I see that the highly-professional world-class entirely independent BBC has been exposed for using a photograph taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria. This was “an accident” we are informed in the story, but it begs the question as to just how this got through the system. It’s not the first time the BBC has been quick to embrace imagery that suits its own agenda without thoroughly checking for authenticity and in this case the image is used to invite us to believe the worst about Boy Bashar and his thugocracy.
FAUXTOGRAPHY?
Bookmark the permalink.
I was surprised, a couple of evenings ago, to see the BBC admit that Al Qaeda are involved supporting the “rebels”, but then the spin came in, “We must stop Assad, or Al Qaeda will take over”
Not if we stop paying and arming them they won’t! But then, that is part of the extended take over of the middle-east isn’t it? There is the real Al Qaeda, and our proxy Al Qaeda.
The BBC will rush to use any source however tenuous or dubious to further its agenda yet withhold evidence contrary to its beliefs on the grounds it has not been verified.
As evidenced by the two opposing reactions from the BBC to climategate and fakegate(Gleikgate), where in the former, they with-held the story for as long as possible, then defended the UEA, whereas in the latter they immediately went to press and defended the leakers.
My favourite was during the Israeli/Hizbollah conflict the evil Jews were said to have attacked an ambulance. The ambulance was shown with a neat hole right through the centre of the roof, but minus any signd of internal devastation. Maybe the hole really resulted from the removal of the ambulance’s rooftop blue light.
Not just the BBC on that occasion. The whole of the liberal media were all over it like vultures.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
We should not be surprised by this at all as the BBC is purely and simply a propaganda machine for the progressives. As far as ‘current affairs’ are concerned, the BBC has absolutely no credibility but even worse than that, absolutely no accountability.
Quite right sir.
And it is incessant and never ending.
In the car on the way home tonight.
3.45…All in the Mind…where some quacks discuss the “link” between depression and anti-infalmmatory drugs,…and may we yet get a vaccine for depression?
Utter crap-and at least one bloke said so in polite terms…but the flag had been raised, and we`ll be called back yet to salute it.
2. File on Four clip for next week….are the police STILL institutionally racist.?..and , no I can`t possibly guess what the BBCs forensic conclusions are going to be…can you?
3.Andy Coulson up in Glasgow re perjury in the 4pm news.
4. Did the USA give Indians AIDS?…the Stasi and the KGB said so, and this conspiracy theory will be teased out with Laurie Taylor…he`s Matthews dad , you know!
So half an hour of failed Marxist lecturers, a secular prayer for both Ali Desai and for Tommy Sheridan( BBC martyrs in the making); and Lysenko-lite codswallop masquerading as science.
I`d had enough and went over to Professor Steve Wright in the Afternoon.
An intellectual colossus among the Libbys and Lauries. He really is!
Good job you didn’t switch to Radio 2 earlier, where Krugman was being given yet more airtime to discredit the UK government’s ‘austerity’ policies.
Next up: Krugman’s all-time classical favourites on Radio 3.
This sort of thing is amazingly common to the extent that any photographs received from an interested party should be treated with suspicion. Indeed the original Fauxtography scandal related to photographs coming from Reuters so perhaps the correct response should be to treat everything with suspicion. Add to that anything coming from a BBC source.
Am I being paranoid?
One should ask what does the BBC consider to be correct procedure for double checking photographs? The instructions seem rather vague.
Special care must be taken if we suspect that material has been supplied by a member of a lobby group or organisation with a vested interest in the story, rather than a disinterested bystander.
Could it be possible that the editor simply didn’t know how to do a Reverse Image Source Search?
Just for my own curiosity I did my own Reverse Image Search. Took me about three minutes.
‘Just for my own curiosity I did my own Reverse Image Search. ‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/12/rebuilding_trust.html
‘As 2008 begins, we shall endeavour to continue to earn that trust.’
Well, Helen, after 4yrs it looks like even £4,000,000,000 per annum ain’t quite cutting it yet for the ‘world’s most respected and professional news broadcaster’ and its tens of thousands of committed, impartial… professional… ‘staff’.
One might have thought that they’d check the validity of the photo beforehand, no? But the BBC don’t care as the photo reinforces their Narrative.
