Back from San Bruno.

The Sun is reporting (I'm shocked, shocked I tell you) that its institutional colleague, the BBC, is biased.

In one blast, he storms: ?Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ?small victories at a very high price??

?The truth is exactly the opposite.

?The gains are huge and the costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected.?

The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as the ?worst possible news for the armed forces?.

One listener asked: ?How would the BBC have reported the Battle of the Somme in World War I when 25,000 men died on the first day??

First; every government for the last 30 years that I can remember has accused the BBC of being biased against them, given that covers everything from pretty far left to pretty far right, I think that's a pretty good thing.

Second, you're quoting the Sun???? Have you ever read the hard copy of this paper? It makes the National Enquirer look like a bastion of good journalistic practise. This is, I'm sure I don't need to remind you, a newspaper which until recently had a topless model on Page 3.

So, Dave, do you agree with the clever, wise and reputable BBC that the loss of two (that's TWO, T-W-O) soldiers is "the worst possible news for the armed forces?" Or do you, like me, regard it as contemptable hysteria?

> I can remember has accused the BBC of being biased against them, given that covers everything from pretty far left to pretty far right, I think that's a pretty good thing.

(1) The UK hasn't had a "pretty far right" govt in the last 80 years.

(2) The BBC's criticism of left govts is that they don't go far enough. The BBC's criticism of center govts is that they aren't left and are evil.

If you think (2) is "a pretty good thing", you're clearly daft.

Personally I think, the loss of any forces is pretty grim news. Don't you?

> (1) The UK hasn't had a "pretty far right" govt in the last 80 years.

Gee. Thatcher was a raving lefty? Wow! Don;t let me live under a right winger please!

> (2) The BBC's criticism of left govts is that they don't go far enough. The BBC's criticism of center govts is that they aren't left and are evil.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

> The BBC's criticism of center govts

BTW, guys - the current goverment isn't very centre. Its a left wing socialist government, one I didn't vote for I must say. My personal tax burden has ben increased by almost 10% since their election, the tax on my pension fund has been increased by over 100% and the cost of basic public services which I already pay through the nose for has been increased dramatically.

If this was a centrist government of the type we had under John Major I might not feel so royally pissed off. But jest because Tony "poplarist" Blair happens to agree with your President doesn't make his politics acceptable.

Give me a Tory any day.

Just because the press labels someone right wing does not mean its true. The British National Party is right wing, the KKK is right wing - see the trend ?? One can be to the right of Tony Blair and not be right wing.

>> (1) The UK hasn't had a "pretty far right" govt in the last 80 years.

> Gee. Thatcher was a raving lefty?

No, which may be why I didn't write that she was. She was center/center-right.

>> (2) The BBC's criticism of left govts is that they don't go far enough. The BBC's criticism of center govts is that they aren't left and are evil.

>I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I'm pointing out how the BBC pushes left while criticizing all govts. In other words "If everyone hates me, I must be doing something right" is a false statement, even if it is the height of journalist logic.

Um, wasn't part of the Sun article drawn from a memo by a BBC reporter who is in attendance at CENTCOM? Has anyone thought to ask him if he really wrote the memo?

That would kind of settle a lot of the hash in this thread, thinks I.

>Personally I think, the loss of any forces is pretty grim news. Don't you?

That's nice. Is it "the worst possible news?"

Yes? No?

Let me say any military losses are regretable any time. What NO ONE has said is that on average one service member is killed in a training accident everyday. That's the U.S. average, I have no idea what the number is in the E.U. countries.

Since 1980, and I can't find the actual refernce page or actual number again, less than 300 U.S. casualties had been caused by actual "war" type events and nation building. Do the math for yourself on 1 death per day in training since 1980.

As to media bias, the BeeB has been no more biased than our own beloved major networks, and God help us lets not forget the Communist News Network. All weekend long and continuing through the 6 o'cock news tonight,Thursday, the majors and CNN reported the story as, how badly things were going. Last Friday, mid-afternoon, one CNN nazi asked one of their in house military experts, "General, what's gone wrong in Nasiriya."

Now that was 3 days into this war, if thats not biased then the BeeB has in fact cornered the market on bias, and I just hadn't noticed.

How I long for the days when the media would wait an entire month before declaring a war lost.