc.) is used to fund the BBC's operations, thus reducing the licensing fee, but that fee never seems to go down.

Private news companies (like the Guardian, which is a leftist paper, and the Murdoch empire, which is right-wing) kind of dislike having a competitor who is backed by collecting, under the threat of imprisonment, a large fee from all television owners in the UK. They also think that a BBC shorn of the huge apparatus for collecting license fees might actually find out that it is competitive, after all. (It might also have an incentive to, say, start making programs that aren't utter crap*, or to, perhaps, think of better ways of making money off the unique things it owns. By, perhaps, getting a Dr. Who relaunch under way with a speed greater than that of a dying slug. Incentives that are lacked when you can be very certain that 116 quid will come out of the pocket of every TV owner in the land.)

The BBC has shown in whole "sexed-up dossier" brouhaha that it doesn't fact-check well, and when it gets caught out in an embarassing situation, its response is "cover-up at all costs!" In that, it is not too different from the Blair government. But you can get rid of Tony Blair if British voters get fed up enough. The BBC license fee is much loved by the British political elite (including the supposed "small-government" Tories), and you'll never get rid of it.

Another example of BBC arrogance: they held a little public vote to see which law their viewers would want put into place, and threw a fit when the plurality of voters wanted a law making it legal for them to do what Tony Martin did. (If you live in rural England, like I did, you get to understand why this might be popular, as break-ins into rural homes by junkies from the cities looking for stuff to fence back in the cities were not uncommon in the part of Huntingdonshire I was in.)

My time in the UK made me realize that I was wrong to consider the US political/media elite as being uniquely self-serving and greedy. The British ones were worse. (The Home Secretary, in particular. He has made proposals which make the oft-derided John Ashcroft look like an EFF member.) Of course, the Continental ones were even more of a kakiocracy.

The BBC is the TV channel of Britian's oligarchial elite, and don't kid yourself on that.

*We in the US only get to see a small slice of BBC programs. When you live in the UK, you get to see a larger slice, and you understand why so much of British TV nowadays consists of syndicated US programming. {Although I must note there that it's only the higher quality stuff from the US which is syndicated in the UK. British viewers are spared things like "Full House" and reruns of "Charles in Charge."}

Re:No kidding

[sepluv]

AFAIK the BBC gets all (or nearly all) its money from licensing, not taxpayers. I do not hold any license from them, so I would, probably, object if they are using tax payers money.

BTW, I think this is a pathetic criticism of the BBC who we should -- regardless of what happened in this case -- in general support (as IMO the world's most unbiased news source -- no unfortunately I don't think /. makes it ;-) ) against the UK Governments repeated use of legal or blackmail-baised censorship. The UK Government is now threatening to effectively close down the BBC -- this is a serious freedom-of-expression issue.

Re:No kidding

[HBI]

It's amazing that people nowadays can't determine intrinsically when it is time to be pragmatic and when it's time to stand on principle.

Hint: this is one of those principle times. This is, in essence, the government misusing funds to influence public opinion.

Re:No kidding

[ratamacue]

Perhaps the fact that they're using taxpayer money to do it?

And there's the root of the problem: government should not be in the business of news reporting.

Re:No kidding

[ratamacue]

your tax money just went to google.. a good thing..

A good thing? I can't imagine a more arbitrary conclusion. Then again, most of what government does is arbitrary and driven by special interests like yours.

Re:No kidding

[MrNemesis]

Perhaps the fact that they're using taxpayer money to do it?

Just FYI, it's not taxpayer money, it's license payer money. I pay taxes, but don't watch TV, so none of my money goes to the BBC.

Re:No kidding

[mdwh2]

"tax" ne "tv license fee" I don't pay the TV license fee, they are using none of my money. It is not taxpayer's money which is being spent, it is the money which people have paid for their TV license.

True, but it's a *TV* license, not a BBC license - you still have to pay it even if you're happy watching only other channels (and you possibly have to pay it even if you only use a TV for games consoles). It's not comparable to money you might pay to a private company for a service, so the difference between "tax" and "license" isn't really relevant here (I presume the difference is just that a license is paid periodically for the right to own or do something, but a tax is one off payments linked to a certain action).

I think TV owners do have a right to have a say how the money is spent, because you don't have the option to take your money elsewhere to another company (you can only give up having a TV altogether).

That license allows the license payer to have 2 (somewhat shoddy) TV channels, which have absolutely no outside advertising on them.

Well, it allows them to have a TV full stop, which includes some BBC channels if they want to watch them.

Re:No kidding

[mdwh2]

Also its dodgy tactics include mass harrassment of people who don't have a TV, claiming that they do and that they must pay up or face legal action (I presume they send them out to any address they have that isn't paying a license, and assume that a TV is there anyway). This was evident when I was at university, and we could clearly see that every student had been sent one of these letters.

Also with me when I later did have a TV, and a licence, they decided to harrass me with those letters again anyway. Presumably their database got messed up, but they continued to send them even after I'd told them of their mistake (the woman on the 'phone seemed more concerned with harrassing me for info on the other flats in the building, asking how many there were so they could send out letters to all of us!)

Re:No kidding

[Rayonic]

> There is *NO* news source out there that you could say does not have a 'side' to a story.

In that case, I assert that the BBC cannot reasonably live up to its charter, and should be cut off into a private company (or companies). End the television tax, and have any public media funded by contribution (like they (mostly) do in America).

If it is intrinsically impossible to have a fair and unbaised media organization, then I see no reason that any more of the British public's money be sunk into this boondoggle.

Re:No kidding

[poot_rootbeer]

I'm sure al-Jazeera, being a state-funded news organization, is also factual and even-handed?

The idea that any news source CAN be unbiased is a fallacy. A century ago, when every city in the United States had at least two daily papers, there was no pretense of impartiality; one paper had a conservative perspective, another liberal, and you would read whichever paper(s) held your attention.

As more media outlets went bankrupt or got consolidated, the viewpoints become less diverse -- if there was only one paper in town, it was in the best interest of their circulation numbers to try to be neutral and not drive anyone away. It's only recently, with the emergence of opinionated outlets like FOX News, that this trend has started to reverse itself.

Re:No kidding

[rich_r]

True, but it's a *TV* license, not a BBC license - you still have to pay it even if you're happy watching only other channels (and you possibly have to pay it even if you only use a TV for games consoles). It's not comparable to money you might pay to a private company for a service, so the difference between "tax" and "license" isn't really relevant here (I presume the difference is just that a license is paid periodically for the right to own or do something, but a tax is one off payments linked to a certain action).

Not half! The licence fee covers the use of 'television recieving apparatus' which covers anything with a tv tuner in it. (With exceptions, because it wouldn't be government without it.)
You don't have to watch it, you just have to own it.

Re:No kidding

[jgalun]

I have mod points, but I really need to respond to this:

The Guardian hates the BBC, and they along with Rupert Murdoch have been trying to get the British government to shut down the BBCs great website, so that more people go to their services.

I'm really curious where you get this from. The BBC and the Guardian are both slanted left - the reason Murdoch dislikes the BBC, other than it being a competitor, is because he is right-wing. The Guardian and BBC have no such ideological disagreement. In fact, it has been argued that one of the reasons the BBC is so slanted to the left is because it primarily advertises its open positions in the Guardian, so there is a closed circle into which few right-wingers or centrists ever enter.

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, I've been watching the BBC covering the Hutton enquiry on TV today, and did not feel that their coverage was anything other than even-handed. Naturally they will want to present their case, but any journalist should be presenting the BBC's case - aswell as that of Hutton, UK Government and all other parties involved.

There is no possibility for anybody not to have a perceived possibility of bias when reporting on a story that involves them, especially when it is in a negative way. But what are they supposed to do; not report on it at all, hire CNN's coverage or something?

I find it irking to see my TV licence fee money be used for website advertising, but have no problem with the concept of an involved party advertising their coverage - or indeed side of the story.

For those looking for a convenient summary, The Sun, a UK tabliod who broke the story after receiving a leak, manages to make an exception to a deserved reputation with an accurate representation of the report. I think the key thing to take away from it is that all sides take some fault one way or another, though the weaknesses of the editorial systems at the BBC take the brunt of the critisism. There's no apparent implication of any deliberate underhand shenanigans.

