It gets even crazier - check out the RT coverage from 2014 claiming it was the result of the Ukranians trying to shoot down Putin's plane and hitting the wrong jet:
Always interesting reading the same news from different sources - the BBC story does not seem to mention the Almaz-Antey test firing of a newer model of the missile to disprove Russian involvement.
Where does the WP lie on the political Spectrum? As a Euro-bloke I don't know.
The BBC isn't anywhere on the "political spectrum". If the OP was implying that the BBC was deliberately not including that info for political reasons, he/she doesn't really know anything about the BBC.
"Left-wing bias" is an accusation devoid of content. It is only practiced by those who can make no better argument, or are unwilling/unable to entertain a different viewpoint.
Good journalistic practice prescribes a neutral tone and a willingness to report on all sides. In general, the right wing is more unwilling to hear opposing views than the left wing, so good journalistic practice itself is more left than right.
I'll take self-proclaimed neutral left-wing reporting over the right-wing equivalent any day, thank you.
>> In general, the right wing is more unwilling to hear opposing views than the left wing, so good journalistic practice itself is more left than right.
That's merely your assertion.
If you look at the BBC's reporting on items such as the refugee crisis, the EU, Global Warming, the economy, etc it all pretty much lines up with what The Guardian promotes.
Actually, it is more than an assertion. It has a premise, an assertion, and a deduction, each of which can be supported or refuted. You apparently chose neither, as if my statement carries less weight than yours, and your disparaging remark is enough to change my opinion.
Why do you think my post is worth less than yours? Perhaps you are more unwilling than me to hear opposing views?
"left-wing bias" from some mouths simply means a lack of a right-wing bias. Wikipedia - for example - has a left-wing bias in the eyes of those behind "Conservapedia."
The question was around the Washington Post's political standing not the BBC's.
I wasn't implying anything about the reporting accuracy just commenting on the difference - it turns out less than I originally thought.
Always good to hear the BBC's perceived lack of bias - shame it seems the current political climate in the UK (Conservative) appears to be attempting to cut it's funding:
The BBC have had several incidents which included internal investigations regarding reporting bias, and it pretty much managed to squash them all including a government report about BBC reporting bias on middle eastern issues.
There isn't an unbiased new source, even the wire has its own biases, but claiming that the BBC doesn't drive a political agenda is dishonest.
So you're saying they were vindicated in all the bias investigations, yet they have a political agenda?
Every person has their own biases, but as an organization the BBC seems to be pretty unbiased. Certainly if you're comparing it to any Russian news source, there isn't really much of a comparison.
According to that wikipedia article they have been accused of pro-muslim and anti-muslim bias. Also, there isn't any evidence that there was actually any bias found in that report. The BBC's arguments for keeping it secret sound reasonable. The entire thing is based on one journalist crying at Yasser Arafat's death, which seems to be clutching at straws.
Again it's only a single incident, you've claimed that the BBC is completely unbiased which is impossible and it's not being used to drive political agenda's which is untrue.
It's also highly unlikely that a 20,000 page report revolves over a single journalist and again it's the the issue here is that the BBC squashed a government report about it's journalism bias first initially and then appealed an order from the information commissioner 3 times.
So sorry when a news agency spends 350,000 GBP of tax money to squash a report about how it reports on critical issues you can't but wonder what was in it.
I never claimed that the BBC is "completely unbiased". I said it appears to be unbiased. I don't see any real evidence of any bias, apart from a lot of specuation.
I think you're giving the BBC's stance on being apolitical a bit too much credence. You only have to study the BBC's coverage of the Scottish Independence Referendum, the Westminster General Election ('15) in Scotland and, well, pretty much everything else from it's news output about Scottish politics.
This is a broadcaster that operates in "defence of the realm" mode with regards to SNP/pro-independence politics and news.
I used to be staunchly proud of the BBC until I started to pay more attention to its coverage of Scottish politics in more detail, around 2005/6, and then realised that there was something amiss inside Pacific Quay (BBC's Scotland HQ).
In short, AA asserted that the BUK missile was fired from Ukrainian-controlled Zaroschchenske. However, locals have reportedly never seen a BUK there, and Zaroschchenske was under rebel control at that time. Their report also contained manipulated footage from the Russian MoD.
