Press TV and their selective news?

[unknownprince]

I am all for fair news, but when I read Press TV, I notice two things they do. As you all know, I post a lot of press TV articles up. Let me explain, in regards to the uprisings sweeping the Muslim world, they are very selective in what news they want to show. For example, in regards to Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Bahrain, they are "on the side" of the people, but in regards to Syria, a country ruled by a Shiite Alawite minority, they are completely against the people, going so far to allude all the violence to Turkey. They don't even cover the atrocities by the Assad thugs against the Syrian people.

The answer is simple. While I am all for respect and unity between Sunnis and Shiites, these select Shiite are raffidites .

[Haris]

Every news channel has an agenda. Something we should be wary of. It is always best to have a variety of sources.

[Niazi]

The answer is simple. While I am all for respect and unity between Sunnis and Shiites, these select Shiite are raffidites .

Listen to yourself you reek of منافقت

[IamDZJ]

you?? fair?? hahahaha, you should do stand up comedy.
it happens everywhere. drink some water and put your brain to use.

[Ghorzang]

Press TV is the most biased news source available - even worst than Fox News. I understand they all have their agendas, but it is not as bold as Press TV.

[Catya Sher]

Overall Press Tv is very good.
Considering other state media, it ranks as one of the top in the world
for trying to tackle TRUTHFUL reasons behind events.
They don't publish anything from the US media except for
non political topics like a tornado or storm occurring in the US mid=west.

And if articles dont give a full picture, often the commentators complain
right away/
Such as when Press TV probably following a command to be diplomatic
regarding US claims of having killed you know who -
treated those claims as almost real news.
Commentators chimed in immediately protesting this assumption.
It is baffling to this day.
However Ahmadinejad said publicly = in effect = that he didn't believe
it for a second.

So sometimes lines of communication get crossed in between
government domains and mixed messages are sent.

I remarked the same about the coverage of Syria which
was to me not really supportive of Assad, but fearful to
publish bad things about him.
After all the two countries have had a strong axis of
cooperation back to the beginning of the Islamic Republic's founding -
that was over 30 years ago.

So they are trying to be polite clearly to him personally.

I doubt they like him any better than anyone else likes Assad.
I read a biography of him and he's like a robot and
surely linked too with New World Order types.

The Iranians can't stand that kind of thing.
They never cooingly invited obama to visit Teheran
the way Assad did to Damascus, after all.