Tim Blair

Just because the correct opinion is being published doesn't mean it isn't being marginalized. As long as there is someone somewhere who doesn't share it, it's being oppressed, made to feel as if (because it's not part of the dominant power structure) it's less worthy, "other." Clearly the only answer is to enforce the acceptance of Sean Penn's and The Guardian's opinions by any means necessary.

Clearly we all need to watch more CSPAN. Which, I might add, had Noam Fucking Chomsky on last night. Oddly enough, I did not see him forced to listen to a note of a Godsmack song, much less receive a single blow by a black-visored policeman. This fascism sucks. Where can I apply for a refund?

Do the people who write articles like this have a clue? I mean, really -- what they're reporting is completely false. Do they know it? Are they Blairing these stories? Or are they just so unbelievably dumb they actually believe themselves?

Gary Younge is simply a liar. The ignorance excuse is not credible, particularly because the bullshit splatter pattern points in only one direction. What's amazing is that there is a market for this stuff, even in the Grauniad.

Why do we fisk this stuff? All roads lead to the same dead end. (as I said at my blog. ;) )

Perhaps we should start smacking around protestors. They get persecuted, I get happy. Everyone is satisfied.

My response to this article was "Huh?" I had to actively go out and look for opinions favoring the war, or even giving a decent analysis of what was going on that didn't amount to hand-wringing. CNN.com, MSNBC.com, Time, and Newsweek had such negative, and repeatedly wrong, coverage that I eventually started reading blogs for balance.

He doesn't factor in people like me who checked Australian and UK newspaper websites every day at 6:00 AM because A) the US newspaper websites and blogs don't have the latest news at that hour or B) I wanted to see how foreign liberals were reporting the latest news. It had nothing to do with needing to find noble dissent.

Luckily he did no research before writing his column. I have always found it is much quicker that way. Of course he could have read either of our local papers here in Seattle and he would still be looking for the PRO-war articles... One of them was inarguably pro-Saddam. And judging by today's lead article (not editorial!) still is..

The reason why "dissent" is being marginalized is because the loudest dissenters are, not to put too fine a point on it, batshit insane.

People get tired of reading how the Dixie Chicks have been hooribly oppressed and their entire life ruined and suffered horrible state-mandated tortures because they're going to make only $15 million in record sales this year instead of $16 million they thought they would make before the ugly one popped off about how awful Bush is.

Especially since, on the next page over, we can read about people who are suffering REAL opression, like Suu Kyi or Morgan Tsvangirai.

The leftist media has marginalized itself, and people are turning to FOX, because while it may be biased, at least it isn't bugfuck.

I just conversed my arse off with the German-French TV channel ARTE for 3 straight days...on camera. So there!

http://www.biggolddog.com/2003_05_01_streamarch#95047426

Gary Younge is right. Other than Madeline Albright, Kofi Anan, Peter Arnet, Hans Blix, David Bonoir, Pat Buchannan, Jimmy Carter, Jacques Chirac, Noam Chomsky, Bill Clinton, Cheryl Crow, Walter Cronkite,
Dominique De Villipian, Howard Dean, E.J. Dionne, George Galloway, Jeanine Garofalo, Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, Molly Ivins, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Madonna, Michael Moore, Viggio Mortensen, Ralph Nader, Robert Novak, Nancy Pelosi, Sean Penn, Dan Rather, Scott Ritter, Andy Rooney, Gerard Schroeder, Brett Scowcroft, Al Sharpton, Martin Sheen, Mark Shields and Juan Williams, I have been unable to find any anti-
war voices on Television here in the United States.

"Fearing the contamination of their collective minds, sailors aboard the HMS Ark Royal stopped watching the BBC."

..or not. From the same newspaper you cite, from the very next day: http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,933025,00.html

The BBC has dismissed claims that its news channel, News 24, has been banned from a Royal Navy aircraft carrier in the Gulf because the crew felt it was too pro-Iraqi.

News 24 was available aboard HMS Ark Royal for an 80-day exclusive period, then the crew sampled rival channel Sky News but had now gone back to the BBC service, according to a BBC spokesman.

"We think it is great that they have this choice. They apparently sampled Sky for a while and have now returned to News 24," he said.

...

...Or maybe yes, after all. The BBC is the government news organ, so there probably wasn't a lot of choice to go back. I think the Navy made its point pretty clearly, despite the Beeb spin.

That the Beeb flack could describe its coverage as "comprehensive and impartial" without being struck by lightning is as elegant a proof of God's nonexistence as anything else I can think of.

The BBC is the government's news organ? Well of course - that'd be why Blair and co. were so very very happy with the BBC's coverage of the war. Ahem.

It seems more likely that the initial report was mistaken; the upshot seems to be that the officers were upset with the BBC coverage, tried Sky, went back to the BBC.

But what would I know, I'm just a dead rock singer.

Well, the PM may not have been happy all the time, but by himself he's not the government. You can be pretty sure much of his cabinet and, moreover, a vast majority of the Labour parliamentary membership, were pretty pleased the Beeb carried their water.

So because bits of the government were pleased with the BBC, that makes the BBC the government's news organ?

That argument is about as valuable as the royalty cheques I used to get from Alberts back in the day.

No, that's not the point. The Beeb is a government news service, as opposed to a private news service like ITN, because its operating costs are underwritten by taxation, not by appeal to an advertising market. Pretty obvious, no? You may argue that the Beeb isn't a government news service, but rather a government-supported news service, if you like -- but that's semantics. Arguing that it isn't beholden to the hand that feeds it isn't a winning position in any debate.

The Banana Splits? I hadn't thought of that. It would explain the war protesters' position.

Snorky was always my favorite. The one that couldn't speak.

If only.

Like all salivating Left wing media,the ABC, SMH, BBC etc,they ignore the positive and accentuate the negative. Always. Typical. Enough said.

Except that it isn't semantics - the independence of the BBC from the government is something the BBC fights to maintain. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/news/news297.htm )

They may be just words, but they're very important words - and I'm an expert on important words, as I penned some of the greatest double entendres in 20th century pop lyric.

For my part, I'm glad the BBC is independent - do you think the government would have approved of them taping us at the London Marquee back in 76? Not flamin' likely.

Good to hear that American BBC viewership went up 28 percent. I'd like to hear the actual numbers though, since raising the viewership from 150 to about 200 would still make that statement true.

Why is it that the Beeb can get every nickel from the government, but still be virtuously independent of it, while other news outlets are under deep suspicion of being corporate lackeys because they get a fraction of their income from corporations? And a miniscule fraction from any one corporation, at that?

T. Hartin - Helen Caldicott , in an interview with Pacifica radio, explained why government control is good and corporate influence is bad. Corporations are evil, but the government represents the people, which is good.

Works for me.

And everyone thought Americans don't enjoy dry humor...

Tom:

I haven't seen the figures on BBS's US ratings, but if BBC viewership did rise 28% it was because the BBC was available in (I would guess) 50% more households once the war started. That's because the BBC was picked up by many local PBS stations (Public Broadcasting System, funded by the federal government and periodic 45 day pledge "week" drives) in lieu of in-house coverage of the Iraqi war. At least one PBS outlet is available for free in all of the large and medium sized media outlets here, but prior to the war, most did not carry any BBC news coverage.

One suspects, communards define oppression as, someone still daring to gainsay the contrary to their beliefs and assertions.The performance of greenies is, for example, revealing on this count: Peter Gareth showed this inclination during a 60 minutes interview, his visage changing from sunnyville to snarling resentment; it was quite revealing.