when dealing with the Great Satan. Here’s how the teaser reads:
Manila’s Catch 22
The Philippine choice between saving a life and angering the US
The question of how this will encourage further terror is lost on the Beeb.
Philippine President Gloria Arroyo was faced with an awkward choice – to save the life of a Filipino held hostage in Iraq or support the United States by keeping Philippine soldiers there. It was a tough decision for Mrs Arroyo, just weeks after she won a new term in office. By withdrawing all 51 peacekeepers, she scored political points at home. Now she must wait to see the extent of the fallout with Washington.
…as if pleasing the US is all that matters. Toward the end of the article, the implications of this cave-in are mentioned. Why not do so from the start? Because ‘big, bad bully America’ is the favorite tune at the Beeb.
USS Neverdock has given this one a thorough look. (Thanks to B-BBC commenter, Dave.)
Don’t you hate it when they don’t provide relevant links to surveys and reports?
Here is a link to the governments BBC Charter Review.
http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/
I haven’t finished my coffee yet and just had a very brief look at it.
The Telegraph article barely scratched the surface. It would be interesting if someone who is good at taking these surveys apart could take a good look at this report. Scott Burgess over at the Daily Ablution might be one. Anybody else want to take this report apart?
Just in my quick glance I saw some things in the XI The News 1. A Partisan service, that caught my eye.
“It ought to be noted, however, that many of the complaints about the BBC news service were submitted as part of organised campaigns, and the majority of replies levelling accusations of anti?Semitic and anti?Israel bias originated in North America.”
How do they know they were “organised Campaigns”?
Need more coffee!
Heads up! I’m just now reading an article on the BBC World website that shows just how anti-American the BBC really is. What is worse the writter is Robert Hodierne who claims to be “the number two manager in a 100-person newsroom that produces the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, Air Force Times, Defense News and Federal Times ”
What’s the beef? In the BBC article Hodierne says, Iraq is a “quagmire”, Gore won the last election, claims most states allow felons to vote (48 don’t) but not Florida, the poor join the military for a job and more.
Absolutely disgusting and dead wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3906449.stm
“If, as many assume, most of the military vote Republican, then their votes in Florida the last time around might have tipped the balance for Bush.”
Yes, which is why Al Gore moved heaven and earth to have the absentee ballots from overseas declared void. Hodierne seems not to mention that fact in the article/opinion piece.
Thanks, StinKerr, I forgot about that one.
Marc & Stinkerr, the BBC seem to have a track record of “forgetting” info such as the above…
Interesting survey… it turns out a mighty 3% of the British public, when asked what they dislike about the BBC, suggests it’s biased.
I’m sitting here mulling on that fact.
Right Simon, which would mean that 97% think the BBC is not biased. Since when did 97% of any group agree on something? Oh, my bad, that would be when Saddam won reelection by 100%.
simon hb is wrong.
Click to access what_you_said_aboutthe_BBC.pdf
The 3% figure relates to a ranking of what people dislike most about the BBC. It also relates to the BBC being “too biased” rather than just biased. All it says is that more people are bothered about there being “too many repeats”, etc, than they are about the BBC being “too biased”.
That’s a long way from the notion that only 3% suggest the BBC is biased. Not surprisingly, simon hb doesn’t use the same ‘methodology’ to imply that only 6% suggest the BBC is unbiased…
Indeed, reading further we find that from the same survey, and specifically regarding “reliable, accurate and impartial news reporting”:
“However, only 55% of participants in quantitative research agreed with the
statement, “the BBC only broadcasts accurate and true information”.”
.
Ooh, and from those who wrote in:
“Of the 33% of consultation respondents who made reference to the BBC’s news coverage, 39% thought that the BBC had a high level of biased reporting, compared to 33% who were satisfied with the BBC’s news coverage.”
Of course, the level of perception of bias is not necessarily linked to a level of bias. If it really was the case that 97% of the “British Public” believed the BBC to be unbiased, it might have as much to do with the success of propaganda than with John Humphrys being objective when he sets the agenda.
.
An interesting point is that ‘the BBC is often perceived to have its own agenda – although the nature of that agenda appeared to vary with people’s individual viewpoints’.
i.e. people with strongly held political opinions of any hue (lets say right wing pro-Bush for example) will perceive bias when the BBC fails to parrot these at all times.
And why should these people be legally required to finance a service they perceive as biased?
On the basis that, as the report shows, nobody has been able to come up with an alternative source of funding supported by any significant body of opinion and I suspect most people would be upset if the worlds finest broadcaster (don’t agree? tell me who’s better) disappeared because a minority perceived it to be politically biased.
Everyone who lives in a Western democracy has to fund public services through tax, some of which they disagree with or don’t use. Personally I haven’t been to hospital in the last 28 years but I still fund the things – I suspect that you have derived some enjoyment from the BBC in the same time period.
Rich, it could be paid for by advertising (my preference), by subscription (which would stop the complaints), or from normal government spending (which would reduce the cost of collecting the tax license & reduce the burden on the poorest households).
Coming up with alternate sources of funding isn’t difficult, the only “significant” body of opinion standing in the way is the BBC itself.
The only reason the “worlds finest broadcaster” would disappear is if they were unable to compete with the “lesser” broadcasters in a fair & open market. 😉