3 ms·
According to that wikipedia article they have been accused of pro-muslim and anti-muslim bias. Also, there isn't any evidence that there was actually any bias f
by cpncrunch 11y ago
According to that wikipedia article they have been accused of pro-muslim and anti-muslim bias. Also, there isn't any evidence that there was actually any bias found in that report. The BBC's arguments for keeping it secret sound reasonable. The entire thing is based on one journalist crying at Yasser Arafat's death, which seems to be clutching at straws.
- dogma1138 11y agoAgain it's only a single incident, you've claimed that the BBC is completely unbiased which is impossible and it's not being used to drive political agenda's which is untrue. It's also highly unlikely that a 20,000 page report revolves over a single journalist and again it's the the issue here is that the BBC squashed a government report about it's journalism bias first initially and then appealed an order from the information commissioner 3 times. So sorry when a news agency spends 350,000 GBP of tax money to squash a report about how it reports on critical issues you can't but wonder what was in it.
- cpncrunch 11y agoI never claimed that the BBC is "completely unbiased". I said it appears to be unbiased. I don't see any real evidence of any bias, apart from a lot of specuation.