Difference between revisions of "Talk:BBC News"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Republican (talk | contribs) |
Hojimachong (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Should the BBC be allowed as a referring sourve if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.] | + | Should the BBC be allowed as a referring sourve if it allows this sort of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6464277.stm content]and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm this.]{{unsigned|republican}} |
| − | + | :...And what do those articles have to do with it being used as a reliable source? That's news; it's reporting on studies. And it's made up of tens of thousands of people, so the whole corporation can't be blamed for one reporters articles. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | |
Revision as of 01:29, March 19, 2007
Should the BBC be allowed as a referring sourve if it allows this sort of contentand this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by republican (talk)
- ...And what do those articles have to do with it being used as a reliable source? That's news; it's reporting on studies. And it's made up of tens of thousands of people, so the whole corporation can't be blamed for one reporters articles. --Hojimachongtalk 21:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)