In the Technology section of the UK version of BBC News Online last Tuesday there was a story headlined Howard in vote ‘spamming’ row. I expected, reasonably enough, that the headline referred to Michael Howard, leader of the UK’s Conservative Party.
It turns out, for those with time to click on the link and read beyond the headlines, that it’s about John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, and some political froth, presumably of some interest in Australia.
Given the utterly obvious scope for confusion between the Leader of the Opposition here and the Australian Prime Minister there, why was the headline so ambiguous? It would have been much clearer to say, for instance, Aussie PM in vote ‘spamming’ row. That would fit in the same space, and while Aussie might be informal, it has certainly been used to make plenty of other News Online headlines fit.
While we’re on the subject of Michael Howard, take a look at the News Online
MPs database. The montage of Kennedy, Blair and Howard shows Kennedy portrayed from beneath, looking statesmanlike, Blair looking a little distant, but not overly so, yet Howard is portrayed looking away from the others, mouth agape, face creased, clearly in the middle of a speech. This is in such contrast to the portrayals of Kennedy and Blair that it begs the question:
Were the people responsible for the montage (illustrator and editor):
a) Incompetent, inexperienced and/or stupid? or,
b) Slyly portraying Howard as badly as could be got away with?
Compare also with the photos of Howard, Kennedy and Blair on their pages in the self-same MPs database – it wouldn’t have been difficult for an organisation with the resources of the BBC to portray these much photographed politicians on reasonably equal terms if they wanted to.
Perhaps both of these cases are just unfortunate coincidences (among all the other ‘coincidences’ recorded on this blog). The question is, how many ‘coincidences’ does it take before the childish lefties who engage in such tricks realise that the game is up? Why can’t they just do what they’re paid (by every telly-taxpayer in the land) to do, namely record and report the news objectively and impartially, without taking every passing half chance to sneakily indulge their own prejudices?
Is it possible they were going for a “two fer”?
While they are at it they might also stop referring to hard line muslim clerics as ‘conservative’ muslim clerics.
Disgusting leftist fantasists at BBC inadvertently sneer quote their own prejudice:
Russian TV shows ‘hostage-taker’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3630084.stm
“The incident has been a massive embarrassment for the Kremlin…”
???
These BBC perverts are so out of touch and out of control it is incredible. Except, amazingly, it isn’t.
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3626856.stm
“3 – Hostages start running. The attackers fire at them to try to block their escape, prompting the troops outside to shoot back.”
The attackers fire at them to try to block their escape?
Not only does this pervert reporter feel a duty to ascribe motive to the terrorists; he, she or it decides to paint the motive in pastels.
I suppose shooting children in the back as they run for their lives is a strategy for blocking their escape, but I’m feeling uncharitable tonight and am going to stick with my view that the reporter is just a sick pervert.
Has the BBC reported that a young boy was bayoneted to death for begging for water? I’m too distracted to do a complete search.
.
Hostage-takers
Hostage-takers
Hostage-takers
Analysis: The hostage-takers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3627586.stm
Here’s an analysis so in depth that it forgets to mention that over 330 people were killed, half of them children. In fact, it forgets to say directly that anyone was killed! It’s a hostage crisis. A hostage town. With hostage-takers.
Chronic.
.
The weather is getting to people.
Picture of Howard looking strident – I thought that was the sort of thing that turned Conservative supporters on? It’s certainly no worse than the other pics.
Russian TV shows ‘hostage taker’ – the quotes are there because there is no independent confirmation that the bloke is a hostage taker.
Given the conflicting information flying about reporting this stuff as fact would be extremely unprofessional, similarly all the horror stories about rapes, bayonettings, Arabs etc etc. The confirmed reality is horrific enough – if you’re the sort of idiot who wants to lap up every unconfirmed rumour then I’d suggest reading The Sun. Some of us would appreciate a methodical investigation into the truth.
” Some of us would appreciate a methodical investigation into the truth.”
Me too, shame we don’t get that from the BBC.
Actually, the analysis referred to by PJF above gives an excellent summary of current theories (which at this stage is what they are) on who the hostage takers/terrorists might have been, which will no doubt be further developed as things progress.
Obviously some people are more interested in gorging themselves on the most unpleasant horror stories they can find than in what actually happened.
THFC
You are purblind if you can’t accept the obvious – that the atrocity was committed by a bunch of Islamofascists. Ruthless, heartless killers. The BBC was pathetic in trying to pin much of the blame on the Russians – this was premeditated brutality by Muslim fanatics, many of whom were from outside the region.
Or are you one of those people who look for conspiracy theories everywhere ?
OFF TOPIC
Unnecessary anti-Americanism #10011
R5Live short news bulletin –
Along lines of “Scientists have identified traces of radioactive materials from US atomic bomb tests in English soil.”
That’s all just those warlike, environment destroying Americans.