The Beeboid responsible for putting up the photo wasn’t required to check the validity. It was already trending on Twitter, you see. Other news outlets were using it, therefore the BBC got it about right. That’s all that matters to them.
Ah! Twitter!!! Twitter is the BBCs source of all
gossipnews.Beyond the risible pout of…
“We used it with a clear disclaimer saying it could not be independently verified.
… I am also intrigued at the facts in ‘explanation’…
“Efforts were made overnight to track down the original source of the image and when it was established the picture was inaccurate we removed it immediately.”
Given…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/05/houla_massacre_picture_mistake.html
‘For about 90 minutes on Sunday’
They do have a post on procedure on CoJo:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2011/05/bbcsms-bbc-procedures-for-veri.shtml
However, somewhat typically, 2 posts and closed pronto.
‘Rare’, my shiny metal…
hat tip me and Hey DJ dad
we find it 1st. dead tree press got it 1 or 2 days later
@ Guest Who. Risible indeed. There are a couple of websites with photographs of the aftermath of this atrocity. Some of the pics are so awful they are not suitable for wide dissemination, but several are. This is another example of some lazy, Beeboid jobsworth looking no further than the end of their nose.
Just over 2 years ago the BBC ran an article in which they headlined:- Gaza youth ‘shot dead’ in border incident this was according to the Hamas run health ministry, and naturally Israel was blamed.
3 days later the BBC ran with this article
Gaza boy reported killed returns home alive ❓
It’s worth reading the article to see how the BBC allow a complete fabrication to be excused by the Palestinians.
Several issues still remain.
1. Why do the BBC still use claims by the Palestinians for Israeli aggression as fact, usually under the supposed ‘respected’ report given by their medical team?
2. Why is the original article still showing its original headline and text? There is an update at the very end of the article that shows its completely false, so why hasn’t it been either removed or amended?
I don’t believe the BBC care whether their sources are genuine or not. so long as they fit their desired narrative and agenda they can still use it.
Believe the worst about him? Did anybody actually see the images from Houla. They were abhorrent. Truly shocking and what we should be seeing. Right wingers can’t just imagine that it wasn’t that bad because one picture was wrong, how insane. That seems to be what this is about. “Boy Bashar”. Disgusting.
Hello, LabourPMCollective. What do your emotions have to do with the fact that the BBC used a photo unrelated to the story simply because it was trending on Twitter? Do you always accept media outlets presenting false images or false stories if it suits an agenda with which you agree?
Or have you actually let your anger cloud your judgment and have missed the actual point?
No, I disagree with the sentiment put across in the opening gambit of this farce. Of course it’s wrong, but have not ITV done the same with Libya and a video game? Was that covered here? I also think that given that most rational people think Assad is one of the cruelest people on earth at the moment, their ‘invite to make us thing the worst of Boy-Bashar’ is quite justifiable.
ITV? What does it say on the tin here? Perhaps you’ve missed the point of this entire blog.
As for your attempt to answer my question, first you say, “No,” as in you didn’t miss the actual point and you don’t think it’s okay for the BBC to present false images if it suits and agenda with which you agree, but then you say it’s “quite justifiable.” Which is it? Do you think it’s okay for the BBC to use fakery and/or misrepresentation when it suits or not?
Maybe you’ve misunderstood, captain condescending of HMS idiocy. I was saying ‘No’ to the last question, my sweet, that I had not in fact missed the point. Is that okay? Allow me to make myself clear: the BBC should not have used to fake image, but to accuse them of bias against Assad seems a little strange, and hides deeper feelings about Assad. And I brought up ITV because the BBC should surely be seen in context against other news providers. ITV made a dumber mistake. Also, in your ideal world, the BBC would be ITV, effectively, so perhaps it is pertinent.
Thank you for the clarification.
However, you did not bring up ITV for context, you brought it up to ask why people here didn’t complain about them doing it. In fact, the BBC uses their behavior and that of other media outlets as an excuse for doing this kind of thing, or as an excuse for not reporting something. There has been plenty of evidence documented on this blog that the BBC has no problem ignoring stories that everyone else is covering or making a big fuss about something other outlets are not (check the BBC Censorship tag in the Categories cloud for a few US examples). So that excuse rings hollow whether it comes from them or from you. ITV itself is irrelevant.
