'£3.5bn for three subs'. How many hospitals would that build

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue May 08, 2007 6:12 am

'£3.5bn for three subs'. How many hospitals would that build ?

Note the BBC is "spinning" it as such a wonderful, exciting machine. To
me, it looks like any other sub .. ugly & expensive.

There is no criticism of the cost (even after the report states it is
£900m ($450m) over budget and four years behind the original schedule).

There is NO BALANCE in this report .. it is pure jingoism.

Also they must have either mixed up £ and $s .. or it is $1,800 over
budget.

[web]https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6625477.stm[/web]

Post by **faceless** » Tue May 08, 2007 10:13 am

I think they can just about get away with that bias as it's in the business section...

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue May 08, 2007 1:03 pm

Thanks faceless. I didn't focus on which section. Interesting It wasn't in science section, though title is pitched as a scientific article. Looks like it was a "sales pitch" for the companies involved. Big business, Military and Mass-Media hand-in-hand .. who would have thought ?

maycm · Post by **maycm** » Tue May 08, 2007 2:34 pm

The cost of war as opposed to ways the money could be spent elsewhere is an interesting one.

See the following New York Times article for some thoughts on how the money spent on Iraq war could have been utilized.

Post by **faceless** » Tue May 08, 2007 11:31 pm

That's an interesting article maycm, though I wasn't keen on the writer's misguided belief that the war in Afghanistan and increased security are actually necessary or worthwhile. Also, there's not a hint of sympathy for the Iraqi civilian victims, while there's a lot of focus on "looking after our own" and the limp implication that the money could save the poor little Africans.