Re:No kidding

[mcpheat]

The BBC is not slanted left, most of the right seem to think if you tell a lie often enough, people will start to believe it.

Re:No kidding

[biglig2]

No, this isn't the government using these funds, it is the BBC. The Government is the other side ot the BBC in this row.

Now, it is taxpayers money they are using, but I've always felt a load of crap is talked about the license fee. Sure, a lot of it is spent on crap, but they produce a lot of amazing stuff you'd never get otherwise... such as their web site.

Re:No kidding

[mcpheat]

The BBC and the government are two separate organisations, as should be obvious from the whole Kelly affair.

Re:No kidding

[mcpheat]

Don't pay the license fee, you get a hefty fine and are likely to go to jail. They have trucks cruising around the country looking for non-registered TVs, and you are guilty until proven innocent when the Telestapo raids you for non fee-payment.

The maximum sentence for license fee evasion is a fine, you can not go to jail for this. The "Telestapo" are nothing to do with the BBC, have no power of entry so can't raid you and have to prove that you are illegally using a TV without a license, you don't have to prove anything.

Re:No kidding

[Tony B Liar]

How correct you are mcpheat! Having told the public that we ARE the left for the last few years has also worked. So has running our own news agency for our own means and to our own ends. At the end of the day, we can spend our own money through whichever part of the government controlled and tax subsidised agencies we choose, and if we wish to give google a lump of hard earned taxpayers cash just so we can put our gov't spin on a story that has the possibilty of causing some embarressment to our premiere and port drinking club, we shall bloody well do so!! long live the honest working man! theres enough of them to make up for us liars and cheats! yours, Tony xx

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

so the guardian hates the BBC?

then I wonder why they say in their editorial

"The fact is that the BBC simply towers over the army of enemies now ready to kick it in the teeth".

and castigate Hutton for being too harsh?

Murdoch hates the BBC. his papers have waged a tawdry war on it for decades. The guardian is one of the BBC's few friends in the printed media.

Re:No kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be something to do with the fact that the public service ethos of the BBC (and the sustantially lower wages in comparison to other privately owned sectors of the media) tends to attract employees who have more affinity to a left-ist outlook? Ie, wanting to do something for the 'greater good' at a small personal sacrifice?

Or something.

oh noes

[First_In_Hell]

bbc is dying

So what if BBC 'sexed up' *one* dossier

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sun 'sexes up' page three every day.

google adwords strike back

[spinspin]

Oddly, the first paid link that came up when I searched for Hutton at google.ca was version of this very story, about the beeb buying up adwords.

Wacky wacky world.

Re:google adwords strike back

[nmg196]

That's not a paid link - thats just a news link and they're free. Paid links are the little boxes on the right of the page, or big coloured bars (text) at the top. There are currently none for any Kelly/Hutton related keywords.

In other news...

[rock_climbing_guy]

SCO has bought the google keywords "litigous bastards" and linked them to the Free Software Foundation.

Re:In other news...

[herrvinny]

At least they'll have to wait for the domain name litigiousbastards.com to expire to grab it.... And I rather like this domain name. Perhaps I'll keep it after this fiaSCO ends.

Geez

[leftie_hater]

I've never heard of this, don't pay attention to goings on in the BBC, and don't care to RTA.

Re:Geez

[Nexus Seven]

That post reminds me of the people that vote "Don't Know" in phone polls.

What was the point?

Michael Dukakis Likes John Kerry

[Anonymous Coward]

What new thought does Kerry bring?

Re:Michael Dukakis Likes John Kerry

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, none of this really matters to me because I never see Google's ads, actually. Just put... well, I'm sure you all you know a good way to block ads so I'll just share the ad server addys.

pagead.google.akadns.net
pagead2.googlesyndication.com

Loop them back and yer good to go. YMMV

And now a poem, brought to you by QDB

[Berrik]

Roses are red
Violets are blue
In Soviet Russia
Poems write you

Berrik

I hope Israel drives out the Pali scum forever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw you. The Holy Land has belonged to the Jewish people for three thousand years. It was stolen from them by Muslim oppressors, but now they have reclaimed eternal possession of their homeland.

I hope they drive ALL the Arab squatter scum into the desert at gunpoint, and burn every mosque in Israel to the ground (including Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.)

In fact, most of the heart of the Arab world was once Jewish. This includes Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Israel would be justified in expelling all Arabs from their ancestral homelands, or just killing them, and taking back possession of the oil fields.

I certainly hope they do so, and destroy the Kaaba after defiling it with dog shit and bacon grease. Let them shower nukes on any Muslim shithole if they raise a finger in protest. Jews have taken shit from Arabs long enough.

I want Jewish boots kept on the throat of the murderous Muslim fiends until the sun dies.

-- A Gentile Zionist

Re:I hope Israel drives out the Pali scum forever.

[Aardpig]

I want Jewish boots kept on the throat of the murderous Muslim fiends until the sun dies.

Substitute 'Aryan' for 'Jewish', and 'Jewish' for 'Muslim', and its pretty clear that it was people like you who were responsible for the Holocaust. In your fervour to support the Zionist cause, you have become the very evil which made the Zionist movement necessary in the first place. I pity you, I really do.

Re:I hope Israel drives out the Pali scum forever.

[Oligonicella]

Right. And the prehistoric vulture-worshipers were there before them. So what?
Keep fighting the wars of thousands of years ago and you'll keep their mentality too.
"most of the heart of the Arab world was once Jewish"
You apparently have no problem in making false statements. Back it up with links to good documentation.

Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

The Guardian hates the BBC, and they along with Rupert Murdoch have been trying to get the British government to shut down the BBCs great website

Oh my fucking word. You've either never read the Guardian or are trolling. Likely, both. You are so unbe-fucking-leivably ignorant. Your ignorance is only surpassed by the fuckwit that thinks your post was interesting.

Re:Clueless

[autopr0n]

Oh my fucking word. You've either never read the Guardian or are trolling.

wrong

Major media bodies including News International, IPC Media, the Commercial Radio Companies Association, Associated Newspapers and Guardian Newspapers, are to submit a response to Philip Graf, who is heading the Government's probe into the BBC's internet activities, within the next few weeks.

No, obviously you are the one who's been deficient in the Guardian reading department.

Re:Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

You really have no idea, do you? To suggest that the Grauniad "hates" the BBC because one wing of the Guardian Media Group believes there should be tighter controls over the BBC's internet presence suggests you have a complete lack of understanding of the media. Take a couple of media studies classes and come back.

Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

As in "allegedly committed suicide" ?

Re:Fair and Balanced.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, while where on the topic of fair and balanced lets examine the following 2 situations:

1. Angry people waving flags and guns and quoting from the Koran:
-are called islamic extremists, enemy combatants/insurgents, or even terrorists.

2. Angry people waving flags and guns and quoting from the Bible:
-are called the moral majority, Republicans, or even patriots.

*cough*

NOT a picture of kelly

[AKnightCowboy]

At lease check the link before you moderate someone as informative. It's clearly a picture of that Nazi guy from a few months back on Fark. He's got a huge friggin swastika tatooed on his neck. I'm pretty sure Dr. Kelly wasn't a Nazi biker... was he?

Re:NOT a picture of kelly

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I figured that whomever +1 Informative'd it must be a republican or a Dean supporter or something like that.

Pretty American...

[Anonymous Coward]

for an english (public)organization.

No, no, no

[Vainglorious Coward]

I wish they had just reported as fact that Saddam had WMDs

Haven't you been paying attention? Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, he had weapons programme related activities. Please do try to keep up.

Re:No, no, no

[Hittite Creosote]

Ahem. You may find this link useful...

You can't trust the Sun for anything

[Vainglorious Coward]

Quoting the Sun second-hand by way of the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't really count as a news source. The Sun, as a flagship of Rupert Murdoch's News International has its own axe to grind with the BBC. You can't trust the Sun's "reporting" on anything, least of all about subjects where Murdoch has a vested interest. Your link is about as convincing as if the Sydney Morning Herald had quoted Slashdot.