R5Live fuller news bulletin goes on to say that traces also found of all tests, Chernobyl etc. As covered in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3630284.stm
John,
It seems like you’re the conspiracy theorist? I’ve yet to see any facts so far which conclusively separates the atrocities from the long running Chechnya independence issue. While this doesn’t make the atrocity any less horrific, as I’m sure you’re aware that particular conflict is far from a nice tidy good v evil episode.
You seem to be suggesting that it’s linked to wider Islamic terrorism, involving non Russians? Do you have any evidence beyond some of the Russian statements or is this just a desperate attempt to link it in to the wider ‘War on Terror’ so that we can all get behind George in his crusade for freedom.
It might be ‘obvious’ but I’d like some ‘facts’ before jumping to that conclusion.
THFC –
There was plenty of evidence on BBC Newsnight tonight to the effect that the murderers were from different ethnic groups and that they were all Islamists. If the BBC are finally accepting that, then I think there’s a strong chance it’s true.
It seems most likely to me that they were a core Chechen group with Islamist add ons.
You have to ask yourself looking around the world today is there anywhere else in the non-Islamic world today where such atrocities could take place. Apart from parts of sub-Saharan Africa I think the answer is no.
Islam is a cultural breeding ground for inhuman actions of this type.
David Field
THFC
Do you still deny that the killers in Breslan included non-Chechnyians?
Do you deny that some of them were saying that their evil acts were for Allah ?
I never denied it in the first place. My point was and is that with any investigation still ongoing it would be wrong for for respectable media to report it as fact.
It’s indisputable that the murderers were Muslims. What is unclear is whether their motivation was a religious war against non Muslims, Chechen (or wider Islamic Russian) nationalism or simple revenge against Russian atrocities in Chechnya.
It’s been suggested that the aim was to trigger a civil war throughout the Caucus region.
This would suit Al Qaeda and the Islamofascists very, very much.
It is certainly true that Russia’s institutions are a horrendous mess. Yet again Russia’s Alpha commandos have been let down by the bureaucrats.
I think there is a definite racism in the BBC’s use of terms like “millitant”, because if such an atrocity occurred in the UK, the Beeb would almost certainly adjust it’s language.
Perhaps the BBC will move from “millitants” to “scallywags”, or perhaps “ruffians”, “rascals” and the most harsh word of all, “naughty men”.
I don’t think I even want to know what motivates someone to shoot nearly naked little children in the back as they run away. I’m still reaching for a word for them.
Even the ultras-liberal New York Times sees the Muslim connection as being at the heart of the atrocities in Russia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html
And Tony Blair in his news conference has been talking about this new type of “terrorism without limits”
Well of course Tony is, given that he’s staked his premiership on it. (and interestingly, some of the school survivors have denied that there were any Arabs involved…)
Returning to the beginning of the comments thread, why the hell should the BBC not call hard-line, family-values, let’s-keep-everything-as-it-was-in-800AD clerics ‘conservative’? They’re about as conservative as you can get…
What will the Beeb say if the scallywags and naughty men kill British children?
I think “naughty men” is too harsh…
How’s about “upset upsetters”?
And as Putin said, Brussels should surrender to Bin Laden if they are so keen on diplomacy (in a sense, the French have already surrendered).
THFC wrote:
“Russian TV shows ‘hostage taker’ – the quotes are there because there is no independent confirmation that the bloke is a hostage taker.”
No surprise that you missed my point that it was inadvertent sneer quoting of itself by the BBC. You couldn’t see that the context of my comments was that the BBC was deliberately and perversely avoiding accurate reporting of the status of the terrorist murderers. You were too busy awarding yourself points for mentioning The Sun.
“…excellent summary of current theories … on who the hostage takers/terrorists might have been…”
That’s great. But part of who the terrorists are is what they are. There was nothing in the report to suggest that anyone was killed, let alone hundreds of children slaughtered. They are described as ‘hostage takers’. Reading that piece reveals they took hostages. Nothing more.
Compare this who + what:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3706679.stm
“Given the conflicting information flying about reporting this stuff as fact would be extremely unprofessional, similarly all the horror stories about rapes, bayonettings, Arabs etc etc.”
Oh really? Then why did the BBC so quickly report the notion of the ‘botched job’ by the Russians? Did it just know it was; did it assume it was; or was it reporting unsubstantiated claims by third parties (the EU?)? Has there been any “independent confirmation” that the Russians were useless?
“Obviously some people are more interested in gorging themselves on the most unpleasant horror stories they can find than in what actually happened.”
Obviously some people are more interested in taking cheap shots than in facing up to the fact that their beloved news broadcaster is deliberately failing to do its job. If the most unpleasant ‘horror story’ is part of what actually happened, then it should be reported along with other aspects of the story.
.
“Oh really? Then why did the BBC so quickly report the notion of the ‘botched job’ by the Russians? PJF “Did it just know it was; did it assume it was; or was it reporting unsubstantiated claims by third parties (the EU?)?”
The BBC had decided it was botched within an hour of the shooting starting. So rule out the EU. It was relying on a general reporter some distance from the action & a (self-styled?) former SAS person in the London studio.
Here’s another take on the media treatment of this outrage:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.07.NomsdeGuerre-X.gif