[jeargefef]

Maybe you should consider your own advice when every single person is telling you that you are wrong and you just get more and more annoyed?

Oh? How am I "wrong"? All I said was that Kryos was wrong to instantly assume bias just because one particular video was deleted (so he claims).

The thing is it's exactly the same people saying I'm "wrong". They are saying it just because it's me, not because I am. It's their standard answer to any argument I put forward. It's pathetic.

[Dxwlxqvg]

Oh? How am I "wrong"? All I said was that Kryos was wrong to instantly assume bias just because one particular video was deleted (so he claims).

The thing is it's exactly the same people saying I'm "wrong". They are saying it just because it's me, not because I am. It's their standard answer to any argument I put forward. It's pathetic.

I'm not saying you are on this occasion, that's why I said you should consider it when everyone is saying you are wrong.

--- Post Update ---

What resolution was bunglevision again?

320x240. Interlaced.

[Teeppoodiug]

All that was asked was that you think about the situation a bit. No one attacked you. All we want is for you to approach this question logically. If Assad is the bad guy, the BBC wouldn't want to show the rebellion using deplorable tactics. It would cheapen the image of the rebels as the good guys.

This was my interpretation

Considering this was posted by Kyros, and the source appears to be Infowars, I wouldn't be doubling down on this one, Will.

And at this point, I don't think there's any doubt that the Syrian government are the baddies.

Yes, it was reported on Infowars, but I did watch with my own eyes at work on whatever morning it was, before Infowars reported on it because it hadn't been taken down at that point obviously.

--- Post Update ---

Oh? How am I "wrong"? All I said was that Kryos was wrong to instantly assume bias just because one particular video was deleted (so he claims).

The BBC don't often pull videos, but they don't often publish ones like that in the first place. You usually just get the usual rebels peering from around a street corner, offloading 25 rounds at a dustbin at the other end of the street shouting alah-akbar. And that's the extent of the dirty picture they'd paint for war.

[Saduyre9de]

Oh? How am I "wrong"? All I said was that Kryos was wrong to instantly assume bias just because one particular video was deleted (so he claims).

Who assumed bias?

Start at the core: whether it was the appearance of bias or removal of a video in bad taste, can you see why a corporation would want to do this?

--- Post Update ---

Yes, it was reported on Infowars

Why do you do this to yourself?

[7kitthuptarill]

Why do you do this to yourself?

Because I am honest, William.

[Gymnarnemia]

Because I am honest, William.

Unfortunately, infowars doesn't share the same integrity.

[kristloken]

The most probable reason the video was censored by the BBC is due to it's gruesome nature, they probably got complaints by some usual idiots.

I don't think that the BBC is inept enough to think that they can remove a video like that without anyone noticing.

Not saying the BBC is infallible either.

Oh yeah, and infowars will take any story and turn it into one of their conspiracy theories.

As for the video itself and the actions of the rebels, Syria is a ****ing war zone and Assad's forces and killing hundreds daily, I wouldn't care less if they used someone's grandma to drive the truck bomb, if she supports Assad.

[Kokomoxddcvcv]

[hrotedk]

The most probable reason the video was censored by the BBC is due to it's gruesome nature, they probably got complaints by some usual idiots.

I don't think that the BBC is inept enough to think that they can remove a video like that without anyone noticing.

Not saying the BBC is infallible either.

Oh yeah, and infowars will take any story and turn it into one of their conspiracy theories.

As for the video itself and the actions of the rebels, Syria is a ****ing war zone and Assad's forces and killing hundreds daily, I wouldn't care less if they used someone's grandma to drive the truck bomb, if she supports Assad.

The video wasn't gruesome.

Infowars isn't full of conspiracy theories.

[MgpojuWy]

CNN was not as bad as FOX News until recently; more recently than 5 years. Now it is all about social media and celebritism.

Im not much for watching the news channels, but has CNN adopted the over opinionated shows from FOX into their programming??

Because theres nothing worse than a manipulative news network who spews chunks of BS into the average brain dead viewer who believes ever word these uber right wing puppets say.

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity...etc....that type of programming should not be allowed...They just invent news through their opinions and censor or edit footage to suit their needs.
South park had a great episode where they mock Glenn (fag balls) Beck
Instead I think shows like the daily show should be adopted....a show that proves the "lies and back and forth and just plain making up the news as they please" that the major news channels provide.

