Franklin

Its OK to have a go at Fox coverage (which I think also owns Skynews), but it is not OK to point out that the BBC news service is far from perfect and sometimes makes up stories? Did the BBC check the rest of Gilligan's filed stories? Did he only make up one story? Did the BBC brass even bother to check?

scrubbedexpat099

Comparing Fox and BBC in the same breath?

A bit like commenting about the Guardian/Telegraph/Times (pick your politics) and using the most basic tabloids as the comparison.

They are in a totally different market segment.

BBC you know will be PC, sometimes over the top, you just read between the lines.

I mainly listen to the BBC, rather than read, but they get there in their own way.

Its a major shame that there is no US equivalent. One extreme or the other.

Franklin

*nods* Your observations make good sense, imho.

What about NPR? Is NPR cut from the same cloth as the BBC? I love to listen to NPR, but even they have their moments. When I moved to the USA I did not have cable for about two years (and lacked a TV for at least a year), I got a short-wave radio to listen to BBC World Service, but discovered NPR. Marketplace and their other news magazine shows are great, I loved listening to them, and their local station - WBEZ, Chicago Public Radio - with their wee office/studio located on Chicago's Navy Pier (I don't know if WBEZ are still there, on Navy Pier), their jazz guy used to call in on week nights at a diner on State Street near my law school, I used to eat there after night classes and often got a lift home with the manager - the Jazz guy was there regular, to pick up his order. It was sort of funny seeing him and then listening in on WBEZ.

Boy do I miss Chicago - but I'm back there this September to meet one of my clients, he's attending a medical conference and asked me to meet him there (he is in charge of a heart/surgery department located in Europe). Will get the chance to tune into WBEZ and have lunch at the lovely Walnut Room at Marshall Fields on State Street!

scrubbedexpat099

The Internet really helps, I listen to BBC 5 Live mainly, always liked Drive and the timing works out nicely for me.

I have tried NPR, now whether its where I am, but when ever I have tuned in it has been poor, maybe I need to give it more of a chance. Perhaps its particularly regional and I need to be more aware of what is on and when.

I was thinking about the SKY comparison, I do not remember SKY News being that bad, but I do not think I saw enough to be that positive.

Duncs

I don’t think misrepresenting the facts is a fair description of what Andrew Gilligan did. He relied heavily on one source, Dr David Kelly and made the allegation that the government had deliberately sexed up its dossier on WMD in Iraq on the orders of the PM. That’s an assertion based on what he had been told by his source and adding in a little supposition. His mistake was to make a very serious charge against the PM based on a single source who had not directly been involved in the drawing up of the dossier. That’s a grave error of journalistic standards not a misrepresentation. Those were the facts as he saw them and his source told him but in the end it turned out not to be corroborated. He resigned by the way and no longer works for the BBC.

The SKY news reporter you mentioned lied blatantly about a fact that was absolutely and clearly known to him. He knew with certainty that the missile launch was not genuine yet said it was that’s a lie. (You know lie, like what Bush does almost every day or have you begun to lose the capacity to recognize them?) I am sorry though that he took his life, if indeed he did as I couldn’t find that information to confirm that fact. There is a pretty big difference between the two incidents though. Although if he could lie that blatantly I am surprised they didn’t give him a job with Fox News.

At the end of the day of course the basic underlying substance of Gilligan’s assertion has been demonstrated to be false by all those piles of WMD that have been uncovered in Iraq, right?

On a not entirely unconnected point your earlier comment astounded me:

Umm WTF? Your drinking way to much Fox News Koolaid!

There are probably two crimes here. Firstly as I understand it under either the Espionage Act of 1917 and/or the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982. The email records from Cooper proved that Rove told him, on super doublesecret background of course, "Wilson's wife"--not "Valerie Plame," or "Valerie Wilson"--worked at the CIA. Under the relevant law--the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982--a crime is committed when a government official (not a journalist) "intentionally discloses any information identifying" an undercover intelligence officer. The act does not say a name must be disclosed. By telling a reporter that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, Rove was clearly disclosing "identifying" information. There was only one Mrs. Joseph Wilson. With such information in hand, Cooper or anyone else could easily have ascertained the name of this officer. If he briefed Cooper it was intentional.That looks like count one to me!

