On Today’s BBC One O’Clock News bulletin Anna Ford reported the following: “The three Italian hostages kidnapped in Iraq have returned home to a hero’s welcome. They were met by their families and friends at Rome Airport and will now be questioned by government and military officials about their two month ordeal”.
And that was it – cue jaw dropping in our household. What about the fourth hostage who was cruelly murdered? Isn’t he worth a mention? What about the fact that the hostages were rescued by a special forces operation, rather than by, say, the benevolence of their captors?
A similar item running on Sky News just now mentions all of this – yet the BBC One O’Clock news didn’t. It’s also covered properly on BBC News Online. This was amongst the usual One O’Clock news mush – some real news, some filler (e.g. ‘Titanic treasures under hammer’), so it’s not as if time or space was the reason for missing out these facts.
Again we must ask, especially since the BBC is paid for by the compulsory BBC Tax, is their penchant for this sort of editorial omission conspiracy, cock-up or just lazy incompetence?
Off topic: These days reading BBC’s “Have Your Say” is really like watching “Wheel of Fortune” on TV. In Wheel of Fortune, one has to guess a phrase or slogan where most of the letters are blanked out. You can get hints by asking for more letters to be shown. Eventually, the contestant guesses the phrase and wins a prize.
Well, in the Have Your Say version, the BBC provides a hint of the things it wants to hear, in the form of a loaded Have Your Say question. Then the contestants that send in the right phrase win, and get their opinions printed. Usually the answer is obvious.
A current Have Your Say, “Bush’s Mid East plan: Your views” asks “What do you think of the US government’s plans for reform in the Middle East region? Should the US be involved in such projects or is it up to individual nations?” Of course, right answer is “The US and Israel are the source of all problems in the Middle East.” You don’t even have to buy a vowel for that one. And there’s gold stars for the winners in the form of highlighted quotes, e.g., Hassan, Amman, Jordan gets a gold star for “Nice sentiments, but Western democratic government is not appropriate for Muslim countries… it goes against the Koran. We can only look to God, not Bush, to tell us how to live”.
It’s a great game, trying to guess what the editors want to hear, and very challenging when they are fishing for moral equivalence. That’s where the right answer is some line like “Sawing Nick Berg’s head off is evil but photos of a female soldier pointing at naked prisoners are also evil.” Moral equivalence lines require such a special talent for twisted logic and require such moral emptiness that I always have a hard time guessing them.
All this was old news by one o’clock Andrew – it had been done on Breakfast. Stop nit picking. Sky were probably still running the “Breaking News” graphic for the fifth consecutive hour.
es1061 – if you don’t like “Have Your Say” don’t go there, and spare us your pathetic whinging. It’s like “Wheel of Fortune” – what rubbish.
As a believer in the free exchange of opinion, I would never say, ‘Reith – if you don’t like “Biased BBC” don’t come here, and spare us your pathetic whinging.’
Oops.
Oops indeed Chris – typical of the childish semantics that passes for debate here.
Me pathetic or whinging? Nay laddie,
I am forthright and proud.
And just for good measure I offer a thousand pounds in used custard for the head of the first of you to use the word “Troll”.
Hi, Insider, welcome back.
Ah Reith, don’t forget, pride comes before a fall – just like at the BBC, for whom, given your presumptious sounding nom-de-guerre (unless you really are called Reith), I presume you work or are otherwise indebted to.
The news story I wrote about may have been old news to you by 1pm, but to me, having worked until 4 or 5am and then slept, it was the first ‘news’ of the day. Either the story was old, as you suggest, in which case it should have been omitted completely, or, it remained current, and should, therefore, have included a reasonable smattering of the salient details – you can’t have it both ways – and the editor should explain these egregious omissions to us, the ‘owners’ of the BBC (as the BBC likes to suggest we are).
Likewise, it’s all very well to suggest that those that don’t like “(Don’t) Have Your Say” should avoid it, but it’s a bit of a cheek for you to expect people to have to pay for it anyway, on pain of criminal charges, if they don’t want it.
I have posted anti american comments on have your say.
They have been published several times.
My pro American comments however were always discarded.
I was purposefully testing the “system”. Although, it seems that recently things have began to change in the have your say postings.
My understanding of BBC BIAS is that it is like the Roman Catholic Church that suffers in silence the terrible abuses of eastern christians for fear of retribution on the surviving flocks.
The BBC is heavily commited in the ME and dare not risk persecution of its staff and the cancellation of its renumerative contracts.
