Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieDundee
All those sources were newspapers and ones with a particular ideological angle. I don't think a Murdoch newspaper should be accusing anyone of bias.
|
I am sorry for using "newspapers" to report the news of the blatant liberal Bias at the BBC but the evidence is overwhelming:
BBC report finds bias within corporation (
The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Bias and the Beeb (
Financial Times, UK)
Bias at the Beeb - official (
The Times, UK)
BBC confesses bias on religion, politics (
WorldNetDaily)
BBC network admits it: We're biased toward left (
WorldNetDaily)
BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’ (
The Times, UK)
BBC viewers angered by its 'innate liberal bias' (
The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Confessions of a BBC liberal (
The Times, UK)
Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed (
The Daily Mail, UK)
The BBC's commitment to bias is no laughing matter (
The Daily Telegraph, UK)
The Beeb's Bias (
The Wall Street Journal)
We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News (
Daily Mail, UK)
Why saving Earth is not the BBC's job (
Daily Mail, UK)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieDundee
I notice Poptech that aside from making silly claims about the president of the Royal society not representing most members and of course posting alot of dubious links you yourself have not put forward any arguments.
|
Then surely you can prove me wrong and provide me with the scientific survey of all the members that show a clear "consensus".
I have destroyed all your attempts at argument with plenty of SOURCES. I realize this is shocking to those who want to promote the alarmist hysteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieDundee
It is not that bad. As me and Alex noted it has quite strict rules for editing that are easily available to all except seemingly Poptech
|
As have both of you have noted you are unable to answer my questions and by default are proven wrong.