[Durham Giant]

Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:23 am  

funny how on the BBC website the news about the falklands talks about this

There were no such difficulties between Britain and the United States. A telegram from the British embassy in Washington, dated 3 May, shows that the US Defence Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, had expressed "eagerness to give us (Britain) maximum support". The US even offered the use of an aircraft carrier, the Eisenhower.

yet SKY news reports this

Ronald Reagan issued a last-ditch appeal to Margaret Thatcher to abandon her campaign to retake the Falklands and to hand over the islands to international peacekeepers, according to official documents made public today.
Files released by the National Archives at Kew, South West London, under the 30-year rule show that as British troops closed in on final victory, the US president made a late-night phone call to Mrs Thatcher urging her not to completely humiliate the Argentines.
.
Mr Reagan made his call to Mrs Thatcher in Downing Street at 11.30pm London time on May 31, 1982, as British forces were beginning the battle for Port Stanley, the Falklands capital.
The Americans had already proposed sending a joint US-Brazilian peacekeeping mission, and the president suggested that the time had come to show magnanimity.
"The best chance for peace was before complete Argentine humiliation," he told her. "As the UK now had the upper hand militarily, it should strike a deal now."

So much for the special relationship when it came to the crunch America was more interested in keeping its good relationship with Latin America than with Britain. A very significant difference of opinion as opposed to that put out by the beeb.

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:50 am  

She had an election to win.

You know, 'Rule Britannia', flag waving, and all that bollox.

It worked.

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:55 am  

WIZEB wrote:

She had an election to win.

You know, 'Rule Britannia', flag waving, and all that bollox.

It worked.

Maybe you should have read the other released dispatches, as winning an election wasn't on her mind.

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:59 am  

World of Redboy wrote:

Maybe you should have read the other released dispatches, as winning an election wasn't on her mind.

I know, she was all consumed by the record unemploment she'd created since the 1930's.

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:02 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

funny how on the BBC website the news about the falklands talks about this

yet SKY news reports this

So much for the special relationship when it came to the crunch America was more interested in keeping its good relationship with Latin America than with Britain. A very significant difference of opinion as opposed to that put out by the beeb.

Two reports three weeks apart (which was a long time in the conflict) which are probably both absolutely true, the BBC choose to select one, Sky the other, does it show political bias or editorial choice, do you seriously not read everything in the knowledge that someone has specifically selected and/or written the article with a viewpoint in mind to present to you ?

The truth is usually gathered by reading all presentations and questioning all you read/view unless the individual wishes to be deliberately swayed in one direction or another (football supporter politics).

But you knew that anyway.

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:04 am  

How do the two stories timeline? Are they concurrent or does one preceed the other?


Not enough info, but:

'News reporting is biased'

You're surprised by this?

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:18 am  

Scooter Nik wrote:

How do the two stories timeline? Are they concurrent or does one preceed the other?


Not enough info, but:

'News reporting is biased'

You're surprised by this?

When the highest elected parliamentarians can mislead government and the populi news reporters have nothing to worry about.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:39 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Two reports three weeks apart (which was a long time in the conflict) which are probably both absolutely true, the BBC choose to select one, Sky the other, does it show political bias or editorial choice, do you seriously not read everything in the knowledge that someone has specifically selected and/or written the article with a viewpoint in mind to present to you ?

The truth is usually gathered by reading all presentations and questioning all you read/view unless the individual wishes to be deliberately swayed in one direction or another (football supporter politics).

But you knew that anyway.

They were two news reports which came out today and were chosen to be edited the way they were. They are both based on the release of the paers.

The BBC one i would say presents a very partial view which is innacurate.
I agree with you that you cannot really believe the media and that you need to check different sources BUT it is pretty significant the differences.

This is important both at the time and for now.

When you think about the debate about Europe which is going on for the BBC to highlight a disagreement with France that was easily solved which will be ammo for the eurosceptics compared to the downgrading of the role of the USA in the Falklands crisis when lots of the eurosceptics argue we should be forging closer links with rather than Europe shows that the realpolotik is somewhat different.

Europe is more likely to be a natural ally / trading partner for the UK than America will be as when it comes to the crunch the USA will go its own way

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:37 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

I know, she was all consumed by the record unemploment she'd created since the 1930's.

I never realised that she was PM for so long.

Re: Biased news reporting : Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:45 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

I never realised that she was PM for so long.

It felt like it to many of us, trust me.