Its constant Anti Israeli and anti american rhetoric ensures its survival.
It is a form of TAKIYA which is the duty of dhimmies who wish to remain unharmed under the Umma.
I was surprised by a recent Have Your Say about their murdered employees in Riyadh. “Give us your reaction” was the loaded question. Asking for a “reaction” suggests the editor wants emotional comments, probably looking for anti-Bush rants. Pretty loathesome if you ask me, exploiting their own dead employees to solicit cheap emotional rants.
ES: I think they also were fishing for compliments. “Oh what a terrible tragedy these two fine newsmen were attacked, etc. etc.” So that they can have something to show how much the Beeb is beloved when the license fee comes up again.
Very cheap, you are right.
The One O’Clock News is the most ideologically skewed of BBC-1 news broadcasts, and the most dumbed down. Is it the forcing ground for the BBC’s bigots of tomorrow, those who are ideologically pure and malleable but not yet ready for time prime?
Also, if this is Sambrook’s sandpit, what does that make Anna Ford…? Eek!
Hello Susan – you obviously mistake me for someone else. I assure you this Insider person and I are two different people.
As for your assertion that the BBC would use the murder of a cameraman as part of charter review is quite revolting, and up to your usual pitful standards.
Andrew – I am endebted to the BBC – for keeping the rest of broadcasting honest and impartial in this fine country.
Methinks you complain too much, and the shift work had me weeping.
If the non-news channel TV news bulletins had to include everything for everyone who’d just woken up, they’d be 24 hours long. That’s what 24 hour news channels are for.
As for people having to fund this on pain of criminal charges, well tough, that’s the law. You don’t like it – live somewhere else (or go back to sleep).
Reith
I strongly object to forced payment of the licence fee.
What total stupid arrogance on your part to suggest that if we object we should go live somewhere else.
You sound like a real fool.
JohninLondon – well, pardon me for living in a democracy, where the democratically elected Government has, with the mandate of the people, enacted a law to enforce the licence fee.
Your objection is noted, but the law remains the law. If you advocate law breaking, you deserve everything you get – that is the basis of our free society.
My suggestion for you to live elsewhere is a practical and pragmatic one.
You suggest British TV would be better without the licence fee.
I suggest you live somewhere else to find out whether that is true or not. Until you do your arguments are baseless and fascile, which merely proves your own foolishness and ignorance.
I think if FoxNews instead of the BBC was funded by threat of jail then I imagine Reith wouldn’t quite be saying “well tough, that’s the law. You don’t like it – live somewhere else”
“broadcasting honest and impartial” this post is about the BBC lying by ommision, and no journo is impartial. Infact many of them are extreme pro statists, partly because it’s the state that feeds them.
I wonder why you think there is no demand for honest and impartial TV journalism? There seems to be a great pluralism of newspapers, so why does the BBC needs to threaten people with jail in order to get revenue? Why do you consider dishonest and biased TV journalism to be able to market news more effectively?
Also new technology means that it will be cheaper to run the BBC via subscription than continue to collect the license fee.
Selling the BBC for only 3Bln GBP would pay for 20 million 150GBP set top boxes (in reality the boxes are 60 GBP) enough for every TV in the country.
Scrapping the License Fee is in the best interests of the country morally, financially, and accountability wise.
‘Reith’: “You don’t like it – live somewhere else…”
Could you be less in possession of an intelligent argument if you tried? This is a democracy as you mention elsewhere, and in a democracy people are free to campaign for change – for example, by setting up websites like this one.
Given your childish hostility to this site I might suggest that you yourself go somewhere else, but wouldn’t be so anti-democratic. I’ll leave that kind of thing to the BBC and its employees.
Rob – Your facts are wrong and your opinions border on slander to almost every journalist. You yourself have “omitted” things, does that automatically make you a liar?
Quick fact check: It is the Legislature which makes the law, and it is the judiciary which sends people to jail for not upholding the law. The BBC is neither of these.
Your second post is a grammatical road accident which belies your ignorance of the existant media industry, which has had this technology for decades, but chooses not to use it – ever stopped to wonder why? Obviously not.
Gavin – you obviously haven’t read what I said – I wasn’t being hostile or anti-democratic, but purely pragmatic. How do you know what’s better or worse if you haven’t tried it?
Woah – Let’s check some facts here:
Andrew comes home from a night shift and goes to bed. Wakes and watches the BBC 1pm bulletin.
