Below I asked What’s the difference between an interview and a sketch?, as helpfully demonstrated by Brian Wheeler of BBC News Online. By way of a related follow-up: What’s the difference between new news and old news?
Unfortunately, News Online don’t provide an answer this time. Surprisingly, the same Gorgeous George Galloway puff piece, last updated on Friday 13AUG04 (allegedly!) is still featured on the main BBC News Online Politics page – over two and a half-weeks later – in a nice highlighted box near the bottom, with a picture of George (in full flight, “Sir, I salute your courage, your indefatiguability” etc., etc.) and the words “Due Respect? George Galloway says he is building a new labour party”, along with, it seems from this undue exposure, the tacit support of BBC News Online!
In the interests of thoroughness, I’ve looked at the timestamps of all the pages featured on the News Online Politics page. The Galloway puff-piece is dated August 13th. The next oldest article is an anodyne piece about the size of the civil service, dated August 19th. After that, everything else is dated from the 25th to the 31st of August (with two exceptions – they being ‘see also’ type links to the lead story about Tony Blair).
So, how much longer is Gorgeous George’s puff-piece going to stay in the BBC spotlight? The only thing we can be sure of is that someone at the BBC likes seeing George’s mug sitting there on that page.
Update: Within twenty to thirty minutes of this post going live the News Online Politics page to which it refers was updated, replacing the George Galloway feature with a link to another Brian Wheeler article, this time about fox hunting. Just shows we’re not alone – don’tcha just love ’em!
Update 2: For those who require proof beyond my word for this, take a look at Google’s cache of the News Online Politics page. Google’s version is dated Sunday, August 29th, 23:52GMT 00:52UK (i.e. Midnight Sunday/Monday) – and look, there’s George’s mug jutting out at the bottom (until the cache is updated or the BBC nobble Google!).
yeah, yeah. you’re just making stuff up now.
Not quite RB – see Update 2 of my article for proof of the veracity of what I said – then come back (after you get home from work mind, so you’re not insulting me when you should be ‘working’ for us licence/tellytax payers) and argue that Gorgeous George’s puff-piece wasn’t featured on News Online for longer than is seemly.
“We have heard of Washington – but we have a disdain for it.”
Stephen Evans
BBC correspondent in New York
OK, this is taken out of context, but I find it difficult to believe it isn’t an inadvertent admission. If anyone objects to such rash generalisations and factual inaccuracies for the sake of humour, please refer to the following piece by the aforementioned – it’s thoroughly laced with them:
Stage set for Republican drama .
What attracted my attention to this article was the header box on the front page, accessible via the Google cache .
“Culture clash
Liberal New York prepares for arrival of the Republicans”
And that questionable assumption is the focus of my comments. “.
cont…
…cont
Evans is even more specific, referring to “Republicans crowding Democratic New York
New York being Democrat and liberal is a common perception, but the BBC is supposed to be above common perceptions, even when its reporters are pretending to have gone native.
The facts that New York city has a Republican mayor and New York state has a Republican Governor (both offices Republican for ten years) dispute the common perception, as do the facts that the State has the death penalty and the city is world famous for its zero tolerance policing. Democrat and liberal?
Perhaps all this points to New York(s) actually being complex and dynamic and non-partisan. Perhaps the great, cosmopolitan mixing pot of people is tolerant in the libertarian sense as much as the liberal.
Perhaps BBC reporting should reflect this.
.
Feck, how I hate the piss-poor comments system on this blog. You have to edit to fit (way less than the supposed 1000 maximum) and then errors creep in (especially with beer). Oh well, at least my stuff leans to the right.
By the way, seasoned observers will note that Evan’s effort provided alternatives for my opening gambit.
Very tempting was:
” – there’s the sneer – “.
Also considered was:
“Now, nobody can doubt that of all the targets on the planet next week, the Republican National Convention will be at the top of any evil-doers’ list.”
I went for a combination of ‘balance’ and ‘nuance’.
.
Bollocks, even the Google cache is conspiring against me, having now updated to the BBC’s latest. Luckily I did a screen capture, so there is some evidence.
Ooh, I see that “US youngster ‘kills father'” is still considered a hot story; unlike the execution of a child in Iran for having sex/being insolent, which isn’t considered a story at all. It looks like the BBC’s route down to ‘shock-horror’ tabloid journalism favours the left fork.
.
Surprise!
More free publicity for (slighly anti-bush) anti-economic freedom film!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3614868.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3616950.stm
Blatant propaganda for religious propaganda film!
Always do a screen capture, PJF. You know how they are. 😉
Rich,
I forgot to add that the link was on the front page i.e. the BBC think it’s one of the most important news items! Should have taken a screeny though.