Ok rant over

[JOR4qxYH]

Im not much for watching the news channels, but has CNN adopted the over opinionated shows from FOX into their programming??

No, its more like they just don't report anything of substance. Most of their articles are about how word "X" started trending on Twitter or videos of cute kittens playing together. Those are front-pagers all the time while the real news is buried in the back of their website.

[melissa]

The video wasn't gruesome.

Infowars isn't full of conspiracy theories.

Since when is a video of a man being prepared for and tricked into his eventual and unknowing death (even if it didn't work out) not gruesome ?


And Infowars isn't just full of conspiracy theories but copious bullshit, garbage, flim flam, snake oil and assorted quackery as well.

[vypusknye]

Since when is a video of a man being prepared for and tricked into his eventual and unknowing death (even if it didn't work out) not gruesome ?


And Infowars isn't just full of conspiracy theories but copious bullshit, garbage, flim flam, snake oil and assorted quackery as well.

Well it all depends on our definition of grusome, but I thought you meant it was a bit repulsive, rather than just shocking.

No point in getting an argument about Infowars, but I don't think you'll have spent any time looking to make a real judgement. The website collates stories and accounts from various sources and expands on them. They don't just make **** up.

[itititit]

the BBC is supposed to be unbiased and should report the news on both sides of the conflict.

[Alice_Medichi34]

Well it all depends on our definition of grusome, but I thought you meant it was a bit repulsive, rather than just shocking.

No point in getting an argument about Infowars, but I don't think you'll have spent any time looking to make a real judgement. The website collates stories and accounts from various sources and expands on them. They don't just make **** up.

This made me look up the definition.

Gruesome

adjective
1.*causing great horror; horribly repugnant; grisly
2.*full of or causing problems; distressing

I think my use of the word is perfect in this case.

As for Infowars, they just use pure conjecture to come up with ridiculous unsupported claims, in other words, they start with a real story and then proceed to pull things out of their ass. For profit, nonetheless.


I despise the website and don't have a modicum of respect for anyone who tries to give it credence.

[Peapeuddedbaw]

This made me look up the definition.

Gruesome

adjective
1.*causing great horror; horribly repugnant; grisly
2.*full of or causing problems; distressing

I think my use of the word is perfect in this case.

As for Infowars, they just use pure conjecture to come up with ridiculous unsupported claims, in other words, they start with a real story and then proceed to pull things out of their ass. For profit, nonetheless.


I despise the website and don't have a modicum of respect for anyone who tries to give it credence.

The video clip was not of great horror or distressing. There was nothing grisly in it. I think gruesome is too stronger word. If the bomb had gone off, the aftermath could be described as gruesome. But this is really not worth arguing about.

If Infowars start off with real stories, there's the point of the website. The stories on there aren't by any means all mainstream. If you then bother to read their take on it and conclude it to be pulled from their ass, then fair enough, but that doesn't discredit the original headline. They make profit from sponsors, not directly from making news up.

[agrismhig]

the BBC is supposed to be unbiased and should report the news on both sides of the conflict.

They do, and they get accused of bias from both sides at the same time. The BBC isn't perfect, but they're about as good as you're going to get from a multi-medium network with international reach.

[dserbokim]

The video clip was not of great horror or distressing. There was nothing grisly in it. I think gruesome is too stronger word. If the bomb had gone off, the aftermath could be described as gruesome. But this is really not worth arguing about.

I don't know about you but I find that on a human level, what went on beside the failed bombing and the preparation of it is far more gruesome and horrid than just seeing a few scattered human bits in war zone which is something we see on the news everyday.

[LottiFurmann]

I don't know about you but I find that on a human level, what went on beside the failed bombing and the preparation of it is far more gruesome and horrid

Exactly my point.

An BBC does not report on both sides. How often do you see Al Queda members in Afghanistan interviewed diplomatically?

[CFstantony]

An BBC does not report on both sides. How often do you see Al Queda members in Afghanistan interviewed diplomatically?

Are you serious ? Reporters go to extreme lengths to get interviews from the "baddies", they sometime succeed, when they don't they end up having their head carved off in front of a camera.