BBC Buys Google News Keywords In Kelly Case 432
foreign devil writes "BBC has purchased keywords related to coverage of the Hutton Inquiry in an attempt to direct all traffic to their special news coverage. This would be only moderately interesting, except the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier. The article in the Guardian says this is coming out of the GBP 63.5m ad budget. I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google." It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case), but it's certainly an interested party.
Bastard (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bastard (Score:4, Interesting)
PSA:
Just remeber to keep your grades up, kids. Nothing draws attention to your "hobbies" like a sudden shift in GPA. We all know straight-A students don't break the law.
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is wrong with advertising your side of the story. Most advertisers are interested parties, and the article made it sound like they were preventing other voices from being heard, which is ridiculous.
Finaly
"I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google."
Absolutely nothing.
Re:No kidding (Score:3, Funny)
The Guardian hates the BBC, and they along with Rupert Murdoch have been trying to get the British government to shut down the BBCs great website, so that more people go to their services.
Fuck me, I never thought I'd see The Guardian and Rupert Murdoch mentioned in the same breath. 'Scuse me while I look outside and check whether the guy driving the snow-plough (East-coast ice storm at the 'mo) is wearing a red leotard and pointy horns.
Re:No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
And besides, who cares what version of this story people read? If they arn't smart enough to actualy read both sides of a story anyway, and then try to comment on it, having an ad or not isn't going to stop people like this from being one-sided in the first place.
Sorry, it just had to be said.
Re:No kidding (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps the fact that they're using taxpayer money to do it? And the fact that their public charter requires that they be fair and unbiased on everything they report on?
So yes, technically speaking, the BBC should not have a "side" of the story -- even if they are involved. Their journalists should report this Hutton Inquiry news in a factual and even-handed manner. No slant.
The BBC is in a unique position, and is bound by rules that other news organizations are not. Whether they've been abiding said rules is a another story altogether.
Re:No kidding (Score:2)
Well, the BBC does make money outside of taxes, but whatever, if british voters really wanted it gone, it would be. Obviously the BBC fucked up by "sexing up" the government sexup chargers, but not by advertizing on google...
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Interesting)
There is *NO* news source out there that you could say does not have a 'side' to a story. No matter how you say how something happen, there is someone else saying 'but my story is better', and so on. Thus why we have that whole free speech thing.. To say that the BBC can't have an ad up just becuase you don't 'agree' with it, is what fighting 'big media' was suposed to be about.
The point comes down to, it's an ad on google. MANY MANY different links are right there, for the user, to click on. And google of all places is about the best thing for them to put it on. Google, puts right up, and infornt.. "hay I'm an ad, paid for, by some company". You might even have a glimps of a change of this agument if it was a banner ad, tricking the user, or a normal link.
They did a good thing with your tax money (google rocks), and they are getting 'their side' out to the public, being wrong or right. If this was a topic yourself felt was 'under known in the news', you'd be happy for the extra bit of coverage.
Re:No kidding (Score:3, Informative)
Which is exactly what has happened. The BBC has been widely praised [guardian.co.uk] in other sections of the media for accurately reporting both sides of the story, particularly the Panorama programme on Jan 21 which heavily criticised the BBC's bosses for not checking the facts before opening their mouths.
Re:No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
When you're a taxpayer-funded media empire and the subject of a serious investigation, there's a HELL OF A LOT wrong with it.
Re:Bastard (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps you could explain to me what you think he meant by that?
Search engines work best by providing an impartial means of finding sites related to the query. News outlets work best by providing an impartial view of current events. When paid promotion hits the scene, they both become completely useless, at best - Suddenly, they have a bottom line, rat
Re:Bastard (Score:2)
A related tidbit: apparently [webmasterworld.com] the top bid a
Bah (Score:5, Funny)
1. Sex-up Iraq dossier
2. ???
3. Profit!
With #2 circled and 'GOOGLE ADWORDS' scribbled next to it.
Re:Bah (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bah (Score:5, Funny)
Link to these 'attractive British females' (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bah (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
from the fair-and-balanced dept. (Score:4, Funny)
Makes one wonder (Score:2)
Re:Makes one wonder (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone who is interested in what they might cost can see for themselves at Adwords [google.com] for free. Just click on the 'Click to begin' button. You can set up an ad, plug in keywords, max cost per click per keyword and see what your daily cost would be. They don't ask for a credit card until the very end so you get a feel without the slightest commitment (not even a name or email address is required until the end.) It's really pretty interesting.
