Just yesterday another glaring example of bias was how the BBC massage the news: The Times reported that "Gordon Brown vetoes Libyan payout to IRA victims": "GORDON BROWN personally vetoed an attempt to force Colonel Muammar Gadaffi to compensate IRA bomb victims because it might have jeopardised British oil deals with Libya."
Originally this was fairly reasonably mirrored in a BBC article with the headline ""PM 'did not press Libya over IRA'" [Link] and complete with grim photo of the Colonel. Later that story had vanished; I spent an hour searching for it to no avail...it's there but the direct link is the only way to get to it! It was followed up later (19:59 GMT, Sunday 6th) by the headline on the News, UK News, Politics and presumably other 'front' pages "Brown backs bid for Libya pay-out" [Link], and this time complete with grinning Brown and a not-so-grim Colonel. Wow...what a speedy, emergency, 'gloss' article that caught my eye purely because it was a complete reversal of the earlier news; complete with handy quotes, and no doubt trying to patch up the patently damaging news for Brown's image. That story, the back-up Brown one, was on the BBC's 10 most read list all evening. Please note...that link now reads (more reasonably!) "'U-turn for PM on Libyan pay-out'"...and HASN'T appeared on the top 10 most read all day. Odd? The pro-Brown article rushed together to save face on a Sunday AND it's one of the most read...clearly Brown is well liked...yes, exactly.
hat-tip: Thanks to Martin, TPO and Marky on Biased BBC.
Also thanks for the link to Newssniffer
No comments:
Post a Comment