at least if you rely on BBC News you will. The biggest British media/entertainment story of the day (and probably of the week, if not the month) was very briefly mentioned on the Six O’Clock News this evening (no footage, just a very, very brief sentence), and not at all on the Ten O’Clock News.
Bhopal hoax hits BBC is the front page headline on The Times website – along with an accompanying article Yes Men duo score their biggest hit with Bhopal hoax. BBC Is Hoaxed Over ‘Bhopal Aid Fund’ is the front page headline on the normally quite sparse Sky News website.
And what of our old unbiased, impartial, ever professional friends at BBC News Online? Front page? No. Entertainment page? No. Ah, but let no one say it is not there! Well yes, if you know where to look that is.
Scroll aaaaalllllll the waaaaaaaay down to the bottom of News Online’s home page, and there, buried right at the bottom, are inconspicuous links labelled Newswatch and Notes and corrections.
If you happen to scroll all the way down and then click on the discreet Newswatch link you get to see, finally, a link to News Online’s own coverage of this story – BBC caught out in Bhopal hoax.
If you happen to click on the other link, Notes and corrections, though, you don’t even get that – you get an almost identical page, but this time with a story spinning excuses for the BBC’s lamentably timid coverage of Bonking Blunkett’s Express Immigration Service (a story that, incidentally, makes no reference to the BBC’s somewhat different approach to covering the story of Bonking Boris).
And if you do happen to find the link to the BBC’s impartial, unbiased, objective coverage of this story, what do you find? Ah yes, it was an “elaborate deception”, an “elaborate hoax”. “Timed to coincide with the 20th anniversary” – funny that – who’d a thought it – pull a stunt like that on the 20th anniversary! How elaborate!
The BBC then goes on to explain that:
Excerpts from the interview were also carried on news bulletins on Radio 2, Radio 4 and Radio Five Live.
The BBC has apologised to Dow and to viewers who may have been misled.
Have you seen or heard any BBC apologies for this Rathergate style cock-up (journalists falling for stories that they want to believe)? I haven’t, and I doubt many of the other compulsory BBC Tellytax customers have heard much of this supposed apology either. As with all the best scandals, the initial ‘crime’ is never quite as bad as the cover up afterwards. The BBC still has a lot to learn about impartiality and objectivity.
As for the BBC’s much vaunted Newswatch, it looks as if, rather than the Tellytax-payers champion it purports to be, that it’s more of, shall we say, a good place to bury bad news.
Update: Powerline’s post on this refers to the Washington Post:
The broadcaster said in a written statement that it had been contacted by a man who “during a series of phone calls, claimed that there would be a significant announcement to be made on behalf of the Dow Chemical company.”
“He gave no further detail until the live interview, broadcast from the BBC’s Paris bureau this morning,” the BBC said.
Oh, how elaborate a deception indeed!
Even smellier than appears, perhaps, since the “news” broadcasts coincide with the wrap around a much-hyped BBC2 “documentary” called One Night in Bhopal, which aired December 1st at 9 pm.
So many questions, where to begin? The BBC’s foam-flecked anti-Americanism is showing strain. And yes, there’s a whiff of Dan Rather here — and just look what happened to him.
Who, exactly, was involved in the newsroom, what did they know, who told them, and when?
‘Blink and you’ll miss it… at least if you rely on BBC News you will.’
Whats new? Its just more of the same tawdry, run-of-the mill, everyday suppresion of information at the BBC.
Who’s responsible?
The responsible minister, of couse.
Yes, Under Tessa “out of her depth” Jowell’s (the Arts and Culture minister; including broadcasting; through whom the BBC is responsinle to Parliament) watch, the BBC has accelerated all manner of deceptions.
Tessa Jowell should resign .
The BBC should be privatised.
If the BBC is not privatised now – it never will be.
If Britain does not act on the sheer amount of compelling evidence of an overwhelming lack of ethics in a monstrous organisation such as this; the opportunity to privatise and, in this case, purify will forever be lost.
Dan Rather is/was CBS. Interesting that a CBS affiliate company picks up the BBC fiasco and gives it prominence — someone at CBS understands just how quickly corrupt, credulous idealogues in a newsroom will wreck a network.
Precious little evidence that anyone at the BBC has the integrity needed to know that, much less do anything apart from “investigate,” act self-important and declare that it could happen to anyone. So…brace for big buckets of incoming whitewash.
The BBC is not a credible news source.
No time to air any repeats of the apologies – nothing to match the heavy coverage they gave to the hoax story.
But they found plenty of time on World Service this morning for a long diatribe about Guantanamo, US terrorism charges and human rights. A man spouting off, basically reading a long speech. With no dissenting arguments, not even an interviewer asking any questions.