The Mel Gibson flick didn’t get much publicity until it was released and it wasn’t postive, unlike like the manchurian remake is getting from the BBC.
Anti-Capitalist film get free BBC publicity shocker.
Off message I’m afraid =-
But was anyone else amazed to hear BBC news refer to the MURDER of those poor defenceless Nepalese hostages in Iraq.
I was. I am sure they don’t normally refer to murder in these circumstances. They might say something like execution or beheading but not murder.
Certainly the little girl aged 3 on the Israeli bus was not murdered according to the BBC. But then perhaps that is the Orla Guerin view.
I’ll check out the BBC website and see what’s on that.
David Field
Just checked out the BBC website.
They now seem to be backtracking.
The refer to the hostages being “killed”. But there is also a reference to the murders, but it comes in a sentence referring to a condemnation by a Nepalese person, so it could be interpreted as being the Nepalese view.
Business as usual then!
David
David, from time to time we all struggle with English language, never fear you are alone…
The media, by sanitising the execution footage, is effectively acting as a marketing team.
Clearly, taking hostages works, and the media coverage only serves to encourage more hostage taking.
And note how the lives of 2 journalists are deemed far more valuable than any of the soldiers and civilians who have been taken hostage.
The poor French are confused, they clearly thought their Anti-American stance would spare them…clearly not.
Anti-war, is the term you’re looking for.
OT:
BBC News Headline:
Schwarzenegger hails “leader” Bush
Why don’t they simply say “Son of Nazi Heils Hitler-like Ruler”?
It called a “quote” sean.
And to be fair, Dubya’s family does have more than a slight connection with the Nazi’s thanks to ol’Grandpa Prescott.
Zev,
I don’t see the connection between the Iraqi war and the French ban on religious symbols in school?
I’ve also never seen the connection between opposing specific policies pursued by the current American administration and being anti-American.
“And to be fair, Dubya’s family does have more than a slight connection with the Nazi’s thanks to ol’Grandpa Prescott.”
Actually that’s not at all fair, unless of course you believe in a variety of original sin that would transfer guilt across two generations.
And “ghostofredken” I know it’s a quote, that’s why I included the marks. However, the BBC chose to highlight that specific word, which carries an implication, which is what I was pointing to.
Sean – they chose that word because it was the message of the speech. A compliment surely? If the speech drummed home that Americans should vote for Bush because he’s a ‘inspiration’, ‘genious’, ‘millionaire’ or ‘monkey’ that would have been the word to flag.
Sorry, I obviously wasn’t paying attention in Sunday school.
Well obviously Bush is the leader of the party and therefore it would be unsurprising that Schwarzenegger would use the word. I’m sure the editor who selected that otherwise unextraordinary word and put quotes around it had a good chuckle, though, imagining Dick Cheney and his cabal of neo-cons ruling the world from their secret, underground lair.
But again there is also the totalitarian connotation (to my mind, at least) of the word “leader”, which to my mind conjures up images of every dictator of the past 75 years–e.g., Our beloved, infallible leader Kim Jong-Il.
P.S., Not only am I not a religious person, I’m not even a Republican. And I never attended sunday school.
I know what you mean Sean, I can’t help thinking of General Humberto Branco everytime I hear the word “periwinkle”.
It was my impression that the Republicans were pushing Bush’s ‘leadership’ (i.e. his willingness to take tough decisions in comparison with Kerry’s indecision) as their big selling point. It’s their spin, not the BBC’s.
When hasn’t leadership been pushed by a party seeking the presidency? Perhaps it is nothing. I like the BBC and read and watch it everyday, as I do NPR hear in the US. But I have no illusions about the opinions of the people who produce the news and the effect it will naturally have on their reporting. Others obviously feel the same. Hence this website.
Are you here because you question the objectivity of the BBC or because you want to defend it? Just curious.
I’m largely here because I like a good argument.
In my opinion there is a culture of ‘soft’ left wing political correctness in the BBC which needs stamping out and irritates the hell out of me.
Having said that, I think the BBC is an high quality national asset and well worth the paltry licence fee so I’m always keen to defend it against the abolitionists and those seeing Communism in every failure to wildly applaud Bush’s/Conservatives’/Israels every move.
Thanks for your opinion. And I agree. The BBC is still serious news in an increasingly serious world where paradoxically (or not) most other broadcast news outlets are not. But it would be nice if the BBC could reform itself a little.
The BBC is not that serious. For example, it has been totally adrift about the trends in the US Presidential election – arguably the most important continuing public event. They have been filtering the US news through their own prejudices – and therefore getting it wrong.