Despite ranting for months that it was going to be pulled off the air, Press TV has actually been hit with a fine of £100,000 for shoddy reporting, as expected. But that has not stopped the channel claiming Ofcom has reversed its decision, and convincing The Guardian of that too: proving the maxim that if you state something …
Set them on the Daily Fail next !
I've never seen Press TV but thought I'd take a look at their website to see how far these stories go. I presume the British strikes story you're talking about is this one...
...which apart from the attention-grabbing headline, doesn't actually distort the truth too much. Certainly not as much as the Daily Mail.
Hopefully press reform will cool rhetoric all round.
Apart from the fact that they conflate the strikers with the Occupy protesters perhaps?
Something of a glaring error/twisting of the facts there
The Ofcom judgement is fascinating to read,
It begins on page 30 of the link. Proper drama!
Depending on one's appetite for this kind of thing, reading it with a little reference to the Ofcom code, section 7 (on 'fairness'), may enhance one's reading of the judgement. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/fairness/
To be fair....
...the British press isn't much better.
All Africans live in mud huts and rape children / carry out ritual goat sacrifices to get rid of AIDS.
All Middle Eastern citizens burn British / US flags and go on rallies every day.
All Chinese work in fields or in sweatshops.
All muslims are either peace loving tree huggers or terrorists.
We all suffer the propogander the media want us to hear.
Aye, but they come with page 3! I'd like to take a proper gander at that meself...
What have the press got to do with it? It's a TV station and is, as such, regulated by Ofcom. The press, if you haven't noticed the recent news coverage, is regulated by nobody.
A WHOLE 100k wow, that must have cost them....
The whole choccy biscuit ration this week.
100k is just not a useful fine for most companies. If they can afford to transmit TV this is such a puny amount they won't even notice it, won't even cut the CEO's bonus this year.
You're right, though as it's not really a company but a front for the ayatollahs, it has very deep pockets indeed.
Please don't switch off this channel
Where would Destroy All Monsters get his/her/its views from?
USA America Britain Conservative MOSSAD Conspiracy Jew 911 Capitalism Freedom Cars Petrol Driver Right Left Socialist Marxist CID CSA NCSA MI5 MI6
There, that should get the keyword alert system going. Frothing in 3... 2... 1...
Oh thanks, I was wondering how I'd make a cappuccino on here.
This isn't an ordinary 100k, it's 100k of fairy dust.
Don't be too quick to criticise
You'll find Russia Today has more accurate coverage of 'sensitive' topics than the BEEB or Main Stream press these days ... which speaks volumes.
According to an old Soviet saying
There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth. And I tend to agree with that statement.
That would be the translated names of the two state run newspapers (Pravda and Izvestia), which sort of changes the context rather.
Fined for shoddy interviewing? How much were Fox fined?
Or for better coverage than UK gutter press
...try Al Jazeera.
Don't knock it until you try it.
Upvote system still not working ...
... so have one this way!
well I think they speak sense. Ever been on a protest with police dogs nearby? They certainly LOOK like "snarling attack dogs". And most scots are probably pissed off with the british embassy being referred to a the english embassy. They missed the word "wankers" or "twats" out of the middle of it.
So does this fine mean that Iran has to pay the UK GOV 100,000 since the station is state sponsored?
So then UK GOV can fine them again for whatever reason and receive monies?
So we've got UK imposing sanctions on Iran and then Iran paying the UK?
Russia Today? Oh please....
Google Lizzie Phelan and watch her RT reports from Tripoli on YouTube. It's hilarious.
Her glowing, uncritical and obsequious reports about Gaddafi are almost as stomach-churningly awful as the ones British TV produces about the royal family.
So there could be a job for