Posted by dereklane
on November 3, 2009, 11:23 pm, in reply to "Re: Would anyone here want to write for a paper that ..."
"“Rarely UNFAIRLY criticised here, is what I said. Not “rarely criticised” (!)."
Point taken. I've seen such negative analysis here though, specifically for Reynold's output, which sometimes isn't so bad. But, its carefully good when its good.
I'd say the reason you don't often (if ever) get 'unfair criticism' (we disagree on the notion that the guardian gets this either), is because its exceedingly hard to find any facet of BBC reporting that *is* good, at all.
cheers,
Derek
--Previous Message--
: Don’t be disheartened Derek – just read my
: post a little more carefully! You’re way off
: centre on what I said.
:
: Also, you must bear in mind that I am
: talking about A SPECIFIC TYPE OF ANALYSIS OF
: THE GUARDIAN here, or we will end up in
: outer space.
:
: I agree with the conclusion of establishment
: bias as much as anyone else. But I am
: talking about an assessment of the
: Guardian’s OVERALL OUTPUT. That means
: considering what is good, not just what is
: bad.
:
: Please do not inundate me with good
: criticisms that people have made of the
: media. I have been applauding them just as
: much.
:
: Off you go again, with this of mine:
:
: "Regarding other media, well the BBC
: for example is rarely unfairly criticised
: here. Its miles worse than the
: Guardian."
:
: “Rarely UNFAIRLY criticised here, is what I
: said. Not “rarely criticised” (!).
:
: To rephrase it - it is rare that the
: criticism of the BBC here is unfair. Its
: miles worse than the Guardian. Makes sense
: at least, surely?
:
: My point that “people follow the Eds
: blindly” applies to their Guardian
: criticisms. The assumption is made by the
: Ed’s that the Guardian’s overall output is
: characterised by a few examples chosen to
: illustrate propaganda. And people accept
: this is the case. That’s what I’m pointing
: out.
:
: Cheers
: Walter
:
:
Responses: