Quote Originally Posted by Cabbage Patch View Post
Growing up I had fond memories of the BBC as a thorough, balanced, and objective news source. I was either very stupid when I was young or the BBC became vastly more ideological, and overtly anti-American over the years. During the Invasion of Iraq they might as well have been an arm of Iraqi State Television. I understand they've gotten better since the Labour Government purged their management a few years back, but I'm unwilling to give them another chance.

The ITN International News seemed like a good source back when it was available to watch in the US (via PBS), but I haven't seen it around for years.
I don't know how unbiased they used to be. I think that it's proportionate. We all have a very different perception of the world now as opposed to fifteen or twenty years ago. Hell, even five years ago. I think it's more reflective of the cultures they represent, American news being very partisan due to the nature of its political structure, and so on. Canadian media is no different. I think now we have more options than we used to. I can remember a time (at least in Canada) where you had three channels, CBC, PBS, french. There was really only one outlet for news and that was CBC. Now things have grown to the point where Canada has two or three different news channels in each province. So really, it doesn't feel like the media's values have spun to either side of a coin, as much as we're just presented with more views.

I agree with you in that I had always held BBC in high regard for its neutral sort of factual reporting style, but that seemed due in large part to a lack of editorializing. Here's the shit you need to know, I'm not going to tell you what it means to me or how I've interpreted it because that isn't relevant. The fact is, "A bomb exploded, and 17 people died, no groups have come forward to claim responsibility. Stocks are shite again today, except gold which is up, etc." As far as their coverage of Iraq . . . no comment beyond "They reported the news as the majority of the free world saw it." You can say what you like about the merits of invading Iraq, but the fact is a large portion of the world did not agree with it. Maybe the BBC could have spun things the way Americans would have liked, but they didn't. They shouldn't. They're not American news. And again, there's that partisanship. Are lines necessary country to country? Is it important that the news is reported one way in Britain, and another in America? Or Spain?

It becomes a question of what is propaganda, and how do you trust any source? Do you think that people today are better at separating fact from fiction, when we're inundated with both so freely and easily that the lines are too blurred to provide clear definition for either?