> In July, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have established an international criminal tribunal to investigate the MH17 attack.
The US doesn't recognizes the ICC either.
Countries do not like to surrender sovereignty to international bodies, the ICC only works when you have a big enough military to pluck your indited targets by force.
If push comes to shove I can't see any nation openly surrender any of their citizens to an international court which is why while the ICC is a great idea in general it's more or less a sham.
It's easy to prosecute people from the Balkans or Africa when you have the US or NATO forces doing the dirty work for you, it gets some what harder when you have to deal with nations that have actual power.
It was most likely the ICC, the UNSC is the only body that can instruct the ICC to start a tribunal and that's the role that the ICC plays for in the whole UN eco-system opening a completely separate international criminal tribunal to would be a bit odd especially since it won't have any mandates and I'm not even sure if the UNSC can do that.
P.S.
The Lockerbie trial wasn't an international tribunal, or an international trial it was awkwardly constructed due to the fact that neither the US nor the UK had a working extradition treaties with Libya and the case was not turned over to the ICC.
The trial was conducted in the Netherlands yes but under Scottish law and that's because the dutch did had an extradition treaty with Libya as well as some weird treaty with presumably either the UK, the commonwealth or even historically the Kingdom of Scotland which allowed them to establish a Scottish court on dutch grounds.
Does nobody remember the rebels declaring the airspace off-limits to all aircraft backed-up by the promise to shoot any offending aircraft down?
Many are quick to say the rebels should have known the difference between a military transport and a civilian plane - but shortly before the shootdown, the Ukraine military had been flying similar airplanes as troop transports - and with the unlikeliness of the airline being able to hear and respond to the rebels on radio (listening on different frequencies), it's easy to see how the sequence of events led to the downing of the airline.
We also should remember the rebel leader's announcement on twitter that they had just shot down a military transport - only to redact the comment immediately following the news stories that began to run.
In the end, this is an unfortunate tragedy -- but what sane airline knowingly flies over a self-declared war zone?
It doesn't matter what they've claimed they didn't had the authority to claim that in the 1st place.
Now this doesn't say that common sense should not have been used and that the ICAO should not have released a direction to not fly over that area as it was an active war zone but that doesn't makes this any less of a crime.
Accidents still happen but shooting down an airliner even in accident (which happened before) is still something that should be investigated, even for something as simple as compensation, and if this was not only in accident but also in either malice or negligence then there are sufficient grounds for criminal proceedings.
No incidents had occurred at 10km (30,000 ft) cruising altitude. The highest aircraft shot down until then was at 6.3km (below 20,000 ft), which is why the 10km cruising lanes were still deemed safe (a judgement error, according to today's report).
The report also notes that in the previous days, over "61 airlines from 32 states" crossed over Ukraine without incident. On the day of the incident, 160 flights were recorded. So apparently, 61 airlines flew over a self-declared war zone. I'm sure some of them must have been considered sane.
Some problems with the report is that it was written by Dutch and Ukrainian people, which might not be totally objective. Additionally, large parts of the report isn't open for everyone to see. I think it's strange to accept a conclusion without being able to see everything that caused the researches to come to their conclusion. Finally, when the report was revealed the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions.
I suspect the reason why they wernt allowed to ask questions is because the report only lays out a time line of of events. Not the political reasons or motivations behind those events.
Plus if we are going to be honest, the report is more than detailed enough.
> Some problems with the report is that it was written by Dutch and Ukrainian people, which might not be totally objective.
Which is why the report includes both "factual information" and "analysis" sections. Feel free to contest specific points in their analysis you object to.
> Finally, when the report was revealed the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions.
Probably because 99% of the questions they'd ask would be answered by reading the report. It's not like the reporters can't read it and email their questions in a few hours later.
Its clear that Russia sees guilt here and anything it can do to confuse people and make people think like you (see! Its all biased, wake up sheeple!) is part of their disinformation strategy. Sadly, this stuff works.
> The investigation team consists of 24 investigators with members from Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia.
Please, read the sources before making this type of comments.
So pretty much no change from what new organizations were originally saying at the time. This incident took place one month after my son was born and I remember having a tough time sleeping that night thinking about all of the people, particularly young children on the flight.
