G.S. Nail wrote:

I'm looking at reports on the recent Iraqi ambushes from a few
different news sources. Some are lightly sprinkled with jingoisms, but
at a glance the information seems to correlate (is similar, resembles
etc) across the various articles. One notable difference is that the
BBC included the following information (see quote below), whilst the
other news sources, despite going into some detail about the ambushes,
did not provide this information. Any ideas?


BBCNews:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3251690.stm

"..they added that, in the aftermath of one attack at about 1255 (0955
GMT), an American tank had opened fire on workers leaving a factory at
the end of their shift, killing two and wounding "many"."



CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...ain/index.html

Foxnews:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104407,00.html

ABCNews:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031201_84.html

MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA00

USATODAY:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-attacks_x.htm

CBSNEWS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in541815.shtml


War kills !
But don't worry, all the 20.000 Iraquian deads were Saddam's personal
friends.
None of them were fathers with a family, job, music lover...
Don't worry all these deads were sanguinary psychopaths *only*.

Excellent job English man.
You haven't been able to be a militant for the peace so you attempt to
work for posterity... Opportunistic position, what a marvellous
carpetbagger you are ! Well done.

Lionel enthused:

G.S. Nail wrote:

I'm looking at reports on the recent Iraqi ambushes from a few
different news sources. Some are lightly sprinkled with jingoisms, but
at a glance the information seems to correlate (is similar, resembles
etc) across the various articles. One notable difference is that the
BBC included the following information (see quote below), whilst the
other news sources, despite going into some detail about the ambushes,
did not provide this information. Any ideas?

Excellent job English man.
You haven't been able to be a militant for the peace so you attempt to
work for posterity... Opportunistic position, what a marvellous
carpetbagger you are ! Well done.

Pantywaist Dormer just loves such backhanded compliments.


GeoSynch

PD said:

I'm looking at reports on the recent Iraqi ambushes from a few
different news sources. Some are lightly sprinkled with jingoisms, but
at a glance the information seems to correlate (is similar, resembles

No, those words don't mean the same thing. The word you want is
"match".

etc) across the various articles. One notable difference is that the
BBC included the following information (see quote below), whilst the
other news sources, despite going into some detail about the ambushes,
did not provide this information. Any ideas?


BBCNews:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3251690.stm

"..they added that, in the aftermath of one attack at about 1255 (0955
GMT), an American tank had opened fire on workers leaving a factory at
the end of their shift, killing two and wounding "many"."

The other news sources probably waited until they could see the damage
for themselves. Stories from Iraq that have been reported based solely
on "witnesses" have attributed every bomb or explosion or gunshot to
American soldiers. Hence, the Beeb probably jumped the gun.

CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...ain/index.html

Foxnews:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104407,00.html

ABCNews:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031201_84.html

MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA00

USATODAY:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-attacks_x.htm

CBSNEWS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in541815.shtml


Oh my. Such a list.

"G.S. Nail" wrote in message
...
I'm looking at reports on the recent Iraqi ambushes from a few
different news sources. Some are lightly sprinkled with jingoisms, but
at a glance the information seems to correlate (is similar, resembles
etc) across the various articles. One notable difference is that the
BBC included the following information (see quote below), whilst the
other news sources, despite going into some detail about the ambushes,
did not provide this information. Any ideas?

Sure the BBC is either lying, exaggerating, or relying on unsupported info
from ****ed off Sadaam loyalists.


BBCNews:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3251690.stm

"..they added that, in the aftermath of one attack at about 1255 (0955
GMT), an American tank had opened fire on workers leaving a factory at
the end of their shift, killing two and wounding "many"."



CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...ain/index.html

Foxnews:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104407,00.html

ABCNews:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031201_84.html

MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA00

USATODAY:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-attacks_x.htm

CBSNEWS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in541815.shtml


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

"G.S. Nail" wrote in message
...
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote:

Sure the BBC is either lying, exaggerating, or relying on unsupported
info
from ****ed off Sadaam loyalists.

You sure sound like an unbiased caricature.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

An opinion you get to have. Nevertheless, the BBC is well known to
misrepresent the facts to suit their agenda.

One of their own reporters complained about this regarding their coverage of
the war in Iraq.

But of course you already knew that.