AP. Reuter, AFP, BBC - which one doesnt belong?

[lord of the mark]

Iraqi FM Zebari addressed the UN today, and said the UN had failed the people of Iraq.

UNSG Kofi Annan, addressed the UN, stating the need for a UN role.

Guess which THREE of the four news outlets listed above headlined the Zebari statement and buried the Annan statement, and which ONE of the four outlets headlined the Annan statement and buried the Zebari statement.

[Frozzy]

BBC buried the Zebari.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Frozzy
BBC buried the Zebari.

The prize goes to ...... Frozzy, for accurately guessing the predilictions of "auntie Beeb"

[GePap]

Wow, so everyones bias comes to the fore!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Wow, so everyones bias comes to the fore!

Reuters and AFP are biased against the UN and in favor of the Iraqi Governing Council? Dont think so. More like consensus judgement on newsworthiness, versus well, lets be polite, the UNIQUE INSIGHT provided by the BBC.

[GePap]

Lets see..who's statements are generally more newsworthy? Those of any single UN member's representative, or the secretary general? Which one a news agency decided to headline does show what they think is more newsworthy..fine, you think what the iraqi guys said was more newsworthy..good for you. But until you can show some objective meausre that tells us all which is more newsworthy, all you can say is your bias is more popular among the news agencies. Wow, good for you!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

What a load of tittybiscuits. Jesus Breakdancing Christ Almighty- during the war it looked like everyone was suggesting the BBC was biased against the military action.

It's ****. Utter ****. Until the media find a way to simultaneously put everyone's point of view first in an article through microdots and ****ing ninja brain implants, some bugger's always about to make A ****ING CONSPIRACY THEORY OUT OF IT!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets see..who's statements are generally more newsworthy? Those of any single UN member's representative, or the secretary general? Which one a news agency decided to headline does show what they think is more newsworthy..fine, you think what the iraqi guys said was more newsworthy..good for you. But until you can show some objective meausre that tells us all which is more newsworthy, all you can say is your bias is more popular among the news agencies. Wow, good for you!

1. Yup, all things being equal the SG is more newsworthy then the statement of the FM of a medium sized country, But Kofi saying something bland, and repeating what hes been saying for a while, versus the FM of Iraq saying something as controversial as that? I mean i suppose everythings subjective at some level (; to whaleboy) but thats a pretty clear cut news judgement, no? I mean which caught YOUR eye more?

2. In the absence of objective criteria, one looks at the consensus of reliable judges. Which is more likely, that AP, Reuter AND Agence France Press are biased the one way, or that Auntie Beeb is biased the other way?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


oops duplicate

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


oops duplicate

[Sava]

Reuters is always used on Fox News, so I'm wary of their bias. But I agree with LOTM on this one. The BBC usually has different stories anyways.

[GePap]

nice TP.

1. Neither catches my eye.
2. Certainly what the FM said is more "sexy" and thus it gets more press, just like Spears is sexier than Karzai

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
nice TP.

1. Neither catches my eye.
2. Certainly what the FM said is more "sexy" and thus it gets more press, just like Spears is sexier than Karzai

you think FM of Iraq is to SG of UN as bimbo pop star is to President of afghanistan


res ipso loquitur.

[GePap]

His statements are to koffi's what Spears is to karzai.


[something wity in in a dead language]

[molly bloom]

It can only be hours before lotm finds evidence the B.B.C. sponsored Saddam's sojourn in his hidey hole, and supplied him with a fibre optic cable B.B.C. World news channel link, and a massage from Peter Sissons.

And of course it's well known Osama bin Laden is on the board of governors of the B.B.C. , heavily disguised.


Makes you wonder why people who have actually lived in and fought against Third World dictatorships preferred the Beeb to other news channels. Perhaps because they were all in a socialist hegemonic world spanning conspiracy too!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom
It can only be hours before lotm finds evidence the B.B.C. sponsored Saddam's sojourn in his hidey hole, and supplied him with a fibre optic cable B.B.C. World news channel link, and a massage from Peter Sissons.

And of course it's well known Osama bin Laden is on the board of governors of the B.B.C. , heavily disguised.


Makes you wonder why people who have actually lived in and fought against Third World dictatorships preferred the Beeb to other news channels. Perhaps because they were all in a socialist hegemonic world spanning conspiracy too!

Oh, i like reading the BBC too. I read it fairly regularly, and often find it quite interesting. Much better than our lame Voice of America, which (idiocy!) is being cut back!!! I could certainly understand that folks in dictatorships would listen to it.

Just that on a SELECT range of issues theyve got a definite point of view. Which is not necessarily terrible, I suppose all news outlets have a viewpoint. Just that some folks seem to think the Beeb is some kind of gold standard of objectivity which it is not, imho.

and your exageration is a not particularly interesting rhetorical trick. Obviously I dont think Osama is on the board of the Beeb. Just as you dont think, say, Ariel Sharon is on the board of say, Fox news.