Whilst he slept, the world moved on – annoying, but worlds have a habit of doing that.
What BBC1 reported was accurate but Andrew feels shortchanged, blames the BBC because he missed the news and says it’s just more bias.
He fails to mention the BBC1 news is limited to 25 mins, while Sky, being 24/7 has acres of air-time to fill. (“Lying by omission”? – ask Rob Read)
Face it Andrew, you missed the news because of the lifestyle choices YOU made. Throwing the toys out of the pram is undignified, claiming it is bias is complete hogwash.
This is NOT bias, it’s just a pitiful excuse to spin against the BBC – again.
How pathetic.
Reith
Why didn’t they teach you spelling at school ?
Or logic, even.
Slander, ha rubbish! You just cannot answer the accusation truthfully, namely that all journalists bend the story to meet their political biases (and we all know which way the BBC leans), the BBC is dishonest beacuse it pretends this is possible, whilst failing miserably.
So are you arguing in your second paragraph that the TV-Tax should not be legal, and should thus be scrapped? This IS the obvious implication of what you yourself wrote.
You try to dodge the question here by trying to demean my English skills. So I will repeat it as you obviously fail to understand basic economics, new technology has made it much more cost effective to scrap the TV-tax and replace it with subscription.
Rob, if the BBC were “dishonest” it would have been shut down years ago. The BBC only “leans” in your eyes because you mistake impartiality for bias simply because that neutrality doesn’t square with your personal view.
My second par is a statement of fact, not and opinion or an argument. You would do well to remember the difference – the spin came from you, not me.
As for your “TV-Tax” – you believe there are technologies which are more cost effective. I didn’t dodge the question – I merely demonstrated you were asking the wrong question. It’s got nothing to do with technology.
JohninLondon – oh we’re back to childish sneers about spelling again are we – typical. Since when was spelling a manditory requirement for free speech? Oh, and logic – it merely allows you to be wrong with greater authority.
I hope I’m not alone in feeling that “Reith’s” jibes tell us more about him than they do about me! 🙂 Taking “Reith’s” points in turn, he says:
“the shift work had me weeping. If the non-news channel TV news bulletins had to include everything for everyone who’d just woken up, they’d be 24 hours long”
I don’t work shifts – sometimes my specialist skills (and willingness to help) involve working late into the night for generous recompense. Moreover, were it to be shift work, I find it interesting that ‘Reith’ implies shift work is in some way pejorative.
“You don’t like it – live somewhere else (or go back to sleep)”
No thanks, I like living in Britain, and I think the BBC is a valuable part of British life. I despair, however, at the narrow Guardian-oriented world view evident in much of BBC News output, the more so because I’m compelled to pay for it whether I want their product or not.
cont:
“Whilst he slept, the world moved on” and “What BBC1 reported was accurate but Andrew feels shortchanged, blames the BBC because he missed the news and says it’s just more bias”
Not true. As I said in my first reply to ‘Reith’, either the world has moved on and the item should have been dropped completely or the world hadn’t moved on and we should have been given the whole truth rather than an abridged version of it.
“He fails to mention the BBC1 news is limited to 25 mins, while Sky, being 24/7 has acres of air-time to fill”
cont:
Not true – I do acknowledge the issue of time and space. Adding in the two significant omissions (the murder of the fourth hostage and the manner of their release) would have taken but seconds, perhaps at the expense of some of the optional filler that bulks out much of the One O’Clock news (e.g. perhaps a few seconds less of the free advertising for Sotheby’s Titanic memorabilia auction that featured in the same bulletin).
“Throwing the toys out of the pram is undignified, claiming it is bias is complete hogwash”
My argument was reasoned and presented in a reasonable manner – it is ‘Reith’ that appears to have the problem of flying pram toys. I don’t claim these omissions were bias – merely that, given their significance, the question is were the omissions down to conspiracy, cock-up or lazy incompetence – there can be few alternative reasons for offering such an abridged version of the truth instead of the whole truth.
And finally, I note that ‘Reith’ (scare quotes intentional!) has sidestepped the question of his pecuniary relationship with the BBC. Therefore, until Reith is prepared to clarify definitively to the contrary, we must assume that he (or someone close to him) is or was in the pay of the BBC in one way or another, thus prejudicing his (or maybe it’s her) views.
“Reith” posts:
“JohninLondon – oh we’re back to childish sneers about spelling again are we – typical.”
