Message-ID: <dce2bf0608291218y11daa4e9xcacec7763eefaf37@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:18:41 +0100
From: "teh kids" <tehkids@...glemail.com>
To: "Paul Schmehl" <pauls@...allas.edu>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Re: Re: George Bush appoints a 9 year old to be
	the chairperson of the Information Security Deportment

> > try googling BBC and Hezbollah - it took me all of 30 seconds to find
> > _and_ read that link (because I can read).
> >
> You mean like this?
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm>
>
> "It now has an important presence in the Lebanese parliament and has built
> broad support by providing social services and health care. It also has an
> influential TV station, al-Manar."

Is this the only passage in that text that you think is biased?
(i thought you were objecting on grounds of omission rather than inclusion)

It can be broken down in to 4 statements,
1] Hezbollah has managed to become an important presence in the
Lebanese Parliament
2] It has gained support for this  power by providing [unnamed] social services
3] It has gained support for this power by providing health care [to
an unnamed population]
4] It has a tv station, which is influential [it is not stated if this
is a cause or an effect]

Are any of these statements incorrect?
Do these statements imply things that are incorrect?

please, if these statements are incorrect, provide me some further
information that could conclude that the misreporting is due to
personal (on behalf of the reporter), government enforced or other
bias, please also state _your_ reason as to why you think there is a
bias.

I think you need to read the whole article to put these points into
context.  I see no personal bias in these statements. (although I
cannot vouch for their correctness)

do you have a history with this issue? it seems that you _might_ be
confusing bad journalism with bias because something is clouding your
judgement.

>
> Or this?
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4781551.stm>
>

that is a terribly written article.

> "On the evening of 23 July, he and two other medics answered a call to
> rendezvous with an ambulance from Tibnin, in the hills to the east, to
> relay three civilian patients down to Tyre.
>
> Both ambulances were struck precisely by separate rockets as they were
> stopped at the roadside near Qana for the transfer."
>
> We now know this story is false - Hezbollah propaganda swallowed hook, line
> and sinker by the vaunted "unbiased" media.

I see your point but without sources to back up your claims they are
little more than speculation.  How do I know that you are not part of
a more effective,  Israeli propaganda machine.

Please supply some substance to your outlandish statements.

>
> That includes your beloved BBC, BTW.

the bbc is not beloved to me.  I personally find the standard of
reporting nowdays on the bbc not as good as it once was.  they seem to
be shifting to the lowest common denominator reporting.  This is no
good for anyone, it also means that they are more likely to get caught
up in sensationalism - saying that this is because they are
deliberately biased (your original point) is unfair and inaccurate.

>
> Love your argumentation style, BTW.  Most impressive.

i 1O\/3 n3tt3rs.

>
> Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists