[Closed] News of the World RIP

it would be a mistake to believe that one news organisation gives anywhere near an accurate picture of events.

😕 Really ? All news organisations give inaccurate pictures of events ?

All news stories you read in newspapers or watch on the TV or listen on the radio are inaccurate ?

I would say the opposite - most news organisation give a fairly accurate picture of events.

Do you have a generally conspiratorial view of the world MSP ?

I will give an example from a few years ago, when the UK was hit with floods.

The BBC was full of people wailing that there houses were wet and there lives were ruined ect, but failed to convey any facts about the movement of the floods.
Sky news was giving out good information on where and when high water marks was going to strike along the rivers, and then jumping straight into blaming the (then labour) government for its lack of planning and preparedness.

Both organisations reporting was flawed, and missing large chunks of information that was required to fully appreciate the events. But it was a perfect example of how both organisations reported a wide spectrum of events.

It's an interesting car crash. The paper doing the investigating reckons that the dog eat dog world within NI will cause the investigation to snowball. I had forgotten about our own beloved RIPA as well which will enable a lot of computer based evidence to be discovered.
Idiot executive that tried to delete the e-mail archive should be sweating now. The company they use for back up services would appear to have the full one still and they're unlikely to get in the way of a snowballing police investigation.
If the Murdochs are declared not fit and proper to run a media outlet in this country, it will probably spread around the English speaking world.

ernie, have a read of this:

[url] http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ [/url]

It's about Fox news, so no massive surprises, but obviously Fox is owned by Murdoch and news corp, their standpoint has been upheld by the US courts and supported by the other big news networks.

Thanks nedrapier, but I'm not entirely sure why you want me to read that :

[i]"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States"[/i]

I don't think that should really come as any surprise to anyone.

If it is to challenge my claim that [i]"most news organisations give a fairly accurate picture of events"[/i] I don't think it does that.

Have a look at this :

http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn

It provides fairly accurate coverage of current events........I'm sure you'll agree.

The BBC is blantant government propaganda, Ernie. This was never more so obvious than the run up to Gulf war II. While the British public were being fed Blair's 45 minutes lie the French and German populations were getting regualar on-the-ground reports from Hans Blix and balanced view of the options. You didn't get to see this prophetic speech at the time but French media showed it in full and Eins Extra showed enough to make it clear inspections were working and getting more thorough by the day.

As for the reporting of the war we got Americans throwing hand grenades into people's living rooms while you got your heros doing a fantastic job winning hearts and minds.

If you were watching foreign telly, how do you know what was on our screens here in the UK?? 😕

The BBC is blantant government propaganda

Don't be so silly. 🙄

No comments from the Cleggster (who must be releaved that the spotlight is now off him and his incompetence) as he watches Cameron desperately trying to get back on the front foot whilst Ed Millibanana gets all over it like a cheap suit... Interesting week ahead.

PS: And Vince Cable must now be having a quiet chuckle or two with himself.

Have you learnt your diversionary tactics from Zulu-eleven Edukator ?

What has the Iraqi war got to do with your alleged claim that France 3 said, quote : [i]"Cameron demands the police investigate their own wrong doing"[/i] which is so obviously false ?

You didn't get to see this prophetic speech at the time

Yes I did. I saw Dominique de Villepin's speech to the UN on BBC's News 24. I remember it very clearly because I was highly impressed by it - specially it coming from a conservative politician.

So you've discovered that the BBC gives a lot of prominence to reporting what the British government's position on current issues is, whilst French broadcasters give a lot of prominence to reporting the French government's positions.

What [i]exactly[/i] is your point ?

And do you fancy getting back on to the topic of Wappingate ?

The BBC is blantant government propaganda

You saw selected bits of de Villepin's speech on News 24. Bits selected to suit the British governments's agenda. News 24 is a rolling news channel and in all the years I watched never showed a complete 15 minute speech by anyone.

The BBC as you rightly note reports the British government's position on current issues. I've noted German and French channels make a point of presenting alternative views too and challenging government statements where they believe them to be untrue. It's know as investigative jounalism. Something the NOTW was quite good at.

I'm a little disturbed by the universal rejoicing on theis thread at the closing of NOTW. The gutter press it certainly was but it was also a source of information. It's disappearance continues a trend of silencing the press. A legal system that makes it illegal to reveal things about personalities and the closure of threads on this forum, and now a controversial paper goes too. All you'll have left before long is BBC government propaganda.

You're wide of the mark, "Edukator" ([i]sic[/i]), the BBC doesn't push the [i]government[/i] line, it pushes the left-wing faction of the Establishment's line.

Not the same thing.

Edukator - Member

You saw selected bits of de Villepin's speech on News 24.

Thank you for trying to remind what I saw Edukator, but remember, I was there. I saw Villepin's speech to the UN live on BBC News 24. It was an extremely important speech at the UN, at an extremely critical time in international relations, and unsurprisingly, the BBC broadcast it live.

I'm a little disturbed by the universal rejoicing on theis thread at the closing of NOTW.

Where's this [i]universal[/i] rejoicing on at the closing of the News of the World ? I'm certainly not rejoicing - a point which I've already made. I see no reason why 200 people should be sacked just to save Rebekah Brooks skin**. If Murdoch no longer wants ownership of the News of the World then he should have been forced to sell the 168 year old paper.

**EDIT : I'm aware that it's more complex than just trying to bury the issue by saying "NoW is no more". It's an attempt to deal with nuclear meltdown at Wapping by encasing and sealing NoW in a concrete sarcophagus to stop anymore toxic leaks. I don't think this desperate measure will work though - the fallout will continue.

On social and economic issues I'm inclined to agree Mr Woppit. France 2 is a similarly lefty-biased approach over here. That balances the right-wing approach of Bouygue's TF1. I haven't been able to get ITV for 25 years but I assume that provides viewing with a right-wing bias.

Unfortunately, this one will run for some time longer. There is much more muck-raking to go through before this dies. It hasn't reached the bottom yet.

I haven't been able to get ITV for 25 years but I assume that provides viewing with a right-wing bias.

No it doesn't.

The BBC is blantant government propaganda, Ernie.

Rubbish. I think the way Blair lied to us about going to war was outrageous, but in no way was the BBC supportive of it.

But just as an aside, do you remember there being any sort of question over the behaviour of Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the French media prior to his recent arrest? (or even after?)

Ernie:

The loss of a newspaper is almost always tragic

If you remove "almost" from your above quote (thus showing unambiguous regret at the closure of the NOTW), I'll remove "universal" from my comment about rejoicing, Ernie.

the BBC doesn't push the government line, it pushes the left-wing faction of the Establishment's line.

Explain please Woppit.

I think my comment here very far from suggests that I am [i]"rejoicing"[/i] at the closure of the News of the World :

ernie_lynch - Member

she was definitly not crying

[b]"Maybe she was stifling a laugh (you're all getting sacked because of me, but I'm keeping my incredibly powerful and well-paid job) it can be difficult to tell sometimes".[/b]

Yes, Rightplace. Tristan Banon was interviewed in about 2007/8 on a national TV channel denouncing an attempted rape and a radio journalist claimed women hid whenever DSK enterered la Maison de la Radio, the home of France Inter. The press have reported DSK's visits to a "club échangiste". We don't worry to much about who shags whom over here so it's only the attempted rape that was of interest and as Tristan didn't file a complaint at the time there wasn't much to report.

What consenting people do behind closed doors has little or no impact on their political careers here. Carla's conquests include Jagger, Clapton and a socialist minister IIRC. We still don't know who the father of Rachida's child is and a openly gay men hold/have held ministerial posts.

But just as an aside, do you remember there being any sort of question over the behaviour of Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the French media prior to his recent arrest?

Yes. Clip from a show broadcast in 2007...with subtitles (tap on cc)

To hear Dacre calling for "partial" news channels on QT the other night...Lordy, what a ****er. The whole BBC left wing conspiracy thing gets trotted out every so often by those who'd love a UK version of Fox News. Frankly, it's bollocks.