AdWords (Score:3, Funny)
Sexy BBC? (Score:5, Insightful)
One could argue that the Beeb pushed Dr. Kelly to suicide, but calling them "complicit in ... the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier" is somewhat bizarre. Are we missing a relative clause here or what?
Re:Sexy BBC? (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, I don't think the BBC is being accused of any crime at all. Sure, they had some questionable reporting, but this case is about the governmet.
The question is wether or not the government, specificallly Blair, released Dr. Kelly's name to the press, which caused all the hype about him and may have lead to his suicide.
The BBC has a vested interest in this both because they want it to be someone else's fault and because they are staunchly anti-government and anti-Blair. T
Re:Sexy BBC? (Score:2, Insightful)
The article poster is a dimwit and/or troll IMO.
Sexy BBC? No. Stupid editing? Yes. (Score:2)
That's what Timothy added to the story summary before he posted it. Now, I have to ask: why the fuck didn't Timothy edit or rewrite the submission if he believed it was inaccurate or misleading? (Which, by the way, it was: other posters have pointed this out.)
The editors do a good job of over-extending themselves in so many ways so why can't they ac
Not anymore. (Score:5, Informative)
Seems their adword budget ran out. The adword links don't appear on "hutton report" or "hutton enquiry" anymore. At least not on google.co.nz, google.com or google.co.uk.
The top non-ad links are the BBC, but that is more than likely due to the fact that the BBC is generally considered a _very_ good source of news, with a great reputation.
As for the whole sexing up discussion, I'll wait until after I've seen the report. :)
Re:Not anymore. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the war hawks called the BBC biased because it did not slavishly repeat the Pentagon line at the height of the war, as Fox/Sky, CNN, and MSGOP did. They aired both pro- and antiwar views, and for those who cannot tolerate the latter, that made them biased.
Re:Not anymore. (Score:2)
Re:Not anymore. (Score:2)
As for quality, I only regularly read their sci-tech news, but I have yet to see a sci-tech article that got al
It's still just a link, not automatic (Score:2, Informative)
Google has never automatically redirected you to paid links. They also clearly mark the sponsered links as such, even moving them to the right side of the page, seperate from the relevant results. The article is trying very hard to push people's buttons.
The BBC IS complicit. (Score:4, Informative)
From the Sydney Morning Herald [smh.com.au]:
According to the newspaper (the Sun), Lord Hutton criticised the BBC and its reporter Andrew Gilligan over a broadcast suggesting Downing Street inserted a claim that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.
"I am satisfied Dr Kelly did not say the Government probably knew or suspected the 45-minute claim was wrong before the claim was inserted in the dossier," Lord Hutton is reported as finding.
"The allegation reported by Mr Gilligan that the Government probably knew the claim was wrong or questionable was unfounded."
As a result, the program's listeners were given a misleading impression that the Government "embellished" its dossier.
The British newspaper, The Sun, has gotten its hands on a leaked copy of the report, from which this above information is drawn. Dr. Kelly killed himself after it was claimed he was the one to give the 45 minute quote. Therefore, the BBC is complicit.
Re:The BBC IS complicit. (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't believe anything in that rag unless I could confirm it in about five other, indipendent, sources.
You can't trust the Sun for anything (Score:5, Informative)
You know what'd be great? (Score:5, Funny)
"You are the victim of a shameless advertising experiment.
Footnote: We are not liable for any self-inflicted damage after reading this page"
Re:You know what'd be great? (Score:2)
"You are the victim of a shameless advertising experiment. "
Isn't that the web in general nowadays?
Correction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the BBC was citing Dr. Kelly to criticize the 'sexing up' done by the british government. Then the government revealed the name of Dr. Kelly as the source, leading to pressures on him. So I don't think the BBC is really complicit in his death and it's definitely haven't 'sexed up' the Iraq dossier.
Of course, I still find what they're doing with google questionable at best.
Re:Correction... (Score:4, Informative)
When the BBC heads found out about this they closed ranks and defended the reporter's falsification of information. Compare this with the NY Times reaction when it was discovered that a black reporter was falsifying stories.
