.
The Diplomad is, well, kind of mad at the BBC. The EURef. is too. Both have recent excellent blog posts on the matter of the BBC, and in EUref’s case some interesting serious observations.
The Diplomad is plotting its revenge for the BBC’s ‘balance’ in not covering the tsunami relief effort the way it is, but how they’d like it to be (amongst other items of complaint):
‘OK, so what’s the plan? We are voting here in our secret council: the Hebrews among us are inclined to releasing a plague of locusts . . .oh, that’s already been done . . . Hmmm? What to do? What to do? Force the Brits to pay TV license fees . . . oh, never mind . . . Better yet, better yet, just to drive home what can happen to those who doubt the word of Washington, next time there’s a massive disaster, let the UN and the EU handle it! Too cruel, you think?
Meanwhile Richard North has thoughts on the evolution of bias (and us too):
‘The more obvious kind of bias, which the likes of Biased BBC and Last Night’s BBC News have been diligently reporting, is hard enough to spot, but the “new” technique used by the BBC is simply not to report a subject at all when there is favourable news. Instead, it will only cover unfavourable aspects when they arise.’
Of course, we knew about that, too, but it is harder to talk about. What’s there to say when all you get is a cold shoulder?
Andrew
Steve Norris is NOT an opposite view. He is very muddled, mostly discredited in the public eye, and veers vgery close to New Labour. It is only by comparison to Red Ken that he may appear to be from the right.
Incidentally – not much sign of the BBC spending time on Red Ken’s recent appalling behaviour and statements regarding the odious Islamist he invited to London. They don’t like reports on challenges to their muli-culti nonsense.
We pay for BBC poll to prove that the world hates America (or just Bush?)
“Global poll slams Bush leadership”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4185205.stm
This is an enormous poll which must have cost us a fortune.
I wonder why the BBC felt the necessity to prove what we already know?
“21,953 people questioned
PIPA interviewed between 500 and 1,800 people in each of the 21 countries surveyed, plus 1,000 Americans”
More structural bias:
I don’t think this is paranoia on my part –
I noticed at the end of the interview with the Islamic nutter (Bakri?) – the interview itself wasn’t too bad – Paxman smiled in that wry indulgent way which one preserves for harmless eccentrics. But he’s quite capable of mustering an exceedingly grave countenance when he wants to.
This nutter has been encouraging young men to go off and become suicide bombers for Islam. He shouldn’t be treated as a comedy turn.
There’s a lot of this cue-ing by facial expression. The interviewer can express complete disbelief of say the Tories’ chances of ever forming a government again without uttering a word.
I’m not arguing for the abolition of facial expressions by the way – I’m jsut indicating they can be indicative of bias.
Sounds like the BBC got exactly the results that they were looking for….except India
“Another surprise was India’s support for Mr Bush. The poll found 62% believed his administration was positive for global security.
The BBC’s Nick Bryant says the reason for this may be because the poll was carried out in cities where people have benefited economically from closer trade ties with the US. ”
Perhaps in the future the BBC can TWEEK this poll and CLEAN the results
cockney
If you’ll permit me suggesting a ‘public face’ for an anti-EU campaign … Frederick Forsyth. A first class mind, lucid, pssionate, brave and utterly scathing of the EU project and the left in general. No wonder he never seems to appear on Question Time anymore.
Not bad at all actually Pete. A difficult man to disrespect even if you disagree with him.
OFF TOPIC
With the violence escalating as Iraq nears its’ first free elections, what does the BBC do?
This:
In pictures
Shocking images of an Iraqi family coming under US fire
That’s the headline on their main webpage. http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Here is a link to the photos:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_shooting_in_tal_afar/html/1.stm
You have to go to the first image to learn this:
US soldiers in Iraq approach a car after opening fire when it failed to stop at a checkpoint. Despite warning shots it continued to drive towards their dusk patrol in Tal Afar on 18 January.
Al Jazeera, BBC, what’s in a name?
Note to the above.
Notice that these shocking images are on the same page and on the same day British soldiers face a court martial over Iraqi prisoner abuse.
