Rand Simberg wrote:
Another reason why people who rely on the BBC for their information
are doomed to not only ignorance, but misinformation (not that
Christopher needed any help).

US media, FOX and CNN in particular, tend to be very USA centric in their
coverage. And Mr Simberg's articles posted on the FOX web site show a definite
slant towards the sensationalistic coverage. On those networks, to get
something published it must be sensationalistic. Don't talk about the
successes of ISS or Shuttle, talk only of its problems, costs, mismanagement etc.

It isn't a question is presenting false information, it is a question of
selection of what information you provide.

It isn't false to report that Bush stated that he now has support from the
whole world for his invasion of Iraq. He did state that. But his statement was
false. So, is it ethical for a media outlet to report this without mentioning
that Bush lied to the population when he made that statement ?

This is a perfect example of how US media have been slanting the news to get
the masses to support one side of a debate.

Similarly, we keep hearing from US media how cash strapped Russia is and that
it won't be able to meet its commitments to the station. But if you listen to
the BBC, you'll find out that Russia is actually doing quite well with the
current oil boom, and that many western oil companies are investing in Russia.

Has Russia officially advised ISS partners that it would not be able to meet
its Progress and Soyuz commitments in the next year ? Seems to me that the
latest scredule shows that a may launch was moved to mid march, filling a the
gab left by the shuttle not launching in march.

It would be really nice to get true factual information within a full context
instead of editorialised information that need to twist a story into something
sensationalitic in order to be published.