– the picture below (in a radical new departure for Biased BBC) is an unretouched screen grab of Richard Perle being interviewed in the third part of the BBC’s recent series The Power of Nightmares*. Note how Perle was filmed with a bright window behind him and little, if any, lighting in front of him – leaving one side of his face washed out and mis-shapen, the other dark and sinister, like a thug with a black-eye.
The Power of Camera Tricks – Richard Perle with a BBC style black eye.
Needless to say, no other interviews in the same episode were filmed as poorly as this. Co-incidentally, the programme credits list the same name for ‘Camera’ and ‘Assistant Producer’.
There are many manipulative camera tricks that sharp-eyed viewers can spot from time to time in the media, including using unusual camera angles, fish-eye style lens filters (to subtly distort facial features) and so on – do keep an eye out for them!
* – a subject to which I intend to return when I have time. Suffice it to say for now that it was a mish-mash of opinion presented as if it was a factual documentary.
‘the picture below (in a radical new departure for BBC)’
This is hardly a “radical departure”, for the BBC. They have been doing stuff like this for years.
Interviewees of the middle right are often on a video link, ensuring they have a poorer quality of presence, and a detachment from events.
Interviewees of the left are always in the studio, close up with the BBC moderator – ensuring warmth, atmosphere, rapport and other understated qualities.
A radical new departure for BBBC – i.e. Biased BBC – not the BBC!
I have updated the post to change BBBC to Biased BBC, to avoid confusion. No stealth editing here!
Off Topic
I saw a new BBC news ad yesterday highlighting the red button on the Sky remote control.
The thrust of the ad is that you can get more information by pressing the red button and selecting one of several interactive screens.
Several couples are having a meal when a woman says the US vetoed the Kyoto protocols.
Ah, but says another woman, the Russians just signed off on Kyoto so it goes ahead.
How do you know that asks the first woman.
Because she used the red button to get more information.
Everyone smiles and is happy again.
The BBC could have used any number of ideas to promote the red button but they chose to bash the US once again.
Write to them and complain.
Oh dear…
Wear your tin foil hats!
The Power of Nightmares used hundreds of these tricks. One subtle one was the use of aharmonious music when neo con ideas were introduced.
Of course, another was simply the juxtaposition of the reasonable tone of the commentary set agianst the violent and absurd images, which leads one to suppose that the commentator is the one making the rational points.
David
On the 7am news this morning, it was mentioned that the Prince of Wales would be meeting families of members of the Black Watch. The newsreader went on to say that other members of the Royal Family would be attending a ‘society wedding’ in Cheshire. Whilke undoubtedly true, the juxtaposition of these two statements does not flatter the Queen. A cheap shot maybe?
But Prince Tampon was only visiting the Black Watch in a sulk, having cancelled his attendance at the wedding because of the unsatisfactory seating arrangement for his common law wife.
Devalues his compassion, what?
Voter’s Views: Bush Wins
In a country where 47% of the voters chose Kerry, the BBC picks a panel where 70% of the voters chose Kerry.
To be fair: statistically, it would be hard to align to the voting percentages of the general population with a sample of only 10 people.
However, in a random sample of 10, where the chance of success is .47, the binomial distribution gives the probabability of 7 or more successes at only about 13%.
Thus, with only a 13% chance of doing so randomly, it doesn’t appear all that likely that picking 7 Kerry voters was an accident.
The sample may have been, as the statisticians say, “biased.”
US strikes raze Falluja hospital
Prayers and tears in Falluja
The BBC starts a pre-attack bombardment to soften up the public as it prepares to move in and “Jeninize” Falluja. A massive assault on the truth requires careful planning and preparation.
sorry if this old news…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3966139.stm
yoy, it is old news, but there’s an update. and it might interest the people of this blog:
BBC tears for Arafat
I’ve never attributed an interviewer’s choice of lighting to malice, but sure, partisan reporters manipulate images all the time. Want someone to look angry? Catch him in the middle of an “ah” sound. Want him to look like a stupid chimp? show him during a long “u”. It’s routine.
clutching at straws here
I’ve just come across your site so forgive me if you have discussed the topic already. Have you ever noticed that almost every picture of President Bush in a BBC article shows him in an unflattering pose. Either his ears are sticking out or his mouth is open or frequently he appears angry. Of course, Kerry was always smiling and waving…just like they did for Saddam before the war.
Nice site! The editors at the ZZ News Portal occasionally scan the web manually for interesting feed content and we came across your site today. We would like to invite you to add your site’s url to our OpenRing as your material appears interesting and aligned with our readership. If you are interested you can find further information at ZardozZ OpenWeb and at the ZZ OpenRing . Hope you’ll join us…
Barnabus – hello. I’ve just recently found this a site, too. To your point, I’ve noticed that for some time, anything chimp-like will do. I happen to think he’s attractive, but I’m one of the stupid morons who voted for him, so what do I know? They haven’t found a way to make Yasser Arafat attractive yet, although I’m sure they’re trying. They’ll have to defrost him first, of course.
From the “BBC Tears for Arafat” article: “The BBC admitted it had received hundreds of angry calls. A spokesman confessed: “Aspects of this particular report were misjudged.””