Al-BBC as usual.
I believe the common denominator in the SeeB.S. and Al-BBC incidents is their ideological driven news gathering/reporting. I suspect that within these organizations, fact, and more importantly, source checking, take a back seat to the “message” they want to communicate. They will continue to lose credibility, look stupid, naive, gullible (And that’s being kind, I’m sure some viewers will suspect deliberate fraud)Couple that with the fact the internet offers superb sources of news and commentary and I don’t see these old dinosaurs surviving. They need to clean up their act, return to reporting facts (not their political opinions)or perish. It may be inevitable, after all is said and done, you can only jerk the public around so long before you lose them forever.
Similar tone in their reporting of the Bernard Kerik appointment – The main issue was his lack of ‘bipartisan’ credentials – The fact that he may be the best man for the job was not mentioned. Funny how we never hear liberati banging on about bipartisanship when there is a democratic incumbent
Yet another “season”. Indoctrination, more like!…
I wonder if they would have mentioned it at all if it was an Indian or perhaps even a European company.
The missed the whole point behind Kerik’s appointment.
In Kerik they have someone who intimately understands the intersection between police work and liasing with the federal government and the use of stratigic intelligence.
That simply didn’t register to the Beebsters at all.
I’ve met a few of them here in Washington. They simply don’t seem smart enough to deduce things from the news. They really don’t.
It doesn’t register to the beebsters because they still think THE STORY is why is Bush president when the received opinion of the leftist media (90% of US media according to American Spectator article)was that Kerry should have won. They still don’t get it. Prepare for four more years of condescension from the publicly funded yet totally unelected BBC.
JH – Sounds like our elections. A Dem. win = “the people have spoken”, a Rep. win = “start the recount”. Our republic is always on the brink when a Rep. wins, as well. It’s been going for decades. Kerik’s a terrific choice, by the way. I feel I have the cred. to comment on him as I lived the BK/AK era in my city. And I don’t recall the “Rambo” nickname, as best as I recall, he was known as Bernie.
I have to say I have actually seen (on BBC World) a quite fulsome apology- albeit combined with a rather weak line about how it was an ‘elaborate fraud’.
However, it appears clear the BBC were so over the moon that their crusading journalism (they’ve definitely been pushing the Bhopal story for all it’s worth) had borne fruits that (surprise, surprise) they never bothered to contact the company itself to confirm the story.
Not unforgivable given a reasonable apology (i.e. this was not a simple fact-check error, but a symptom of false journalistic assumptions), but predictably that has not been made.
The main story perhaps was how much attention the BBC was paying to Bhopal – before the hoax. It was in every TV and radio news bulletin – even though the event was 20 years ago.
It is of virtually NIL interest to the Brits right now – but the Beeb chose to highlight Bhopal all day. Typical skewed news agenda – a nice story against “ugly US capitalism.”
I too noticed that the word ‘deception’ never appeared without ‘elaborate’ in front of it, meaning it wasn’t their fault and as they were acting with the highest possible motives they can be absolved of blame and they can take their crusading anti American, anti capitalist invetigative journalism to some other poor schmuck who doesn’t enjoy their privileges. Power without responsibility is the prerogative of the harlot.
I used to write propaganda for a living. It was called “employee communications” but it was really about finding ways to push the company’s “messages” constantly in the face of employees.
Say you were writing a puffy “human interest” story for the employee newsletter about the Chief Financial Officer’s off-hours passion for collecting antique china cream pitchers.
As company propagandist, you’d have to find some way to connect antique china cream pitchers with cutting overhead and increasing revenue, or some such. So you’d end up writing tosh like, “The CFO says that cutting company overhead and handling antique china cream pitchers have a lot in common: you have to do both very carefully.”
The BBC does this kind of thing all the time.
How could people who work for the BBC be so gullable as to believe the $12 billion settlement figure?
Net Tangible Assets for Dow Chemical amounts to only $5.37 billion — that’s if they liquidated not just the Union Carbide subsidiary, but the whole dang company.
BBC could have instantly ascertained this on the Internet — as I just did.
(continued) Such as their recent article that was ostensibly about the nomination of a Cuban American to head the US Commerce Dept., but was really just an excuse for the Beeb to plant some “messages” about how mean the US is to poor noble little Commie Cuba.
(Yes, I’m embarassed I used to do stuff like that for a living. But at least I didn’t do it while working for “the world’s finest news organization” and trying to pass it off as serious journalism.”)
Why didn’t this “Yes Men” hoaxter target another news organization besides the Beeb? Clearly he knew his mark. Experienced conmen know very well that it’s easier to cheat a dishonest man than an honest one.
