Speaking of media staging facts

judge-mental

Board Supporter
Awards
1
  • Established
EU Referendum

note that the blog owners are brits pissed on the BBC wasting their tax money on one sided blabber, and not right or left wingers.
 

judge-mental

Board Supporter
Awards
1
  • Established
the sad story of how we got to the media siding with terrorists

Ed Driscoll.com: Picture Kill: How We Got Here

Far more dangerous than the hard anti-Americanism of the far left (and some elements of the far right) is the moral relativism that prevails among Western liberal elites, especially in journalism. Exhibit A is Reuters. As we noted on Sept. 24, 2001:
Stephen Jukes, global news editor for Reuters, the British wire service, has ordered his scribes not to use the word terror to refer to the Sept. 11 atrocity. . . . "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist," Jukes writes in an internal memo. "To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack."
Reuters is the most self-righteous about it, but many other news organizations also use terms like militants, commandos, guerrillas and even dissidents to refer to terrorists--even though in some cases these terms are not only overly solicitous to the enemy but factually inaccurate (a guerrilla attack, for instance, has a military target, while a terrorist attack targets civilians).
 

BioHazzard

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
What is funny is, there are people who believe that those doctored reporting, is genuine unbiased news. :lol: :lol:

And they go bellyaching about how the foreigners (western and Middle east) hate us. Well, DUH! OF course! After you have been feeding on :dump: everyday your whole life!!! Of course you would believe the :dump: you have been feeding on is for real. :cheers: :cheers:
 

Similar threads


Top