. As a commenter in the below thread also notes, the Beeb’s journalists are logging their responses to the Bushes’ visit. It was (and still might be later on) a delightful selection of half-baked preconceived ideas disappointed, with dashes of wishful thinking thrown in. Until, that is, it was radically stealth-pruned back (these days, stealth editing isn’t enough- stealth-pruning under cover of darkness is the thing). For instance, maybe Jules Botfield was right and Mr Bush’s rooms had windows thin enough to have him lying awake hearing the ‘peace’ protesters in their hundreds outside the gates of Buckingham Palace. Then again, Jules, maybe not. I bet he and his ‘lump in the bed’ slept in a nice peaceful four-poster. This morning, after 8 0’clock, she records that there are four protesters, yes, four. Lazy bones protesters! Just can’t get the nihilists these days.
Meanwhile, I’ve commented before on Paul Reynolds’ sense of history, but the first paragraph here takes the biscuit. Still, if you’re not satisfied by chortling through that (A serious point through the article would be the lack of balance in reporting Bush’s Middle East comments. I heard the speech and it was very negative towards corrupt Palestinian leadership.), take a look at this attempt to maintain cultural ‘balance’ at a time when Bush is looking disturbingly as though his values are received quite amicably in this country. Senior EU commission officials really must be high calibre individuals methinks (ahem)- I suppose we should ask Medact for the answer to that (see Tuesday post). Just one little rocket propelled grenade I’d like to bring to this Europartying article: ‘Kosovo’. It’s all rather reminiscent of the botched visits, meals and activities one engages in when one has unwelcome guests. You end up doing the most awkward things to be seen to please them or failing that to avoid them altogether.
Update. For some reason you can still access part of the old log – which is good! Why they need to chop it up unless they’re scared of self-contradiction is beyond me.
Update2. As portrayed in the movies that were Bin Laden’s staple youthful diet, ‘it was quiet- too quiet’. Very tragically, the terrorists know how to stage a public relations event- by attacking Britain’s interests in Turkey. One more reason why we need a serious, broad-based and competitive media in the UK.
Update3. The ‘radical pruning’ was just a moment of reorganisation. Anyone who’s watched Beebonline tactics knows you must be on your toes. Closer to the present, and Trafalgar Square is ‘nearly full’, march organisers will be ‘very happy’ at numbers in the ‘tens of thousands’ (so is that 2 or 3 tens? Joke). Dominic Cascani helpfully interprets for us.
Although the BBC call this a web log it isn’t (at least in the sense that we understand the term) – it’s just a compilation of on-air reports for TV and radio chopped up and refried by some BBC staffer somewhere.
BBC’s idea of fair and balanced coverage: POTUS meets Prime Minister and the BBC devotes most of it’s article, and half of the headline to the protesters. Including instructions on where to meet, what time, where to march, etc. They are nothing more than the public relations firm of the anti-Bush and anti-Blair camps.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3286069.stm
I have been reading through this “weblog” and I am stunned by the inanity of it. It’s meaningless drivel.
The bit about being kept awak till 11 oclock had me in stitches though.
Yes, the “reporters log” is quite a piece of work. Check out this bit of heavy subjectivity from Jon Devitt:
“The grim expressions on the faces of the two leaders as they met outside Mr Blair’s residence at Number 10 Downing Street is a sign of how the attacks in Istanbul have overshadowed this part of Mr Bush’s state visit.
It was not the image the two men wanted. Protestors who plan to march passed Downing Street later on Thursday are likely to point to the attacks as a sign that Mr Bush and Mr Blair’s war on terrorism isn’t working and that the war in Iraq has not made the world a safer place”
Uh, I’d say the Istambul attacks have overshadowed the protesters and dramatically demonstrated that what Bush and Blair are doing is vitally important. Because as scores are being killed and injured in Istambul, Bush is, uh, still the most dangerous man in the world. Right Ken?
Now from one BBC “reporter”
“The protest starts at 1400GMT this afternoon, the organisers say if there is one event that protesters should take part in, this is the one.”
Why don’t they just have a “Organized and Sponsored by BBC” note on all the placards?
Sorry, can’t resist. And another:
“President Bush has met with family members of British servicemen who died in Iraq.
The meeting was held in private but we are told that it was a, “very quiet and emotional” one.
The White House won’t say whether any of the family members expressed anger towards Mr Bush’s policies – but given past experience Mr Bush will likely have thanked the families for their loved ones’ sacrifice in what he often calls, ‘a noble cause’.”
They just can’t resist either over-emphasizing (the protests of “hundreds”) or in this case just wantonly speculating about oppostion to Bush and his policies.
Plus, its as if there’s some sort of mini cover-up afoot. “The White House won’t say….”
Interesting, though often self-contradictory and meaningless, reading.