Secondly. According to what Rove told the justice department investigators:

“Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.�

But:

“But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."

The problem there is that Luskins focus on the primary offence has led him to provide evidence that Rove has committed an act of Perjury (you know that thing you were so disgusted about Clinton committing). Of course Luskin could have got his facts wrong but I suppose that something that the records of the conversations will be able to prove as the times and dates are likely to be recorded. Looks like count two to me.

I suppose to be generous you are correct that there is technically ‘no crime here’ there are instead two.

Rove is scum. he always has been scum its just time for his lifetime of corruption and criminality to finally catch up with him. If only the same could happen to Bush.

Of course you will filter out my points as the ranting of NE Harvard yard liberal but seriously you are a smart and well educated guy you should work a little harder at being informed and stop trying to believe in these morons to suit your own peculiar political preferences.

Wintersong

Karma given to Dimsie and Duncs for two extremely to the point and accurate posts.

Bravo, guys.

TRPardoe

.............and Florida is run by his brother, who legalised shooting people you are frightened of in public places and then refused to legalise slow traffic keeping to the right.

Ray

Well not quite... The bill only eliminates the 'duty to retreat' statutes.
But then we are are still waiting for the rivers of blood that the anti-gun brigade promised would happen after the assault weapon ban law elapsed...

Hiro11

I love it when people accuse other people of being biased in their statements and then go ahead and make their own biased statement.

As a disclaimer: I think what Rove (allegedly) did has at best underhanded and at worst endangering Plame's life. It's also clear to me that (based on his partisan election year "research" into Niger that has since been completely discredited) Wilson is at least as big a manipulator as Rove.
Every news organization (even the NY Times) and every politician on both sides of the aisle agrees that there is no crime here. That was Franklin's point. Rove might be guilty of something, but he's clearly not guilty of either of these two violations and everyone agrees on that point.
Says who...you? Are you a lawyer that specializes in espionage law? If not, this is just your opinion. Also, slipping in that Clinton comment is an ad hominem attack and completely irrelevent.

...in your opinion.

Any prejudice here? Naw, not at all. This is clearly a completely unbiased and entirely fact based post.

This is the part of the post that made me respond. After writing an almost completely opinion and suspicion based post, you accuse someone else of doing the same. The utter arrogance and hypocracy that you're showing is ridiculous. Who do you think you are? Maybe you need to take a closer look at your own biases.

Pigtails

Okay, okay....stop all the bickering. It wasn't Rove that made the leak.....


it was me...



There, I 've said it. Now someone please lock this boring thread.

TRPardoe

I think you are splitting hairs. The safest response to most life threatening situations is to run away whilst screaming your head off, even if it isn't the most macho or elegant.

The time wasted trying to get your gun out of your handbag or wherever can get you killed. If you have to get confrontational, use Mace or pepper spray.

I like some aspects of the Jeb Bush administration, but he needs to get his priorities sorted out.

Pigtails

Ray prefers all hairs to be shaved off!

Ray

In some cases I agree...The new law does not say you have to confront the aggressor but only that in the right circumstance you can without fear of prosecution... other states have had the law for years ..its not something new..
Surely thats a bit of a contradiction ...why would it be quicker to get Mace out than a gun..and I rarely carry a handbag now.. the neighbors were beginning to notice.. also with a big spray can of Mace in my pocket ..its gets the girls in Walmart too excited ... The effect of mace on a person high on drugs can be very limited..

krizzy

I don't think Ray carries a handbag....and even if he did....it would be just as hard to get mace out of said handbag.....

I would of thought most guns would be used at home for break-ins...not carried around in ladies handbags.....or mens handbags for that matter....
I don't have a point of view on guns one way or another......I have no problem with every day Americans owning a weapons if they feel the need.....I don't think banning guns does anything but take it underground......there are more weapons in the UK now... then since the 50s......

Guelder Rose

I don't watch Fox News ... but yesterday my husband had that channel on and I heard them talking about British people, and then heard a reporter say, " .... they must be intellectually challenged." I thought no, surely I must have misheard what was being said ... then I read this thread ...!