Before this I did not realize that the airline you choose is so important. Many airlines including British Airways which I usually use had been avoiding all of Ukraine airspace for months before this happened, however sadly they were in the minority.
I think its pretty clear on the world stage that Russia had involvement in this, either it was supplying the weapons or worse case is was Russia's 'Moderate rebels' that did it. Which seem to be how first world powers these days get what they want without putting their name on it
The fact Russia Vetoed a UN investigation and Putin has stated a few times when asked that it would be a waste of time to do an investigation sends a clear and strong message.
The interesting thing to me, is why it has come out now? the US propaganda machine is in over drive lately. US has spent years funneling 'moderate' rebels towards Syria, while using ISIS as the poster kids for more draconian surveillance and not really doing anything about them.
I mean its pretty clear right? US(cia) created the environment that allowed ISIS to grow and then used them to push forward their international agenda (removal of Assad (before that Iraq/Afghanistan destabilization ready for a US friendly government to be installed)) and domestic agenda (removal of rights for the 'greater' good).
Just this week we have the US stating they are stopping training 'moderate' rebels (I quote as I do not believe there are ever moderate rebels) but then proceeds to sell Saudi Arabia missiles that TODAY Saudi Arabia have given to the 'moderate' Rebels.
We see. Luckily we live in interested times, and the internet has made it so we can see more of the world stage without local filtering (newspapers/local new) interesting times indeed.
TL:DR: Russia's moderate rebels most likely shot the plan down, Russia knows this stalls investigation. Then a bit of a rant of, Why this has come out now
47 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 90.9 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN5rPdxugHY
It sounds like something that you'd read in the Onion except they seem to be passing it off as actual news.
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en....
Where does the WP lie on the political Spectrum? As a Euro-bloke I don't know.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34511973
The BBC isn't anywhere on the "political spectrum". If the OP was implying that the BBC was deliberately not including that info for political reasons, he/she doesn't really know anything about the BBC.
Good journalistic practice prescribes a neutral tone and a willingness to report on all sides. In general, the right wing is more unwilling to hear opposing views than the left wing, so good journalistic practice itself is more left than right.
I'll take self-proclaimed neutral left-wing reporting over the right-wing equivalent any day, thank you.
That's merely your assertion.
If you look at the BBC's reporting on items such as the refugee crisis, the EU, Global Warming, the economy, etc it all pretty much lines up with what The Guardian promotes.
Why do you think my post is worth less than yours? Perhaps you are more unwilling than me to hear opposing views?
I wasn't implying anything about the reporting accuracy just commenting on the difference - it turns out less than I originally thought.
Always good to hear the BBC's perceived lack of bias - shame it seems the current political climate in the UK (Conservative) appears to be attempting to cut it's funding:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/bbc-licence-fee http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10901155/B...
There isn't an unbiased new source, even the wire has its own biases, but claiming that the BBC doesn't drive a political agenda is dishonest.
Every person has their own biases, but as an organization the BBC seems to be pretty unbiased. Certainly if you're comparing it to any Russian news source, there isn't really much of a comparison.
And more in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
It's also highly unlikely that a 20,000 page report revolves over a single journalist and again it's the the issue here is that the BBC squashed a government report about it's journalism bias first initially and then appealed an order from the information commissioner 3 times. So sorry when a news agency spends 350,000 GBP of tax money to squash a report about how it reports on critical issues you can't but wonder what was in it.
This is a broadcaster that operates in "defence of the realm" mode with regards to SNP/pro-independence politics and news.
For reference and for example:
http://newsnet.scot/?p=115314
http://wingsoverscotland.com/we-need-to-talk-about-bbc-scotl...
http://wingsoverscotland.com/watch-closely-students/
http://wingsoverscotland.com/out-in-the-open/
Prof. John Robertson carried out an academic study on news output from BBC Scotland. The BBC tried to have him fired:
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-...
I used to be staunchly proud of the BBC until I started to pay more attention to its coverage of Scottish politics in more detail, around 2005/6, and then realised that there was something amiss inside Pacific Quay (BBC's Scotland HQ).
In short, AA asserted that the BUK missile was fired from Ukrainian-controlled Zaroschchenske. However, locals have reportedly never seen a BUK there, and Zaroschchenske was under rebel control at that time. Their report also contained manipulated footage from the Russian MoD.
Nothing to hide, right?