How does the owner of this site deal with the Kelly affair, one wonders. For four months open war broke out between the government and the BBC.
Also, since the site accuses the BBC Of being pro-Labour, and presumably pro-Blair, it seems a little contradictory to be also pro-protestors, does it not?
Could it be that the BBC is – like any human creation – flawed, but trying its best, and that the owner of this site rejects anything not agreeing with whatever his / her ideology may be as being biased?
Nick Ellis,
I always find it funny when fascists (known as “the Left”) accuse others of stifling dissent. After all five times as many people marched for “hunting” (indeed it was a diverse coalition demonstrating against the fascists – the Left) which did not get a tenth of the coverage that these drugged up and genocidal psychotics are getting.
This is not human failure, this is vicious fascist propoganda. As others have mentioned, encouraging war crimes (something which the BBC is guilty of) was deemed a war crime under international law during the Nuremberg trials. That means these BBC reporters can be arrested, tried, and executed for their crimes.
This is not human fallability, this is a war crime.
“…the site accuses the BBC Of being pro-Labour, and presumably pro-Blair, it seems a little contradictory to be also pro-protestors, does it not?”
This site accuses the BBC of being biased in favour of the left-wing/socialist ideology, not biased on purely party-political grounds. So there is no contradiction.
Is Nick Ellis a fish trying to describe water?
I’m confused now – am I being accused of being a fascist? Are you saying I accused you of stifling dissent?
You have every right to your views, and I don’t think I suggested otherwise. The fact that I disagree with you does not make me a fascist though. We could be drawn on an interesting scatological debate about whether the left and right meet at the extremes, but as a centrist I don’t think it would have anything to do with me.
Intersting that you assume a left bias on my part as well, which is accurate, but unprompted by anything I said.
You might be interested in this site, which complains about the right wing bias of the BBC, but you probably won’t be.
I personally don’t detect any bias in the BBC – but then I’m not paranoid. If there is a slight left bias, it only serves to counter balance the right bias of ITN – which is also required by charter to be neutral and is clearly not on some issues such as the monarchy.
Indymedia, which laughably accuses the BBC of a rightwing bias, is so for off the charts I don’t have a benchmark for its ideology. Mostly anarchists and the anti-globalists.
“I personally don’t detect any bias in the BBC – but then I’m not paranoid”
This sight very calmly details this bias you claim not to see. And, as opposed to Indymedia which sees dark conspircay in everything.
Oh well that’s OK then – they’re paranoid, but you’re not. Now I understand. Sorry.
A fish trying to describe water? Do you mean I can’t see left bias because I am left biased myself? Interesting point, which may have some basis. Inevitably I am likely to see some things as acceptable which you, with presumably right leaning, politics would find outrageous bias.
Are we only talking about news output here, or do we include the whole current affairs milieu? For example, the Andrew Neill programme, discusses CA, and has Portillo and Abbott as contributors. OK, perhaps it could have Barry Legg rather than Portillo, but it still offers both sides, and Neill is hardly Karl Marx. Question Time and Any Questions always feature contributors from all parties, and Any Answers goes to great length to give voice to all political shades.
Inevitably, indiviuals will be drawn by their own views, but it is worth noting that BBC journalists have become MPs of all shades.
I wonder could you explain the left-bias of the recent campaigning journalism re. Margaret Hodge and Islington children’s homes?
“If there is a slight left bias, it only serves to counter balance the right bias of ITN”
I do not agree that there exists a right bias at ITN (despite Nick Robinson being a former chairman of the Young Conservatives) or indeed at any TV news station.
When is any health, education or other public service topic run on any other basis than as a call for more resources?
e.g. All TV news stations were sympathetic to the firemen’s strike. The strikers were not questioned about their exceptional pension arrangements, their hours that accomodate other jobs, their record of early “ill health” retirements, London firemen holding banners demanding £30K when really they were claiming £35K, etc etc
Re: BBC encouraging the demonstrators
Today’s Jeremy Vine show featured an interview with a ’61 year old grandmother’. So why does she get time on national radio ?
Turns out she was the rocket scientist who climbed the railing at Buck House to drape a US flag with moonbat slgans on it over the gate. In other words, commit an illegal act, get free air time on the BBC. No encouragement to disorder there.
Did the Beeb ever give an estimate of the numbers? Were they accurate?
Today programme’s coverage of the visit to Sedgefield – “I think it’s fair to say that a few protestors will turn up, but most people here seem to be supporting Bush, and certainly all the shops have sold out of American flags” Broadcast this morning at 7.32.
Those wicked biased Bush haters, who only comment on the protestors….
Is anything news-worthy happening on the visit? I sincerely doubt it, to be honest. No major press releases, nothing new being said by either leader, no sudden change of heart or direction.