Having actually read the Yes Men’s site and watched BBC World, I can say that the only reason they were on the BBC was because virtually no other broadcaster actually bothered to cover this (what I see as) very significant anniversary. They gave an acceptable report of the hoax and invited the men back for interview.
Also, I’m not sure how so many people manage to get so worked up about the BBC calling the hoax “elaborate”. I would indeed describe what these Yes Men have done as fairly elaborate: creating websites in the image of these companies, coming up with material and getting “representatives” to appear in the media. It’s also the word that the Yes Men used unsparingly throughout their own press releases (both as Dow and as themselves).
To be honest, I don’t see the problem or obsession with the BBC to the great extent you people seem to. I don’t really understand how nitpicking the words of a select number of their reports is of any particular use. Anyway, in complaining the BBC are biased against whatever direction your agenda leans, I imagine the BBC receive plenty of complaints from another of other parties complaining of bias against their angle.
Christopher “I imagine the BBC receive plenty of complaints from another of other parties complaining of bias against their angle.”
So that’s OK then. Let’s all be forced to pay for a biased media organisation.
“I don’t see the problem or obsession with the BBC to the great extent you people seem to.”
It is because we are forced to pay. We can put up with the rubbish in the print medium as we do not have to purchase the product.
Christopher
I can’t think of anything less interesting than Bhopal. It is not a BRITISH issue. It is of nil concern to most Brits. Only the bleeding-heart anti-US BBC would try to build the anniversary into a major new item – that is why they were so easily suckered.
But will anyone get sacked for such terrible journalism – such a failure to check facts ? Of course not – this is the BBC.
JohninLondon: Your attitude is so blinkered I’m not surprised Bhopal is of no interest to you personally. But on what basis can you assert it is of “nil concern to most Brits”? I have no evidence to assert the opposite, but this WAS the world’s worst industrial accident that – according to Dow itself – killed approximately 3,800 people and left several thousand other individuals with permanent and partial disabilities.
As for your remark about people being sacked for not checking facts: Exactly how many Telegraph journalists have been fired for the Galloway story?
Someone
Bhopal was important at the time. But it is NOT important to most Brits now. It is NOT a topic of conversation = when did you last discuss it recently? Noone else in the media is paying any attention to it right now. This was a typical BBC exercise of “We will tell you what we think the news is” – working to their own skewed agenda. So they ran Bhopal stories on all TV and radio channels, before the hoax – no wonder they got suckered.
The Galloway case is not over yet, it seems. The Telegraph is talking of appealing, which would mean it stands by its story. Nowhere in the trial did Galloway claim that the Iraq documents were NOT valid. He won on a technicality, which will be tested further. A totally different case to the total HOAX pulled on the BBC. Nonsense on your part to try to equate the two.
Actually it just dawned on me why the Yes Men may have chosen the Beeb as their mark for this hoax. The US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC, the federal watchdog that polices Wall Street for stock manipulation and fraud)has very strict regulations about how, when and where a publicly traded company can announce significant financial news that would impact the price of its stock.
For example, a public company can’t release a significant financial announcement during a market session; it has to be released either before the market opens or after it closes. Moreover, a company can’t give out “exclusive” stories of this nature to just one media outlet, let alone a foreign-based one: it has to be released as widely as possibly to all US news outlets simultaneously.
(cont’d) If Dow had offered an “exclusive” story of this nature to the Beeb, its senior executives could have been in very hot water with the SEC (the same group that just put Martha Stewart in the pokey for dodgy stock trades) as well as sued within an inch of their lives by their own stockholders.
An American news outlet doubtless would have been more familiar with SEC disclosure rules and would therefore have been more likely to spot the hoax. The Yes Men were counting on the Beeb’s amply demonstrated superficial knowledge of US politics and law.
If the Beeb is going to report on US multinationals, it really should invest some of its largesse in educating some of its reporters on US corporate law.
Once again, I’m amazed by the Beeb’s lack of knowledge of the US despite presenting themselves as experts on the subject.
…Beeb’s lack of knowledge of the US…
Yes, with no exceptions I know of, the BBC’s US bureau is distinguished only by arrogance and ignorance.
Hence the inevitable retreat into stereotypes — Americans are obese/bible-punching bigots/gun-toting stump-toothed hillbillies on full auto/benighted fantasists wedded to a mythic past/city slickers in cardboard cutout cowboy hats/wet bean farts around the faux campfire — on and on and on, blah blah ad infinitum.
To fully appreciate just how far the BBC has fallen (Britain, too), try Alistair Cooke — Letter from America 1946-2004.
Frei and the Beeb Feebles simply aren’t up to the job.
Yet we go to jail if we won’t pay for this crap.