Hello?!? You were the one who first started accusing people of having “grammatical road accidents.” Now you complain when someone throws your poor spelling back at you. What a hypocrite!
Well, “Reith” does the BBC no favors when his behavior merely validates our prejudices toward their employees!
Perhaps he’s actually an anti-BBC troll in disguise?
There is a general problem in the hiring of foreign correspondants and indeed any journalist who operate abroad.
In the Middle east it would be reasonable to expect a minmum level of knowledge in regards to the koran and all itd dictates and the history of of its captive christian communities, including the Islamic laws governing their oppression for the last 1350 years.
There are no such historical exams for these reporters who appear on the scene with no knowledge of history to inderpin their perception of present sittuations.
How many would be able to answer such questions as
Who was Suleiman ?
What did the prophet dream about Constantinople?
What was the treaty of Al hudbiya.
Which hadiths are preferred by Muslims?
What is Sh’ia and what is Sunni?
Who are the sufis?
Where the roots of the Wahabbi?
Who are the Zaroastrians, the coptics, the chaldeans.. the Maronites?
What happened to the Greco Buddhist civilisation of Afghanistan?
What was the Armenian genocide and the genocide of the christian Assyrians?
Ask a middle east reporter these questions but do not wait around for the answers.
Whilst hundreds of Journalist with little education daily demonize further the Israelis, the last surviving autonomous non islamic community under Islam, Has even one bothered to study the history of ravages commited against Christian communities and the reasons behind those ravages under islamic law.
To do this would bring “instant” understanding of the conflict in the region.
Mornin’ Andrew – toys flying again I see as you spin your “narrow Telegraph-oriented world view” for all it’s worth. I’m not going to respond to your points in detail – it’s not worth it. The mere fact that you go to such interminable lengths to protest tells us everything we need to know.
What is this obsession with whether I work for the BBC or not? Does that change anything? No, it’s just another way for you to dismiss anything I say and feel morally smug. So – Keep guessing.
Susan – grammar is grown up – spelling is childish. “Anti-BBC troll in disguise” – ha! Spin some more and you’ll meet yourself coming the other way. BTW – You assume I am a BBC employee – see above – and remember you’ve been wrong before.
OT: When are you going to discuss the Lib-Dem’s victory in the council elections?
“As for people having to fund this on pain of criminal charges, well tough, that’s the law. You don’t like it – live somewhere else (or go back to sleep).”
It seems to me that there’s another unmentioned/unconsidered option. CHANGE IT.
I recall a time when the BBC was a respected unbiased news source. (yes, I’m old) They have since sold this unblemished reputation down the river for a political bias/ideal.
They repeat that the hostages “were released”. Only deep in the story does it come out that it was a military operation of “Italian and other” forces that caused this release. EVERY other source for this story says it was American Special Forces that got these guys ‘released’ with information gathered by Polish and other coalition forces.
I suppose it would be too much for the BBC to admit that U.S. Special Forces could successfully complete a mission without bloodshed or indeed that they were involved at all.
OFF TOPIC
Not bias perhaps, but cynical manipulation.
Crick (Newsnight 10/6/04)covers voting in Folkestone (Howard’s constituency). He interviews old folk exiting polling station. Finds, in LOCAL election, they have deserted Lib Dems & returned to Tories. Why? Because council have not cut grass verges & closed public toilets.
Old people & local affairs all made to seem so petty.
But only local election in Folkestone was for a parish of the district – duties – verges & bogs.
Correction:
A cursory glance at other news sources indicates that another pary beat the Lib-Dems into second place. I apologize for my error.
StinKerr
The trouble is, unless people are fairly old like you and I, they cannot understand the concept of a fairly neutral BBC that kept a reasonable balance between, say, Guardian and Telegraph views. Ah, those were the days – when we could hear both sides of the argument.
Latterly, people have grown so used to the tilt in BBC news that they find any suggestion that it should be changed unacceptable.
Reith,
the question asked in the main posting was : “is their penchant for this sort of editorial omission conspiracy, cock-up or just lazy incompetence?”
What is your opinion?
JohninLondon,
I just don’t beleive the BBC can do “neutral” anymore, it’s institutionally socialist. I don’t want to hear both sides of the argument I want them to stick to the facts!
Technology has advanced so that subscription is cheaper than collecting the TV tax. This means that those advocating the TV tax have an objection to free markets and personal choice. I think they worry that subscription will highlight how little interest the public has in the BBCs “output”.
Lastly, Reith when are you going to honestly answer a question? One last chance before I decide you are just plain dishonest.