I wonder if you would call it bias if the BBC had reported only the visit, and ignored the protestors?
“I do not agree that there exists a right bias at ITN”
Each to their own. I disagree, but that’s democracy for you.
I will admit that I don’t often watch the Broadcast Mail, precisely because I have found it to be such tawdry tabloid television on so many occasions – “another exciting Diana photo!” – and therefore cannot refute your claims with the piece by piece examples you expect from me (but don’t provide yourself).
I’d like to see you try and refute a royalist bias at ITN. That brings fawning to new and excrutiating heights.
Nick Ellis- why do you think the Mirror has had so much coverage of the Royals recently. Obviously they must be pro-Royal I don’t think. The only way to get rid of the status quo is to highlight it. Many of the biggest royal watchers really don’t like the Royals at all. I don’t watch the Royals at all- go figure.
As for right wing bias at ITV, I don’t think so. Nick Robinson could never be accused of that, although he managed to get out from under the institutional bias at the Beeb. I think the most you can accuse ITV of in terms of Rightwing bias is that they are sometimes conservative with a small c. They know their audience doesn’t like an ideological stance; they struggle for respectability. In addition, they lack ambition because they can never hope to overtake the Beeb in terms of respect and serious journalism. Don’t have a go at the populism of ITV while the Beeb corners the market for serious journalism in the UK because it is publicly funded via the license fee and its many branches around the world are artificially inflated by this money and association. How can ITV realistically compete in the kind of journalism you seem to admire?
As for our position, I can only speak for myself and I would simply refer you to my post of Saturday November 15. Quite honestly, having read your views as they have been stated, I can’t think why you felt you had as much to contribute as you obviously did.
Ed Thomas.
Ed –
So basically your beef against the Beeb is that it’s too good? 😉
Re Saturday November 15, the BBC is a very long way from the only media outlet not to report on the story – including the right-wing, pro-war press.
A key reason for this is that nobody serious believes it (this particular story, rather the Iraq/AQ link, which is more debatable) – see this Washington Post article.
The BBC is only anti Blair and New Labour when it does what the BBC perceives to be right wing things eg cosy up to a Republican president, goes to war, foundation hospitals, stands up to organised labour etc etc.
I achieved the next to impossible recently and had a complaint about BBC bias upheld. On Five Live on the 13th June there was a discussion on the Bush presidency. Needless to say all three guests took part in a cosy very anti Bush and anti american ‘discussion’ and there was absolutely no balance. You come to expect this from the kind of people the BBC invite on discussion programmes but Brian Hayes joined in with the same sentiments so we than had four of them at it.
I complained and the complaint has been upheld.
I recently made another complaint about the fact that the annual Richard Dimbleby Memorial Lecture was last given by an identifiably right wing person 23 years ago and by a Conservative politician 27 years ago.
Two so called right wing very europhile continental politicians have been ignored for the purpose of this survey!
I have given BBC bias a lot of thought and believe the bias is institutional but subconscious. Their political centre of gravity is centre left so the Conservatives are extremists in their eyes and people like Ken Livingstone are slightly left wing.
“Quite honestly, having read your views as they have been stated, I can’t think why you felt you had as much to contribute as you obviously did.”
It’s a free country. If you don’t like it, delete it from your server. I’m sure that would be the unbiased thing to do.
I don’t see the relevance of the Mirror reference. ITN can’t be pro-royal because the Mirror is anti-Royal? What?
I have every right to attack the populism of ITN. They may be privately funded, but they are still required by an act of parliament to adhere to the same standards of journalism that you expect of the BBC. But you don’t bang on about the ITN imbalance because they basically agree with your outlook.
People only see bias where it is opposed to their own bias.
Nick Ellis with this comment you fail to appreciate the whole reason for this site –
” But you don’t bang on about the ITN imbalance because they basically agree with your outlook.”
The BBC could be biased as it wished as long as we are not forced to pay for it whether we watch it or not.
In the midst of the bickering above, The Commissar asks, “Did the Beeb ever give an estimate of the numbers? Were they accurate?”
The BBC does report estimates claimed by the Stop the War Coalition and, somewhat obliquely, the Metropolitan Police.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3223780.stm
“Organisers claim 200,000 joined the demonstration, although police put the numbers closer to 100,000.”
Given that Guardian Online reports today that the police estimate was 70,000 for yesterday’s march/rally, I will admit my suspicions were aroused by the BBC not directly relaying a specific figure from the police.
So I emailed the Met half an hour ago and they just replied that their official estimate is for 100,000 attendees. The BBC figure is an accurate report, needlessly embellished (no bias implied).
Nick Ellis, you can’t defend the BBC from an accusation of bias by pointing to an opposite bias in the ITN anyway, it’s a totally irrelvent.
The BBC is supposed to be politically neutral, even though that isn’t realisticly possible.