Whether "complicit" is the right word relative to the death is open to debate and the report will hopefully tell more about how much pressure ther BBC put on Dr. kelly to spin things in a way that would preserve the BBC's reputation. Regardless, the BBC was complacint in falsifying and exagerating information, and reporting based upon a personal or insitutional bias and not being neutral (as required by British law).
The fundamental problem, is that ever since Watergate journalists don't feel that they have "made it" in their profession unless they can bring down a government. So, this type of slanted reporting and lying to the public, under the arua of nuetrality is rewared. When the politicians lie and spin, I expect that of them. They are acting like wolves in wolves' skin. The reporters, especially in this case, acted like wolves in sheeps' skin.
Re:Correction... (Score:2, Interesting)
29 May: BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan tells the Today programme that a senior British official has told him that the government's dossier on Iraq...
BBC web page timeline [bbc.co.uk]
July 7: The government says the official is not one of the senior officials involved in drawing up the September dossier, but an expert who has advised ministers on weapons of mass destruction.
MediaGuardian.co.uk timeline [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Correction... (Score:2)
How the fuck can you be 'complicit' in a suicide in the first place?
Easy. You print lies about someone in such a way that they feel their life is no longer worth living.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. This has been known to drive some poor souls into hiding in the woods and stabbing themselves repeatedly in the chest, etc.
Re:Correction... (Score:3, Informative)
Easy! Either you, or your wife Cherie, calls up MI5, and asked them to quiet a certain Dr. Kelleyp. And then you add "if you can make it look like a suicide...all the better".
Or somesuch.
How to see the adverts? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How to see the adverts? (Score:2)
I think the BBC probably canceled the ad-words after Guardian's article.
I, for one, don't see the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone have a clue what they mean? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does anyone have a clue what they mean? (Score:2)
And most people that are looking for unbiased information (and know what they are doing) ignore the sponsored links for the most part because they are obviously "payed-for" (sic).
Abuse of Google? (Score:2, Interesting)
I (and I'm sure millions of others) browse through Google results to get the articles and opinions from over the world. Allowing this would mean no fair-an-balanced news via Google anymore.
Google would be wise to come up with way to prevent such abuse IMHO.
Re:Abuse of Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other information is there to be viewed but you dont have to click on the sponsored link, the option of where you want to follow up is up to you.
The danger is that the BBC is so large of a company and some feel that this move is not a sponsporship of events by their history division (for example) but rather to cull popular opinion to their spin of the story.
AdWords doesn't play that... (Score:2)
Google would pull the ad as soon as it appoaches the daily limit. You might be able to mute the ads by seeing to it that you're the only one who sees them, but you wouldn't be able to drive them over their budget.
So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
In my mind a news organization has the right to actively defend itself when it itself is being accused of a crime--just as any other entity would...
Panorama (Score:5, Informative)
Before we all don our tin-foil hats, its worth pointing out that the episode of Panorama (a highly-respected current affairs programme) which aired last Wednesday was highly critical of the BBC involvement in the Kelly business. Which channel did it air on? That would be BBC One. Don't beleive me? Check out this story [bbc.co.uk] on the BBC website.
In light of this, it's pretty peverse to suggest that the BBC has gone to any lengths to hide or downplay their involvement in the whole affair. I myself think the Google ad buying is simply part of the BBCs shift towards positioning itself as more of a 'regular' media player (albeit with public funding), as opposed to the state-run service which it originated as.
Re:Panorama (Score:2)
Even Newsnight, the BBC2 news program critised the BBC on a number of occasions.
Re:Panorama (Score:3, Informative)
Things that were missed (Score:5, Insightful)
In taking this action, the BBC will be inexorably linked with the Hutton inquiry as a source of information, rather than having an major role in the events that have led to it.
I would also question the use of the phrases "buying up all internet search terms relating to the inquiry" and "anyone searching for "Hutton inquiry" or "Hutton report" on
The first of these phrases implies the BBC is attempting to prevent others from using these keywords by buying Google's entire stock. This is obviously false, as anybody can buy Google's keywords and there is an unlimited supply.
The second of these phrases states that uses will atuomatically be directed to the BBC Online site when searching for 'Hutton enquiry'. This is blatantly false. Instead, a link to the BBC Online coverage will be displayed amongst a separate list of clearly demarcated sponsored links.
