– the intro to a packaged piece by Carole Walker on BBC Breakfast News at 8am this morning. Yet again, nowhere in the package is it mentioned that the people who are ‘detained without trail’ are free to leave the UK at any time (for any other country that will take them – not just their home countries with the allegedly dodgy human rights records).
All that is needed to cover this story satisfactorily are seven extra words “foreign terrorist suspects who cannot be deported for legal reasons“.
Why is it so difficult for BBC journalists to grasp (and mention) this essential aspect of this story? Are they ignorant? Don’t they pay attention to such details? Or is this detail just inconvenient?
Because the biased bbc is reluctant to highlight that this is a problem of the government’s own making i.e. the government’s refusal to derogate as other countries have from the relevant part of the international law / convention.
The BBC always takes the side of the poor oppressed detainee. Never the side of British society that needs to be protected from terrorism.
Jist like it is soft on the terrorists of Fallujah, the car-bombers and hostage-killers that operated with impunity from that rats nest. Virtually nil coverage by the BBC of their torture dens, their HGE arms caches (one building took 45 minutes before all the munitions had exploded), their brutality to the ordinary people of Fallujah, the fact that they had set up a mini-Taliban enclave. No, No, the BBC prefers to concentrate on the actions of a single US Marine, actions which were probably justified anyway under the battle circumstances.
The BBC is becoming “the enemy within”. A fifth column organisation, biased against the Brits.
I’ve just been looking at the “acocuntability” page on BBC online – Newswatch. Usual dreadful old hokum. Here’s one delightful bit of bias in their piece on why they use the word “Insurgent” to describe Al Queda and Pro-Saddam elements:
“It is the best word to use in situations of rebellion or conquest when there is no free-standing government.”
Hang on. This is a new concept: “Free standing government”. Me smells a weasel.
Who’s to say the current Iraqi government is not “free standing”. It enjoys the suypport of the Kurdish parties, the Shias in the south and many Sunnis. It probably represents the will of the Iraqi people so far as that can be determined.
If we allow this concept of “free standing” to gain hold then they monkey around with lots of political situations. Is Israel “free standing”? Is the Ivory Coast government free standing? Is the Zimbabwe government free standing – or is it propped up by South Africa?
(continued)
Continuation:
The Newswatch project is a complete joke. I think it has soggy leftie Raymond Snoddy closely involved. It’s clear that it can only imagine effective criticism from the Left.
It ducks the difficult questions: e.g. when it is appropriate to use the term “murder”.
Laughably in defence of BBC choice of words, it brings in to the frame PROFESSOR LAURIE TAYLOR who – surprise, surprise – agrees that the BBC has got it comlpetley right. So he can be pretty sure that his radio programme will be recommissioned. Only the BBC could think that a long-standing (and very entertaining) BBC broadcaster could be considered a neutral judge of these matters.
Journalism whether by the BBC or anyone else is about half-truths. But sins of ommision are sins nonetheless.
David
I knew Ray Snoddy back in the 1980s – he was veruy left wing, very anti Murdoch and his plans for satellite TV. And as you say, Laurie taylor is obviously a leftwinger, albeit amusing.
So even in their attempt to defuse criticisms about their bias, they immediately show bias in their choice of interviewers/commenters. Bloody typical !!!
Professor Laurie Taylor turned up on Radio 5 the other week to answer exactly the same question. A military spokesman had challenged the use of the word “insurgent” (he preferred “terrorist”) so the BBC rounded up their tame professor to give the definitive word on the matter. The presenter – the hopelessly liberal Peter Allen – then thanked him kindly for sorting the matter out. It was as if he’d just received a divine judgement and not just the questionable opinion of a jobbing professor with a broadcasting career to think about.
On a wider note it’s interesting that the BBC doesn’t explain the background to the coalition’s action in Fallujah. This is the same BBC which is always so keen to talk about “context” for the terrorists’ actions. There has been no BBC report on the mutilated bodies found dumped in the streets, the five prisoners found shot in the back of the head or the piles of corpses of Iraqis who refused to fight alongside the “insurgents”. Fallujah was being run as a mini-Islamic state along lines even stricter than the Taleban implemented in Afghanistan, but if you listened to the BBC you’d be forgiven for thinking that the operation in Fallujah was simply a random act of US agression.