Of course Reith won’t answer!
You really expect too much out of life rob!:-))
Rob Reid
Maybe the BBC wants to dig its own grave. The current licence review will at the very least make some modifications – spreading some of the licence fee money to other broadcasters, reducing the autonomy of the governors etc. But as you say, the NEXT review will allow the whole caboodle to be put on a voluntary subscription basis, partly or wholly abolishing the licence fee.
JohninLondon,
Pet hate, but it’s ReAd.
Rob – I’ve never denied the technology exists, whether it is more cost effective or not, I don’t know, but your claim is just that, a claim, with no proof. Frankly I don’t care, since the replacement of the licence fee has got sod all to do with technology.
deepdiver – bet lost.
Here’s a thought – if the subs technology is cheap, why does Sky cost twice as much as the licence fee? Why did ITV Digital, based on a subs model, go bust? Is the technology all you crack it up to be? Answers on a stuffed monkey please.
StinKerr: The BBC reported the US Special Forces’ role, calling it as “successful” throughout the morning on N24 and Breakfast. Do keep up.
Alan – it was neither. Sorry, but Andrew’s question was meaningless, since he made so many assumptions and spun it so dervishly, reaching the conclusion that it’s due to one of the options he (and you) offer defies rational argument – a seemingly scarce commodity round here.
“JohninLondon, Pet hate, but it’s ReAd”
Yes, JohninLondon, please reid more carefully next time! 🙂
Reith,
thank you for the reply.
Actually you are making the assumption that I agree with all the opinions on this site too (which I don’t). Please calm down and don’t assume that everyone here thinks the same way.
I was not offering you the same options as Andrew, merely asking a civil question – and why was his question meaningless?
Sorry, pressed OK without reviewing what I’d written properly.
Reith, what assumptions has Andrew made and what has he spun? What is your interpretation on the BBC’s “ommission of facts”.
Reith,
I wrote my comment in reference to the posted story on the BBC site and will stand by what I said.
Just for a different view here’s an eyewitness report from the Polish hostage who was ‘released’ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122359,00.html
Contrast that with the BBC story.
Oh, don’t let the foxnews site bias you, it’s an AP story and is available elsewhere. I just gave the link because it’s a non subscription link.
Reith
You are clearly ignorant of the technology that will allow the licence fee to transmute into a much more efficient subscription system. Never mind – the powers that be are not.
Alan – a civil response, thank you. The BBC and other news broadcasters omit facts every hour, it’s part and parcel of the editorial process. That wasn’t an options, so his question is meaningless.
To imply that this is evidence of bias is to ignore the facts, and thus, make assumptions.
To make such an implication without reference to the facts and use it to exaggerate his own view is spin.
StinKerr – I believe this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3787313.stm is headlined “Special forces free Iraq hostages”. Is that what you were looking for?
JohninLondon – there’s no need to be so accusatory – I believe I admitted to some ignorance regarding the technology, or more precisely, it’s practical implementation, and I agree the “powers that be are not”. They haven’t been for decades. But if that’s the case why is it taking so long for your “powers that be” to actually do something?
Probably it’s because the technology is irrelevant.
Reith
The technology cuts in when people receive their signals digitally. Which applies to only a minority of the population so far. But it is operational and proven – and far cheaper to operate than the licence fee system.
It will be interesting to see if the BBC comments on it in its overdue response to the Charter Review. There was plenty about it in David Elstein’s report, for instance.
The BBC’s evidence to the Review will no doubt continue its unctious and frequently false claims about serving the community. A great opportunity for us unwashed to chuck in some criticism at the BBC magnates and their tendentious arguments to fleece the Brit public.
JohninLondon – An interesting post. You consider 54% of homes having digital to be a minority. I shall bear that in mind the next time you claim a “majority” of people want the licence fee scrapping.
You again claim subs technology to be cheaper than the licence fee – as I say, I prefer hard evidence rather than claims of the mathematically challenged.
As for “unctious and frequently false claims about serving the community” – I am surprised that with frequent calls for individual choices and freedom from the tyranny of the “TV Tax” you even acknowledge there could be something as abstract as “the community”.
And the Elstein report – I’m glad you enjoyed it, the people who commissioned it certainly did – from a distance it seemed.
Having seen some of the non-BBC contributions to the Charter Review myself, I think even you would be surprised at how much the licence fee supporters are in a “minority”. Calling these good citizens “unwashed” is a tad personal tho