Re: Re: Re: George Bush appoints a 9 year old to be the chairperson of the Information Security Deportment

["teh kids" <tehkids () googlemail com>]

I think you might have become blinded by your own prejudice.  it seems
that unless the bbc states _your_ opinion then they are biased against
you.

> > 1] Hezbollah has managed to become an important presence in the
> > Lebanese Parliament
>
> They just left out - by killing opposition leaders and threatening others.

"But, it still has a militia that refuses to demilitarise, despite UN
resolution 1559, passed in 2004"

- from the biased article.

> > 2] It has gained support for this  power by providing [unnamed] social
> > services
>
> They left out - by conterfeiting US currency and receiving funding from
> Iran.

"The party was long supported by Iran, which provided it with arms and money."

- from the biased article

Please provide proof or supporting evidence for your "counterfeiting
US currency" claim.

> > 3] It has gained support for this power by providing health care [to
> > an unnamed population]
>
> Ditto.  And ask those southern Lebanese how they feel about those health
> services now.

This is a valid point and worth expanding on. notice that the stuff in
square brackets are possible avenues to find bias in the article.  you
have provided no such evidence.  you seem to think that it is obvious,
yet you cannot explain it. this is because there is no logic behind
your argument, it is personal opinion.

you should not be trying to change my mind by making me 'feel' things.
why not the tried and true methods of logic and structured argument?

> Hezbollah built ammo dumps under schools and hospitals.  Did
> the BBC tell you that?

Yes, on national tv, the bbc have reported many things like this.
they have even cited evidence, something you seem unable to do.  They
reported that that is why Israel bombed them... what is your point?
They have reported the war with a bit too much sensationalism (very
much like you are trying to do now) but they have not been biased in
the way you are saying.  please provide a small shred of evidence as
to a _motive_ behind their bias, i feel a heft sweep with Occam's
razor coming up.

> > 4] It has a tv station, which is influential [it is not stated if this
> > is a cause or an effect]
> >
> They left out - a virulently anti-semitic terrorist propaganda outlet that
> spews so much hatred that they've been banned from every Eurpopean country.

"The party's rhetoric calls for the destruction of the state of
Israel. It regards the whole of Palestine as occupied Muslim land and
it argues that Israel has no right to exist."

This is the biased article...

if you do not know that this sort of thing is illegal or legal in your
country it is not up to the bbc to tell you this.

> > Are any of these statements incorrect?
>
> They are literally true and truly false.  They portray Hezbollah as some
> humanitarian outfit

Maybe on their own, but not in the context of the whole article.

> that just wants to help people, when nothing could be
> further from the truth.  It's like aaying, "Hitler was a strong leader who
> brought stability to Germany and helped them rebuild after WWI."

No, they say they want to exterminate Israel. i wont post the quote
again.  please try to read the whole article.

> Literally true and completely misleading.
>
> > Do these statements imply things that are incorrect?
> >
> Obviously they do.

well, that is yet to be seen.

> > please, if these statements are incorrect, provide me some further
> > information that could conclude that the misreporting is due to
> > personal (on behalf of the reporter), government enforced or other
> > bias, please also state _your_ reason as to why you think there is a
> > bias.
> >
> You walk down the street and see a guy brandishing a gun.  He shoots
> someone dead right in front of you.  When the media reports the story they
> say, "He came from a broken home and was very troubled and no one actually
> saw him shoot anyone." because, when they questioned you, you said, "I
> didn't see anything", and they took your word for it.

What else are they expected to do? if no one saw him do it would you
want them to just say he did it? trial by media? i fail to see how bad
sources or inaccurate provide information *alone* can be construed as
bias, it need further evidence.

> Is the story true?  Is it also truth?

that is bad reporting, not bias, please show how there is bias in that
statement.

> > I think you need to read the whole article to put these points into
> > context.  I see no personal bias in these statements. (although I
> > cannot vouch for their correctness)
> >
> I'm not surprised.
>
> > do you have a history with this issue? it seems that you _might_ be
> > confusing bad journalism with bias because something is clouding your
> > judgement.
> >
> History with what issue?  Hezbollah?  I'm well aware that they've been
> firing artillery into Israel for years, completely unprovoked.

well Hezbollah feel they have been provoked just by Israels existence.
to them it is valid.
(from the biased source)
"The party's rhetoric calls for the destruction of the state of
Israel. It regards the whole of Palestine as occupied Muslim land and
it argues that Israel has no right to exist"

> I'm aware
> that they have manipulated the media (both photographers and journalists)
> and the media refuses to admit they're being manipulated.

Right, so they problem is that Hezbollah plays games with the press?
therefore the bbc is biased? you are trying to confuse the issue (or
you are confused about the issue)

> I'm aware that
> photos of the war were altered, using Photoshop, and Reuters was forced to
> remove the photos and fire the photographer because bloggers, not the
> media, exposed the deception.

What on earth does this have to do with the bias of the bbc? trying to
move the subject to something else ? (is this a case of being dragged
down then beaten with experience?)

> Is that what you mean?
> >
> > I see your point but without sources to back up your claims they are
> > little more than speculation.  How do I know that you are not part of
> > a more effective,  Israeli propaganda machine.
> >
> You don't.  Do your own research.

pardon? it was you claiming bias so the onus of proof is on you.  If I
do not see your sources how can I possibly hope to have a discussion
about them? are you hiding from the issue? is that because you realise
that you are acting on feelings and your own clouded judgment?

> > Please supply some substance to your outlandish statements.
> >
> Google "fake" "ambulance" "rocket" and "Lebanon".

so every other website except the bbc will give full evidence
supporting your statements? if it is that easy why can you not provide
the information yourself? Why will you not state your own bias? why
are you making me try to guess at it?

> Or just read this:
> <http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/>

The conclusion from zombie times

"Is the media that gullible -- or does it have a political bias?
Either way, its credibility has now been lost."

I say gullible, you say bias, i say cite evidence, you say no! Occam's
razor anyone?

what do you love more, your flag or your tinfoil hat? I will swop you
your flag for a tinfoil hat, and i will even let you yell 'hell ya! go
team!! fucking A!" through the little hole in the box, but then i will
put a cork in it for 5 minutes.. that fair?

> Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
> Adjunct Information Security Officer
> The University of Texas at Dallas
> http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/