I’m wondering how it could be described as ‘misjudged’.
You should hear ‘talking point’ right now – it’s actually quite amusing. They’re entertaining a lefty conspiracy theorist in denial.
why don’t you discuss what was alleged in the documentary, instead of narrowing in on video quality? funny, i’ve never seen conservative news programs that even interview the other side. at least they let this asshole speak his mind. by the way, you should enlist: support your war-put your money where your mouth is. i bet you are a rich/middle-class white male, right? another thing: i bet you won’t allow this comment to remain on your site•so who’s the information manipulator now?
unlike the bbc’s “have your say” discussions – the posts here dont have to go through a ‘vetting’ process to ensure they follow a particular line on an issue.
Hi American Soldier
The documentary itself? i’m afraid I chose to go to the pub/wash my hair/stab myself in the eye instead of watching it. The previews toldme all I need to know: standard Michael Moore bullshit.
Conservative news programmes? Come to the UK and fnd one for me, please.
Emlist? Been there.
Rich middle class white male? Sorry, rather poor working class white male from east London.
Now go for a run and work out some of that aggression.
Thank you for your comment Jessica Meek, Ohio Air National Guard (“American Soldier”). Please re-read my post. My last sentence touches upon the nature of the programme and my intention to return to it when time permits.
The camerawork on the Perle interview was blatant – hence its inclusion now.
I hope you’ll forgive me – unlike the BBC with £2.5B GBP p.a. I have a limited budget of time & money to provide for my wife and three children.
You’re right that I’m white and middle class – in common with most Brits, but I’m far from rich. And yes, Andrew is a male name, at least in the UK.
Re. your paucity of TV choices – perhaps there is something to be said for a compulsory annual TV tax after all then!
We’ll leave censorship to the BBC’s (Don’t) Have Your Say team – your comment is welcome to stay here (we too let assholes speak their mind, as you charmingly put it!) – it says more about you than I – as I’m sure you’ll appreciate when you’re calm and sober.
Perle looks just as shifty even when he’s well lit. Aren’t politicians and their staff briefed on that sort of thing though? Like how not to be have their face in shadow etc. Anyway, I thought ‘Nightmares’ was a bit lightweight, factually speaking, in some areas, but in others it was quite informative (like the ‘sleeper cell’ arrests in Detroit and Buffalo, the Detroit case seemed particularly flimsy) but I think I talked about that with someone a couple of days ago on Thursdays or Fridays posts, I think.
Jessica, (American Soldier)
Try tuning in FoxNews. They are accused of being ‘conservative’ by the lefties but they persist in presenting both sides of every issue every time. Unlike BBC, CBS, BBC, NBC, BBC, ABC and of course, BBC.
Give ’em a look-see, maybe you’ll learn something.
StinKerr (Former American Sailor)
hello – I’d advise you guys to just humor our “progressives” at the moment, they’re under a great deal of stress due to a recent reality check they’ve received. They’re even committing suicide, bless ’em. (see “Drudge” for details)
lmfao at Fox presenting both sides of the argument.
I realize it’s a new concept for you, but it seems to work out quite well.
Pam: The top story on this site states “The BBC thinks it’s funny to joke about assassinating Bush” while you have posted: “I’d advise you guys to just humor our “progressives” at the moment, they’re under a great deal of stress due to a recent reality check they’ve received. They’re even committing suicide, bless ’em”. Thank you for encapsulating some the blatant hypocrisy that exists on this board, I couldn’t have invented a better example.
fred ken
Interesting, the left is now equating incitement to murder with Darinism at work.
BTW, make that Darwinism.
The documentry was absurd. I only saw 10 minutes near the end, I turned it off because it was doing my head in.
I was particularly irked by the programmes assertion that a dirty bomb is essentially harmless, that nobody would be hurt, that it was all hype.
They failed to mention the fact that a dirty bomb in the business district of London or New York would cause trillions of dollars worth of economic damage by rendering billions of pounds worth of economic infrastructure uninhabitable for thousands of years. (entire city blocks would need to be levelled and rebuilt from scratch).
Al Qaeda has said that its objective is to bankrupt the west. (again this was not mentioned).
The programme also asserted that Global Terrorist networks don’t exist. (They forgot to mention the fact that 18,000 young men were trained in Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in the 90s and sent all around the world).
As for the interview with Richard Perle, they allowed him to say that Iraq DID have terrorist connections then quickly moved on. They didn’t allow him to list those terrorist connections. (ie they did not allow the other side to put their arguments accross).
” The programme also asserted that Global Terrorist networks don’t exist. (They forgot to mention the fact that 18,000 young men were trained in Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in the 90s and sent all around the world).”
The programme stated that the training camps were set up by the Taliban to train nationalist fighters. It also said that Bin Laden was allowed to handpick fighters from those camps.
“BTW, make that Darwinism.”
Pete: Are you sure you’re from London, not Utah?
“The programme also asserted that Global Terrorist networks…”
It claimed that they (Al-Qaeda) were very small with no organised structure, not that they didn’t exist.