Buying advertising to negate the effect of negative crticism is a well-established business practice for which The Guardian (and indeed all other media which provide advertising facilities) have long served as a platform for.
What's far worse than the implied misdirection by the BBC in The Guardian's article is the blantant misreporting of opinion as fact in the Slashdot headline. Stating that the BBC is 'complicit' in the death of Dr Kelly is factually incorrect, not to mention libellous in the extreme.
Re:Things that were missed (Score:3, Interesting)
What is amazing is that there is not one person on The Guardian's staff that can get the facts right when they write about anything related to the internet or computers, even o
Re:Things that were missed (Score:3, Interesting)
Printing a few articles because they are funny is one thing, but the evidence is that the editors do not understand that this man is a joke which is evidenced by the sort of article that we are talking about right now.
Keeping him on while he perpetually writes nonsense simply doesnt cut it; the other, clue purchased, writer you mentioned writes only occasionally, then there is Naughton who is probabl
Yes Timothy, its fair (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yes Timothy, its fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Err no, what was a complete and utter load of bollocks that was presented as a fact. The 45 minute claim was a single sourced piece of information about battlefield weapons that the UK goverment led people to believe refered to long-range weapons.
It was pure and simple rubbish, if it had been in a company report then you'd be calling for them to be prosecuted for fraud.
The initial fact is not in doubt. Iraq had _no_ WMD that could be ready in 45 mins, and had no long range capabilities.
The BBC was not _wrong_ in its report.
How is this a problem of censorship? (Score:2)
And I think they are betting that the Hutton report would be favorable to them (which it seems it isnt) and blames Tony Blair for Dr Kellys death (which it seems it isnt too).
whoa...google read /. (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess I knew that googleheads read slashdot, but now google does too!
Right. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I'd hate for slashdot to become known as a place where people make false claims and jump to unjustified conclusions.
google adwords strike back (Score:2, Informative)
Wacky wacky world.
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
You have the wrong impression of the BBC (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a massive, disparate, semi-controlled corporation where one arm can frequently operate without the others being aware. There is the occasional shitstorm which flies up because of this (when, accidentally, the BBC 6 and 9 o'clock News programs almost entirely neglected the ruling Conservative Party's campaign in one election they went nuts and refused further interviews, threatened funding changes etc.) but on the whole the system balances out, given time.
Hutton is a big story in the UK. I don't work in News (thankfully) but I am willing to bet that what we have is an entirely regular attempt to drive traffic to the BBC for coverage of a major story. The BBC is an interested party, but news.bbc.co.uk couldn't give a damn about protecting Andrew Gilligan, broadcast news or any other part of the corporation.
In another situation, maybe you would have Conrad Black or Rupert Murdoch flaying the different section chiefs about contradictory coverage, or maybe not. But in the beeb, it simply doesn't happen. Nobody knows about anyone else's activities, and if they want to find out they've got to investigate, like journalists should. It's not efficient, but in terms of a free press, it's effecive.
The source for this "News" was The Sun, people!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing I could possibly say could compete with Yes Prime Minister's rather brilliant and oft-quoted commentary.
PM {Responding to Sir Humphry}: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is run by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is run by another country."
Sir Humphry: "Prime Minister, what about the Sun?"
Bernard: "The Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits."
Re:The source for this "News" was The Sun, people! (Score:3, Funny)
That's the pre-Murdoch Times, of course.
Still true. The Sun-With-No-Tits is now read by those who run the country because they need toknow what Rupert wants them to do.
and, the problem is ? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a free market: advertising space is available to anyone, whether they have vested interests or are for/against an issue. Equally, anyone can buy television or newspaper space to do the same thing.
I don't see that there are any "rights" problems here ? If you had an opposing view, you too could have purchase keywords for the hutton case.
Irrespective of who purchased those keywords, Google is always going to serve up pageranked results for "objective" results, or return collective links to press coverage from google news.
If you have a problem, purchase keywords at other search engines. You can argue that Google has a dominant position and therefore subject to anti-trust concerns, but as it returns pageranked results, it's hard to see how this argument is sustainable.
Idiot (Score:5, Informative)
Quote : "the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier."