It's also not a conspiracy - those are usually difficult to spot. The BBC's left-wing bias is just obvious. Not necessarily a bad thing, just obvious.

My apologies...nobody mentioned "conspiracy". I dreamed that up myself. But obvious "bias"? No, that's obviously bollocks too.

The whole BBC left wing conspiracy thing gets trotted out every so often........

And what better time to do it than when Rupert Murdoch is on the ropes.........[i]look everyone, isn't the BBC dreadful ![/i]

[b][i]"Here is the flagship paper of an overweening media empire which helped hurl this country into war after war and then hacked the phones of relatives grieving at the loss of the very soldiers it had done so much to put in harm's way.

And then, with a straight face, "campaigned" for the armed forces' covenant.

Here is a rag which took genuine public grief at horrific crimes against children, manipulated it into dangerous and cynical campaigns to sell more papers, and all the while spied on the parents of the very murdered child in whose name it said it was acting.

Here is a sewer which gushes forth filthy smears that disabled people and single parents are scroungers who refuse to take responsibility, while its gilded executives - the son placed in the top job by daddy - sack others to save their own.

No-one should be surprised, because this is an outfit that vilifies migrants and Muslims while remaining in the grip of a foreign billionaire who scarcely pays tax in this country" [/i][/b]

George Galloway.

.

And well worth watching, Dennis Potter in 1994, his last interview.
[i]"I named my cancer Rupert" "I you shoot the bugger if I could".[/i]

The BBC's left-wing bias is just obvious.

Explain please Woppit.

Thanks.

Oh come on Elfie, leave Woppit alone will you ?

Everyone has the right to believe in a myth carefully crafted by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, without feeling the need to explain themselves.

No it's ok Ern; I know he doesn't actually have an answer and it's just more of his right-wing schtick, but I thought I'd ask him anyway, because his subsequent silence will speak more loudly than any words he might type...

Ib case people have forgotten how the BBC prepared the British population and put them in a war-inevitable frame of mind I've had a look at a few headlines from February and March 2003:

Paying for an Iraq war

Iraq after Saddam Hussein

Iraq 'moment of truth' looms

Iraq's defiance 'undermines UN'

Iraq Exiles back blair's stance

Asylum countries of origin: Iraq

Need I go on? The BBC demonised saddam, gave the impression Iraq was the root of all evil (including asylum seekers) and constantly talked of when Saddam was no longer in power [i]after the war[/i]. Brits swallowed the lot and "supported the troops".

Maybe she was stifling a laugh (you're all getting sacked because of me, but I'm keeping my incredibly powerful and well-paid job) it can be difficult to tell sometimes

You're still thinking about the bad news, aren't you?"

I'm all in favour of the BBC being biased left-wards, myself. We do need balance, after all.

The BBC demonised saddam

❓

Ooh, can we just make stuff up about stuff? Is that the game here?

Nothing to do with this then?

[url= http://www.businessinsider.com/french-media-reaction-to-dominique-strauss-kahn-2011-5 ]French media reaction to DSK[/url]

Edukator - Member

Ib case people have forgotten how the BBC prepared the British population and put them in a war-inevitable frame of mind I've had a look at a few headlines from February and March 2003:

Paying for an Iraq war

Iraq after Saddam Hussein

Iraq 'moment of truth' looms

Iraq's defiance 'undermines UN'

Iraq Exiles back blair's stance

Asylum countries of origin: Iraq

Need I go on? The BBC demonised saddam, gave the impression Iraq was the root of all evil (including asylum seekers) and constantly talked of when Saddam was no longer in power after the war. Brits swallowed the lot and "supported the troops".

You're off your trolley mate.

He's French.

Cheeky git. So am I Woppit.

Racist. 🙁

I'm not your mate, Ernie, off my trolley or not.

The BBC's left-wing bias is just obvious.

Edukator - Member

I'm not your mate, Ernie, off my trolley or not.

In this context I use the term "mate" not as a reference to a sexual partner or friend.

So yes mate, it's perfectly correct.

