I'm not going to discuss biased media especially NATO aligned warmongering mouthpieces, I'll just put a small example and leave the readers to decide.
BBC has built credibility over decades of hard work by its earlier journalists and anchors, but when the battle is about Syria the credibility is worth risking for the BBC, even if it was earned with blood, sweat and lots sums of monies.
In this example the BBC presents a young guy, a holder of UK passport from Syrian origin, it adopts his story without any reasoning because he accuses the Syrian government security of shooting him while he was standing by during a 'peaceful protests' against the president of Syria, Dr. Bashar Al Assad.
On September 7, 2011 the BBC News posted an article titled UK Citizen Describes Being Shot in Syria, and here is what BBC wrote and I quote exactly the description:
"Danny Abdul Dayem who is a British citizen of Syrian descent was shot in Homs 10 days ago.
He and his family fled Syria arriving in the UK last night.
Forces loyal to the Syrian dictator, Bashr al Asad are said to have killed 14 civilians on Wednesday.
As ever, the details are very hard to come by, since foreign observers are banned from the country.
The attack came in Homs, which is Syria's third city and has been under attack for days." end quote.
You can watch the video clip of the 'victim' shot by "Forces loyal to the Syrian dictator" by clicking the link above under the title of the article or on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxzgF6xVF2A (Note the title of the video uploaded by an opposition figure).
That might sound fine, but why would BBC put its credibility at stake for such a weak story? There's no other evidence except what the 'victim' says, and how do we know if what he says is correct or he might not have been shot during a street fight between gangs on a suburb street in UK for instance?
The same person however surprisingly appears in Homs one more time, and in a hot zone talking to CNN and describing what he personally witnessed the 'Khalidiya Massacre' by his narrative which totally contradicted with all logic and proved false-flag as how can victims of an artillery shelling be piled up, naked, handcuffed to the back, slaughtered in a similar pattern and no shrapnel traces? Watch his testimony on Youtube again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y47eqKqxtBE. (Now he's an 'activist' and not a standing by tourist).
In the same area where this UK citizen of Syrian dissident is staying again in Homs, Syria, 300 rockets have landed in the just same area he is but miraculously all of them has missed him, must have a real link with some sort of a superpower that saves him every time! Watch but don't judge, not yet at least: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16902819 [You might need to scroll a screen downwards for his interview over the net].
If the story doesn't convince you what kind of a 'victim' or a 'tourist' or an 'activist' this person is, maybe you need to take a look at him bragging about his role in killing Syrian government soldiers and capturing a Syrian army troop carrier on his Facebook account and posts this photo:
His mother "Helen Dayem" said on Friday 3rd February; "I know u said u had a new car, but this is ridiculous".
I just want to know what exactly is the role of BBC in this? Did they send him back at their responsibility to send them 'citizen journalist' reports from within? Did they know in the beginning who he is and what's his real role in the terrorism and riots happening in Homs among real civilian citizens who are the real victims of such criminals?
This is just one example of one terrorist dubbed 'freedom fighter', 'citizen journalist', 'peaceful protester'.. whatever, the fact is that people have died, others lived hell times, so many wounded and the majority were from civilians whom didn't riot, because if you want to start a revolution you don't do that against your neighbours or other civilians, if you have grievances of whatsoever kind and you are not a criminal whom attacks police stations or army bases and you do not explode oil and gas pipes and you do not torch court houses and other vicious crimes, you protest and when you are not allowed you sit quiet and in case you want to carry out an armed revolution, you go to where the decision makers are to avoid spilling of innocent civilian bloods in cities where there's no military significance.
Australian ABC Media Watch once uncovered how they fell for a big mistake in reporting a fake video of an event that occurred in Tripoli, Lebanon as happening in Syria [watch here], but they were brave to apologize and smart to learn, will BBC be as brave and smart?