Monthly Archives: September 2003

would have averted all this trouble.

“We goofed.” Those two little words, uttered by the BBC early in its latest escapade in biased journalism — falsely claiming the Blair government “sexed up” its intelligence reports during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion — would have saved a lot of time, a lot of money, and at least one life. Instead, we have the BBC’s bloated buddy, Andrew Gilligan, admitting, in the Telegraph, what everybody knew: that he committed lousy journalism, and the Labor Government promising, in the Guardian, that the world’s most arrogant media institution (pace, New York Times) was going to become accountable at long, long last. Maybe the empty suits mismanaging the Corporation will even be fired. That would be good. Next Thursday, the Hugely Expensive Commission charged with investigating the suicide of a Gilligan source, will conclude its wildly disproportionate inquiry. It will be the most expensive correction notice ever published.

Read the rest of Denis Boyles’ non-Beeb-related EuroPress Review here.

Here

wasn’t caught in a hurricane but he was blown away just the same…undoubtedly a rare occurrence.

comments about a BBC story on the ‘danger’ of referenda.

Now that Sambrook has done his sandbagging and Greg has put his finger in the Dyke, Andrew Gilligan is pressed by Lord Hutton on the meaning of “Absolutely yes“. It must be hard for the mighty Beeb to have this story cycling in and out around the globe. Now the ‘storm surge’ approaches as even traditional BBC allies advocate greater accountability. Quite a storm.

Over on Transport BlogI’ve made some comments on a BBC article comparing railways then and now. The list of omissions and apparent inaccuracies is staggering.

in this BBC quiz about Islam. Perhaps that has led me to look kindly on it. It’s very much the BBC view, but I accept a certain delicacy is necessary here. In several cases I gave the answer I knew they wanted while maintaining reservations. Jihad certainly can mean interior struggle -but the non-PC “holy war” translation is enthusastically accepted by many Muslims. That figure for the projected US Muslim population is based on figures for the present population that are contested; estimates vary by a factor of three and the BBC has gone for the higher end. Divorce can indeed be initiated by man or woman, but what they do not say is that the rules are not symmetrical. Finally, I found it a little odd that there wasn’t a “Muslims believe” wrapped round the statement that “Islam began in the Arabian Peninsula in 610 when the prophet Muhammad began to receive his revelations of the direct word of God,” but I attribute that to a condescending mindset that is willing to humour all religions equally rather than to acceptance of the tenets of Islam at the BBC.

As Raj noticed, I tried to dodge getting all the B-BBC bias letters for a bit, because of other commitments. What I think I’ll do is every now and then make a post like this one that invites anyone who wishes to tell the world about examples of bias they have seen. Of course it’s impractical for us to track them all down and check the details; this is a amateur website. Think of it as political conversation at a social event. Just as in party debates, speakers will add to their credibility if they are moderate in tone and give details (e.g. time, channel, speaker, a hyperlink where appropriate) where they can. Polite disagreement also welcome.

writes (originally a comment to the post below):

I’m writing as someone who in general believed the BBC to be biased over the war but otherwise find most complaints of bias petty.

The BBC Breakfast news today had a piece on hunting today just before 8am.

First there was a prefilmed piece which was presumably put together by the BBC.

You heard 2 anti hunt protestors putting forward their point of view with no opposing questions and it seemed to include footage filmed by these protestors.

Then there was an interview with a hunt member. He was asked quite aggressive questions & was interrupted in order to get as many questions over as possible. The difference between allowing one side to present it’s argument uninterrupted & having the other side being interviewed by a seemingly sceptical interviewer was in my opinion almost certain to give the anti hunt side a more favourable press than the pro hunt side.