Talk:Stephen Sackur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Absence of a criticism section

Nothing about how incredibly biased some of this man's reporting has been? In the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, he could barely restrain himself from crowing over how opponents of the war had, in his bizarre view, been proved wrong, and took great pleasure in telling the audience how he'd been in floods of tears all day over the uncovering of mass graves of Saddam Hussein's victims, while there was no such emotion on display when talking in cold terms about the tens of thousands of civilian casualties resulting from US bombardment. Along with Mark Mardell continually making a tabloid-style "those funny foreigners" mockery of European politics (after the BBC appointed him Europe Editor because of criticism of their abysmal coverage in this area), Margaret Gilmore harping on about the "terror threat" from the monolithic Muslim army that's coming to kill YOU, and Fergus Walsh prancing about in front of expensive yet laughable graphics while imparting no information on the scientific stories of the day, Sackur is one of the worst 'journalists' the BBC subjects us to. The article ought to reflect criticism of Sackur's failure to maintain basic professional standards. 86.136.90.90 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)