In fairness, Edukator's last post about the BBC was fantasist to say the least. Demonised Saddam? You're having a giraffe...matey.

ernie_lynch - Member

Edukator - Member

I'm not your mate, Ernie, off my trolley or not.

In this context I use the term "mate" not as a reference to a sexual partner or friend.

So yes mate, it's perfectly correct.

Aussie-ist.

In that case I must assume you are using "mate" as a synonym of "friend", friends don't resort to insult as soon as they disagree so it is still incorrect.

Mr Woppit - Member

He's French.

ooooh, did someone order a left wing-biased off-trolley Frenchman? 8)

Cracking debate in comparison to recent ones on here btw, I read with interest. 😀

In that case I must assume you are using "mate" as a synonym of "friend", friends don't resort to insult as soon as they disagree so it is still incorrect.

So if someone says to me "are you looking at my missus mate", should I assume he's being friendly ?
Or should I correct his grammar ?

I'm assuming that Edukator's claim that the BBC "demonised" Saddam is an attempt to indicate that he was not guilty as charged.

Edukator is Gorgeous George Galloway and I claim my five pounds.

Of flesh, [i]sur naturellaiment[/i].

So if someone says to me "are you looking my missus mate", should I assume he's being friendly ? Or should I correct his grammar ?

I suppose it depends on whether they're walking past your site or having a drink at the bar in your local swingers' club. 🙂

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1879841.stm ]A BBC jounalist demonising Saddam for Deadly.[/url]

You'll note that the journalist is speaking for himself (and the BBC) more than he is impartially quoting third parties and there is absolutely no balance or context in his writing.

I'm assuming that Edukator's claim that the BBC "demonised" Saddam is an attempt to indicate that he was not guilty as charged.

No, is means that the BBC were biased and didn't highlight any of his good points. A typically leftie tactic.

Ah! As in - "He was a vegetarian who liked dogs".

Thanks, earnest. Now I see. 😉

there is absolutely no balance or context in his writing.

A BBC jounalist demonising Saddam for Deadly.

How is that 'demonising' Saddam Hussein? He was, let's face it, a bit of a nasty man. Read up about his treatment of Kurds and Marsh Arabs.

Much as I disagreed with his kangaroo court 'trial' and subsequent execution, he was particularly unpleasant.

Yes, we know the West steamed into Iraq on the back of a load of lies and fabrication, but there's no getting away from the fact that Saddam Hussein was a very naughty boy...

I loved your link Edukator, specially the first thing I read at the top of the article :

[i]"The Iraqi army may be the key to avoiding chaos after Saddam"[/i]

Which of course was completely at odds with the British government's view on the matter. And therefore also completely demolishes your argument that the BBC was just a propaganda tool of the government.

Well done, mate.

You'd have to do a lot better than that article to convince me that the BBC is a government propaganda machine.

[i]The plan would allow the US forces full control over Iraq while they find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. [/i]

You'll note that there is absolutely no doubt expressed by the journalist about Saddam having WMDs. There is no mention of Hans Blix or his team. There is no mention of the increasing cooperation being shown and the unlimited acces to sites being accorded by mid February. The BBC consistently reported the WMD threat and gave little if no credibility to the results being presented by Hans Blix. That's why the BBC was propaganda and TF1 and Eins Extra can be congratulated on balanced reporting.

The BBC has a clear right of centre establishment bias

And and a left of centre social and economic bias.

With a royal charter as the constitutional basis for the Beeb you would expect it to have a right of centre establishment bias.

In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality

Or how about the BBC's own Impartiality report?

‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society’, said The Daily Telegraph’s Jeff Randall about his time as Business Editor of the BBC. ‘As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.’

Andrew Marr, former Political Editor, said that the BBC is ‘a publicly- funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people’ compared with the population at large.’ All this, he said, ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.

Michael Buerk said he believed the problem lay with an insufficiently diverse employment policy. ‘Most of the people working for the BBC are middle- class, well-educated, young metropolitan people.’ He said that, although the BBC had made great efforts to widen ethnic and gender diversity, ‘the actual intake of those people has narrowed quite appreciably in terms of age, social category, and education’.

Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, thought that ‘the BBC has in the past been too closed to a wide range of views and we’ve had too narrow an agenda. And I have some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda at times.’

At the seminar, David Jordan cited capital punishment. ‘I challenge anybody in here to mention the last time that the Today programme did capital punishment and didn’t sound as if they were completely against it in principle – or, even in a non British/American context, had somebody on who was in favour of it.

Like I said, quite good, really...

The BBC consistently reported the WMD threat and gave little if no credibility to the results being presented by Hans Blix.

You don't watch the BBC very much do you Edukator ?

And presumably it wasn't reported in France, by your unbiased media, about the stick which the BBC received for daring to suggest that the WMD threat in the dodgy dossier had been "sexed up" by the government ?

Of course Rupert Murdoch's media empire fell neatly into line with New Labour's false claims, and didn't dare to challenge the government's position.

But hey, let's give Rupert a big round of applause and let's slag off the BBC.

Of course Rupert Murdoch's media empire fell neatly into line with New Labour's false claims, and didn't dare to challenge the government's position.

Ernie - Yesterday, you said:

Have you ever read the Sun ? In those 12 years barely a day passed without the Sun criticising, attacking, and slagging off the Labour government, Labour ministers, and the Labour Party in general. The usual stuff of course - political correctness gone mad, the EU, soft on criminals, treatment of Our Boys, incompetent ministers, human rights for terrorists, etc, etc. As well as more all-embracing issues such as the economy, taxation, immigration, education, etc.

So, which is it?

Hoist with your own petard Ernie, hoist with your own petard!

Edukator you are just a silly Billy. No, you really are. You find things where there are none.

See, most of us on here live here in the UK and probbly watch the BBC quite a bit. You don't, and as you've clearly shown, you're happy to put your own political slant on things and promote your own perspective as one which is objective and 'fair', but in fact you have a definite anti-BBC agenda and have just made stuff up to suit your own argument.

To suggest the BBC is 'government propaganda' the way you have is simply preposterous. Get real.

In fact successive governments have complained to the contrary, that the BBC is often 'anti-government'. Which might be why CallMeDave would like to break it up and sell it off to people like his nice mate Rupe....

You are entertaining though. Carry on...

Uh-oh,. Labby's here...

(Finds something else to do instead, knowing it's about to get really, really boring)

Oh, Women's footy's on! England V France. BBC as well. Bonus! 😀

In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson

"In the BBC I joined[u][b] 30 years ago,[/b][/u] there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle[b][u] then[/b][/u] with impartiality

In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality

Or how about the BBC's own Impartiality report?

‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society’, said The Daily Telegraph’s Jeff Randall about his time as Business Editor of the BBC. ‘As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.’

Andrew Marr, former Political Editor, said that the BBC is ‘a publicly- funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people’ compared with the population at large.’ All this, he said, ‘creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC’.

Michael Buerk said he believed the problem lay with an insufficiently diverse employment policy. ‘Most of the people working for the BBC are middle- class, well-educated, young metropolitan people.’ He said that, although the BBC had made great efforts to widen ethnic and gender diversity, ‘the actual intake of those people has narrowed quite appreciably in terms of age, social category, and education’.

Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, thought that ‘the BBC has in the past been too closed to a wide range of views and we’ve had too narrow an agenda. And I have some sympathies with what Janet Daley says generally about a liberal/pinko agenda at times.’

At the seminar, David Jordan cited capital punishment. ‘I challenge anybody in here to mention the last time that the Today programme did capital punishment and didn’t sound as if they were completely against it in principle – or, even in a non British/American context, had somebody on who was in favour of it.

I cannot find a single reference in that which says that the BBC has a left-wing bias.

Can't you do any better than that Zulu-Eleven ?

Sure, once you've answered my question above - which is it? 🙄

j_me :

In the opinion of former BBC director general, Mark Thompson

"In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality

To say that people's [u]personal politics[/u] is bias to the left and that the organisation did struggle then with impartiality is not the same as saying that impartiality was not achieved.