Bush poll: no surprise at India’s positive poll numbers here. They are on the front lines of Islamist terror, just like us. Misery loves company.
Isn’t Soviet ex-refusenik Vladimir Bukovsky a credible proponent for the anti-EU cause?
Oh wait, he also runs an anti-Beeb website — never mind. Will be featured on a Beeb panel show when hell freezes over.
Why not Christopher Booker?
Bah, hit the publish button to quickly 🙁
I mean Cristopher Booker as a spokesman for the Eurosceptics.
Susan, have you got a link for Bukovsky’s website? Cheers!
cockney, it’s on the Biased BBC blog roll. I think it is called “Stop the BBC Bias.”
Re the BBC page about US troops firing on an Iraqi car for failing to stop at a check point.
I thought the BBC left some important details out. Turns out I’m right.
Here’s my take on it:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraqi-family-coming-under-us-fire.html
I wonder, is the BBC planning a poll asking us kaffirs what we think of Islam? Perhaps they could start with the Copts in New Jersey.
Am I the only person who has noticed a subtle difference in tone between the coverage of the British Army abuse scandal and Abu Ghraib.
Newsnight spent about 5 minutes on it last night, compared to the massive coverage of Abu Ghraib. Likewise Radio 5 barely mentioned it last night, preferring instead to have lots of Anti-Bush reports.
Also note the emphasis of the “good work” of many UK soldiers. Whereas with Abu Ghraib there were no such caveats.
Zevilyn
Driving home from work I heard John Simpson (BBC World Affairs Editor, for any non-Brits who may not know him) interviewed on 5 Live in the studio. Talking of the reaction of Iraqis to this (in the studio!) he said that Iraqis are beginning to view the British as being as bad as the Americans. How he knows this while he’s in London he didn’t say. Incidentally, he may be distinguished etc but am I the only one to see him as a whiny, snivelling baby?
Anyway, the point is he didn’t qualify his statement by saying that Iraqis are beginning to see the British as being as bad as “they see” the Americans (or any such qualification). It was a straight, deadpan delivery. “Iraqis are beginning to view the British as being as bad as the Americans.”
Hello Zevelyn
It is of course true, that us Brits view the performance of our troups as better than the Americans. This is probably unfair as our US cousins have had the most difficult areas. This is not something that is highlighted in polite British conversation.
The BBC has, ultimately, to play to a British audience. Since, after all, we have to pay for the cr*p. Allthough the BBC tries to convince us that they are so respected and, by implication, that that the whole world is paying for the priveledge of watching their world- beating bilge, when in reality nobody who has a choice watches the the pompous fools.
I wouldn’t call the technique of lying by omission new. The New York Times has relied on it going back at least to their whitewash of Joseph Stalin. The NYT constantly uses it in their propagandizing against the U.S. in Iraq, and they have been using it to shield the Islamists who are almost certainly responsible for an entire family of Coptic Christians being butchered last week in New Jersey.
I am not in any way attacking British troops, let’s get that straight. But I have noticed, with some exceptions, a subtle yet significant difference between this and Abu Ghraib in it’s coverage.
Much of the Beeb’s Abu Ghraib coverage has sought to find some link to the Bush Administration.
Yet here we see much less insinuation, and the “few bad apples” mantra is accepted, whereas with the US scandal that was not the case in the Beeb’s coverage.
My point, in short, is that the only soldiers the BBC will demonise are American or Israeli.
Does anybody have a link to a report on the murder in NJ of the Copts? I saw it firstly on Fox but there was no pointer to the identities of the principal suspects other than the usual anodyne “religious troubles” – would this, by chance, involve Muslims? In the UK there has been no mention – not even in The Daily Telegraph (newspaper, not website).
Hello Zeveliyn
I think you are correct to point out that American and Israeli troops will always be demonized on the BBC.
In my opinion, everyone is trying to look after themselves, it is human nature. The people at the BBC are no different. Believe me, I have met a number of them. BBC journos/editors have children to feed just like anyone else. They need to protect their positions.