Re accountability and the Newswatch fiasco: For a glimpse into its rotten heart, check out the self-important twittering about the panel of multiculti “presenters” to “replace” Alistair Cooke — http://tinyurl.com/4loz3.
This is PC decision-making by committee at a level beyond parody. Just how do these folks serve the interests of the licence payer? Or speak for America and Americans? And why do their opinions about the US matter to a British audience?
Sadly, Dyke’s racist legacy is a BBC that is deeply suspect and “disgustingly brown”. We all get to pay for it.
… and back to the original point about detention-without-trial: it’s simply not true to say that this has been ‘hugely controversial’. There have been no large demonstrations, no major arguments in parliament, even the media has been pretty quiet about it. Why persist with this myth that everyone’s up in arms about it?
O/T Still waiting to see anything about French troops firing indiscriminately on unarmed civilians in Ivory Coast…several killed and wounded. Graphic video at Little Green Footballs etc. This is far worse than anything the US have done yet the BBC says…..chirp chirp
Errr Wally. I think you need to read over the article again.
There will no longer be “Letter from America”. The program replacing it will be called “View from…”, each presenter will cover what is going on in their part of the world.
So having a multi-cultural team would seem to be the whole point of the show?
Guardian column on the problems facing UK TV.
Not surprisingly the writer fails to question the legitimacy of a compulsory TV licence.
“But more importantly, the BBC’s quirky funding method begins to make more sense”
Quirky!!?
Despite the licence fee rising at double the inflation rate, the writer claims
“The BBC’s imminent and, as yet, unquantified job cuts look like reducing the corporation to a Lilliputian version of the grandiose Dyke vision”
Lilliputian!!? – with spend of £2.5bn pa
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1356785,00.html
Radio 5 live just now – we have human rights lawyer Louise Christian on as a “serious” commentator on identity cards and terrorism etc. Yes, that’s Louise Christian of Stop the War Coalition who think that the Iraqi insurgents should fight (i.e. murder and behead civilians) for the liberation of Iraq from the “fascist” forces of the coalition. What a joke. According to her we are all racist because we want to clamp down on illegal immigrants, particularly muslim ones. Why does my blood boil whenever I hear her or her ilk?
Guardian – Alex Thomson of C4 (not BBC, but seeking £100m pa from taxes)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1356441,00.html
He thinks coverage is one sided – but biased towards the interests of US/UK – he wants jouros embedded with the insurgents
He sees embedded reporters only bringing the benefit of exposing the wrong doing of our troops. No thought to their extreme stress & bravery
“Would you rather not know about the embeds appearing to show a wounded Iraqi being summarily executed – or a wounded prisoner being shot?..Without embeds, would there even be military investigations?”
He doesn’t want to be identified with our troops
” but it’s not appropriate to use words like “enemy” or even “terrorist” and “we” instead of “they” ”
And as usual, he misses no opportunity to sneer at the legitimacy of the UN approved interim Iraqi government
“Al-Jazeera is all but shut out of Iraq by the pro-US “government”.”
I hate the arrogant, self
Rob
Yes I saw that and thought at first it was a joke. But I should know better.
Perhaps we could embed journalists with the beheaders so that we can get decent shots of the decapitations instead of those amateur grainy images. As a bonus the tv companies could make good money by selling quality CDs of the beheadings in the Arab world.
John Humphries being interviewed by Michael Parkinson Radio 2 just after noon 21 November. Humphries’ parting shot: “the purpose of the BBC is to challenge authority”
General Mike Jackson is a Charles Kennedy poodle; see photo at Indy online:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/
PD — Quite right, I was speeding. Thank you.
are . obsessed . bbc . racism .
rearrange
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/birmingham_city/4031771.stm
top story.
I’m not sure being obsessed with racism is unuique to the BBC, but the lack of coverage on the case of Kriss Donald, the 15 year old murdered in Glasgow by a gang of Asians, makes it seem their obsession is very selective. I find it difficult to recall TV News censorship on any such case involving the brutal murder of a child.