Re:You can't trust the Sun for anything

[Slashamatic]

Who owns the Sydney Morning herald? Is this another Murdoch vehicle?

Re:You can't trust the Sun for anything

[MartinB]

Note also that this is very selective highlights of a supposedly leaked copy of the conclusions, which happen to agree exactly with the Sun's position to date.

slashdot effect

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that the slashdot effect has taken the Ads down
on google for bbcnews.com on the "hutton report"

Gasp!

[Vainglorious Coward]

Or just maybe, they put things in quotes when they are, um, quoting what somebody said?

Re:Gasp!

[goon america]

You need your sarcasm meter recalibrated.

You have the wrong impression of the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at the BBC and want everyone to know that it is highly unlikely that there's any tin-foil-worthy activity going on here.

It's a massive, disparate, semi-controlled corporation where one arm can frequently operate without the others being aware. There is the occasional shitstorm which flies up because of this (when, accidentally, the BBC 6 and 9 o'clock News programs almost entirely neglected the ruling Conservative Party's campaign in one election they went nuts and refused further interviews, threatened funding changes etc.) but on the whole the system balances out, given time.

Hutton is a big story in the UK. I don't work in News (thankfully) but I am willing to bet that what we have is an entirely regular attempt to drive traffic to the BBC for coverage of a major story. The BBC is an interested party, but news.bbc.co.uk couldn't give a damn about protecting Andrew Gilligan, broadcast news or any other part of the corporation.

In another situation, maybe you would have Conrad Black or Rupert Murdoch flaying the different section chiefs about contradictory coverage, or maybe not. But in the beeb, it simply doesn't happen. Nobody knows about anyone else's activities, and if they want to find out they've got to investigate, like journalists should. It's not efficient, but in terms of a free press, it's effecive.

Re:You have the wrong impression of the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is, What a fucking coincidence, on two counts, unfortunately public aren't as naive as you like to believe, that's the whole problem.

Some articles about the death of David Kelly

[Anonymous Coward]

fromthewilderness.com has three articles about the death of David Kelly. Interesting reading and more detail than the mainstream news corporations provide.

Re:Some articles about the death of David Kelly

[dipipanone]

Shame they don't provide any references to allow us to evaluate the credibility of the somewhat fantastic statements that they make.

Re: "Civilized Warfare"

[some guy I know]

There are civilized ways to engage in warfare, and there are barbaric ways.

No, there are barbaric ways to engage in warfare, and even more barbaric ways.
There is no civilized way to engage in warfare.

Sexy BBC? No. Stupid editing? Yes.

[WIAKywbfatw]

It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case), but it's certainly an interested party.

That's what Timothy added to the story summary before he posted it. Now, I have to ask: why the fuck didn't Timothy edit or rewrite the submission if he believed it was inaccurate or misleading? (Which, by the way, it was: other posters have pointed this out.)

The editors do a good job of over-extending themselves in so many ways so why can't they actually do their job and edit out any bias or overexuberance shown by story submitters? Would that really be too much to ask?

Re:Sexy BBC? No. Stupid editing? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you submitted a story and the editors completely gutted it in the way you're describing, you'd be happy? I'd rather not submit than to have half of my article deleted because Timothy, you, or anyone else didn't agree with my slant.

Re:Sexy BBC? No. Stupid editing? Yes.

[WIAKywbfatw]

Uh, I can tell you from experience that when the editors want to change a submitted story they do; it's not like they have a "do not ever edit submissions" policy. Given that, wouldn't it be better to either correct or rewrite an inaccurate submission?

Regardless of anyone's beliefs about the role the BBC may or may not have played in the death of Dr. Kelly, nobody has ever accused them of the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier; that charge has always been levelled at the British government, and the British government only.

And buying Google keywords doesn't "direct all traffic" anywhere; all it does is present the user with additional links on the extreme right-hand side of the search results page, links that are seperate from the returned results and clearly labelled as being sponsored.

So, in this case, the submitted story is completely inaccurate on two counts and biased (and probably inaccurate again) on a third count. Now if a story that barely contains a shred of truth isn't worthy of rewriting (or, indeed, being rejected) then that's pretty sad.

Stick your pity up your arse.

[Anonymous Coward]

In your fervour to support the Zionist cause, you have become the very evil which made the Zionist movement necessary in the first place.

Well, if Germany had faced 1400 years of oppression and genocide at the hands of the Jews, if the very existence of Germany had hung by a thread because of the attacks of invading Jewish armies, you might have a point. But what they did to the Jews was unprovoked and despicable. There is no equivalence whatsoever.

The Jews are just defending themselves, and taking back the land of their forefathers, which they lost to genocidal Muslim oppression and aggression that persists to the present day.

Moreover, I do not want to kill all Muslims. I only want to kill all Muslim enemies of Israel, and drive all Muslims out of the historical Jewish homelands. I do hate Muslims, but if they leave Israel alone they would face no danger from me. Hitler wanted to kill all Jews no matter how innocent, no matter how patriotic, even the German Jewish heroes of World War I.

I pity you, I really do.

fucking supercilious liberal jackoffs with their 'pity'... People who use that word are preening and posing and basking in their own supposed moral superiority.. .. Pity is for retards and orphans and three legged dogs, I don't need your pity, you fucking wanker. . . Put all your pity in one hand, and take a shit in the other. Let me know which one fills up first.

--Gentile Zionist

The source for this "News" was The Sun, people!!!

[ozric99]

The Sun!

Nothing I could possibly say could compete with Yes Prime Minister's rather brilliant and oft-quoted commentary.

PM {Responding to Sir Humphry}: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is run by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is run by another country."

Sir Humphry: "Prime Minister, what about the Sun?"
Bernard: "The Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits."

Link to these 'attractive British females'

[Larry David]

The Sun has a page online called Page3.com, which is an online version of the 'topless lady' page 3 in the newspaper. No, this is not a troll, check the link :-)

Canaanites be damned, they are gone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come, come. Where is a living Hittite or Jebusite today? They are gone.

The Jews are a living people who survived millennia of oppression at the hands of the other peoples of the Middle East. Their enemies were destroyed, whether by Jewish valor or divine Providence, yet still the children of Hebron survive. Their Arab enemies also should be and will be destroyed.

The Jews are entitled to their ancestral homeland, and to remove all squatters from it.

--Gentile Zionist

Re:Canaanites be damned, they are gone.

[Jagasian]

Modern scientific evidence suggests that the Canaanites were a Semitic people most likely ancestors of modern day Arabs and Semitic-Jews. So the people's ancestors still exist, but their name has changed.

So Palestinians, non-Jewish Semites, have always lived on that land. Just because you hate that fact, doesn't mean it isn't true, and it doesn't mean that non-Jewish people should be ethnically clensed as you support.

While "Gentile" simply means non-Jew, it usually means Christian. If you are a Christian, then I suggest that you read the Gospel of Mark.

Note how Jesus stresses that we love one another.

Note how Jesus even uses a specific example of this with regards to his generation's "Palestinians"... yes the Samaritans of Jesus's time, like the Palestinians of our time, were a non-Jewish Semitic people living on the land we now call Israel and Palestine. Furthermore, like the Palestinians of today, the Samaritans of Jesus's time were disliked by many Jews. HOWEVER, Jesus taught us to see thru our prejudices and love a Samaritan AKA a Palestinian.

CIA - suicide?

[dbCooper0]

J.H. Hatfield was targeted by the "family" that included a former CIA director who still reportedly recieves frequent briefing from the agency. This because he's a former president. More frequent, they say, than any other former president...especially since dubya's rise to power.

You see, the Skull & Bones (*cough* Kerry *cough*) is not the only secret society in the world of this type...blood oaths, etc. Word has it that Oxford's Rhodes Scholars (*cough* Clinton *cough*) have a similar org...something about 'New World Order' but I can't remember the club's name. Google it.

No tinfoil here, just knowing that anyone in power as is Blair has close ties with the CIA type agencies that exist there. Kelly was a liability, especially if grilled about his "leak". Do they make Kevlar Wristbands?