Journalists tend to be personally bias to the left - even on publications such as the Daily Mail. Far more so than the general population.

Ernie, i agree. My post was an attempt to highlight he was talking of the BBC in the past tense. He is saying it struggled with impartiality 30 years ago. I should have been clearer.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Sure, once you've answered my question above - which is it ?

Yeah let's not bother - I can't be arsed with your nonsense Zulu-Eleven.

Everyone knows that Murdoch was very close to the neo-cons in Washington and lent heavily on Blair to go to war.

And by pointing out that the Sun was highly critical of Labour when it was in government, is clearly not the same as saying they opposed every policy of New Labour. It's the sort of daft conclusion that only you would come to Zulu-Eleven.

Sometimes it's what is not said that is more important than what is said. It is therefore very important to take into account what is clearly not being said when watching any news story.

I watched the BBC lots, Ernie, I was paid to use news reports and keep up to date with world events, and had a huge TV in my office. When I left that company I watched less and sometime around 2004 I became a very occasional viewer as I had lost all faith in the organisation as a reliable source.

highly critical of Labour when it was in government

didn't [b]dare[/b] to challenge the government's position.

Mutually exclusive claims Ernie! C'mon - which is it?

Cracking debate in comparison to recent ones on here btw, I read with interest.

Bollocks, did i jinx it? 😕

Bollocks, did i jinx it?

You'll note that there is absolutely no doubt expressed by the journalist about Saddam having WMDs. There is no mention of Hans Blix or his team. There is no mention of the increasing cooperation being shown and the unlimited acces to sites being accorded by mid February. The BBC consistently reported the WMD threat and gave little if no credibility to the results being presented by Hans Blix. That's why the BBC was propaganda and TF1 and Eins Extra can be congratulated on balanced reporting.

FFS Edukator, you are being unusually obtuse about this.

Took me about a minute to find this report by the BBC from 3 days after the one you posted highlighting all of the work done by Blix and throwing lots of doubt on the existance of WMD.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2765489.stm ]Another BBC report[/url]

You seem to have backed yourself into a corner and are unwilling to see the wood for the trees.

Edukator - Member

I watched the BBC lots, Ernie

But somehow you missed the "WMD claim was sexed up" story, despite the fact that it was an extremely big story. And now you claim that [i]"the British public were being fed Blair's 45 minutes lie"[/i] by the BBC. You need to pay more attention when you're watching the telly mate 💡

.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Mutually exclusive claims Ernie! C'mon - which is it?

Which bit of "I can't be arsed with your nonsense Zulu-Eleven" can't you understand ?

Yep, the Sun was highly critical of Labour when it was in government, and Yep, they supported the Iraq War. Now try and figure out for yourself what that means.

Sensitive about your BBC aren't some of you, Rightplace.

"Arab press welcomes Blix report". Think a little about how that will be received by the reader. the choice of the word "Arab". They could have used "Middle East" which would have more accurately geographically placed the newspapers or are they talking about the the world over in which case "Muslim" would be more appropriate. How would a report starting "Black press welcomes... ." as a lead to the story about the DSK case be constrewed by the reader? The choice of the word Arab is poor.

Poor word choice then an insulting use of Hans Blix's name. No title, fucntion, position or Christian name. Is this a report about hans Blix or is it about his findings in a report by him in which case the headline should read "Blix's report".

A blatent lack of repstect for the the newspapes concerned and Mr Blix himself in the headline. Propaganda. Tony Blair lost the "Tony" as the media lost its love of him.

YEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSS!!!! GET IN!

Eh?

Oh, sorry- forgot you lot were still arguing. 😳

Presumably that means papers written in by, and produced by, Arabs.

"Black press welcomes... ." as a lead to the story about the DSK case be constrewed by the reader?

Presumably, as papers that were written in by, and produced by, black people (usually promoting a "black" agenda), of which there have been examples ever since the civil marches in America in the sixties and so on....

I'm not sure I'm managing to keep a focus on your point.

What is your point, again?

bring forth the giant watermelon...