Al Qaeda WAS organised etc but was smashed by the invasion of Afghanistan. Now ‘Al Qaeda’ is a terrorist franchise, a philosphy and one which shall be defeated (unless Western defeatists have their way).
Fact is for a 9/11 to happen terrorist groups need time and space to plan and organise. When you’re running for your life you don’t have time to plan terrorist strikes.
StinKerr,
If I was really that bothered I could start up a similar blog to this pointing out right wing bias on fox news.
The thing is fox news doesn’t contain much news. Its just a bunch of personalities spouting their opinions. Its quite entertaining, but lets not pretend its seriously balanced.
Here’s one thing you could put in the Biased Fox New blog. How about the chief political correspondent’s wife working on the Bush campaign in 2000? Fine, its his wife not him but when you see the footage of this guy chatting away all chummy to Bush about it before an interview you know its not gonna be a tough one for George.
Oh and this is the same guy who posted up an article on the fox news website attributing quotes to Kerry after his first debate such as “Didn’t my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!”, “Women should like me! I do manicures!”. All of which were made up.
You guys would be going nuts if Andrew Marr was behaving like this!
PD:
Yes, would, for one simple reason: the BBC extorts our money from us under pain of a fine and/or imprisonment. WAKE UP!!!
Fox News is entitled to broadcast what the hell is likes. Just like the other privately-owned networks. CBS can authorise their employee Dan Rather to tell lies regarding Bush’s service (wasn’t THAT fun when they were found out, eh?) Privately-owned newspapers can have any allegiances they like. For this reason I don’t get exercised by the madness printed in the Guardian (thanks for delivering Clark County, by the way.)
However … the BBC is NOT PRIVATELY-OWNED!!!
Fred Ken
another lefty who needs a joke explained to him …
Darwinism = survival of the fittest = the weak, lame and stupid die off (like your suicidal lefty comrades).
And yep, I do hail from London. Walthamstow, E17 to be exact. I’ll regard any comments as a cheap shot.
CNN: Prominent talk show co-hosts, Paul Begala and James Carville were hired as official consultants to the Kerry presidential campaign while maintaining their positions within the network. How about that PD?
Swings and roundabouts….
Pete
Yes I knew you’d say that but Fox News repeatedly states that it’s “fair and balanced” etc. when many times its pointed out that it is in fact not.
I agree with you to a point that this is OK, as with newspapers here. However the airwaves can only support a finite number of channels (though admitedly this is changing and this is the strongest argument against the TV tax) so in order to broadcast you need money and a lot of it. Starting an internet site is cheap, as is a newspaper when compared to TV.
I mean in america the media is owned by 4/5 big companies isn’t it? So what if everyone with the money is pushing one political point of view or catering for only one part of society (the biggest)? Doesn’t make for a great situation.
Thankfully I don’t think this is the case at all but its a reason why I like the BBC. But anyway, this is all part of the wider debate on the BBC and not the news so I’ll shut up now!
Re: CNN, If they are hosts/moderators and not pundits/commentators then that’s a perfect example of conflicting interests. They should have resigned.
“another lefty who needs a joke explained to him …”
Okay ‘righty’, I was actually suggesting that you possibly grew up somewhere where they didn’t teach evolution in schools – hence your poor grasp on its central concept.
B.t.w, how exactly are you a ‘true gooner’ when you live in EAST London?
I watched Fox News election night as it had the best info ticker at the bottom and I failed to see anything prejudiced about their coverage. They were the first to call Ohio for Bush and should be credited for that. Likewise they interviewed Barack Obama which was very amiable. I found their punditary accurate and insightful, especially compared to what I briefly saw on the BBC.
To me it appears that those who are ideologically opposed to the ‘right’ will find Fox as unpalletable as those of us who dislike the BBC. The difference is I dislike the BBC for the very same ideology which permeates it.
“Ehem” north east London actually. It may seem picky but is of vital importance round these here parts. Also I happen to come from a long list of distinguished Gooners. Such as … and … erm …
“north east London actually”
Hmm…
I’ve used a bit of free time to look over this blogsite in some detail and there are some interesting correspondents. Just as behaviour reveals personality, so can the comments on these pages point towards a person’s job. Taking theghostofredken as an example of one of the most prolific contributors, it is clear that he/she:
considers that the BBC is impartial;
believes that Arabs have made contributions to the betterment of humanity equal to those of the West;
believes that Al-Qaeda is not a serious threat;
opposes any reform of the BBC;
considers Islam to be beyond all reproach and criticism;
has plenty of free time during working hours to contribute (?) to this blogsite.
There’s only one job which matches this profile – she’s the BBC’s Director of Human Resources.
Errr, I’m not ideologically opposed to the right, but I take your point as to why others would dislike it.
Personally I do actually like Fox, don’t always agree with what they do. But its entertaining news coverage, there’s a lot of energy in the delivery and it comes across. Its certainly different from the rest.
Didn’t watch much election coverage on the night anywhere so can’t really comment. I’m not saying Fox is always biased either. I doubt anyone sane here would accuse the same of the BBC.
PD:
Fox News isn’t on the airwaves. It’s a cable/satellite channel.