patrick.net

Aren't you confusing news with the more editorial side of things? If you just want to reinforce your viewpoint, then pick your poison, but those two newspapers have some of the little remaining quality journalism left along with the likes of the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Economist... even Al-Jazeera has some good reporting (though not America centric since they pulled back).

It is confusing, isn't it ? All those people must have been wrong. I hope they were wrong. They just must have been wrong. Weren't they ? C'mon, back me up on this people.

i like BBC

http://www.breitbart.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/

Mark D says

i like BBC

Highly partisan! Their US TV show is quite possibly more biased than CNN

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Highly partisan! Their US TV show is quite possibly more biased than CNN

Anything would seem partisan to you given your list of go to sites. The BBC is governed by the BBC Charter, so it has a requirement to try and maintain due impartiality.

I read both HuffPost and Breitbart. Then I interpolate.

Fox News with Megyn Kelly?

List of journalists caught colluding with Clinton Campaign:
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cb4hl/drain_the_swamp_here_are_45_journalists_who_were/

Peter P says

HuffPost

Another liberlal rag.

Here is a good one.

https://www.armytimes.com/

Maggie Haberman is a joke. She literally let herself be roped like a mule in a primaries by HRC Campaign.

Stockholm Syndrome is not a good quality in an alleged journalist.

What a real journalist should have done in this situation is threatened to write a nasty article about her refusal to submit to humiliating treatment by an "alleged serious nominee acting like a third world dictator", and then done so if they refused to back off.

(From the great list posted by zzyzzx)

The Intercept is pretty good. Leans left but is harsh on everybody.

You might really like Off-Guardian.org, founded by journalists who quit the Guardian because it had become too PC. They write about many topics, including exposing Guardian censorship of "Comment is Free" (CiF) comments on the basis of "community standards."

You might also like Asia Times and Breitbart.com.

I would not recommend BBC, because they are so censored and misleading that they blame "Asian" men for everything that Pakistani Muslims do, including gang rape, which the BBC calls "grooming". BBC even changed the name of a Muslim who committed mass murder and shouted "Allahu Akbar": BBC changed his name, in order to conceal the fact that he's Muslim.

curious2 says

You might really like Off-Guardian.org,

Good call. I forgot about those guys.

The Guardian has gone totally Financial Family Trust Fund Baby Feminazi SJW Art Faygehla since what's her name took over.

Praise the Banks, as long as they have therapy dogs for Transgendered people suffering an attack of bathroom instigated gender dysphoria.

Patrick, you cannot "trust" just one news site.

The sole function of media is to introduce biases.

You have to get many data points and decide for your own.

Rashomon says

Says the person getting his 'facts' from Breitbart.

Same story here:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-people-ethnic-equality-staff-job-internship
And other places.
And if the story is true, why does it matter where it comes from?

Rashomon says

the BBC runs on a Charter that enforces due impartiality.

You have obviously never watched the US version of BBC.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Rashomon says

Says the person getting his 'facts' from Breitbart.

Same story here:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-people-ethnic-equality-staff-job-internship

And other places.

And if the story is true, why does it matter where it comes from?

Because, as I said, one extremely minor story in the operation of a major corporation does not negate the basic principles that it operates under and which are laid out in the Charter. Anybody who actually watches the BBC News broadcasts can see that it clearly operates in a different fashion to the major US news networks, and that is because it is held accountable to what is laid out in the Charter.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Rashomon says

the BBC runs on a Charter that enforces due impartiality.

You have obviously never watched the US version of BBC.

Yeah, but then again, your news sources are Breitbart and Reddit.

Rashomon says

Anybody who actually watches the BBC News broadcasts can see that it clearly operates in a different fashion to the major US news networks, and that is because it is held accountable to what is laid out in the Charter.

I've seen Katy Kay say stuff that's way more biased than CNN. Like when they were interviewing people in the UK about how they felt about Trump.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

I've seen Katy Kay say stuff that's way more biased than CNN. Like when they were interviewing people in the UK about how they felt about Trump.

Good grief, do you understand what due impartiality actually means?

Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.

The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

The external activities of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect the BBC's reputation for impartiality. Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality

Rashomon says

Good grief, do you understand what due impartiality actually means?

Clearly you don't.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Rashomon says

Good grief, do you understand what due impartiality actually means?

Clearly you don't.

Clearly I do, though the fact you don't is unsurprising given your go to news sources.

NPR and PBS for almost everything. RT News for American stories only that no other news agency in the U.S. would cover (not for Russian or international news).

