Do watch this Glenn Beck video from start to finish and before you doubt the veracity of what Glenn Beck says, here's the New York Times and Chron/Washington Post.
One place that you won't find much news of this story is the BBC whose only stories re Mexico that I can find are these: 'Almost seven in every 10 foreign prisoners in US jails are Mexicans, a US government report has revealed.' and 'Mexican police rescue 51 people, among them Central American and Chinese immigrants, kidnapped in the north-east of the country.'
35,000 dead in Mexico in the last four years, people being bludgeoned to death in Mexico and not a word on the BBC but wait for the wall to wall coverage when Israel has to stop the next 'peace convoy'. For to the BBC and many others it often seems that the top priority in world polictics is to diminish and then destroy Israel.
6 comments:
I can't bear to watch Glenn Beck, but seems the BBC does know plenty about the Mexican deaths:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10681249
Ever read 2666 by Roberto Bolano? You should do if you're actually interested in the subject, or if you'd like some non-fiction, Amexica by Ed Vulliamy...or are you just mentioning it as an excuse to beat the BBC with the Israeli stick?
Oh well done you found a Q&A piece. With no mention of the recent bludgeoning to death and written in February albeit updated today at 15:29. That is not a news piece and well you (should) know it. In fact there is now a BBC news article up - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13206231 - somewhat late but what else would one expect from the BBC? Still no mention of the method of killing but at least the numbers are correct.
I am interested in the subject but more interested in
a) how the BBC can be so far behind in its news reporting - I had time to find a Glenn Beck video (I was actually directed to it because of its relevance to what I have written about the subject in the past) and blog about it before the BBC managed to report the story
b) how the BBC sets the public agenda by deciding what news is important and what is not. Have you noticed much reporting on the BBC of the border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia? I managed to report it this morning as I heard about it from Al Jazeera.
This is amazing. I produce a piece from the BBC website who you specifically claimed were not reporting it ("not a word") and you reject it because it's a Q&A. I'm all for pulling up the BBC when they're wrong, but you should really apologise for getting it completely wrong this time.
Can you address that before you go off and ask other questions of the BBC?
as for points (a) and (b) it's selective and subjective as to what the BBC reports. I'd like to see more about the Mexico story because it interests me, and I'd also like more about Russian politics. However, I can understand that others might not share my interest in this, much as I don't have much interest in certain strands of domestic politics, or issues to do with the EU.
Not at all amazing, there was nothing about the facts I found and that was my point. You found a Q&A that was not linked to from the main news page and so might as well not exist. If you want a conversation about the BBC's habit of 'reporting' stories they don't like and not linking to them from anywhere obvious then feel free to have one. The BBC did not report anywhere visible to someone not searching for that information, what I said they did not report.
Try not to sound triumphant when you think you have won a point, it's not very seemly, especially when you haven't.
Yes the BBC are selective and subjective; that's my point. What they select to report is heavily dependent on their agendas.
I don't think you know what your point is. Don't hide behind other stories in order to attack the BBC for being anti-Israeli.
Either the BBC has 'reported' something or it hasn't - in this case it clearly has, so you should either admit that you're wrong, or admit that you blatantly used another story in order to flag up another agenda.
The Q&A does exist, so that renders whatever point you had there entirely invalid. Just another example of the pathetic blogging on this site.
If you don't think I know what my point is then you are wrong. You may not understand it or deliberately fail so to do but that iour probblem not mine. If you don't understand the distinction that I have made then, once again, that is is your problem not mine.
You think my blogging is 'pathetic' and my point 'invalid', I doubt that you are willing to listen to reason so why not just go away.
NCF
Post a Comment