What I found most amazing about the “Jude Finisterra” hoax is how the hoaxers themselves (Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno, The Yes Men) relate in their Web site how the BBC staffers appeared to be amused by the whole thing once the scam had been revealed:
“Later, the BBC calls again: they want us back at the studio. Yeah, right! No, really—they want us on for another show, to talk about what has happened. Against our better judgment we go—and arrive to find four smiling staffers. ‘Where are the cops?’ Andy asks, and the staffers actually laugh.”
http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/dow/
I would have thought (as did the hoaxers) that the Beeb staffers would have been hopping mad about being made to look like a bunch of idiots. Perhaps the discomfort caused to Dow made it worthwhile for them?
Further embarrassment for the Beeb • it seems The Yes Men’s movie got a favourable review from the BBC:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041205/asp/nation/story_4088701.asp
Alastair Cooke would be turning in his grave if he heard this weekend’s replacement commentator from the US. A 15 minute whine about those wicked neocons.
Maybe someone should do an analysis for a few months of who the BBC invites to fill the Alastair Cooke slot. So far their “independent” speakers seem to have a decidedly leftie bias. Nary a neocon among them !
Johninlondon: As I say, you’re so blinkered I’m not surprised you don’t think the 20th anniversary of the world’s worst industrial accident is a news story. You say “Noone else in the media is paying any attention to it right now”. So what? Why should that stop the BBC or anyone else covering a story? Ditto for when you say “it is NOT a topic of conversation”. Since when was that a criteria for news stories?
Saying Galloway won on a technicality makes it sounds like he pulled a legal fast one. In the Telegraph’s own words: “The judge strongly criticised the coverage, including the newspaper’s news reports, leaders, headlines and use of pictures”. Equating that journalistic cock-up to the Bhopal cock-up is perfectly valid.
Tsk, tsk, Someone Who Is Wilfully As Dumb As A Bag Of Hammers: Mr John is fully able to defend himself, so one need only note that he’s talking about context, which is highly relevant.
Galloway did win on a technicality, coasting comfortably downhill with gentle zephyrs at his back supplied by a friendly judge. The decision to appeal will likely turn not on law or the award but on costs reportedly now 1.2 million and rising — Gorgeous George doesn’t have the cash to pay any appellate order against him. So the decision is whether to send good money after bad. You don’t do real-world stuff well, do you?
Also instructive that you have trouble with folks who report unspun fact as unspun fact. The Telegraph quote you pounce on is simply factual reporting of what happened in court. Wow-oh-wowee, what a concept!
Perhaps you’re fretty about tomorrow’s expected announcement of job cuts at the BBC. Something You Actually Do Know, maybe?
No TV channel or newspaper was carrying anything on Bhopal. No-one in Britain was paying any attention to the anniversary. Yet the BBC gave it top billing. That smacks of the BBC having an agenda – not the BBC reflecting actual news interest.
If a large overseas body count is important – maybe the BBC should harp on a lot more about the culpability of the South African government for appalling neglect of the AIDS problem. A real here-and-now issue.
Bhopal was a bit like Mapes and Rather at CBS – grinding out a story that noone was interested in, and then getting egg all over their faces. Or maybe worse than egg.
JohninLondon – Re Dan Rather/CBS…LOL!!!So true! So just desserts!!!
Wally: Context is highly relevant… is not an anniversary? If the BBC had not marked, say, 20 years since the Falklands War I’m sure there would have been posts here.
And ah, how I love that mention of “a friendly judge” – yes, it was all down to judicial bias! Of course if the decision went the the way and some horrid leftie said the same…
“Also instructive that you have trouble with folks who report unspun fact as unspun fact”. Eh? I was quoting the Telegraph quoting the judge to make my point that, say what you like about the judgement, their journalism was criticised. I wasn’t quoting it/him critically. You don’t do reading English stuff well, do you?
cont…
…cont:
John – “No TV channel or newspaper was carrying anything on Bhopal. No-one in Britain was paying any attention to the anniversary.” I repeat, so what? Other media outlets hardly avoid covering issues away from the “national agenda” (if one exists) on a daily basis. Apart from anything else, the BBC is an international news organisation.
Which brings us neatly to coverage of the South African government and AIDS, within the last fortnight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4056223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4042763.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3984995.stm
I could go on.
Someone Who Knows
If you think the Bhopal anniversary is of any interest or particular relevance to people in Britain – worthy of coverage on BBC domestic channels – you have some wierd interests.
I probably do have come weird interests, but actually Bhopal is not among them. I’m just trying to point out that in itself covering or even just marking the 20th anniversary of the world’s worst industrial accident is not evidence of bias. That’s all.
But hey, I think we’ve both made our point and the argument’s moved on from here. Shall we?
That should have said SOME weird interests…