Here in London

[franxor]

I'm ashamed to say that here in London I feel that the disaster in America seems to have become, on all the news media, just another opportunity for the expression of that irrational and raw anti-Bush-and-Americanism so widespread and imbedded in many 'superior' and ignorant people of this country. The BBC is being particularly noisome by, as usual, carefully selecting all the comments that reflect its own corporate and warped mindset. Sadly, I can't see a lot of true sympathy around.

I remain unconvinced, given the range and complexity of this disaster, and keeping in mind that for the first two or three days of the 'counted days of incompetence' the live effects of the hurricane were still being felt, that President Bush and the emergency organisations were not, in fact, doing all that could be expected of them in the assessment, planning and handling of the situation. America's recovery might yet be shown to have been a great accomplishment -- an exemplary triumph of effort and sacrifice. However, the search for the bad angle on all things American will continue here anyway.

[TPJCatholic]

Nothing new. Anything that is even remotely close to having a Bush tie will be bashed no matter how it is handled. If Bush had evacuated New Orleans prior to the storm and had saved thousands, he would still have been bashed for a hundred other things.

The man is hated beyond hate and there is really nothing he can do but ride out his term in office and hand over the keys to the White House to the next President. I find a lot spiritual warfare in the depth of hate tossed Bush's way...it is the only way to explain such depraved, deceitful and disgusting displays of rabod hatred that so many people have for Bush--they need our prayers for their hearts are truly soiled by their sinful attitudes. Truth means nothing when hatred of such depth rears its satanic head.

[vluvski]

I'm saddened to hear that many in GB are uncompassionate and looking for opportunities to express anti-American sentiment. At least a few remain loyal to a greater cause.

[Ani Ibi]

Originally Posted by franxor

The BBC is being particularly noisome by, as usual, carefully selecting all the comments that reflect its own corporate and warped mindset.

I'm glad you said it. I've been criticized often here for my differences with the BBC.

[Libero]

I'm glad you said it. I've been criticized often here for my differences with the BBC.

I don't know why, It can't just be me that has noticed that the BBC have gone seriously down hill at the moment. Generally I think British television has gone down hill, what ever happened to good saturday night TV?

[MikeWM]

Originally Posted by Libero

I don't know why, It can't just be me that has noticed that the BBC have gone seriously down hill at the moment.

We have just had summer. Everything in Britain loses quality in the summer.

Nevertheless, I have no bones to pick with the BBC news. I think the coverage of Katrina has been excellent. I wish people here would realise there is a difference between 'anti-X' and 'less pro-X than myself'.

I also love the way they show ABC 'World' News on News 24 late at night just to make it all the easier to compare how good the BBC is compared to American news

Generally I think British television has gone down hill, what ever happened to good saturday night TV?

Oh, people have been saying that for at least 20 years. Have you ever seen what passed for 'good' Saturday night TV back in the 80s?

Mike

[Libero]

Yes, the BBC do seem to do quite good coverage of major events, I was particularly pleased with the BBC's coverage of JP2's funeral.

Oh, people have been saying that for at least 20 years. Have you ever seen what passed for 'good' Saturday night TV back in the 80s?

No, and it sounds like I am better off for never having seen it

[swampfox]

Did the BBC have anything on this?
http://www.instapundit.com/
ACCORDING TO THE WASHINGTON POST, the problem with New Orleans flood-control wasn't insufficient money, but an excess of pork-barreling that diverted the money from where it was needed to where Louisiana politicians wanted it:


In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon. . . .

Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke Aug. 30. Now she's holed up with her family in a St. Louis hotel, and her neighborhood is underwater. "Our politicians never cared half as much about protecting us as they cared about pork," Dashiell said.


I think we should set up an independent commission to look at Congress's responsibility for this tragedy. Oh, and somebody send a copy of this story to Paul Krugman.

[Chris Jacobsen]

The BBC is also one of my main sources for news. But the news media, being the new media, will always broadcast the one bad thing even if there are a million good things going on at the same time.

[Hildebrand]

Originally Posted by Chris Jacobsen

The BBC is also one of my main sources for news. But the news media, being the new media, will always broadcast the one bad thing even if there are a million good things going on at the same time.

It isn't that the BBC reports negative news, it is that their news is biased.

[Traditional Ang]

Originally Posted by Hildebrand

It isn't that the BBC reports negative news, it is that their news is biased.

Hildebrand:

You can say that again! I'm with a writer's group that's been chastising the BBC for its coverage of the ME. The BBC just simply breaks its rules by refusing to report the facts objectively.

It seems that whenever the BBC and its editors and reporters don't like something or someone, they slant their coverage against that person or thing.

This is completely against the BBC GCharter and Guidelines which is the reason the UK charges households fees for receiving the BBC networks.

In Christ, Michael

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by franxor

I remain unconvinced, given the range and complexity of this disaster, and keeping in mind that for the first two or three days of the 'counted days of incompetence' the live effects of the hurricane were still being felt, that President Bush and the emergency organisations were not, in fact, doing all that could be expected of them in the assessment, planning and handling of the situation. America's recovery might yet be shown to have been a great accomplishment -- an exemplary triumph of effort and sacrifice. However, the search for the bad angle on all things American will continue here anyway.

You know, this is really surprising that this becomes your first post and quite a discouraging one. Usually when people are all suffering, a word of encouragement is offered. The BBC is irrelevant to me. I don't trust them, any more than the New York Times.

The President ordered an evacuation and it probably saved thousands of lives. He will go down as one of our best presidents, but it will take time for people to realize that. He has some powerful enemies because he is fighting things like abortion, gay marriage and the break up of the family.

Our recovery here will be complete, and with the help of many citizens. We are extremely proud of all the people that are offering their time and their homes. Money is pouring in to help people. Many donations of food and clothing are headed towards the affected areas. We are pulling together as a nation under God dedicated to helping those in need.

[mlchance]

Reminds me of an old joke:

President Bush is walking down the street when he sees an old lady stepping out in front of speeding truck. The President jumps into the path of the truck and pushes the old lady out of the way, thus saving her life. Headline the next day: Bush Pushes Old Lady.

-- Mark L. Chance.

[MikeWM]

Originally Posted by Traditional Ang

You can say that again! I'm with a writer's group that's been chastising the BBC for its coverage of the ME. The BBC just simply breaks its rules by refusing to report the facts objectively.

On average I feel the BBC's coverage of the ME is balanced. The reason more Palestinian deaths are reported than Israeli deaths is because there are *many more* Palestinian deaths than Israeli!

I quite like this site on this subject (it has quite a bit to say about media bias on ME reporting)

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/index.html

Mike

[walstan]

It really gets very tiresome listening to all the carping on about coverage of the hurricane. All these people that moan about the coverage from the BBC, Fox News, CBS et. al. are quite simply a pain in the b""t.

We have someone complaining that the BBC are at odds with some quirky little group of writers from LA, big deal, so the BBC don't agree with you! so what!

I seem to remember all the good comments made about the BBC after 9/11, imagine the hugh and cry that would have gone up if the Arab nations had complained about the BBC coverage being biased after that event!! Is it that because they don't report what YOU want they are wrong?

Others don't listen to the BBC because they don't believe what is said, now try a bit of honest catholicism, it's not that you don't believe what they say, it's that you don't AGREE with what they say, or you think they should say something else that suites your own idea of what should or should not be reported.

The answer is very simple, if you don't like it, don't listen. If you do listen then allow those who report, report what THEY think is relevant, you always have the right to ignore them but unless you can do a better job you don't have the right to criticise them.

Try looking at todays Gospel, you may learn something.