My question to my readers is…
What news organization out there ISN’T biased? Name me one.
I frequently bash news organizations across the pond and over our borders due to their Americanophobic slant. That is true. But I also see the ills in the American media as well. They all have a slant to some degree or another.
The media systems around the globe are responsible for …
- reporting the facts
- sensationalizing and exaggerating them to keep you focused, hot, and bothered
- twisting the facts subtly to meet a particular agenda
- and leaving certain facts (good stuff!) out that could possibly give you a balanced perspective.
It doesn’t matter what country you come from, a media is a media is a media. They will stop at nothing for money. 
In case you missed it, bad news sells… It does over here too. The only difference is that the bad news we watch over here is about OURSELVES! 
My hypocrisy has been pointed out for using the BBC to back up some points in my blog on occasion – AND… ironically enough (!) from the same people who used the American FBI site and CNN to pick up statistics on violent crimes in America.
See, how that works?
One could easily say that when the BBC bashes the US, it’s being biased. And when the BBC sides with the US, it’s being truthful, right? I dislike the BBC when they don’t give the full story on American people or politics as much as I dislike hearing some of Sean Hannity’s Right-wing rhetoric on Fox News. However, anybody – anybody at all can debate, challenge, or rebut those articles I have used from the BBC at any given time. But to this date, nobody has challenged me or those articles. The best people have come up with so far is, “But you said you hated the BBCeeeeeeeeeee!”
(For the record, I am subscribed to as many American newspapers as foreign ones – actually more foreign than American. Only a fraction of the BBC news is Americanophobic. I actually LIKE them.)
Here are the articles in question:
British – World’s Worst Tourists
Sometimes I had thought that if the BBC is being nice to Americans, then it must be true considering their money-making heavy-handed Anti-American slant to cater to the self-serving needs of the Americanophobic European audiences as exemplified here.
AMERICANOPHOBIA IN THE EUROPEAN MEDIA PART I:
AMERICANOPHOBIA IN THE EUROPEAN MEDIA PART II:
Next, I am damned no matter what I do. If I use an American source, than I am being biased. If I use a foreign source, than I am being a hypocrite. So, what sources should I use? Ha! I will cherry-pick!! 
Quite honestly, I DO hand-pick my sources. You betcha I do. As I mentioned in my FAQ, I don’t wait for them to fall from the sky. I follow a specific pattern in my blog. I find an opinion that I want to challenge and present that to my readers. Then to counter that, I find an opinion that contradicts the one that I am challenging. So, rather than finding one opinion, my readers have two to go by all the while I have challenged my opponent to look at the other side of the story that’s been untold. Then, my readers can decide which argument they like better. Debate usually takes on this type of scenario – the last time I checked.
I have been accused of being “one-sided” and “racist” for this post. But if I were really one-sided, I wouldn’t have let others commentate on it telling me that the article written by Lina Maria from Colombia was incorrect on many of the points that she made. Old Frog left rebuttals that counter-acted the opinions presented in that article. And he wasn’t an asshole about it either. I could always delete that article because it IS biased. But why when people can use it as a debate? After all, Europeans are no less hypocritical than Americans, anyway. Neither Lina or myself were wrong on all the points made.
The best way to “get back at me” is to fight me with the facts! Show me YOUR sources that prove me wrong. I love intoxicating debates! As long as you’re not an asshole about it, my readers will get YOUR side of the story in my comment section.
And finally, anybody who uses only one source or one country to get all of their information is either lazy or an imbecile. Critical thinkers, sceptics, and those who genuinely want to search for the truth will look at a myriad of sources and then much later, come to a conclusion or possibly even change their mind at some point. There are two sides to every story.
Which brings me to one of my favorite quotes:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts”. –Bertrand Russell
You do know how the BBC is funded?
The journalists don’t get paid?
Here’s an example.
It’s a video, and I know you don’t have broadband. Unfortunately, I don’t have a script, but a Romanian commented that the more dirt found, the better pay, but he didn’t name the organization.
It may not be the BBC. I would find it odd, however, if the BBC wasn’t profiting. And aren’t the taxpayers paying for it?
I think it’s a misconception among Americans that the BBC considers itself unbiased. I was told by a friend of mine who lived in London for years that the BBC (and all of British media) does not pretend to be unbiased – they claim their bias needs to conform to the “average British” bias (something along those lines).
I’ve found that there is some diversity among those that work for the BBC, at least with respect towards attitudes towards the US. Justin Webb (in your example above) is very pro-US (he covers the US on the BBC blog, and lives here); other newscasters don’t even cover up a sneer when they mention the US.
The BBC does have broader coverage than US news media (which, of course, cover the US, Iraq, Israel and China – the last when reporting bad news, of course), but it still does betray a bias towards its former colonies. It is far more likely to report on something in Burma, for example, than Vietnam. The UK is still heavily invested culturally in its former colonial assets, as is every former colonial power. (The Burma/Vietnam coverage would be reversed in France, I’m very sure)
I don’t think any news media is without bias. What I see as troubling though, at least here in the US, are the rise of Fox News and MSNBC as right- and left-wing propaganda machines, instead of even paying lip service to having a neutral or average bias. It would be fine if they billed themselves as completely in the business of editorial/opinion, but they still have jackasses like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann pretending to be newsmen when they unleash their fiery, partisan rebukes.
The BBC may be honest about their bias, but the Americanophobes claim no bias with the BBC.
I don’t see Olbermann and O’Reilly as news people. I see them as entertainers – nothing more. They are both funny and hammy, but should not be taken as “real news”. Now, when a newscaster or anchor person starts speaking – as bias it may be – it’s the news.