Good NPR shows:
NPR News
The Diane Rehm Show
All Things Considered (All Tech Considered)

I recommend east coast NPR over west coast. The west coast is too hippie. East coast is more Harvard/Princeton. Also, skip the boring cultural crap. Just listen to the news.

The NPR station I listen to is WRLN, which you can stream from http://player.wlrn.org/. You can load it directly into Winamp with http://stream.wlrn.mobi/WLRNFMAAC32.m3u

Try it between 9 am and 7 pm EST. That's 12 pm to 10 pm PST.

I don't speak Russian, but I really like the news here.

http://xhamster.com/xembed.php?video=412266

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

abovetopsecret.com

Only website to reveal the truth about Obamfuck's extraterrestrial origins.

Sorry, but I only trust one source for news about aliens, the History Channel.

http://www.history.com/ancient-aliens-the-game

Jon Oliver's Last Week Tonight is a great show. They take one topic a week and just analyze the shit out of it. Yes, it's a comedy, but it's comedy about real events and situations and is very informative.

USAToday

Patrick says

Now that the NY Times, CNN, WaPo have all thoroughly discredited themselves, where can I go and read detailed news that actually feels somewhat objective and impartial again?

Exactly how did the NYT (I don't ever look at CNN or WaPo so I don't know what they write) news reporting discredit its self in your view? The editorials are just that editorials. That's why it's a separate page. The news was just fine, they reported on trump and hillary about equally and what I thought was impartially. They certainly raked hillary over the coals many times about emails and honesty along with well deserved reporting of trumps mouth running away from him constantly. The times was condemned roundly by some of the really liberal media (mediamatters for example) for pursing the clinton foundation allegations vigorously while they accused the times of not pursing trump stories like not renting to blacks hard enough.

Maybe your bias in what you expected to see or believe you have seen is the problem. Are your expectations of objective and impartial actually objective and impartial expectations?

Any foreign news source is going to be reporting through the bias of the society it represents.

For a while I had access to this on my roku:

http://www.oann.com/

During the day they had national/international news every hour on the hour and I found it to be fantastically bias free. For instance:

We're bombing martians on mars vs. We're bombing martians on mars because they are xxxx

In the former case just the facts are covered and in the later one might be starting to give opinion. Vs everyone else they were closer to the former.

They cover a lot of ground quickly and nearly 2 years ago when I had free access they'd make comments about topics thunderlips was mentioning on Patnet (about Crimea, Ukraine) that the other networks were not mentioning. I recall he'd point out that the networks weren't covering certain events, noticed the same, but they did at least touch on them. At night it's a different story, they do that every other hour. In between are pretty far right opinion piece hosts which I didn't like much. Graham Ledger in particular - he's an ass. I'm not sure the others work there anymore. Also, they were a startup news org from San Diego.

Not sure about their website.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

List of journalists caught colluding with Clinton Campaign:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cb4hl/drain_the_swamp_here_are_45_journalists_who_were/

I looked at some of the collusions on the list, typical is

All – attached is the event information for tomorrow (Friday) night at Joel’s in NYC. It includes the latest RSVP list. Might change slightly by tomorrow night but won’t change dramatically..

So a list of attendees to an event is collusion? You need to look up collusion in the dictionary. Or get a better news source.

Schomoyoho

www.youtube.com/embed/NbqtAuT4zbk

bob2356 says

Exactly how did the NYT (I don't ever look at CNN or WaPo so I don't know what they write) news reporting discredit its self in your view? The editorials are just that editorials.

Woah, not sure we're looking at the same NYT.

Coverage of Trump was almost comically negative, with the line between editorial and news barely existing.

Drudge and read the actual source documents before believing. And the headlines are click bait lots of times.

Breitbart doesn't actually cover even half the stories out there, but they do cover stuff no one else does. But Drudge does a really good job of making sure that he gets the stories that one agency covers and no one else does.

The BBC...I dunno. They were attrocious covering the Israeli issues for years. If they suck so bad at this, I automatically assume they suck at other stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict

Israeli–Palestinian conflict[edit]
Criticism of the BBC's Middle East coverage from supporters of both Israel and the Palestinians led the BBC to commission an investigation and report from a senior broadcast journalist Malcolm Balen, referred to as the Balen Report and completed in 2004. The BBC's refusal to release the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 resulted in a long-running and ongoing legal case.[42][43] This led to speculation that the report was damning, as well as to accusations of hypocrisy, as the BBC frequently made use itself of Freedom of Information Act requests when researching news stories.[44]

After the Balen report, the BBC appointed a committee chosen by the Governors and referred to by the BBC as an "independent panel report" to write a report for publication which was completed in 2006. Chaired by the British Board of Film Classification president, Sir Quentin Thomas, the committee found that "apart from individual lapses, there was little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" in the BBC's reporting of the middle east. However, their coverage had been "inconsistent," "not always providing a complete picture" and "misleading", and that the BBC failed to adequately report the hardships of Palestinians living under occupation.[44][45][46] Reflecting concerns from all sides of the conflict, the committee highlighted certain identifiable shortcomings and made four recommendations, including the provision of a stronger editorial "guiding hand".

