Monthly Archives: January 2005

According to our dear B-BBC commenters, this morning Radio 5 Live did a ‘text’ poll asking for people’s opinions on whether or not the UK should sign-up to the new EU constitution. The result of the poll was cheerily reported by the presenter as being 67% in favour of Britain signing up, with 33% against – which is, as anyone who reads the newspapers knows, almost the exact opposite of properly conducted polls.

Cheerily that is, until this bit:

And so far, the voting in our straw poll is as follows, 33% of you [intake of breath, long pause], uh, is this right? This is the wrong way, this is, er, opposite to what we were saying an hour ago, ah, I’m gonna just check those figures for you. Apparently, no, you don’t want to join 67% of you, and yes, 33%. Which, I have to admit, is absolutely opposite to what I reported to you about twenty minutes ago to Eric Forth, so we’ll clarify that for you, I do apologise, but a lot of people are saying that our unscientific vote isn’t fair because it’s skewed towards younger people who have mobile phones and are more likely to text us, so we’ll find out about what proper scientific polls say about the subject a bit later in the programme, although I do think that is ageist because my mum’s over fifty and she knows how to text.

The funny thing about this is how shocked the presenter was at her mistake. We all make mistakes from time to time, but her first, mistaken, interpretation was so at odds with known polling on this subject that surely she should have stopped and questioned that result, rather than stopping later to question the correct figures, especially as Eric Forth, when he was interviewed, pointed out just how far off beam the earlier (mistaken, unbeknownst to him) figures were…

As for her then going on to emphasise how unscientific the poll was, I don’t believe that this point would have been emphasised to this extent were the situation reversed.

Presumably the complaints about the ‘text’ nature of the poll, to which the presenter referred, were older listeners responding to the earlier figures being so far out from their perception of the state of public opinion, although as it turns out, the ‘text’ generation (cast me as a thirty- something techie fuddy-duddy who reckons ‘texts’ are poor value for money, at least in terms of bits-per-pence!) is, reassuringly, firmly against getting further embroiled in the EU too. It’s a pity Radio 5 Live isn’t so in tune with its audience.

Courtesy of commenter ‘Anonymous’, you can hear two excerpts from the above in this MP3 recording: http://upload4free.com/files/1810.mp3. Thank you Anonymous!

Caroline ‘Haw-Haw’ Hawley was in supremely miserable form on the BBC’s Six O’Clock News this evening, describing this morning’s loss of a US helicopter with thirty-one souls aboard as “A huge blow for the American military”, followed up by the programme presenter commenting that today was “A very bad day for the Americans”.

Whilst the loss of the thirty-one people on the helicopter is a tragedy for the US military, especially for the personnel and relatives involved, it is stretching it a long way to describe this tragic incident as “a huge blow” – it will have no bearing on the outcome of present events in Iraq – however much Haw-Hawley wishes it to.

(from Blithering Bunny)

Leftists think asylum’s a huge issue, right? The leftist press went crazy over Michael Howard’s immigration proposals, insisting a storm had been provoked, although most people barely raised an eyebrow. So it stands to reason that when the EU steps in and says that Britain has already handed control of asylum to the EU, this has got to be an even huger story. But guess what? The BBC somehow fails to even mention this. That’s right, it’s a non-story. It’s hard to believe this isn’t deliberate.

All the important decisions for this country are made in back rooms in Brussels. BBC News wants it to stay this way. There’s no need for you little people to go poking your nose in. Shoo! Back to work! Let us handle it!

I’m watching BBC News 24 host a debate on the EU Constitution (ie. a couple of minutes of pointless bickering). Lucy Powell, pro-European, just said that the Euroskeptics are fanatics. If she had more time, no doubt she’d have declared Euroskeptics xenophobic little Englanders.

No entry to Britain: Is the Conservative immigration plan as simple as they say?

Lib Dem plan to help new mothers

Tory expert denies defeatism

Tories accused of ‘desperation’

The Tory stories all have negative headlines. But the headline that concerns the LibDems is presented as an offer to help. Those lovely LibDems. All they want is to be allowed to spread happiness. The story reads like a LibDems’ press release – the only criticism comes right at the end, and that from a Tory, Theresa May.

