3 ms·
> Being the BBC it downplays the affair in a number of ways – crucially, it gives several examples to show that Philip Cross’s edits are harmless, and not a sin
by whycombagator 6y ago
> Being the BBC it downplays the affair in a number of ways – crucially, it gives several examples to show that Philip Cross’s edits are harmless, and not a single example of his thousands of vicious edits, such as his editing my Wikipedia entry to call my wife a stripper.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoI don't think of Craig Murray as the peak of unbiased writing.
- 9q9 6y agoEverybody has biases. Murray wears his on his sleeve. More interesting: do you have concrete and verifiable information that his reporting of the Philip Cross Affair, that Murray' conjectures about its background, are wrong? Can you put forward an alternative explanation?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago"he wears his on his sleeve" - his biases you mean. You've downright stated he's openly biased. So we agree. But that does not mean he's automatically wrong, nor that he's worthy of dismissal overall. Just that I'd take more care to filter what he says than I would with, say, the beeb . Not that the beeb are beyond criticism BTW. And I'm not disagreeing with him that this PC guy is odd and worthy of investigation. It's just that overall fact that he indeed is openly very opinionated. That's fine, so am I, just caveat emptor.