Of the report's findings regarding the dearth of BBC reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians, Richard Ingrams wrote in The Independent that "No sensible person could quarrel with that judgement".[47] Martin Walker, then the editor of United Press International, agreed that the report implied favouritism towards Israel, but said this suggestion "produced mocking guffaws in my newsroom" and went on to list a number of episodes of (in his view) clear pro-Palestinian bias on the part of the BBC.[48] Writing in Prospect magazine, Conservative MP Michael Gove wrote that the report was neither independent nor objective.[49]

Former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn wrote in 2004 that the BBC's coverage allowed an Israeli view of the conflict to dominate, as demonstrated by research conducted by the Glasgow Media Group.[50]

In the course of their "Documentary Campaign 2000–2004," Trevor Asserson, Cassie Williams and Lee Kern of BBCWatch published a series of reports The BBC And The Middle East stating in their opinion that "the BBC consistently fails to adhere to its legal obligations to produce impartial and accurate reporting."[51]

Douglas Davis, the London correspondent of The Jerusalem Post, has accused the BBC of being anti-Israel. He wrote that the BBC's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a "portrayal of Israel as a demonic, criminal state and Israelis as brutal oppressors" and resembled a "campaign of vilification" that had de-legitimised the State of Israel.[52] "Anglicans for Israel", the pro-Israel pressure group, have berated the BBC for apparent anti-Israel bias.[53]

The Daily Telegraph has criticised the BBC for its coverage of the Middle East. In 2007, the newspaper wrote, "In its international and domestic news reporting, the corporation has consistently come across as naïve and partial, rather than sensitive and unbiased. Its reporting of Israel and Palestine, in particular, tends to underplay the hate-filled Islamist ideology that inspires Hamas and other factions, while never giving Israel the benefit of the doubt."[54]

In April 2004, Natan Sharansky who was then Israel's minister for diaspora affairs wrote to the BBC accusing its Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, as having a "deep-seated bias against Israel" following her description of the Israeli army's handling of the arrest of Hussam Abdo, who was captured with explosives strapped to his chest, as "cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes."[55]

In March 2006 a report about the Arab-Israeli conflict on the BBC's online service was criticised in a BBC Governors Report as unbalanced and creating a biased impression. The article's account of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 concerning the Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Syria suggested the UN called for Israel's unilateral withdrawal from territories seized during the six-day war, when in fact, it called for a negotiated "land for peace" settlement between Israel and "every state in the area". The committee considered that by selecting only references to Israel, the article had breached editorial standards on both accuracy and impartiality".[56][57]

On 7 March 2008, news anchor Geeta Guru-Murthy clarified significant errors in the BBC's coverage of the Mercaz HaRav massacre that had been exposed by media monitor Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Correspondent Nick Miles had informed viewers that "hours after the attack, Israeli bulldozers destroyed his [the perpetrator's] family home." This was not the case, and other broadcasters showed the east Jerusalem home to be intact and the family commemorating their son's actions.[58]

On 14 March 2008, the BBC accepted that in an article on their website of an IDF operation that stated "The Israeli air force said it was targeting a rocket firing team... UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned Israel's attacks on Palestinian civilians, calling them inappropriate and disproportionate", they should have made reference to what [Ban] said about Palestinian rocket attacks as well as to the excessive use of force by Israel. The article was additionally amended to remove the reference of Israeli 'attacks on civilians' as Ban Ki-Moon's attributed comments were made weeks earlier to the UN Security Council, and not in reference to that particular attack, and in fact, he had never used such terminology.[58]

The BBC received intense criticism in January 2009 for its decision not to broadcast a television appeal by aid agencies on behalf of the people of Gaza during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, on the grounds that it could compromise the BBC's journalistic impartiality. A number of protesters asserted that this showed pro-Israeli bias,[59] while some analysts suggested that the BBC's decision in this matter derived from its concern to avoid anti-Israeli bias as analysed in the Balen report.[60] Parties criticising the decision, included Church of England archbishops, British government ministers and even some BBC employees. More than 11,000 complaints were filed in a three-day span. The BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, explained that the corporation had a duty to cover the Gaza dispute in a "balanced, objective way", and was concerned about endorsing something that could "suggest the backing one side".[61] Politicians such as Tony Benn broke the corporation's ban on the appeal and broadcast the Gaza appeal on BBC News, saying that "If the BBC won't broadcast the appeal, then I'm going to do it myself", and adding that "no one [working for the broadcaster] agrees with what the BBC has done".[62]

