I’m so happy that the gay Muslims have been unearthed. Before yesterday – they were merely referred to as ‘Gay Asians’.

At least Channel 4 got straight to the point. No need to pussyfoot around which would have been the case had the programme been called ‘The attention seekers way to get on to TV’. Be Muslim. Or better still. Be a ‘Gay Muslim’.

and isn’t anyone going to write anything about the “gay muslims” documentary last night? i can’t believe nobody saw it.

b’shalom

bananabrain

http://www.gobacktoyourcavesyoumorons.com

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=294351350&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=9150

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=12216

What one must know about 9/11

1) False Flag Terror, Bin Laden didn’t do it.
2) insiders did, your government, business leaders planned and/or are helping with cover up!
3) MSM, particularly CNN, were/are part of the charade
4) every inhabitant on this Earth should work to expose the deception,
and combat the burgeoning Fascism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV station whose website is Aljazeera.net.

The UAE’s media sins should never be visited on Qatar, which has enough of its own, starting with no tough al Jaz criticism of Mama Qatar, but plenty of barbs for mean old Uncle Saudi.

So the mean uncle opted for al-Arabiya, a screen for its already well-established written media voice (Saudi pays Londonistan stringers well). Modern media war comes to Araby – all hail partisantude progress

The local TV stations were obsessed by “cat gets stuck up a tree” stories, while CNN and Fox were so opinion based and peppered with ludicrous stand-off interviews (get two people of opposing views in the studio) that it made no one much the wiser.

It’s not just dumbing down, it’s also an attempt to try and avoid spending money on well-researched packages by just getting two highly opinionated people in the studio.

I really really hope the UK does not go down that route.

b’shalom

bananabrain

in fact, about the only tv news i can stomach is channel 4 (hurrah, at least partly desi-fronted) even if i feel that michaelmoore4 is a step too far in the direction of outright bush-and-blair-bashing at the moment. let rory bremner start his own bloody tv channel and see how many people watch it. nonetheless, i’ll still wave to jon snow next time i see him down exmouth market in his bicycle clips.

b’shalom

bananabrain

“Not to take away at all from our fine new handbook for journalists, but I noticed its heavy reliance on ‘balance’ in its guidance on proper coverage. Among them is is a reference to balance as one of the 10 fundamentals of journalism. I find balance to be an inappropriate ideal for us. Balance implies giving equal space to all sides, which can lead to coverage that fails the test of fairness and accuracy. Sometimes, giving equal room to fringe or minority viewpoints distorts reality to the point of inaccuracy. To quote a recent opinion piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, ‘… balance, pushed to its absurd conclusion, would mean giving the killers equal time.’
Instead, I feel we should aim to achieve *fairness* in our coverage; this means not only fairness to alleged perpetrators of crimes, but fairness to their victims and fairness to our readers by accurately portraying the reality of the situation. I worry that some may perceive balance as giving every side equivalent space for their arguments, which can lead our coverage astray.”

El Cid said: “Balance does not imply giving EQUAL space to all sides. Some arguments are self-evidently weightier than others. It just depends. The Philadelphia Enquirer distorts the issue by pushing the concept to AN absurd conclusion. Set aside balance and you’re on a slippery slope towards partisan journalism. Balance is not only appropriate, it is essential.”

The BBC can never be seen as totally impartial as it has to report on very sensitive issues that both sides want seen from their own perspective. But its better than American news in general.

Faux (Fox) News is pure evil. It plays on the worst racist, nativist, homophobic fears of its audience. Its anchors give legitimacy to the worst primal uninhibited uncivilzed instincts of its viewers. There are millions of Americans whose stupidity is given validity by Fox Journalists who are doing a great job of stupefying a large portion of the country.

During the Iraq war I could not watch Fox or for that matter any American television. I actually had to upgrade my cable service so I could get the BBC. Thank god for the brits!

A lot of Americans are perfectly comfortable with the fact that the American Journalists openly support the troops, pick sides (guess which side!), use terminology of good versus evil, and wear their nationalism on their sleeves. They dont want an objective coverage of the war and the news outlets obviously pander to their audience.

It seems to me that the Brits want a little more objective coverage of the war especially when you look at the BBC coverage.

“cluck cluck, gibber gibber, my old man’s a mushroom and i’m off to hartlepool to buy some exploding trousers”

now we’ve dispensed with the troll, my personal view is that you ought to have a news portfolio, so you cover as many angles as you like. people who only read people they agree with tend to be a little on the self-righteous side.

personally, i’ve recently become a bit of a fan of asharq al-awsat (see http://www.aawsat.com), which seems to me to be the international herald tribune of the arab world, in addition to having [some] extremely credible journalists (with the notable exception of the syrian minister of information, who is nothing if not qualified for her job) and some fairly high journalistic standards. one of my favourite columnists there is the editor of al-arabiya, i believe, who appears to be a very sensible chap indeed. not surprisingly, he never misses an opportunity to put the boot into al-jazeera – that’s professional competition for you.

most of my arab friends seem to watch al-j – but they watch it with rather the same scepticism that i have developed about our latest offering, the rather amusingly-named “more4″, which some wag recently suggested should be renamed “michaelmoore4″.

the bbc pisses off everyone so much it must be doing something right; both the jews and the muslims are convinced it is supporting the other side, for a start. i actually find that a little unconvincing, though, as i prefer organisations that admit they have prejudices rather than trying to don the threadbare mantle of journalistic integrity. we all know what these feckers prefer – bad news, disaster and bombs, the west being to blame; no wonder osama and his mates have learned from this:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAECC.htm

b’shalom

bananabrain

But do anyone of them care about the people? NO!

Yes, the media influences us but we’re clever enough to analyse facts and form a judgement.

Your posts imply that you’re very passionate abt this sensitive topic, but hun no one is pointing the finger!
Besides, they’re all a bunch of amaglamaniacs!

Either way, some of the Al Jazeera staff are smoking too much Sheesha while updatin their website.