Ever noticed how the BBC often get Tories to do the negative stuff? That has two effects – it reinforces the image of the Tories as the dour, negative party, and it creates the impression that it’s only the Tories, and not any serious economists or analysts, who are against the proposal in question.

the prospects for the BBC’s self-regulation:

‘The idea that anything produced or sponsored by the BBC was ever going to find any serious defects in the BBC’s coverage is entirely facile.’

Yep. Any other notion defies commonsense.

only to come up empty-handed once more. Yes, friends, the BBC has a story about Iraq the Model, a pro-western blog by Iraqis (and sometimes linked on B-BBC of all strange things). Now, however, such hopeful news is clouded by this ‘revelation.’ (Hmm, the Beeb must read the New York Times once in a while.)

The fight has raised the issue of identity and misrepresentation in weblogs, where often it is nearly impossible to verify if the person “blogging” really is who they claim to be.

The BBC online article makes much of a supposed rift between the three Iraqi blogger brothers. Ali, started a blog called Free Iraqi. Now that the BBC has highlighted this supposed conspiracy, check out what Ali has to say about some members of the press.

I feel I should give my opinion on the NY times article about me and Iraq the Model that has created some variable reactions on the blogosphere. The article was, despite Ms Boxer’s kindness, a bad piece of journalism. I had around 45 minutes long phone call with the reporter about my journey with Iraq the Model, my new site, the elections, the general situation here in Baghdad but she (or the paper) seems to have a certain agenda and managed to change the whole issue into a very silly gossip (going as far as quoting trolls!) that is way beneath any respectable paper and certainly beneath me so I won’t give it more attention but lesson learned and I won’t make the mistake of talking to anyone from the NY times again. It’s important to note though that my feelings of respect, gratitude and love for the American people have never and will never change.

Just face it. Every last one of us works for the CIA.

UPDATE: I just noticed that InstaPundit points to Chrenkoff on this smear of Iraqi bloggers.

In the parallel universe inhabited by Beebazoids this panel might seem like a representative, even right of centre, assortment of opinion regarding the next four Bush years. Having selected eight panelists, all the Beeb can muster is two solid Bush supporters and a semi-supportive one. The remaining five might consider Michael Moore a bit too mushy. Alice in Wonderland makes better sense. The BBC must still be trying to come to terms with the idiocy of the American electorate.

Struggling BBC employees have a voice on the panel in Nancy Pew, who states: “Inauguration Day 2005 will be a day of mourning, reflection and prayer for me.”

.

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?

– at least that’s what you’d think from comparing the two BBC pictures of Robert Jackson on BBC Views Online. Jackson the traitor is happy and smiling, whilst Jackson the Conservative is as glum as can be.

And yet if you look at the two pictures they were obviously taken at the same time as part of the same set – the clothing and lighting are identical in both. So why is it that when Jackson was a Conservative the BBC portrayed him as a miserable git, yet when he sees the error of his ways and becomes a shiny New Labour turncoat he’s suddenly charm itself?

Maybe it’s an unfortunate coincidence. Or perhaps it’s just another instance of subtle left-wing BBC bias that we’re not supposed to notice.

Update: On closer examination it is also clear that the ‘happy’ New Labour Jackson’s colours are quite natural, whereas the old ‘Conservative’ Jackson’s picture’s contrast is badly skewed, thus, compared to the ‘happy’ picture, the top left corner is washed out, the left of Jackson’s face is thrown into shadow and his forehead verges on overexposed. Was this mere incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to portray the Conservative version of Jackson as harshly as could be got away with?

While we’re on the subject of defections, the BBC’s See also: list seems very sparse, given the constant froth of malcontents (did you hear about Robert Jackson’s knighthood? Me neither) to-ing and fro-ing between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee Party, for instance, Richard Balfe’s 2002 defection seems to have been omitted. Short of time I expect.

:

‘We are up against a large, self-satisfied and introspective culture.’ -Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Indeed, despite some of the movements since Hutton. It’s not just about bias, it’s about blind assumption and pure ignorance at times, which amounts to much the same thing.

Lord Pearson goes on to say that ‘Their main problem is that they and their researchers know very little about the detail of our relationship with “Brussels”.’

Naturally we can see that this post is concerned with Europhile bias at the Beeb, but it could just as well be half a dozen++ other wilful blindspots. For another perspective on media bias, this essay from a military man in Iraq contains numerous nuggets applicable to the Beeb’s coverage of that country’s struggles.