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, protested the BBC's decision by cancelling interviews scheduled with the company; ElBaradei claimed the refusal to air the aid appeal "violates the rules of basic human decency which are there to help vulnerable people irrespective of who is right or wrong."[63] The BBC's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, affirmed the need to broadcast "without affecting and impinging on the audience's perception of our impartiality" and that in this case, it was a "real issue."[64]

In response to perceived falsehoods and distortions in a BBC One Panorama documentary entitled 'A Walk in the Park', transmitted in January 2010, British journalist Melanie Phillips wrote an open letter in news magazine The Spectator to the Secretary of State for Culture, Jeremy Hunt, accusing the BBC of "flagrantly biased reporting of Israel" and urged the BBC to confront the "prejudice and inertia which are combining to turn its reporting on Israel into crude pro-Arab propaganda, and thus risk destroying the integrity of an institution".[65]

In March 2011, Member of Parliament Louise Bagshawe criticised the inaccuracies and omissions in BBC's coverage of the Itamar massacre and questioned the BBC's decision not to broadcast this incident on television and barely on radio, and its apparent bias against Israel.[66] In his July 2012 testimony to the Parliament, the outgoing Director-General of the BBC Mark Thompson admitted that BBC "got it wrong".[67]

A BBC Editorial Standards Findings issued in July 2011 found that a broadcast on Today on 27 September 2010 that stated "At midnight last night, the moratorium on Israelis building new settlements in the West Bank came to an end. It had lasted for ten months", had breached the Accuracy guideline in respect of the requirement to present output "in clear, precise language", as in fact the moratorium on building new settlements had been in existence since the early 1990s and remained in place.[68]

In December 2011, the BBC caused further controversy after censoring the word 'Palestine' from a song played on BBC Radio 1Xtra.[69][70]

More controversy was caused in April 2012 when the BBC broadcast news of 2,500 Palestinian prisoners who were on hunger strike, with very little overall coverage.[71][72] This resulted in two protests outside the BBC buildings in Glasgow[73][unreliable source?] and in London.[74][unreliable source?]

During the 2012 Olympics, on their country profiles pages, the BBC listed "East Jerusalem" as the capital of Palestine, and did not list a capital at all for Israel. After public outrage and a letter from Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev, the BBC listed a "Seat of Government" for Israel in Jerusalem, while adding that most foreign embassies "are in Tel Aviv". It made a parallel change to the listing for "Palestine", listing "East Jerusalem" as the "Intended seat of government".[75]

In a response to a reader's criticism on the issue, the BBC replied that the complaints that prompted the changes were "generated by online lobby activity".[76] The BBC was also noted for having no coverage whatsoever about the campaign[citation needed] for the IOC to commemorate the 11 killed Israeli athletes from the Munich massacre in the 1972 Summer Olympics, which was met with repeated refusal by IOC President Jacques Rogge, despite the issue receiving much press by other major news networks.[77][78]

According to the poll conducted by Jewish Policy Research on more than 4,000 respondents, nearly 80% of British Jews believes that BBC is biased against Israel. Only 14% of British Jews believes that BBC coverage of Israel is "balanced".[79]

In 2010 the BBC was accused of pro-Israel bias in its documentary about the Gaza flotilla raid. The raid ended with nine activists killed,[80] and dozens injured. A UNHRC fact-finding mission described six of the nine passengers' deaths as "summary execution" by the Israeli commandos.,[81] but a BBC documentary concluded that Israeli forces had faced a violent premeditated attack by a group of hardcore IHH activists, who intended to orchestrate a political act to put pressure on Israel. The programme was criticised as "biased" by critics of Israel and the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign) questioned why the IDF boarded the ship at night if it had peaceful intention.[82] Eyewittness Ken O'Keefe accused the BBC of distorting the capture, medical treatment and ultimate release of three Israeli commandos into a story of heroic self-rescuing commandos.[83] Anthony Lawson produced a 15-minute video detailing the BBC's alleged bias.[84]

In 2013, the BBC scheduled to broadcast a documentary film, Jerusalem: an Archaeological Mystery Story, but pulled the film "off the schedule at the last minute." The film "theorizes that many Jews did not leave Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple, and that many modern-day Palestinians may be in part descended from those Jews".[85] Simon Plosker of HonestReporting believed that the decision was made not to offend people who are ideologically opposed to Israel by broadcasting a documentary about Jewish history in the region. The BBC's explanation for the sudden schedule change was that the film did not fit with the theme of the season, which was archaeology.