Of course they covered the case on the BBC website and went far afield looking for comments on the case, getting opinions from none other than a Pakistani editor of “a West of Scotland multicultural newspaper” and the Muslim Council of Great Britain who thought providing opportunities for youngsters in the area would solve the problem.
It seems strange that opportunities for young gang members was not an issue the BBC gave coverage to when a gang of white youths murdered Stephen Lawrence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4025369.stm
The lack of BBC news coverage on the Kriss Donald murder is remarkable. I haven’t heard it mentioned in a single news bulletin. Maybe the kidnap and racist murder of an innocent 15 year old is so common that they just can’t fit it into the news … yet a few hundred people making monkey noises in Madrid is Big News, repeated endlessly on Radio 4 and 5.
BBC News is not so much news as a series of little morality plays for self hating white liberals, on the theme “us” bad, “them” good. The Kriss Donald murder doesn’t fit the script – hence zero coverage.
“yet a few hundred people making monkey noises in Madrid is Big News, repeated endlessly on Radio 4 and 5”
The way the Beeb is reporting the Dwight Yorke affair at Ewood Park makes the Kriss Donald omissions even worse.
Apparently two morons out of 20,290 spectators racially abused Yorke. Two too many, but the way the BBC reports it is way over the top.
I caught John Barnes (a player who had bananas thrown at him during his playing career) being questioned on Radio 4’s PM this evening. His stance of not agreeing with players walking off the field after being racially abused is probably not what the interviewer expected to hear. He also made the point that racism in the street bothers him more. I’m sure the name Stephen Lawrence was more likely to have popped into the head of the BBC people than Kriss Donald.
Off this topic, though on another one further down the board (the provenance of Fadil al-Badrani, the reporter in Fallujah): a 22 November report on the Dow Jones news service covers the murder of a man in Mosul who was a member of the Association of Muslim Scholars. According to the report “The late al-Faidhi was the brother of the group’s spokesman, Mohammed Bashar al-Faidhi, said Sheik Hosham al-Badrani, another association member in Mosul. The Association of Muslim Scholars, considered one of the most influential Sunni groups in Iraq, has loudly opposed the U.S. assault against the rebel stronghold of Fallujah and promised to boycott national elections to be held Jan. 30”.
There’s no proof (yet) of a relationship between these two al-Badranis, of course, but it would be interesting if they were related.
EURSOC tells us to expect pro-EU comments funded from our taxes. Spose that would apply whether from EU or BBC.
http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/677
O/T,
The Beeb website’s full coverage of the plot to destroy Canary Wharf
(It was mentioned on Radio 4 today, but nothing else on their web site.)
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=40
Anon: F*ck off
I don’t know why I censored myself just then…
Ghost,
Whilst I agree with your censored sentiments, I think this is an excellent example of why the BBC should be should handle hate crimes of all sorts with the same level of attention. Otherwise, the BNP and their ilk are strengthened. Someone I know, who, BTW, used to be a hunt-sab, has been seriously asking themself if voting for the BNP is the only way to get certain discussions, like this one, into the mainstream, as no one will really go there. Racism is just as bad if brown people engage in it. But no one is credibly criticising this from the left or the centre. It gets ignored, and those people who see these sorts of things every day will be drawn to the people who talk about it rather than ignore it.
Regards,
James
btw, pardon my grammatical and syntactical errors…
“The BBC claims that, since it is regularly attacked from both government and opposition, it must be getting the balance correct. But this spectacularly misses the point • that it is attacked by both because it is now on the left of both.”
(http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/2003_07.html)
Quality quote. So true. Perhaps you could use it beside the Andrew Marr quote at the top of the screen.
If you start having Melanie Phillips quotes to illustrate your site you lose the reputation for well argued and rational criticism which you’ve worked so hard to acquire.
And what pray tell is wrong with Melanie Phillips? You’re letting spurs fans down THFC….
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
Here’s her diary, a decent broad collection of her writings one would assume. Please point out her factual failings.
Andrew
One of the tricks commonly applied by the left is the
“If you start having Melanie Phillips quotes to illustrate your site you lose the reputation for well argued and rational criticism which you’ve worked so hard to acquire” method.
THFC may come back with more of the same re. Melanie Phillips, but he won’t actually show one example of where she is wrong. Its a variation of how the ‘R’ word is deployed:
What the definition of a racist? A conservative who has just won an argument with a liberal.
