Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (3)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • From Article:

    And then you have the Secretary of State yesterday calling on reporters and inspectors and people from aid groups to leave Baghdad. So I think — when you look at the real disdain people like Rumsfeld have expressed in the past towards the press, Cheney as well — I don’t think they’re going to have any tolerance for real reporting.

  • Article:

    a New York Times editorial declared: “If we had known then what we know now, the invasion [of Iraq] would have been stopped by a popular outcry.” This amazing admission was saying, in effect, that journalists had betrayed the public by accepting and amplifying and echoing the lies of Bush and Blair, instead of challenging and exposing them. The result is a human disaster of epic proportions, for which journalists in the so-called mainstream bear much of the responsibility

  • Article:

    the BBC...has blood on its corporate hands. There are two interesting studies of the BBC's reporting. One of them, in the build-up to the invasion, shows that the BBC gave just two per cent of its coverage of Iraq to anti-war dissent. That was less than the anti-war coverage of all the American networks. A second study by...University College in Cardiff shows that 90 per cent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more