BBC News Bias?

Question

Is anyone else disgusted by the BBC's slanted coverage of the Litvenenko polonium poisoning? They seem to have jumped to the conclusion that the Russian government are responsible, despite the fact that
a. The KGB would surely have used a more covert way of killing the guy had they been bothered by him, not something with a half-life!
b. The purpose of this killing in my opinion, is to discredit Russia, and damage their international reputation, following the cancellation of an oil trade agreement which would have been very beneficial (price-wise) to the US and UK.

Thoughts, opinions etc.

Incidentally, the "interactive" section on the BBC's website will no longer let people "have their say" on the matter (oddly enough most of the comments were anti-BBC's coverage! Fancy that!), but STILL want pictures of the 7/7 bombing from members of the public...

Answer 1

I agree, especially when you review the facts and compare it to the coverage.
1/ A Litvineneko friend says the hospital have confirmed it as Thallium poisoning.
2/ The medical staff treating him, have to hold a press conference to correct the rubbish the BBC is stating as fact.
Despite this, the BBC continue to give airtime only to Litvenenkos friends and they are going to blame the Russians, because that is their whole raison d'etre.
Meanwhile, during the 1970s and 80s, the KGB established many superb poisons which left no trace. With these at the FSBs disposal, why use a radioactive isotope, which is bound to gain press coverage? Also, isn't it peculiar that the media reporter who died, was killed just before Frau Merkel was due to meet with Putin, and Litvinenko dies just before an EU/Russia meeting? America has Polonium, and the CIA have regularly executed people overseas (have tried to kill Castro 87 times, in Cuba), and Putin cancelled an oil deal with the US earlier this year. The Ukraine has Polonium, and it was crippled when Russia stopped its pipeline last year. Both these governments have more to gain by killing Litvineneko than Russia does. After all, a month ago no-one in the UK had even heard of Litvinenko, so they were hardly being successful in bringing public opinion to bear. Now, Scaramella and his buddies are on the news every day.
Incidentally, am I the only person who finds Mr Scaramella a bit dodgy. You arrange to meet a friend at a restaurant, rather than the hotel where he met the others, yet does not eat? His guest gets poisoned, and he doesn't, yet he has elevated Polonium levels. Possibly from carrying it by plane into the UK, and doctoring his friends food. This list of people whom the Russians are going to kill, just happens to be supplied by the same man, Mr Scaramella. How long will it be before he is arrested for murder?
As for the gentleman who states the BBC is the governments mouthpiece, would he consider that whilst the BBC may have decided Russia is at fault, our government has not done so, and has in fact only asked the Russian Ambassador for all possible help. Since Chernobyl, Russias scientific community is the best in the world for analysing radiation, and could be of a great help to our police.

Answer 2

No, I'm not, although I must admit that the only regular access I use for the BBC's news department is the BBC World Service as broadcast on PBS. I think you're right in that the KGB would be more covert about it, but I doubt that the entire purpose of Litvenenko's murder was to cast a bad light upon Russia. That may, however, be a significant part of it. It might also have something to do with Russia's involvement in nuclear sanctions. Interesting thought, at any rate.

Answer 3

It's most likely an element of the Russian military or FSB is responsible for this poisoning, but that doesn't mean it was authorised by the Russian government. A feature in today's Guardian states that the amount of Polonium used to kill Litvinenko could have cost anything up to £20million. That's a lot of money for a gangster with a grudge (a professional hit in London costs at most £30,000) but not much to a state operation.

Regardless of who had Litvinenko assassinated, the method of killing him was such as to ensure it was obvious he was killed by a powerful, wealthy organisation. Tie this in with the killing of Anna Politkovskaya recently and it looks like someone in Russia may be silencing 'troublemakers'.

Answer 4

The BBC is publicly funded or perhaps however those that artwork there are entitled to their political ideals, the organisation tries to grant a balanced view on maximum issues. Fox information is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has additionally owned each British top minister as a results of fact the 'Milk Snatcher's' day. Murdoch is a maximum cancers on public existence.

Answer 5

Why are you surprised? All news media have been bought out by international corporations and effectively muzzled. We used to like BBC, until Blair reacted to their negative coverage of his involvement in Iraq. I don't know whether he nationalized it or what, but since then, their coverage is no better than Fox News in the states - just a mouthpiece for the current policy.

Answer 6

Reporting of BBC is better then others. Media concentrate on news of Public interest. However, without complete investigation and solid evidence it is not fair to blame Russian President. The matter is serious and it is hoped that investigation will bring to light real facts.

Answer 7

I think that the BBC is more unbiased than any other news agency. They have shown the facts that's all. The BBC is financed by the British public to give unbiased news. Everywhere else in the world the news is biased. It is not controlled by the state or big business like news elsewhere.

Answer 8

The BBC is what the initials stand for ...British Broadcasting Corp.. As in - it is State Television - they even have the cheek to charge us for a license to watch it .. It is the Governments mouth piece.. But - even Sky news is still Blabbing on about the ex- Super Grass Double Agent - who seemed to have been living it up in the UK..courtesy of Joe Public.

Answer 9

The BBC is more unbiased than U.S. news stations. They actually report what is going on in the world, istead of "telling stories" to make money.

Answer 10

Everybody knows that the BBC has a left wing bias. It even admits it.