In summary, I don't believe either Hatfield or Kelly killed themselves. Oh yeah, and don't do anything that might mar the image of someone powerful, especially if it's telling the truth!

Re: conservative PBS hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

Name 2 regular conservative hosts on PBS

What's-his-name and that guy.

Re: "Black" reporter

[some guy I know]

Compare this with the NY Times reaction when it was discovered that a black reporter was falsifying stories.

Are you implying that they would have reacted differently had he been a white reporter?
Why didn't you just write "Compare this with the NY Times reaction when it was discovered that a reporter was falsifying stories."?

A big *hi* to all services readers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like this place...

"Uh, Sarge, I've finished digging this hole. What shall I do now?"

"You got mod points, soldier? Go and shut up some hippies."

Watch the mod battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah the Slashdot Mod battle as those who disagree with the poster's political point of veiw mod it down, and other's mod it up.

This whole Slashdot article is just one big troll.

The Sun brings me Page3 what more do I need?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying that the people that bring me Page3 might not be top flight reporters?
Well I never...

It's still just a link, not automatic

[respite]

What bull! The article claims:

...anyone searching for "Hutton inquiry" or "Hutton report" on the UK's most popular search engine Google is automatically directed to a paid-for link to BBC Online's own news coverage of the inquiry.

Google has never automatically redirected you to paid links. They also clearly mark the sponsered links as such, even moving them to the right side of the page, seperate from the relevant results. The article is trying very hard to push people's buttons.

and, the problem is ?

[sir_cello]

It's a free market: advertising space is available to anyone, whether they have vested interests or are for/against an issue. Equally, anyone can buy television or newspaper space to do the same thing.

I don't see that there are any "rights" problems here ? If you had an opposing view, you too could have purchase keywords for the hutton case.

Irrespective of who purchased those keywords, Google is always going to serve up pageranked results for "objective" results, or return collective links to press coverage from google news.

If you have a problem, purchase keywords at other search engines. You can argue that Google has a dominant position and therefore subject to anti-trust concerns, but as it returns pageranked results, it's hard to see how this argument is sustainable.

History?

[mo^]

You have history?? are you sure??

damn "american" history is like recent memory comparefd to the middle east and europe..

oh well, the few native americans alive may have some i guess

Re:History?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep ,no argument here - with their current growth rate, Europe is pretty much history ...

And then there is UK - or is there ?

Re:History?

[mo^]

Growth rate is an indicator of anything?? ability dominate? poor sexual education.

Cancer grows rapidly, even exponentially. must be good then

Three cheers for Sherman

[ccmay]

Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.

Yeah, well, your great-great-grandparents were fighting to preserve slavery, if not actual slave owners themselves, and therefore deserved no better than what Sherman dished out.

In fact, had I been in Sherman's shoes, I would have summarily shot or hanged every slave owner I captured.

People forget, or lie about, what the Old South stood for and what it was fighting for. Talk of states' rights is crap. The Confederacy existed purely to preserve human chattel slavery. It was destroyed and will never rise again. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

-ccm

Was this article written by..

[SlashDread]

Tony Blair?

It sure sounds like it, the -BBC- killed Kelly? Oh yeah right. The independant media reporting about governement fallacies is actually resposible for the consequences of the actions by the same governement.

BLAIR (or his spin-minions) leaked Kellies name, ruined his life, and ultimately killed him. No matter that the original BBC story was not entirely correct, semantics is a stupid game to play anyway, it was NOT the BBC leaking Kellies name.

Any other conclusion is in the "lets blame the messenger" department.

"/Dread"

Adword battle

[Janeks]

What about buying AdWords for the same criteria which say right below BBC Adword - "Don't go to BBC site! There's dimensional shambler waiting there!" or something similar. Wonder how that would look like :D.

Re:Fair and Balanced.

[mo^]

This highlights my (totally offtopic) hatred of Anonymouse submission.

This dude actually had something to say and he said it succinctly, clearly and with a dash of humour for good measure... just wih he was logged on so i could mod

whats the point in saying anything if you dont have the belief in your convictions to stand up and be counted

Re:Fair and Balanced.

[mo^]

the "Anonymouse" is a new breed of rodent I am developing for scientifically testing the effectiveness of questionnaires.

or it could just be a typo....

Informative? WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

That picture comes from Smoking Gun's Favorite Booking Photos. It's a mugshot of Dion Milam, a white supremacist from California who received a broken nose (among other injuries) during a fight with the cops.

The picture has nothing to do with Kelly. Whoever modded the parent up is smoking serious rock.

Idiot

[hoofie]

The cretin who submitted this doesnt even live in the UK - he is an American who lives in San Francisco.

Quote : "the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier."

Where does this idiot get his information from ? Yes, looking at this sentence, the BBC IS involved in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'dossier' accusations, but only as a part of a whole, including the BBC senior management, the Government, MOD, some MP's and Dr. Kelly itself. And NO-ONE is directly accused of directly causing Dr. Kellys death - he committed suicide, end of story. The BBC's alleged involvement was to stand by an accusation against a government adviser of 'sexing up' an intelligence dossier, despite grave misgivings about the accuracy of the story.

I know news coverage in the US is poor, but I would suggest the original submitter tries to get some decent news coverage - BBC TV news (if you can get it in the US) still beats the pants off anything else you are likely to get for objectivity and editorial quality. I was also under the impression that the Guardian is a bit of a cheerleader for the BBC in general - public service broadcasting is something I would think the vast majority of it's readership support.

Re:The source for this "News" was The Sun, people!

[Slashamatic]

I originally heard this as part of an stage act in a British Uni by a folk singer which I believe predated Yes, Prime Minister. There were some vartions like the "Telegraph was read by people who used to run the country".

Excellent show though, I have even seen it dubbed into Russian. This together with show like "drop the dead donkey" gave a pretty good picture of British politics and the TV journalists.

What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this guys suicide such a big deal in the UK? The goverment/foreign affairs commitee
caught him in a lie/exaggeration and he killed himself over it. So what?

Re:What's the big deal?

[dipipanone]

The goverment/foreign affairs commitee caught him in a lie/exaggeration and he killed himself over it.

Sorry, I just don't believe this is the case. Whether he exaggerated or not is a matter of dispute. Other senior defence advisors agreed with his account of the situation. Politicians and yes men disagreed. I think the issue is still unresolved.

If he killed himself for any reason at all, it was because he was a senior civil servant caught leaking sensitive government information to the media. As such, he was about to be forced to resign in disgrace after a distinguished career, and without any pension.

Perhaps Rupert Murdoch has bought slashdot?

[Snaller]

Or are they just naturally biased?

Its also somewhat libelous

[Snaller]

Good thing they are only quoting someone else, eh?

Automatically directed my arse.

[dahamsta]

anyone searching for "Hutton inquiry" or "Hutton report" on the UK's most popular search engine Google is automatically directed to a paid-for link to BBC Online's own news coverage of the inquiry.

Bollocks, and everyone here knows it. This reporter hasn't a clue about technology and hence isn't qualified to write the article. Jack "Microsoft" Schofield could have written a less biased and idiotic article than this, and that's a statement and a half.

And I like the Guardian!

adam

Like Julia Prague

[beders]

19 year old medical student with 40,000 debt over her head

Her Story

Re:Like Julia Prague

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boo hoo. Cry me a river. Welcome to reality wench.

It is not the governments responsibility to pay for ones furtherance of education once one leaves high school.

It costs money to procure the supplies that will be needed to give you your education. You want all those fancy chemicals, equipment and other knick-knacks? Guess what, they cost MONEY!

Just because you think you're providing a social service doesn't mean squat. No one forced you to go into the medical field. You could have just as easily been an engineer.

I paid for almost all of my education out of my own pocket with almost no assistance from my parents and no grants to speak of. Sure, it wasn't at top notch schools like some people but that's life. Besides, from what I've seen the experience wouldn't have been as enjoyable.

Get a life. It's called earning your way. If you didn't want to go into debt you could have either found a less expensive school to go to or saved more money to go to school instead of getting drunk every weekend.