The BBC used the wrong image because they rushed to publish something they saw trending on Twitter. Not the highest of journalistic standards. Whether or not Assad is a monster is irrelevant as well. If this had been a different situation where the leader was not responsible, the result would be that the BBC published a false image which wrongly demonized that leader, simply because they already believed him to be guilty and so went ahead with a picture that fit the story they wanted to tell. As I said, not the highest of journalistic standards. I don’t think what David V said is a defense of Assad the way you seem to believe.
As for my ideal world, your leap to judgment without any knowledge of what I’ve written on this blog is in error. If I had my way, the BBC wouldn’t be ITV. The News division would be shut down entirely or spun off into a commercial/private company. There would be no official state broadcaster feeding you propaganda supporting the domestic agenda of the leader of a foreign country, no BBC with a legacy of trust spanning generations telling you I’m a racist with no legitimate reason to oppose government policy, no national broadcaster from which the majority of the public gets their information telling you that violent anarchists and Communists are really nice people with a love for humanity and a sense of civic duty who merely want to sit down with their political opponents and work things out, no biased news broadcast produced in and targeted directly at the US by the official state broadcaster of a foreign country, and no trusted correspondents insulting me and millions of people like me with a sexual innuendo. And you can keep the drama and music and light entertainment funded by a tax for all I care.
You are most thoroughly welcome.
The evidence on this blog is somewhat dubious. It’s all your (plural) interpretation of how the BBC has done something. Another person may view it differently. All this consists of is like-minded people telling themselves that they are correct. And by the way, I’m pretty sure I know why I brought up ITV, me being me and having my own brain and stuff.
Furthermore, I agree that it is poor journalism, but is that not a journalist? Not the entirety of the BBC. I also think it’s reasonable to suspect Assad of guilt, and the issue I take with David V’s opening is that it made light of something extremely serious. It adds nothing to the debate by saying such ridiculous things.
Finally, I think it was a reasonable assumption. Most people here, most people who read the Daily Mail and the Daily Express probably think that the BBC should be privatised. Forgive me, sir, for not reading your every post in this blog. I have friends, you see.
So if their is this widespread propaganda, why is the Communist party of Great Britain not topping polls amongst young people? Why is there not anarchy in the streets (go on, bring up the London riots)? And I’ve no idea what the biased news broadcast in the USA is. Perhaps everyone here would prefer it if it had some right wing bias. Yes, that’d be far more palatable. And could you give me an example of this sexual innuendo which offends you so? I can’t say that I’ve ever come across it. And thank you, I will, I’ll keep it all funded by tax. The BBC is the only reason anyone would stay in this miserable country.
‘I’ll keep it all funded by tax. The BBC is the only reason anyone would stay in this miserable country.’
Hold the line… there’s a BBC poll researcher who would love to talk to you.
LabourPMCollective:
You may think you know why you brought up ITV, but you communicated it poorly. You asked why we didn’t complain about ITV as well, which clearly misses the point of this blog. I’ll take your word for it that you actually don’t miss the point after all and simply misspoke.
Here’s your example of Kevin Connolly (now Middle East correspondent) insulting people with a sexual innuendo:
My sense of the people around me in Lafayette Square (what do we call them? Tea-baggers? Tea-baggists?) is that they are essentially the kind of people who did not like Barack Obama anyway and certainly did not vote for him.
Connolly knows full well what he’s doing, as he later says this:
They seemed undeterred by the fact that the phrase “tea-bagging” (which has a sexual connotation in some circles) is a bit of a gift to their critics on the left, who are inclined to snigger at them.
As you can see, the previous quote is him sniggering at us.: “What do we call them”. This was broadcast on air on the day, and has remained unchanged on the website ever since.
I also challenge your assertion that all the examples of BBC bias shown on this blog are mere interpretations. If you had taken the time to read any of them, you would have seen plenty of examples where the BBC quite plainly gives false information or misrepresents something. You cannot dismiss pointing out factual errors and misleading reporting as just our subjective interpretation. But if you refuse to take the time to read the evidence, it’s difficult for me to defend myself. If you do care to make the effort some time, I’ll be happy to set up a new thread with plenty of examples for you.
