91热爆

I clicked on the link to the Richard Littlejohn column. It's just another ill-informed bigoted rant. How original and witty of Mr Littlejohn to refer to the 91热爆 as the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation. I noted the larger number of gushing comments praising Mr Littlejohn on the Daily Mail website. If any readers of this blog like a challenge, try getting a comment that does not fit with the Mail's agenda posted on its website. It will probably get lost during the "approval" process.

It is sometimes worthwhile noting what the Daily Mail is up to.
To use any of its articles as a basis for discussion is a waste of time.

Ah "bigoted" the usual banshee-like wail from the lunatic left, cried out specifically to gain the moral high ground and suppress all further discussion.
The 91热爆 have long since had a glaringly obvious Anglophobic agenda, the fact that this comment will be censored is further proof, if any were needed.

It seems rediculous how some reporters in the press, attack the 91热爆 because it is giving ethnic groups their own radio or TV programmes. If you look at the satellite networks they ahve dozens of ethnic TV/radio programmes available. Surely if people are paying their license they should expect some coverage for their own ethnic culture. Then you have to say that it may also create a bridge between many communities.

If the 91热爆 really believes in good quality programmes why is it giving space to the Daily Mail?

To John Salkeld at #3, you criticise the use of the word 鈥渂igoted鈥� and suggest that it is a word used for suppressing debate, but then you dimiss me for criticising Richard Littlejohn as being 鈥渓unatic left鈥� (and I would not consider my politics to be left-wing). Aren鈥檛 you doing what you suggested I did, ie, using a dismissive phrase to criticise somebody you don鈥檛 agree with, without engaging in a debate on the substantive issue?

Having read many of Richard Littlejohn鈥檚 columns, I do not hold him in high esteem and consider that the quality of newspaper journalism in this country would be significantly improved if newspapers invested resources into sending investigative journalists out in to the field to find stories that expose corruption in public and private life, rather than paying huge sums of money to 鈥渟tar鈥� columnists, who sit in front of their home computer and consider themselves an informed and credible authority on whatever is the story of the day, but do nothing more than engage in intemperate ranting.