Re:Like Julia Prague

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, she needs to attend an American University, especially a private one, and then talk to me about debt.

God I'm glad to back in the US.

The BBC report the news

[NoMercy]

"BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier." Complicit: to ssociated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime.

The BBC have been biting at the heels of the goverment, ever since they caught a wiff of the fact the goverment did sex it up, theve been hounding them like a rabbid dog, if it wasn't for the BBC, I doubt we'd even have an inquiry, they were in no way complicit with it, they didn't even allow it to go by without being noticed.

Yes perhaps this did lead to the death of poor Dr. Kelly, but that was because the goverment wanted a fall guy, not the BBC's doing and depending on the outcome of the report the goverment could be in some deep doo-doos.

Re:The BBC report the news

[NoMercy]

Unfortunately, the report came out in the other direction, white wash? as the frontpage of the independent asks, I can't say for certain but it seems to put a lot of blaim on journalists who were only doing there job and not a shread of blame on the goverment who are using the report saying the BBC were at fault to walk away clean from a war that was started for no good reason at all (alas in the modern world you can't invade because you don't like the way another goverment treets it's citizens).

And then the goverment get the BBC director to resign over it, somedays I wish the goverment would just seperate itself from the BBC just a little bit more, interfearing because you don't like what there reporting isn't a good way to promote the freedom of the press.

Are you channeling Kelly?

[Anonymous Coward]

They went by Kelly, and what Kelly actually said will conveniently never been known ...

Criminal Record

[Dogtanian]

1. Sex-up Iraq dossier

I wish people would stop using that expression "sex-up". Mainly because it sounds damn stupid, and describing anything non-living as "sexy" (such as the latest "boy's-toy" gadget) is way overdone (unless you have a genuine fetish for techno-crap... hang on, this *is* Slashdot).

But also because it brings back memories of that foul Color Me Badd song, "I wanna sex you up". I'd almost managed to forget it existed- who said repressing memories was a bad thing?

Re:Criminal Record

[biglig2]

I liked Hutton's way of addressing this - he points out that no-one really understands what it means, and so you could consider the dossier was sexed up or wasn't depending on definition.

Beeb generally good, but f$%^&*-ing weak on te

[Anonymous Coward]

The Beeb is generally good, usually giving several views of an issue. But it is f$%^&*-ing weak on tech with the usual Microsoft party line calling Microsoft viruses and worms "Internet" viruses and worms. They've even taken to spouting Bill's vision of an MS-tax on e-mail without examining the ramifications. Bill and his company have done more damage to the Internet and the world's economy that many a recession.

Some joker was on this weekend using the terms "e-mail", "web", and "Internet" as synonyms. He then went on to call Bill an "Internet pioneer", conveniently forgetting how late Microsoft was to the starting gate for the web and the Internet. All the other horses had run a few laps by then. Worse, the Beeb recently had an MS employee on to commentate about the Democratic primaries, with deep insight like which ones had large heads. I really hope that's not repeated.

Above gripes aside, it did seem to do an excellent job of the war issues.

Advanced google search

[danwiz]

Advanced search is available using the term "hutton inquiry" -site:bbc.co.uk or "hutton report" -site:bbc.co.uk. This excludes the site specified.

At this time I still don't notice a difference, so I have to wonder if Google didn't pay the BBC for all this publicity.

Whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't a good journalist ask the tough questions of all parties involved, and then follow up with other sources trying to confirm the answers provided?

That's what the British armed forces were complaining the journalists weren't doing. Why? Because work is hard, and doing their job well would mean twice as much of it for less sensationalistic ratings. (This is called being well past the point of diminishing returns, or wasteful.)

What's really awesome, is the US armed forces seem to not like it, but have a very thick skin, and generous outlook about that kind of thing. They're just kids, but when asked about what they think about the negative press, they respond with a "Well, we know we're doing a good thing, and the people's right to bullshit, accurate or not, is what we're putting our asses on the line for." I doubt I'd be as magnanimous in their shoes now, let alone how I might have felt were I a decade younger.

Say what you want about the administration, but those are some damn fine people.

It wouldn't even be interesting ...

[anaplasmosis]

... if it were true. As anyone who bothered to type "Hutton enquiry" into Google would have found out.

Rules?

[Dogtanian]

WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever

Here's a thought. If it's true that Nazi Germany was still a long way off developing a genuine atomic bomb (as opposed to the dirty-bomb they supposedly wanted to explode over New York), then what would have happened had Germany been a bit stronger and WWII had lasted another 18 months or more?

The United States had the atomic bomb. Would they have held back from using it, even though many civilians would die? Would they have risked Germany successfully developing their own bomb, with the Nazis unlikely to be troubled by any questions of morality over its use? I doubt it. I believe that the atomic bomb would have been used against Germany sooner rather than later, had the war not ended when it did.

What would the morality of that have been?

To get back to your point, I'm not convinced that bombing of civilians for the sake of frightening them into submission wouldn't be counter-productive- but regarding the morality, it's much easier to criticise in retrospect. WWII had to be won. Knowing what we know now, a hundred-fold more so.

Re:Rules?

[bm_luethke]

You are confusing two issues.

The firebombing of dresdin was the US and Britain dropping incediary bombs on targets that held nothing but refugies. They burned many many "houses" (shanties and lean too's) because of the general lack of quality. There was no show of force, it was entirely meant to completely demoralise the enemy by showing there was no place to run from a painfull death. That had long been borderline to wrong rules of conduct.

The atomic bomb was a show of strength - something well accepted. Whoever developed it would have immediatly used it as we did. At the time very few decried its use, and I for one do not now. Many mane lives on each side was saved by the horrid sacrifice of those few.

As such Dresdin is borderline terrorism, the A-bomb was warefare for the time.

"sexing up"

[keith6689]

Is it just me who gets pissed off with the way this kind of thing gets worded in the media?

"Sexed up"? Whats wrong with "lied"?

Re:"sexing up"

[curtoid]

I'm confused. Is "sex it up" the same as "screw it up?"

And is it laid or layed, or lied?

Arrghh.

Re:"sexing up"

[keith6689]

Not sure if you are asking seriously or not.

If you are:

Someone coined the phrase refering to the allegation that the government had embellished a dossier of evidence relating to the weapons of mass destruction supposedly held by Iraq, in order to make a better case for going to war. Since then, it has been used by the media everytime the subject comes up.

Re:"sexing up"

[curtoid]

I was just trying to lighten things up a bit....
The lay, laid, lie thing is a common American "screw up."

Right lets get things straight here

[SkunkPussy]

Noone seems to be looking too hard at what happened. So lets have a quick walk through the scandal:

The BBC reported that the goverment had decided to "sex up" the dossier which contained evidence of weapons of mass destruction. This is the dossier known as the "dodgy dossier" (because there was little or no actual evidence of these WMDs and a lot of fuzzy language that didn't say a lot but sounded threatening).

At the heart of the dodgy dossier was a claim that WMDs could be ready within 45 minutes. This was a major pinnacle of Blair's justification of war. David Kelly (an important intelligence expert) expressed to Gilligan (BBC journo) that this claim was dubious.

Now lets not get this wrong, after the war weapons inspections teams have been crawling all over Iraq and they have found ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of WMDS, let alone WMDS that could be released in 45 minutes. So this 45 minute claim is without a shadow of doubt ABSOLUTELY BOGUS.

Now before this report was released, Tony Blair was talking up the dossier and the contents of it and saying how this dossier justified war for about 9 months. SO when the dossier was released he had built up a massive expectation of the contents of the dossier (which eventually turned out to be pretty underwhelming).

After Kelly's death, it was widely reported that the dossier had been passed backwards and forwards between Blair's press office, intelligence departments, and other cabinet members. They were altering the report, improving the wording etc.
One alteration that Alastair Campbell made (Tony Blairs Head of (press) Communications) was that the 45 minute claim should have much stronger wording. So it is clear that this dossier has been messed with to improve its impact and pursuasiveness. Instead of being an impartial intelligence report, it has turned into a PR document.

So what now?

