AS
Didn't someone post this last week? I saved it and sent it as a group email round my office - I was soooooooo mad!
I'd be surprised if top BBC people didn't know about it already...
But, yes Chris, by all means send it to MB, I have a copy of it on my personal server space (it's about 3MB) if you want to send that to him
I REALLY hate HTV West posted:
You guys want me to do this letter too?
It'll have to wait until the morning, when the red mist has lifted.
I'm that mad I'm seriously thinking of sending it to Mr Byford (sir)
It'll have to wait until the morning, when the red mist has lifted.
I'm that mad I'm seriously thinking of sending it to Mr Byford (sir)
Didn't someone post this last week? I saved it and sent it as a group email round my office - I was soooooooo mad!
I'd be surprised if top BBC people didn't know about it already...
But, yes Chris, by all means send it to MB, I have a copy of it on my personal server space (it's about 3MB) if you want to send that to him
CO
I fear that you have got the idea of the technique of Google bombing the wrong way around.
The idea is that when somebody types in "Fox News" to the Google Search bar, instead of being transported to the Fox News Site, the first item on the returned search list is to a page on another site which boldly proclaims that Fox is neither fair nor balanced, which obviously somebody other than Fox is hosting.
As an example, type in "French military victories" into the Google search engine.
The idea is that when somebody types in "Fox News" to the Google Search bar, instead of being transported to the Fox News Site, the first item on the returned search list is to a page on another site which boldly proclaims that Fox is neither fair nor balanced, which obviously somebody other than Fox is hosting.
As an example, type in "French military victories" into the Google search engine.
DV
oh i dunno then lol
anyway here's the follow up 'My Word' from yesterday: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110172,00.html
anyway here's the follow up 'My Word' from yesterday: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110172,00.html
:-(
A former member
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com">Lying *******</a>
You may have it the wrong way around Corin...
You may have it the wrong way around Corin...
IN
At the moment, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, and other "legacy" regulator codes remain in effect until Ofcom standardizes the regulations across the board, which should be this year, but the general thrust of the regulations will remain as they are now.
According to the BSC fairness and privacy code of guidance, I believe FOX News have broken the following:
and I think FOX News should implement the following
badamson posted:
So...what codes has Gibson broken then?
Or what should go into the Ofcom boxes?
Or what should go into the Ofcom boxes?
At the moment, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, and other "legacy" regulator codes remain in effect until Ofcom standardizes the regulations across the board, which should be this year, but the general thrust of the regulations will remain as they are now.
According to the BSC fairness and privacy code of guidance, I believe FOX News have broken the following:
Quote:
2. Broadcasters have a responsiblity to avoid unfairness to individuals or organisations featured in programmes in particular through the use of inaccurate information or distortion, for example, by the unfair selection or juxtaposition of material taken out of context, whether specially recorded for a programme, or taken from library or other sources. Broadcasters should avoid creating doubts on the audience's part as to what they are being shown if it could mislead the audience in a way which would be unfair to those featured in the programme.
Quote:
7. Broadcasters should take special care when their programmes are capable of adversely affecting the reputation of individuals, companies or other organisations. Broadcasters should take all reasonable care to satisfy themselves that all material facts have been considered before transmission and so far as possible are fairly presented.
and I think FOX News should implement the following
Quote:
10. Whenever the broadcaster recognises that a broadcast has been unfair, if the person affected so wishes, it should be corrected promptly with due prominence unless there are compelling legal reasons not to do so. An apology should also be broadcast whenever appropriate.
CW
Oh I can see that working. Lets wheel Gibson out to say:
"We at Fox News Channel sometimes make the occasional mistake. We were wrong to claim the beeb lied over the Iraq War and we were wrong to use the term 'frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism'. I fully retract that statement, and I hold the BBC up as a world standard to which all journalism should aspire, and to which the Brits can be proud".
Methinks not. Sadly, the propaganda machine won't be retracting anything. I just hope not too much of America heard this rubbish, and not too many of those that did actually believed it.
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
and I think FOX News should implement the following
Quote:
10. Whenever the broadcaster recognises that a broadcast has been unfair, if the person affected so wishes, it should be corrected promptly with due prominence unless there are compelling legal reasons not to do so. An apology should also be broadcast whenever appropriate.
Quote:
10. Whenever the broadcaster recognises that a broadcast has been unfair, if the person affected so wishes, it should be corrected promptly with due prominence unless there are compelling legal reasons not to do so. An apology should also be broadcast whenever appropriate.
Oh I can see that working. Lets wheel Gibson out to say:
"We at Fox News Channel sometimes make the occasional mistake. We were wrong to claim the beeb lied over the Iraq War and we were wrong to use the term 'frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism'. I fully retract that statement, and I hold the BBC up as a world standard to which all journalism should aspire, and to which the Brits can be proud".
Methinks not. Sadly, the propaganda machine won't be retracting anything. I just hope not too much of America heard this rubbish, and not too many of those that did actually believed it.
CO
Are people going to be using the search term "lying b******" which takes them to fox.COM,
or are they going to be using the search term "FOX NEWS" which you want to take them to a web page saying that FOX are not fair and not balanced?
badamson posted:
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com">Lying b*******</a>
You may have it the wrong way around Corin...
You may have it the wrong way around Corin...
Are people going to be using the search term "lying b******" which takes them to fox.COM,
or are they going to be using the search term "FOX NEWS" which you want to take them to a web page saying that FOX are not fair and not balanced?
Last edited by Corin on 4 February 2004 12:17am
GS
Are people going to be using the search term "lying b******" which takes them to fox.COM,
or are they going to be using the search term "FOX NEWS" which you want to take them to a web page saying that FOX are not fair and not balanced?
Its supposed to be an insulting term which links to an official site.
Like typing "miserable failure"....
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Corin posted:
badamson posted:
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com">Lying b*******</a>
You may have it the wrong way around Corin...
You may have it the wrong way around Corin...
Are people going to be using the search term "lying b******" which takes them to fox.COM,
or are they going to be using the search term "FOX NEWS" which you want to take them to a web page saying that FOX are not fair and not balanced?
Its supposed to be an insulting term which links to an official site.
Like typing "miserable failure"....