If push comes to shove I can't see any nation openly surrender any of their citizens to an international court which is why while the ICC is a great idea in general it's more or less a sham.
It's easy to prosecute people from the Balkans or Africa when you have the US or NATO forces doing the dirty work for you, it gets some what harder when you have to deal with nations that have actual power.
A more relevant comparison might be the Lockerbie trial?
P.S. The Lockerbie trial wasn't an international tribunal, or an international trial it was awkwardly constructed due to the fact that neither the US nor the UK had a working extradition treaties with Libya and the case was not turned over to the ICC.
The trial was conducted in the Netherlands yes but under Scottish law and that's because the dutch did had an extradition treaty with Libya as well as some weird treaty with presumably either the UK, the commonwealth or even historically the Kingdom of Scotland which allowed them to establish a Scottish court on dutch grounds.
Many are quick to say the rebels should have known the difference between a military transport and a civilian plane - but shortly before the shootdown, the Ukraine military had been flying similar airplanes as troop transports - and with the unlikeliness of the airline being able to hear and respond to the rebels on radio (listening on different frequencies), it's easy to see how the sequence of events led to the downing of the airline.
We also should remember the rebel leader's announcement on twitter that they had just shot down a military transport - only to redact the comment immediately following the news stories that began to run.
In the end, this is an unfortunate tragedy -- but what sane airline knowingly flies over a self-declared war zone?
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pro-russian-ukrainian-rebel-lead...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/108...
Now this doesn't say that common sense should not have been used and that the ICAO should not have released a direction to not fly over that area as it was an active war zone but that doesn't makes this any less of a crime.
Accidents still happen but shooting down an airliner even in accident (which happened before) is still something that should be investigated, even for something as simple as compensation, and if this was not only in accident but also in either malice or negligence then there are sufficient grounds for criminal proceedings.
The report also notes that in the previous days, over "61 airlines from 32 states" crossed over Ukraine without incident. On the day of the incident, 160 flights were recorded. So apparently, 61 airlines flew over a self-declared war zone. I'm sure some of them must have been considered sane.
Plus if we are going to be honest, the report is more than detailed enough.
Which parts are missing according to you?
Which is why the report includes both "factual information" and "analysis" sections. Feel free to contest specific points in their analysis you object to.
> Finally, when the report was revealed the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions.
Probably because 99% of the questions they'd ask would be answered by reading the report. It's not like the reporters can't read it and email their questions in a few hours later.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-...
Its clear that Russia sees guilt here and anything it can do to confuse people and make people think like you (see! Its all biased, wake up sheeple!) is part of their disinformation strategy. Sadly, this stuff works.
Please, read the sources before making this type of comments.
Before this I did not realize that the airline you choose is so important. Many airlines including British Airways which I usually use had been avoiding all of Ukraine airspace for months before this happened, however sadly they were in the minority.
I think its pretty clear on the world stage that Russia had involvement in this, either it was supplying the weapons or worse case is was Russia's 'Moderate rebels' that did it. Which seem to be how first world powers these days get what they want without putting their name on it
The fact Russia Vetoed a UN investigation and Putin has stated a few times when asked that it would be a waste of time to do an investigation sends a clear and strong message.
The interesting thing to me, is why it has come out now? the US propaganda machine is in over drive lately. US has spent years funneling 'moderate' rebels towards Syria, while using ISIS as the poster kids for more draconian surveillance and not really doing anything about them.
I mean its pretty clear right? US(cia) created the environment that allowed ISIS to grow and then used them to push forward their international agenda (removal of Assad (before that Iraq/Afghanistan destabilization ready for a US friendly government to be installed)) and domestic agenda (removal of rights for the 'greater' good).
Just this week we have the US stating they are stopping training 'moderate' rebels (I quote as I do not believe there are ever moderate rebels) but then proceeds to sell Saudi Arabia missiles that TODAY Saudi Arabia have given to the 'moderate' Rebels.
We see. Luckily we live in interested times, and the internet has made it so we can see more of the world stage without local filtering (newspapers/local new) interesting times indeed.
TL:DR: Russia's moderate rebels most likely shot the plan down, Russia knows this stalls investigation. Then a bit of a rant of, Why this has come out now
Neither the US nor ISIS had anything to do with this report or its timing.