Kelly expresses scepticism about the report to Gilligan. Gilligan reports that the government has "sexed up" the dossier. The government who perceive this as a major PR loss if this goes unchallenged, and which has a lot riding on this report anyway challenges the BBC on this.

So the Alistair Campbell challenges the BBC head on, makes a massive confrontation in the press (trying to bluster the governments way out of the mess). He demands that the BBC reveal their source of who said that the "dodgy dossier" had been "sexed up". Gilligan refused, and the BBC stood by him because he had tapes from the interview with Kelly so they could prove their point.

The goverment doesn't like the BBC anyway at the moment, and had openly criticised the BBC's coverage during the war for not presenting the government's side enough - I think the government wished that the BBC's coverage of Iraq was more like Foxes! (It is a joke criticising the BBC for not presenting the government's side enough - the reason the BBC is such an amazing institution and people listen to/watch it around the world is that they always present both sides of a story and allow the viewer to make their own mind up).
In addition before the war, the government had been floating ideas for what to do with the BBC when its charter comes up for renewal including such ridiculous ideas a *privatising* the BBC!(BBC's charter is renewed every 10 years, and it is this charter that allows it to operate/collect the license fee. There is always an anti-BBC lobby that is against everyone having to pay a poll tax on the BBC. )

So this standoff between Alastair Campbell and the BBC has be looked at in the context of the government's ongoing feud with the BBC.

The government get wind of who the source is (probably through intelligence channels) and they put about the word to the press that although they will not release Kelly's name, they will confirm to any press member if they suggest the right name. So the press are phoning up with lists of candidates, and miraculously some of them guess David Kelly.

So the government has leaked his name to the press, eve

Re:Right lets get things straight here

[Anonymous Coward]

Your summary disagrees with Hutton's. What evidence do you have that Hutton does not?

Your assumptions are lop-sided. Why should the dispute between the BBC and the government compromise the government's integrity but not the BBC's integrity?

Your condemnation is naive. Of course the government worded their document in such a way as to support their PR. It was an interested party, just like all the other governments involved who were doing the same thing.

Re:Right lets get things straight here

[Steve B]

BBC's charter is renewed every 10 years, and it is this charter that allows it to operate/collect the license fee. There is always an anti-BBC lobby that is against everyone having to pay a poll tax on the BBC.

If it ends up releasing British citizens for paying for the BBC whether they watch it or not, some good will have come of this.

Re:Right lets get things straight here

[SkunkPussy]

BBC's charter is renewed every 10 years, and it is this charter that allows it to operate/collect the license fee. There is always an anti-BBC lobby that is against everyone having to pay a poll tax on the BBC.

If it ends up releasing British citizens for paying for the BBC whether they watch it or not, some good will have come of this.

There is a major problem with the BBC, namely that it is a poll tax and that everyone has to pay an equal amount regardless of income etc. Set against this we have the fact that the BBC is probably the most respected broadcasting organisation across the world, in many more oppressed countries, the BBC provides an external point of view to the state owned media. Within the UK out of 5 terrestrial analogue channels, only 3 are any good and 2 of those are BBC channels. The fact that by paying the licence fee we don't see adverts so are subjected to less consumption pressure must be a breath of fresh air, considering virtually every other channel you pay for still displays adverts (Sky One, UK Gold etc). Finally I suspect the BBC is a really good advert for the UK around the world.

If we could sort out the funding of the BBC it would be better, but I think getting rid of the BBC for example would be an incredibly short sighted move by any government.

I'll believe suicide when Bush and Powell suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Kelly commits "suicide" because he was outed for telling the truth; yeah right. Bush, Powell and the rest of those damn blokes in washington are responsible for the deaths of thousands based on sexed up documents. They should be the ones with moral angst.

Also, everyone assumes that the BBC was telling the truth about kelly as the source. It was rather easy to pin the blame on a dead man, wasn't it? I think the real source remains secret.

Just my two cents before inflation affected the rest of your two cents.

The real agenda?

[danwiz]

Perhaps the real news is that someone credible noticed this time and was able to report it. Was the intention to bubble to the top of the search results, or to gauge reactions to such a purchase?

(A scary non-news story from the future ...)

A small, obscure news agency is reporting rumors that google searches for "White House corruption" were prechased today by private organization with close ties to government funding. A Google spokesperson offered no comment, citing client confidentiality agreements. White House officials would only comment that they were certain that "no public funds have been used such alleged purchases". Perhaps this is just rumor.

I realize that google is out to make a buck, but will this eventually become so commonplace that we will neither notice nor care?

Well, that depends

[Anonymous Coward]

The British dossiers state quite clearly that Saddam had WMD already, not mere programmes. Maybe you should try to keep up, eh?

Hutton Inquiry website

[lxdbxr]

A bit offtopic perhaps but I have been consistently impressed with the Hutton Inquiry use of the web and technology in general.

I had a quick look at their server today (28th, when the report is due out) and response time was good - checking them with Netcraft it looks like they are running Apache (probably on Linux underneath - though Netcraft is not always reliable on this point in my experience), and recently changed over to Akamai presumably for edge caching - which would explain the good response time.

Any Slashdotters involved with the technical side of the inquiry? I was really impressed by the evidence management system where everything submitted got scanned in and was available on screen to the witnesses and (mostly) on the website as well.

Re:The source for this "News" was The Sun, people!

[armb]

> The Times is read by people who actually do run the country.

That's the pre-Murdoch Times, of course.

Click Throughts not Searching

[jcm]

Well, just displaying the ad doesn't run up their ad budget. The ads have to actually be Clicked On as well for them to get charged. Also, the BBC would setup a daily ad budget as well so they only spend as much money as they can afford to.

Also, I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that they only charge for one click through from one IP address (maybe even cookied machine, never investigated) every so many hours or so. So if the same person clicks through a few times, the advertiser doesn't get charged for.

Google Ad Words really rock as far as I'm concerned. Small, unabtrusive, and targetted. If I have to have advertising I'll take mine that like!

Glad somebody said it

[The Tyro]

I was not sea-based during the campaign in Afghanistan, but the Brits soldiers I knew then didn't seem to like the BBC much either.

And it wasn't just the BBC... I'd sit around with my fellow soldiers and airmen and watch CNN et al, marveling at how wrong they could get a story. Now, in fairness to them, a lot of our units were "quiet professionals" who valued discretion highly... you ex-military people know what I'm talking about here.

Even in Iraq, the coverage is not representative, including coverage by the much-derided foxnews. How do I know? I still have friends in the military on the ground there, including some grunt-level MPs in several branches of service (I know them from my law enforcement background). Half the time they won't even watch the news, because they get so disgusted watching it. Upon asking them their viewpoints, they reiterated to me that the lion's share of the Iraqi people love us, are glad we're there, and don't want us to leave.

Why do I mistrust CNN/BBC/FOX/NBC/ABC? Because I've seen the news media get it wrong, and because I trust a grunt on the ground before I trust a reporter drinking martinis in a hotel.

This guy has no clue

[BeCre8iv]

How can the BBC be complicit in 'Sexing up' the dossier when it was them who broke the story and coined the phrase 'sexed up'

Many Americans seem to fall for spin every time, especially the subtle, well practiced British spin.

EG: Anybody who sees the middle east is such black and white terms must be gullable as phuc.

However, as a licence fee-payer I resent the cash being spent on 'damage limitation' when the BBCs TV content is going downhill and music programming pitiful.

BBC Coverage Very Good

[twem2]

Listening to the BBC coverage on Radio 4, it is very good and impartial. The BBC is the only media service I know of which will openly criticize itself. They are concerned with reporting the facts, not their own agenda (unlike most newspapers, many of whom have an agenda against the BBC as their owners want to control all the media in the country)

They're now interviewing the director of news for the BBC, and he's admitting that the Hutton Report is very bad for the BBC and a lot needs to be done to ensure this doesn't happen again.

I'm just shocked at how much the MoD and Government has got away with... (the way they named Kelly was horrendous, openly inviting journalists to guess and telling them if they're right)

Who are the victors, really?

[Burb]

history is written by the victors

None of us are the victors

I therefore conclude that no-one is writing history.

This seems a lot more profound in my head than when I wrote it down ...