Where does this idiot get his information from ? Yes, looking at this sentence, the BBC IS involved in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'dossier' accusations, but only as a part of a whole, including the BBC senior management, the Government, MOD, some MP's and Dr. Kelly itself. And NO-ONE is directly accused of directly causing Dr. Kellys death - he committed suicide, end of story. The BBC's alleged involvement was to stand by an accusation against a government adviser of 'sexing up' an intelligence dossier, despite grave misgivings about the accuracy of the story.
I know news coverage in the US is poor, but I would suggest the original submitter tries to get some decent news coverage - BBC TV news (if you can get it in the US) still beats the pants off anything else you are likely to get for objectivity and editorial quality. I was also under the impression that the Guardian is a bit of a cheerleader for the BBC in general - public service broadcasting is something I would think the vast majority of it's readership support.
The BBC report the news (Score:3, Informative)
The BBC have been biting at the heels of the goverment, ever since they caught a wiff of the fact the goverment did sex it up, theve been hounding them like a rabbid dog, if it wasn't for the BBC, I doubt we'd even have an inquiry, they were in no way complicit with it, they didn't even allow it to go by without being noticed.
Yes perhaps this did lead to the death of poor Dr. Kelly, but that was because the goverment wanted a fall guy, not the BBC's doing and depending on the outcome of the report the goverment could be in some deep doo-doos.
Re:umm... (Score:2, Informative)
The BBC claimed the weapons dossier was sexed up, and claimed to have a HIGH RANKING official who told them this. As it turns out, Kelly was the source, and not only was he not nearly as senior as the BBC claimed that he was, but he was not in a position to know what he claimed to know. Then he suddenly winds up dead.
Imagine if SCO bought up key words on their suit against Linux. Now imagine they're a news outlet to boot. Kinda stinks, do
Re:umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Independant Counsel does a report for Congress on who knew what and when and who ordered what and why.
NPR buys keywords so they can ??
You get the picture. Fortunately nothing like this could ever happen in the US so go back to sleep citizens, theres nothing to worry about.
Only the names have been changed to protect the writer from defamation action.
Unfair and imbalanced (Score:4, Funny)
If they get any further apart they're going to meet.
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:5, Insightful)
history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA call them revolutionaries now, and revere them. During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sniping at civilians isn't. Now if you are an irregular not in uniform and snipe and are caught, you can be summarily executed.
That's an accepted fact for the last...3-400 years.
Now during the American Revolution...very limited warcrimes were carried out by both sides as did irregular operations against other irregulars and against uniformed soldiers. Fellas like Nathan Hale were hung by the British for being soldiers out of unif
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:2)
Well, I would think that one small difference between the Americans and the Palestinian "freedom fighters" is that the Americans did not sneak into Britain and blow up random civilians, though when you think about it this had been an option available to them at the time. In fact, it would have been stupid for them to have done so because it would have just made Britian much angrier and more i
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:2)
Well, I would think that one small difference between the Americans and the Palestinian "freedom fighters" is that the Americans did not sneak into Britain and blow up random civilians
Your point would be relevant, if it were the case that Britain had belonged to America 50 years prior to the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, although the case in Israel, which belonged to the Palestinian peoples until 1946, it was not the case in the US. Hence, your analogy is completely flawed, and all statements you ma
Re:I hope Israel drives out the Pali scum forever. (Score:2)
I want Jewish boots kept on the throat of the murderous Muslim fiends until the sun dies.
Substitute 'Aryan' for 'Jewish', and 'Jewish' for 'Muslim', and its pretty clear that it was people like you who were responsible for the Holocaust. In your fervour to support the Zionist cause, you have become the very evil which made the Zionist movement necessary in the first place. I pity you, I really do.
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:2)
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:3, Funny)
well, anyone that blows themselves is pretty flexible to say the least... and not likely to ever leave their own home. So, I doubt they'd be very effective freedom fighters.
As for blowing innocent babies... that'll get you 25 to life here in America.
MadCow
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:2)
But blowing up guilty babies... that'll get you a 10% discount at Wal*Mart (TM).
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but someone has to draw a line in the sand here. The American revolutionaries wanted freedom from the British, and they fought the superior enemy's military and won. That is a HUGE fucking difference than sneaking men and women onto busses with explosives and killing dozens of innocent people, or blowing up religious dinners (but no, they don't hate jews, just "zionists"), or hiding
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:3, Informative)
No, I suspect you have that correct - They don't want "freedom from Israel"... They want their damn land back! Why should they accept a tiny strip of land, rather than insisting on what they had before?