Well said, Pete. They often apply that standard by saying, “well the BNP links to Migrationwatch UK…” implying Migrationwatch is as bad as the BNP. They don’t apply the same logic when sites supporting Chechen terrorism and even excusing the murders of Children in Beslan have links to papers like the Guardian.
I’ve seen that very technique used on this blog by some of the pro-BBCers. I’ve been accused of being “racist” for pointing out the Beeb’s pro-Islamic bias, for example. As with all misuse of the language, it will soon become impossible to linguistically distinguish real racists from average people that the Left disagrees with — and this will only real racists in the end.
“it will soon become impossible to linguistically distinguish real racists from average people that the Left disagrees with — and this will only real racists in the end.”
Well the race card is nothing new and it’s part of the reason we are a long way from admitting the failures of multiculturalism. It must be bad if your average do gooder politician continues to tow the line and go as far as putting down Trevor Phillips for admitting these problems.
If you look to Holland where the race card is not so easily played now certain Muslim leaders are asking for limits on freedom of speech, which is just what the race card is in any case.
On the issue of terrorists, why is there no criticism of soldiers of the Black Watch as they destroy houses in the hunt for “insurgents”, but when Israelis do virtually the same thing the BBC trots out every terrorist-lover they can find?
“On the issue of terrorists, why is there no criticism of soldiers of the Black Watch(…)”
You can’t have it both ways Burt. I’m sure there would be plenty of protest on this blog if they did.
The point here ghost isn’t the morals of destroying houses but the discrepencies in reporting between in this example the actions of the IDF and Black Watch. Discrepencies without a proper explanation = bias.
Hey Ghost; I don’t want it both ways. I just want the BBC to report the facts, the facts, and only the facts.We don’t need their cheap “comment” and “analysis” from people who have spent five minutes in any given region and don’t even speak the languages! But I think that simple basic requirement of journalism is beyond their understanding.
Burt: “I think that simple basic requirement of journalism is beyond their understanding.”
Ah, but only if it were that simple…
In ideal world all news would be just the facts and “only the facts” but then nobody would watch it. No language is without meaning/suggestion, nor is any neutral; the fact this blog exists is testament to that.
Ghost
”In ideal world all news…”
That might be the first non-nonsensical thing you’ve said
So… why should we be forced to pay for the BBC when by your own admission it patently fails to uphold its Charter promise to be impartial?
Because it’s literally impossible to be impartial; therefore the sensible way to interpret the charter obligation is ‘to strive for impartiality’. Either that or assume the MPs who voted for the BBC’s creation were completely bonkers.
But they don’t ‘strive for impartiality’. Far from it, they reside on an extreme of the political spectrum seemingly oblivious to criticism.
Oh Andrew, you haven’t been paying attention there, have you? Far from the residing on the extreme liberal left, the BBC has been in the centre:
‘And it’s about including challenging views from left and right as well as from the comfortable centre’.
At least though, they are beginning to realise there’s a mindset other then that of the London liberal:
‘These are just two examples of how diversity can help us to move away from a chattering class London mindset and into the issues which are shaping the nation’.
Moving Past the Chattering Classes (apparently):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4030000/newsid_4032500/4032549.stm
In my view the BBC should aim to provide intelligent news services based on detailed facts and analysis. This provides some justification for the TV tax, given that the market seems irreversibly geared towards the sort of dross prevalent on commercial channels.
To the extent that the ‘chattering class London’ mindset reflects having some degree of intelligence(rather than the tabloidy ‘good v evil’ bullshit regurgitated by politicians and much of the media) the BBC shouldn’t shy away from it no matter how much bluster they get from Daily Mail reading morons and hardcore socialists.
What they need to do is ditch the crippling political correctness which is just as much a demonstration of stupidity.
OP
There is no justification for demanding my money with menaces.
“To the extent that the ‘chattering class London’ mindset reflects having some degree of intelligence …”
You really having a laugh here, pal.
“What they need to do is ditch the crippling political correctness which is just as much a demonstration of stupidity.”
Impossible. PC is an integral part of the ‘chattering class London’ mindset that you think reflects some degree of intelligence.