– 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.
mr. ghost- are you still out there? I disagree with the comparison. First, I am a Bu$hitler supporter, so you would expect that of me, wouldn’t you? The BBC isn’t supposed be affiliated with any candidate, or am I mistaken? Second, I don’t charge anyone for expressions of my contempt, however the BBC does. Third, the BBC purports to be a “news” service, and an unbiased one at that, whereas I am free to be as hypocritical and biased as I want.
Allan@Aberdeen: Hello!
“that he/she”… I have all necessary ‘man’ equipment, thank-you…
“considers that the BBC is impartial” Not really, I’m of the opinion that no news broadcasting is impartial, but I don’t think the Beeb is any more/less bias to a particular viewpoint than anybody else. I prefer C4 news actually…
“believes that Arabs have made contributions to the betterment of humanity” Yes.
“equal to those of the West;” Hmm…probably not, but I don’t see that as reason to ‘demonise’ them.
“believes that Al-Qaeda is not a serious threat;” To my everyday life, no. Replace ‘serious’ with ‘substantial’ and that’s where I’m coming from.
“opposes any reform of the BBC;” Like any large institution I’m sure that they ‘piss money down the drain’, so I’m sure some reform would be good for everyone.
“considers Islam to be beyond all reproach and criticism;” I think all religion is bullshit, but people can believe what they want to, and other people should feel to criticise if they want.
“has plenty of free time during working hours to contribute” Yes, I’m hardly the ‘dynamo’ of the office. But then I don’t get paid enough to care…
“she’s the BBC’s Director of Human Resources.” Wrong on two counts Sherlock!
Ted:
Yes, I realise that but there are still a finite amount of channels available. Although as I said the amount of channels is expanding so this will become less of an issue.
Pam:I wasn’t even remotely offended by your joke but I’m sure if I’d have made it (about a Republican who topped himself, had the election gone the other way etc.) I would have been universally derided by most of the posters here.
Regarding ‘Red ken’ and like-minded correspondents, I certainly appreciate your contributions because they inject a bit of polemic and ensure that people who share my opinion that the BBC is (irredemably) biased are not always preaching to the converted. I note from other sectors on this blog that those on the left appear to be putting the argument that the BBC is indeed leftist but that is its duty so as to balance the output from other channels. The duties of the BBC are stated in its charter which, if adhered to, would have ensured balanced output and nullified the level of complaint from people like me. Moreover, I don’t consider the output from the other terrestrial channels to be balanced but so what! I don’t have to pay a screen tax to them. It’s the equivalent of a newspaper tax going directly to The Guardian. Can any fair-minded person argue for that?
TGORK – you’re response to Pam is typically disingenuous – you suggest that Pam made an offensive joke and that ‘most of the posters here’ are also in some way deficient and/or hypocritical for not deriding the alleged joke.
Pam’s reference was to a Drudge Report story about a suicide victim who’s family claimed he was troubled by the re-election of Bush – not a joke – just a point of levity in response to those of us who earlier had responded quite robustly to someone else’s leftie spleen venting.
Allan: I’m not sure if I’m ‘fair minded’ but I’ll have a go. The main problem I have with the some of the views on this blog are not concerning the BBC bias, as I think some of the posts make good points about the standard of the BBC’s news output. I would however argue this endemic of modern broadcasting as a whole, unfortunately…
But, I don’t like the often bought up hypothesis that ‘BBC news output is bias/crap/lefty nonsense = the licence fee is not worth the money/should be scrapped. In terms of the BBC’s general entertainment output I believe it is far superior to anything else (cheaper than SKY too). The fact the BBC is publicly funded allows it far more money into programme development and giving young comedians/scriptwriters/animators much more creative freedom and financial support than any commercial network could even dream of. “If it’s so good then people will pay for it” is the often raised counter.
cont: But if we subject the Beeb to same commercial restraints as ITV or SKY then I fear it’ll be wall to wall ‘Ibiza Slappers Uncovered’ or reruns of ‘Friends’ for 100th time.
Oops. Andrew: I did read the said article on Fox. I also think Pam was making light of it, as I said I wasn’t offended but… I’m repeating myself, read the above posts from me.
ghost – I wasn’t making light of the suicide itself, I’m not that cruel. I was attempting to make light ( apparently poorly)of the absurd, thoroughly ridiculous intensity amongst the left in it’s reaction to the Bush victory. I blame the left for contributing to this man’s suicide, they’ve been whipping people up to a frenzy for months over this election, and I still see them continuing in this vein. It’s irresponsible. Clearly, the individual concerned was already unstable, this must have been the final straw.
theghostofredken can you see why the BBC should not exhibit a political bias of any sort, whether you concur with the views of that bias or not?
redken:
“But, I don’t like the often bought up hypothesis that ‘BBC news output is bias/crap/lefty nonsense = the licence fee is not worth the money/should be scrapped.”
Fine, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Also I note your opinion that the way the BBC is funded allows for talent development. there may well be intellectual honesty and truth in the assertion. However, one argument trumps all: the BBC aims to extort money from me under pain of a fine and/or imprisonment. There can be no defence to this.