In 2014, an op-ed in The Jerusalem Post by Raphael Cohen-Almagor criticised BBC for avoiding the word 'terrorism' in connection with violent acts or groups of people considered by various governments or intergovernmental organizations to be terrorists. Cohen-Almagor wrote: "Instead of adhering to one principled definition of terrorism and then employing it across the board, the BBC prefers to sit on the fence, so as to say that it is impossible to differentiate between terrorists and 'freedom fighters', that one person's terrorist might be another's 'freedom fighter'."[86]

In the same year, protesters presented an open letter from the Palestinian Solidarity Foundation, Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and other groups to Lord Hall, Director General of the BBC; the letter accused the broadcaster of presenting Israeli attacks on Gaza as a result of rocket fire from Hamas, without giving any other context. This letter was signed by notable individuals, such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and Ken Loach.[87]

In 2015, Fraser Steel – head of the Editorial Complaints Unit of the BBC – upheld complaints that it had breached impartiality guidelines in an interview with Moshe Ya'alon, who was then the Israeli defence minister.[88] Ya'alon claimed on the Today programme that Palestinians "enjoy already political independence" and "have their own political system, government, parliament, municipalities and so forth", claiming that Israel had no desire "to govern them whatsoever".[88] The Palestine Solidarity Campaign objected to these claims, saying: "Palestinians don't have political independence. They live under occupation and, in Gaza, under siege."[88] Filmmaker and activist Ken Loach sent a letter via the Campaign, saying that: "You understand, I’m sure, that this interview is a serious breach of the requirement for impartiality. Unlike all other Today interviews, the minister was allowed to speak without challenge. Why?"[88]

www.youtube.com/embed/YcGPSnswzjc

Donald Trump comes out swinging and proves to have the 2nd best flow in the politician game, behind only the Prime Minister of The Marshall Islands, Eminem.

Don't come here for any form of reality. These people are nutz,I outta know.

Gropey McGroperson says

The BBC...I dunno. They were attrocious covering the Israeli issues for years. If they suck so bad at this, I automatically assume they suck at other stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict

The difference being that they were held accountable. And more to the point are held to far higher standards than other networks, which is precisely why people attacked them over the issues listed (and which more than likely would not have been raised with other channels or certainly not given the same weight.)

Rashomon says

Gropey McGroperson says

The BBC...I dunno. They were attrocious covering the Israeli issues for years. If they suck so bad at this, I automatically assume they suck at other stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict

The difference being that they were held accountable. And more to the point are held to far higher standards than other networks, which is precisely why people attacked them over the issues listed (and which more than likely would not have been raised with other channels or certainly not given the same weight.)

Wait wut? First off, they were terribly dishonest over like a decade. In US Court, if you believe that a witness lied about one thing, as a juror you can actually discard ALL their testimony. I find the application really handy in life as organizations that lie once, tend to do it over and over again...ironically, for more than a decade as delineated in the wikipedia entry. Secondly, a news organization being held accountable for biased or false reporting...thats not exactly a ringing endorsment.

Forgive me, but I'm gonna go ahead and stick with what I factually know about BBC. You can go ahead and keep your faith in them.

Gropey McGroperson says

Wait wut? First off, they were terribly dishonest over like a decade. In US Court, if you believe that a witness lied about one thing, as a juror you can actually discard ALL their testimony. I find the application really handy in life as organizations that lie once, tend to do it over and over again...ironically, for more than a decade as delineated in the wikipedia entry. Secondly, a news organization being held accountable for biased or false reporting...thats not exactly a ringing endorsment.

Forgive me, but I'm gonna go ahead and stick with what I factually know about BBC. You can go ahead and keep your faith in them.

You're joking right? Fox News blatantly lies on a daily basis and who exactly holds them accountable, and yet you write off the BBC for a handful of Israel/Palestine stories that wouldn't get a second glance on other news channels. How many thousands of news reports/TV programs do you think they ran during those years? And more to the point, did you actually read the contents of the Wikipedia page you copied and pasted? The BBC avoided using the word terrorism in a news story. Oh, noes. The BBC rescheduled a program. Oh, noes. The BBC cancels some interviews. Oh, noes. You could go through virtually all of that list and they would be almost laughable criticisms in comparison to the stuff that US news channels get away with - news channels that often make zero attempt at impartiality, and yet you'd discount the BBC when someone asks for impartial new sources. Go figure.