Your reductio ad absurdum about the Communist Party doesn’t help your argument either. I think I know what you’re trying to say, though. While even the power of the BBC couldn’t save Gordon Brown, they do have an influence on public discourse. They don’t promote a political party so much as they promote ideology: mulitculturalism, pro-unfettered immigration, wealth redistribution, class war, socialized medicine, any opposition in the US to the President is based in racism rather than legitimate policy concerns, the Occupiers are on the side of the angels, borrowing-and-spending as the solution to all ills, and so on.
The BBC employees say they do have an influence, though, and they believe it’s within their remit to influence public thought. You’ll have to ask them how much influence they have and what they do about it.
Nobody here wants a right-wing BBC. That’s a straw man we’ve had thrown up at us time and time again, and shows a poor understanding of what’s going on. Some people may want a non-Left antidote, sure. But demanding impartial reporting is not the same thing as demanding the BBC cater to one side.
‘What do your emotions have to do with the fact..
As you have ably, and calmly, shown… nothing at all, but that was never going to stop the latest incarnation from the Dr. Scezandy from Oslo. Irrelevance, straw men, cherry picking… all topped off with an inability to resist a snide generic. The rotten apple does not fall far from the diseased tree.
What’s interesting are the parallels in dealings with BBC complaints, deliberately ‘missing the point’, charging off looking for nothing pertinent elsewhere to get upset about, then attempting a ‘but others do it’ two wrongs defence, falling back on a ‘I’m right because I emotionally believe I am right’ huff when incapable of coping with actual, rational facts.
If this is the latest cherry vulture to fall from the nest, the inbreeding is not helping.
I like the moral superiority everyone here displays. Someone should do a sociological investigation into this site, it would be most interesting. And I’m sure they would love to talk to me, I’d love to talk to them and show that not everyone is as negative and whiny as this blog suggests.
‘the moral superiority everyone here displays’
🙂
Another not big on irony either, are you?
That was morally superior? You think you’re on some sort of crusade to save the world from leftism. Very noble.
‘You think you’re on some sort of crusade to save the world from leftism.’
Nope. And I can say that with confidence having, as someone once suggested, my own brain and stuff. So I do know what I think, and more so than you, though you’re welcome to keep making the claim.
What I do find worthwhile is engaging in debate on inaccuracy and (less satisfyingly as often like nailing jelly) bias from an entity that says it is only capable of getting it about right, yet the facts keep getting in the way of supporting that.
Especially one with a supposed remit to educate and inform that does neither to my satisfaction any more, yet is configured somehow to require me to pay to allow it to descend in standard (often via multiples) further.
Considering the power of vast broadcast monopolies on already fragile democratic ideals, this is indeed a concern to me.
Less noble than simple self preservation for family, country and way of life.
Your cause seems less clear, but on current evidence not one articulated in any way to persuade me to follow, or indeed waste too much more time upon.
The feeling’s quite mutual. My cause is that this is ridiculous. Obviously there’s no way of showing you, as anybody so entrenched in their view can never be convinced otherwise. I admit that there has been journalistic laziness in this instance, but there’s a reason that most people trust the BBC for their news – because it’s credible. It’s true.
Now of course, the BBC shouldn’t go unchallenged, but your challenges are unchallenged. You fail to listen to anyone else because you are so sure of your own views. Open your mind a little.
The BBC also informs and entertains like nothing else. The achievements in its recent past: Birdsong, Sherlock, Qi, Doctor Who, Great Expectations, Panorama, Documentaries on Afghanistan. Then there’s what it gets from around the world: The BBC had Mad Men first, then there was The Killing and more recently, The Bridge. If you can find nothing which entertains you then get rid of your television and read or simply hibernate if you prefer that level of stimulation.
This is all a waste of my time, but someone has to be reasonable.
‘someone has to be reasonable
This being… you, one presumes?
Anyway, thank you for your latest communication. It has been given the greatest thought and, in this instance, based on using facts vs. feelings, I am comfortable I am still about right. Though I can appreciate how that can frustrate when used in sole argument.
Be assured that what you have written is taken as seriously as it deserves and will be noted somewhere or other.
Please note that, by replying, you agree to all this.
ps:
‘My cause is that this is ridiculous. ‘
In the spirit of seeking possible areas of agreement… probably no argument there.