Re: "Black" reporter

[Oligonicella]

In this instance, that implication would be correct.
This particular reported was being sheltered by the editor because of his race. That makes it relevant.
If you asked your question, the answer would have to be preceeded by "Which reporter?"
Don't take my word for it. There are a number of good dissections of what went on at NYT.

Re:The source for this "News" was The Sun, people!

[R.Caley]

> The Times is read by people who actually do run the country.

That's the pre-Murdoch Times, of course.

Still true. The Sun-With-No-Tits is now read by those who run the country because they need toknow what Rupert wants them to do.

This just in

[salesgeek]

News media conglomerate allegedly may have a hand in creating news. Video at 6.

Of course, this is surprising given that the BBC does not film episodes of the Jerry Springer Show..

Re:I'll believe suicide when Bush and Powell suici

[dipipanone]

Also, everyone assumes that the BBC was telling the truth about kelly as the source.

The BBC didn't name Kelly as their source. The government dropped large hints to the press, and then they confirmed it.

It was rather easy to pin the blame on a dead man, wasn't it?

Not really. He was still alive when they pinned the blame on him.

I think the real source remains secret.

I've got a rather nice bridge that you might be interested in. One that connects Manhattan with one of the outer boroughs. If you buy it from me, you could make a fortune in tolls...

The BBC *is* biased

[Anonymous Coward]

I just did some reading last night that a BBC reporter mentioned the palestinean suicide bombers, and was suspended. But that if you mention the Jews from NYC and that they have a Zionist agenda, that's okay.

Coupled with how bad they look as a results of this inquiry, the BBC has fallen very far in my book.

And no, I'm not jewish. Not even close.

Re:The BBC *is* biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Link?? Or are you trolling?

Re:Fair and Balanced.

[Oligonicella]

1. No, when they kill civilians indescriminatly, they are called terrorists.
2. No, when they blow up the OK building, or bomb PP, they are called terrorists.
Just waving guns and quoting some old book doesn't cut it in either case.

How much for a vowel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to buy a vowel please

BBC == biased coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nice public example of how major news orginizations fabricate 'news' for their own purposes.

It is a good reason to not just accept anything published by a news outlet since many have political biases (e.g., New York Times is a great example of this).

Test yourself against history a little

[ianscot]

Just out of passing curiosity, did you think the perspective of the Chinese military -- which, after all, was made up of those "grunts on the ground" you so value -- was the correct one with respect to the Tienanmen square massacre?

The role of journalists is to provide an independent perspective. The model you're pining for is one that Li Peng would have been very comfortable with back in 1989. The Chinese state-controlled media will have given you that version, in which responsible, capable soldiers went about performing a difficult job under difficult circumstances, motivated by their higher purpose and sense of moral duty to their nation.

And as far as reporters drinking martinis in a hotel, did you catch the news yesterday at all? Ever hear of Daniel Pearl?

(How about George Orwell?)

The price of a democracy.

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all remember that the Hutton inquiry is an internal inquiry initiated by the government. The fact that it clears the government of wrongdoing is hardly surprising.

Oh, and nobody is accusing the BBC of 'sexing up' the Iraq dossier. In the first case, it was the BBC who were accusing the government of this.

In a democracy these kind of diversions are the cost of unpopular wars of aggression. Apply the usual pinch of salt.

Whitewash

[BigBadBri]

Hutton was reputed to be a man of integrity and independence.

No longer.

He manages to find that the Covernment did no wrong, despite commenting on the insufficiency of the records of the meetings upon which he based this judgement.

He finds all the government claims justified, and all the counterclaims without foundation.

Here's a hint - don't let him near the SCO trial - you'll end up with SCO (no evidence) winning against the rest of the world (tons of evidence).

As you can tell, I'm disappointed - the independence of the judiciary is once again called into question, and we still have the liars in charge.

BBC not to be found anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

As of now, 11:45 eastern time, nothing on Google or Google news brings up anything from the BBC.

Hmm.

That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

"Angry people waving flags and guns and quoting from the Bible:
-are called the moral majority, Republicans, or even patriots."

That's because Jesus is powerfuler than Mohammet. Mohammet seems to be able to take a desert people and turn them into raving lunatics.

Jesus made the entire western world.

So you go figure it out.

I'd call you "assclown" because it sounds funny, but I don't know what it means, so I won't use it. I dont' mean to be insulting to my Muslim brothers.

What the @#$#@ does "Sexed Up" mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought "Sexed Up" was slang for when a girl starts kissing you, starts giving you oral, then she stops.

you stand up and say "goddamnit woman, don't stop, I'm all sexed up!".

Commercialization of search engines sucks.

[Space_Soldier]

Everything is commercial now, I hate search engines. If you search for technical details about a product, 99% of the sites point to a shopping site. You have to search -shop -shopping -buy -sale -. In this case, if you want to do research on that story, you get one link to BBC. It is annoying as hell. A search engine should be made where every site in the database is verified and none of them are shopping sites, or sites that have paid to be the first link in the search result. The Internet was designed for information to be shared and easily accessible, but now it is very hard to find the information you want because everybody is trying to sell you something. It is annoying! The more a search engine becomes popular (e.g.: Google [which is now a verb]) the worst it is going to get because the company behind it cares more about the paper with the presidents than good search results. Some of us, programmers, which read Slashdot need to create a search engine where information sites and shopping sites are separated. I'm sure funding can be found out there since many more people/companies are frustrated about where search engines go.

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

" Whoa buddy, God has NOTHING to do with these United States of America"

That's so wrong.

Look on your money.

Then read about the founding fathers and their view on religion.

Then you'll know. You may be shocked. You might want to move to China or Iran to be really free.

Oh please

[The Tyro]

The other side is being told, by the mainstream media... but I'm also getting the perspective of the grunts on the ground, which is extremely valuable.

Are you seriously comparing the work of the US military in Iraq with the Tiananmen Square massacre? I almost thought you were making a serious point until I read that part... China is a totalitarian regime, has state-controlled media, brainwashed soldiers, and no independent reporting to speak of... Iraq has an independent media presence, including a home-grown media that's growing like kudzu... totally different from the media situation in China.

As far as Daniel Pearl, I think it should be encouraged for reporters go out and get the story... that's what I was talking about in my post (instead of sitting in the Palestine Hotel bar). Daniel Pearl gave his life for his profession... he couldn't have given more. I think the reporters that covered the war first-hand, particularly the "embeds," many of whom risked their lives by doing so (and at least one of them died in the process) did outstanding work... That's the kind of reporting I'm talking about.

The model that I'm "pining for" is most definitely not a state-controlled media whitewashing of a brutal mass murder like Tiananmen... do not insult me, sir.

When will /. learn to get its facts straight

[Insipid Trunculance]

These are the facts as known to the public ta large in UK.

Andrew Gilligan (of the BBC) accuses the govt of sexing up the dossier.His sourse is unnamed and supposedly connected intimately with the govt.

Alastair Cambell,Tony Blair's sort of head honcho,calls the report a fabrication.And notes in his private diary wants to fuck gilligan up.

The Beeb and No 10 have a war of words with both standing by their versions.

Kelly goes to his bosses and tells them that he did tell Gilligan abot misinterpretation of Intelligence data but not in so strong a terms.

A meeting of MOD chaired by PM personaly clears naming of Dr.Kelly as the source.

Meanwhile Dr.Kelly is grilled by two parliamentary Commitees.

At a Press conference Dr.Kelly is confirmed by MOD as the source.

Next day dr.kelly has lunch and goes for a stroll.His body is found next morning.Both police and hutton are convinced that it was a suicide.

So both BBC and Govt are to blame but the govt more so for revealiong his name.

Hutton clears govt of any misdeeds but blames the BBC for jumping the gun and not getting their facts right.

The chairman of the board of governors of teh BBC Greg Davies has resigned.

So /. get teh damn facts right before you jump the gun.Learn from the Beeb.