[Sandman]

Any particular reason to choose these four news agencies? Or did you just select those which 'proved' your point?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Any particular reason to choose these four news agencies? Or did you just select those which 'proved' your point?

The ones i most easily check.

AP, Reuters and AFP are all easily accessed via yahoo news, and as i point out above, i look at BeeB fairly regularly - CNN and FOX didnt cover EITHER story at all


If you have any other data points feel free to add them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

What ****ing point? All four covered the same story. All four covered both opinions voiced.

They presented them in different orders, and apparently that's some sort of big deal. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important do you think I consider that to be? No, I'm serious. Look into that unblinking eye and tell me how important I think that is.

[Sandman]

You could at least provide links so we can judge what's 'buried' and what's not.

[uh Clem]

Wire stories are being revised constantly.

If the Iraqi FM says something, that's Story A.

Then, UN SG responds to Iraqi FM. A re-write at that point would probably put SG first, with the second or third paragraph giving a summary of what FM had said to draw this response. That's because at this point, SG's statement is new. Writer assumes that readers already have heard Story A or are aware of it.

As an anaolgy, consider Rumsfeld commenting on treatment and possible trial scenarios for Saddam Hussein, to pick something at random. It would be idiotic at this point to lead with the news that Saddam has been captured. We know that. The story would get right to Rummy's comments, and perhaps include a detail or two about the capture several paragraphs down.

So that's Story B: SG first, then Iraqi FM.

Then just to confuse things you will get summary or recap stories, typically including all details from the day. This is usually for evening news or some expanded news program. These programs include listeners who probably haven't heard any of the details from earlier, so you have to start at the beginning (usually -- but not always).

Without being able to tell when these stories were written, for whom, how frequently the sites update, and how much the writer actually knew at that point, the comparisons are meaningless. You're seeing canals on Mars, lotm.

This thread is proof of your own biases, however.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by uh Clem
This thread is proof of your own biases, however.

Give this man a cookie.

Or a biscuit, as the case may be.

Or a, *ahem*, "tittybiscuit."

[Drake Tungsten]

Get your baps out, love...

[asleepathewheel]

FM Zebari

What type of music do they play?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Wire stories are being revised constantly.

If the Iraqi FM says something, that's Story A.

Then, UN SG responds to Iraqi FM. A re-write at that point would probably put SG first, with the second or third paragraph giving a summary of what FM had said to draw this response. That's because at this point, SG's statement is new. Writer assumes that readers already have heard Story A or are aware of it.

As an anaolgy, consider Rumsfeld commenting on treatment and possible trial scenarios for Saddam Hussein, to pick something at random. It would be idiotic at this point to lead with the news that Saddam has been captured. We know that. The story would get right to Rummy's comments, and perhaps include a detail or two about the capture several paragraphs down.

So that's Story B: SG first, then Iraqi FM.

Then just to confuse things you will get summary or recap stories, typically including all details from the day. This is usually for evening news or some expanded news program. These programs include listeners who probably haven't heard any of the details from earlier, so you have to start at the beginning (usually -- but not always).

Without being able to tell when these stories were written, for whom, how frequently the sites update, and how much the writer actually knew at that point, the comparisons are meaningless. You're seeing canals on Mars, lotm.

This thread is proof of your own biases, however.

all of the above is possible - yet I assume Frozzy, contest winner, picked correctly without even looking at the sites in question. I think most of us could have. Now thats only one instance, of course, and so by itself is not statistically meaningful. Its one part of a larger pattern others have noted, however.


A logical case can of course be made that the BBC is not at all biased on these matters. IMHO such arguments are about as compelling as the case that the sun and planets revolves around the earth - sure its possible, but the simpler explanation of the planets orbits is that they revolve around the sun.

If that makes you think me biased, so be it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



and your exageration is a not particularly interesting rhetorical trick. Obviously I dont think Osama is on the board of the Beeb. Just as you dont think, say, Ariel Sharon is on the board of say, Fox news.

Ooh, don't like hyperbole? Well I'm sorry: my zeugma wasn't working yesterday, and my pleonasm burst all over the keyboard.

As for my synecdoche, it started Christmas leave on Monday. Would you care for a teeny weeny infinitesimally small amount of litotes?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Ooh, don't like hyperbole? Well I'm sorry: my zeugma wasn't working yesterday, and my pleonasm burst all over the keyboard.

As for my synecdoche, it started Christmas leave on Monday. Would you care for a teeny weeny infinitesimally small amount of litotes?

ooh geez a semioticist on the loose.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


ooh geez a semioticist on the loose.

Rhetorician:semiotician-

Differician.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Rhetorician:semiotician-

Differician.

as long as you aint a antisemiotician.