Thank you Mr Who. You don’t know how much I appreciate your high wit. It’s all so obvious, what’s the point in answering anything you say in any sort of seriousness. Maybe I’ll sign off with some ‘mild sexism’ which your dear leader seems to find acceptable. Then again, I’m not an Arschloch.
‘Maybe I’ll sign off with some ‘mild sexism’ which your dear leader seems to find acceptable’
As a person of independent just about everything, from politics to employment to work-break blogging entertainment, the only leader I have has is singing downstairs, and she’s not big on ‘isms of any kind.
But whatever floats your boat.
Speaking of sign-offs, as you did’t evidently read that in my last, by replying but not agreeing with me that’s bad faith and you have been elevated to expedited commentary status.
What you are, or are not, is probably best left to others now to decide, perhaps starting with your latest ‘final word’.
Best wishes:)
‘Maybe I’ll sign off with some ‘mild sexism’ which your dear leader seems to find acceptable’
‘Twas taken from the ‘Terms and Conditions’ blog.
Enjoy your life
xxx
Cripes, if that was the ‘gotcha’ this was all leading up to, I think the line manager is going to be seeking a refund. Check out the topic of the story and what you have achieved so far. A £4Bpa news monolith again opts for agenda over integrity and makes a bad situation worse. And you now want it to be all about a passing comment from the site owner, who is already on record as saying he’s not too fussed about petty PC obsessions. His call. Nowt to do with me.
Anyhoo, as a cheery soul I do indeed enjoy my life, but some aspects can be improved to be sure.
I just wish a could do more to bring a ray of sunshine into the sad lives of those who seem only able to dig big holes for themselves and wonder why things just get darker the more they dig.
Too much to hope that parting salutation suggests we shall not be engaging again, as I think you may be too far down there to help?
You don’t make sense.
“I think you may be too far down there to help” – what does that even mean?
And: “Another not big on irony either, are you?”
Care to explain that gem and how it makes sense?
I’m not going to reply to every point made, because frankly, what would be the point? I disagree with everything you think, does that clarify my position enough, as you seem to have been confused a few messages earlier.
I think you may need to check out your copy of ‘How to win friends and influence people’ soon. Or ask for a refund.
Your lack of comprehension abilities are really not an issue to me, because on what you’ve managed so far… I really don’t care.
It’s just a bit of Friday wind-down, winding-up sport now.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but.. no one else cares.
But if they do check in, such gems you manage as strung together in that last para really are worth framing.
Because people care deeply about what you say? About the vast power and influence of this blog? Yeah, it’s great isn’t it, as if this means anything. May be you should notice that no-one else cares.
But you seem to care… a lot.
Which, given what you wish was the case vs. what actually is happening, puts you front and centre for a senior role in a uniquely funded media monopoly that, sadly, is stuffing up so much in what it does vs. what it claims, this blog seems to be gaining ground in support whilst also attracting yes, well, you.
Drs. Scezandy from Oslo must being weeping into their hands down in the bunker.
Oh, and if your next reply has the words ‘so there’ or ‘nah, nee, nah nee nah’ in it, I will possibly crack a wry smile. Anyway, a loving family and a jug of Pimms awaits. Laters!
Well hopefully. If I’m taking your money off you and pissing you off at the same time I’d be more than happy to do that. I just find everything said on here either dangerous, misinformed or hilarious. Nobody with any eyes or ears can agree with this, I’m sure. If you’re ever in the area, drop in, I’d love to meet you, you lovely man.
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven’t.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn’t
A: I did!
M: You didn’t!
A: I’m telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn’t.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
A: No it isn’t.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn’t.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn’t.
M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn’t.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That’s it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I’m afraid it was.
M: It wasn’t.
Interesting conflation of ideas here:
‘..[happy] taking your money off you and pissing you off..’
Being in no way seen as an ironic, contradictory complement to..
‘I just find everything said on here either dangerous, misinformed or hilarious.’
As to the rest… others can decide what that is meant to mean. For me, I’ll pass. On the basis of the exchange and this latest manifestation of logic and interaction, continuing further would appear less than well advised.
London Calling has kindly offered the most benign explanation as to why, which will suffice.
Bit of a tosser?