If I came to your house, kicked you out into the dog-house, and then offered you a "peace treaty" to let you keep the dog-house, would you w
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've ceased to believe this. After looking at the current state of the world I find that the victors write thier history and think that no one else knows any different while the victims (and much of the rest of the world) remember. It's not hard to find grudges in europe that go back thousands of years where the victors thought they wrote history and it turns out that 300 generations later thier decendandts still remeber the old hatred.
At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time.
Not really, I've heard this one said many times. While it wasn't normal it was by no means so extraordinary that one would call it "terrorism". That statement needs a little more backing up than "I said so". The British at the time used it as propaganda but pretty much every known army has *always* done so, it so foolish not to that any and all commanders know to do it.
During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
Have you ever been to the south? Having grown up there and currently living there I can tell you that is a *very* reviled thing that Sherman did. It went well beyond "unconventional warefare" even for it's time. Grant tried to reign Sherman in and was pretty much unable to. It is probably the number one reason for resentment between the north and the south today. Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.
Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.
The reality is that for one side they do, that doesn't make it legitamate. Our American forefathers fought pretty much within the rules of war, many other revolutionaries have also.
A large part of terrorism is attacking civilian targets (not as collateral targets, but as the main targets), as far as I know they didn't attack innocent civilian targets over in england. Neither did the British for the most part. Most of the civil war was fought in the same way, in the places civilians were specifically targeted the victims hate the agressors (no need to look further than native americans for another example). There are few recent wars where people did and in most of those cases it was normal rules of wars (WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever).
Three cheers for Sherman (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, well, your great-great-grandparents were fighting to preserve slavery, if not actual slave owners themselves, and therefore deserved no better than what Sherman dished out.
In fact, had I been in Sherman's shoes, I would have summarily shot or hanged every slave owner I captured.
People forget, or lie about, what the Old South stood for and what it was fighting
Re:Key differnce (Score:2)
The difference is that terrorists have NO CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY.
A bald assertion which is demonstrably untrue. How shall I demonstrate this? With two words, m'lud. Sinn Fein.
Thanks for playing, good luck!
Re:Key differnce (Score:2)
First of all, prove it. Secondly, this is a terrible rationalization for ignoring what they are demanding, which is a palestinian state. What you're saying is roughly equivalent to suggesting that there is no point in making abortion illegal because while anti-abortionists who kill doctors may reconsider
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, that really bothers me too. Things like Saddams WMDs. I wish they had just reported as fact that Saddam had WMDs, like we did here in the US. It is totally rediculous that a news agency would question the government.
No, no, no (Score:2)
Haven't you been paying attention? Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, he had weapons programme related activities [guardian.co.uk]. Please do try to keep up.
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:3, Insightful)
The BBC puts everything in quotes.
At the time of writing the following headlines on the BBC news page [bbc.co.uk] contain quotes:
Mydoom virus 'biggest in months'
Martha Stewart 'lied about tip'
'Several dead' in Baghdad blast
'Bribery' halts Kenya graft probe
Obviously the put those headlines in "scare quotes" to make them seem more suspicious!
Gasp! (Score:2)
Or just maybe, they put things in quotes when they are, um, quoting what somebody said?
Re:Gasp! (Score:2)
Re:BBC integrity? WHHAAAAAA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm, no. They call people who blow themselves up, "suicide bombers". They call the militants, "militants". In Iraq, they call the insurgents, "insurgents". Compare to the completely unbiased and independent American media, who refer to all of those under the collective term, "terrorists".
Has it occured to you, that they might be using quotes because they are quoting someone?
The coverage of the Dr. Kelly affair was incredibly poor. That's a large part of the Hutton Inquiry, right?
However, I get the impression, sir, that you are simply part of the angry right complaining that the BBC is not biased to the right enough.
Re:Obviously you think differently... (Score:2)
You've never read Indymedia, have you?
Re: "Civilized Warfare" (Score:2)
There is no civilized way to engage in warfare.
Re:Complicit in a suicide huh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Geez (Score:2)
What was the point?
NOT a picture of kelly (Score:2)