WMD's

[korzybski]

Weapons of mass destruction fooey, the only weapons of mass destruction, apparent here, is all the lies being sprayed around. First question is why did Kelly kill himself? Shame is my guess, because he knew the whole issue of WMD's was a smoke screen to cover up the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Like they could not do it when it was the right time to do it back in '91, because that would have demonstrated the principle of international law and the soverenty of the UN. Isreal and the multinationals do not like international law. They would rather the planet be run by Hollywood and the multinationals.

So what were the real reasons for the Iraq invasion? Two main reasons 9/11 and that the dollar is the fiat currency. Before the Bretton Woods agreement. All currencies were tied to the value of gold, after Bretton Woods all currencies became tied to the value of the dollar, this worked ok, whilst the American economy was ok. The American economy is no longer ok, America is running a massive trade deficit with the rest of the world, America is a net importer of oil, America can get away with this because oil is priced in dollars. In 2000 Saddam asked for his oil money to be paid in Euros, this scared America, because of the domino effect. Different countries pay for their raw materials in dollars, this means countries have to hold a large quantity of dollars for international trade, this effect keeps the value of the dollar artificialy high and funds the American way of life, just compare the price of fuel in ECC countries with the price of fuel in America and you will see what I mean.

Back in 91 General Swarzkopf wanted to finish the job ie march all the way to Bahgdad, haul Saddam out by the scruff of the neck and try him as a war criminal. But Colin Powell told him not to, this should be the correct question, why did they wait for twelve years before finishing the job. If they had done this in 91 it would have sent a marvelous signal to every other tin pot dictator on the planet. It might have meant Milosovich would have thought twice. We need international law and we need it badly. We should be ruled by principle, not people.

Funny how all the cruise missiles are manufactured in Texas, also funny how General Franks and George Bush jnr went to school together.

What a surprise

[Smid]

Lord Hutton "independent" inquiry not really independent: http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0, 13812,1133385,00.html

"Multifarious law lords have been asked to investigate the government over the years, and if anyone can name one where the government has not been exonerated pretty much entirely I would be interested, from Profumo onwards. Law lords do not often attack the government, what we usually see happen with inquiries is that the ministers get off scott free."

And yes, the statement from the Sun is actually factually wrong. BBC reported that the Government "sexed up" the document. And a large amount of uk voters still do.

Whats another old government bought fart, who actually believes Blair when he turns on the waterworks, worth anyway?

Interestingly, its gone unstated, but there are a percentage of the uk population that believe that Government killed Mr Kelly. I personally don't, but it does show how much Mr Blair is respected nowadays. He led his country into an unpopular war in Iraq (yes, it was unpopular in the uk, some of the biggest protests in recent times happened over the Iraq war) and now the public plainly distrusts him...

BBC Charman resigns

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

Story on BBC.

I think this guy's resignation shows some of the integrity that's lately been questioned.

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[glesga_kiss]

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

I've always loved that attitude to the political-correct "it was all about slavery" teachings. Ever noticed how those who write the history also do it to make themselves look righteous?

I have faith in you, here. Try again.

[ianscot]

Are you seriously comparing the work of the US military in Iraq with the Tiananmen Square massacre?

I'm seriously comparing the perspective of soldiers with the perspective of independent journalists -- that being the point of your post, to which I was responding.

I chose that example specifically because it was extreme. Did you follow that at all? Again, tell me -- would the story you got from the "grunts on the ground" have been substantially different in Tiananmen? Wouldn't the Chinese foot soldier headed into Beijing have said he was following orders that were meant to protect his nation? The contrast between the governments and the situations is quite wide, you're right -- that being the point.

You've just suggested that soldiers know what the majority sentiment of Iraqis is. When the news is about Shiite leaders staging large-scale demonstrations in which they protest our election plans, I suppose we could ask a Master Sergeant what it all means... It just doesn't seem to me like that person's going to necessarily have the best grip on Shiite politics. I'd much rather rely on Iraqis for that information. (For one thing, Iraqis would take the more inflammatory sides of the Shiite clergy's rhetoric a little less to heart.)

Want a much simpler comparison that won't upset you nearly as much? How accurately do you think police officers understand public opinion? I've always thought cops' sense of people was off, because they're constantly dealing with the public in minor confrontational situations like traffic stops. Their sense of how people react to them is distorted, from the examples I see -- including the officer who lives next door, whom I like a lot. Comes with the job.

Now: you're a solider with a mechanized infantry division, and you've been thrown into a policing role, despite inadequate training for it, in an Arab Muslim country during the chaotic months after all-out war. How accurate do you think your perceptions are about people's attitudes? More or less accurate than my neighbor's read on public opinion in his home town?

(As far as the mainstream media goes, they basically "embedded" themselves so thoroughly during major combat that we got an overwhelming share of our information, in the U.S., from reporters who were being toted around like baggage with military units.)

Hutton Report now out

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the argueing over the facts can stop. The Hutton report is now out.

At a Glance

You have faith? Oh boy...

[The Tyro]

You were aware, of course, that US troops can be disciplined for speaking with reporters without first consulting with their unit's Public Affairs officer?

Did you follow that at all? Again, tell me -- would the story you got from the "grunts on the ground" have been substantially different in Tiananmen? Wouldn't the Chinese foot soldier headed into Beijing have said he was following orders that were meant to protect his nation?

If you were a state-run-media reporter asking him that question, in the presence of his superior officer... I'm certain he'd tell you it was for the good of the country (and thank you, BTW, for making my point). I'm not a reporter for a totalitarian regime, asking a soldier a question with a gun to his head. What I'm talking about is friends of mine, sharing their frustrations, making comments to me completely unrecorded, unscripted, and off-the-cuff. I'm certain you understand the difference... with me there's no duress, it's friend-to-friend and soldier-to-soldier, and it's off the record. These are people whose jobs require them to interact with Iraqis all day long, both as police, and as trainers training police... so yes, I'm very interested in what they have to say.

I suppose we could ask a Master Sergeant what it all means
If you were fortunate enough to have access to somebody like that on the ground, and they'd talk to you, you'd be a fool not to ask him/her.

It just doesn't seem to me like that person's going to necessarily have the best grip on Shiite politics. I'd much rather rely on Iraqis for that information.

Well of course... but which Iraqis? Planning on asking the ones that always hang around and demonstrate outside the Palestine Hotel? How do you like your spin? The Iraqis, and that includes the insurgents, are not fools... they understand politics, and don't think for one second that the insurgents wouldn't do anything/everything they could to knock GW out of office, including bullsh*t reporters every chance they get. If you can't win militarily, win politically.

Also, there's something about a camera and notebook that seems to distort things all by itself... I put far more faith in the extemporaneous opinions of the "man on the street," compared to something guardedly told to a reporter, colored by that reporter's perceptions, then filtered through multiple editors. How many layers do you like between your brain and the actual events?

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, you seem to be arguing that the grunt is either inadequately educated, or too close to the situation to have an accurate perspective, and while that might be true for some strategic, theatre-level issues, it's a poor commander who doesn't listen to small-unit, boots-on-the-ground tactical intel. For a close-in view of what regular Iraqis think, I'll take very seriously the word of the troops who interact with them every day. It's like asking the CEO what the guys in the mailroom think... the CEO probably has no idea past what some miscellaneous lackey might have told him; too many layers between CEO and the mailroom. I take what I get from CNN et al with a similar grain of salt.

As for your "much simpler" comparison claiming cops misunderstand public opinion... that doesn't square at all with my experience.

everybody knows that the CIA killed Kelly.

[Darth23]

It was payback to MI5 (MI6?) for some Contract work they did.

Hutton enguiry...

[ideaguy3]

Lauren?

Re:Commercialization of search engines sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. I noticed that Google now is a lot different from Google a year ago. They have become greedy. The quality is going down.

Google Ad about Google Ads

[sepluv]

I cannot find any BBC ads any more. Not only have government bodies been buying ads as well as the BBC, but now the google ad when searching for "Hutton" is:

Hutton PPC ad buys by BBC
An example of Pay Per Click used to promote non-commercial content
www.neutralize.com

The link is to an "independent Internet marketing firm"'s website talking about the fact that the BBC got Google ads and offering commercial help with pay-per-click advertising to other organisations for non-commercial purposes.