So what is their position? I do not know if you know, but the BBC is effectively funded by the British government. Their politics, therefore, is that they must prove that the private sector/free enterprise is bad. Otherwise they could be privatised? Unfortunately, America is the leader of globalisation and free enterprise, and must be proven to be bad, at all costs, otherwise what would the BBC do? They cannot compete with American TV, which is vastly superior, so have decided that they must be the counterweight to capitalism. Hence, programs like ‘The Power of NightMares’, or discussion topics
Alan@Aberdeen, below is a link to a story about the New Jersey killings. The theory is that the family was killed because the father and the older daughter spent a lot of time on the Internet arguing with Muslims about Islam on a chatboard called “paltalk”. The man had received a death threat that unless he took back his criticisms of Islam, he would be slaughtered like a chicken.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/38891.htm
I must emphasize that the theory hasn’t been proved, but the Copts are pretty certain it was you-know-who, and they’ve got a lot experience in the matter. Ironically the family that was killed immigrated to the US to escape religious persecution back in Egypt.
There are a number of major “news” sources in the US that employ this technique.
Classic BBC revisionism/BBC distortion by John Humph. on the Today programme this morning.
He said something like “will the USA continue to act unilaterally as it has certainly done in the past?”. He was referring to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Amazing that this should be broadcast on the UK public broadcasting channel, a country where tens of thousands of our own troops formed part of the coalition to get rid of Saddam!
No doubt Humph and co would have liked the blessing of Libya and Zimbabwe first.
I don’t wish to bore anyone on the issue of the murder of the family of Coptic Christians in New Jersey but the failure/refusal of the BBC to mention it at all fits into a pattern of deliberate omission or downplaying of any incident where Islam is, or could be, the driver behind a heinous deed. Included are the murder of Theo van Gogh (Holland), the murder of Kriss Donald (Scotland), the recovery of 200 beheaded bodies from the stronghold of Muqtadr al_Sadr (Iraq) etc.
Ian Hislop to lead the Eurosceptics!
His performance on the subject of the EU
on Have I Got News For You a few months ago was memorable.
John H
You stated:
“I do not know if you know, but the BBC is effectively funded by the British government.”
Well, I do not know if you know, but nothing is funded by the British government. It needs repeating often and loud that the government doesn’t have any funds. That which is funded by the government (I take it you mean the exchequer) is actually funded by you, me, them and everyone. In actual fact the BBC is funded via extortion; the requirement to buy a tv licence. There’s a simple solution theough. Don’t allow yourself to be extorted.
“The BBC has, ultimately, to play to a British audience. Since, after all, we have to pay for the cr*p. Allthough the BBC tries to convince us that they are so respected and, by implication, that that the whole world is paying for the priveledge of watching their world- beating bilge, when in reality nobody who has a choice watches the the pompous fools.”
Too right! That 40% of the audience share that the BBC gets every night in the UK (compared to it’s nearest rival which gets about 27%) are forced to watch by armed communists, labour party whips with whips and environmentalists who make them lick poison frogs unless they watch Eastenders. This can’t go on any longer!
That was me again. Not sure what went wrong that time.
TGORK, presumably you’re comparing the BBC’s market share for two terrestrial channels, compared to each of its three rivals, who have but one channel each.
Not that market share is, at least for me, the definition of worthwhile public service broadcasting – it’s the pursuit of ratings by Greg Roland Rat Dyke that deluged us with endless runs of Celebrity Home Cooking Makeover Academy…
Oh for a BBC who’s news and current affairs coverage is impartial and objective (from a British point of view – as distinct from the nebulous alien in a spacecraft point of view that they aspire to) rather than the current BBC who’s agenda is printed in The Grauniad each day…
Another good example of the way the BBC slants so-called balanced views. Richard North at EU Referendum relates that he was contacted by the BBC and asked to oppose recycling. It turned out that it was a case of mistaken identity and he actually supports recycling- it’s another Richard North who opposes it. When he offered to appear on the program anyway, they turned him down, saying, according to him, that they needed “a nutter”. More details at this URL:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
It’s a clever technique. Present both sides of an argument, but make sure that one side is represented by someone who the audience will identify as irrational.