BBC 4 is at this moment running a cosy little mutual back-scratching show about the London Review of Books, starting off with some quotes from left-wing BBC-oids such as Tom Paulin and Tariq Ali. Ali said it was zany (yes, zany). Paulin said it was great at stirring up trouble (the right sort of trouble though, right Tom?).
A list of mostly left-wing or radical writers such as Edward Said who have written for it was quoted as evidence of the LRB’s importance. It was said that there’s nothing like it. Really? Not even the New York Review of Books? Not even the Times Literary Supplement?
It was said that the LRB is theplace where the cultural and social questions of the day are debated. Well, it was certainly true that the LRB used to be one key player in such debates (and don’t get me wrong – it still publishes some wonderful pieces), but it’s certainly lost ground in recent years to journals that publish on the internet, not to mention the blogs and Arts & Letters Daily.
The famous Mary Beard LRB piece after 9/11 where America was said to have had it comingwas raised in the gentlest of ways, and no-one seemed to show much concern. An eyebrow was raised, and everyone went back to sleep. Seems a fairly standard view, even a mild one these days, was the response. I suppose in the BBC-LRB world this is true.
Don’t get me wrong. I mostly like the LRB. And I think a show on the LRB is a great idea. But there’s no doubt that this show is far easier on it than it would be on a right-wing mag like, say, The Spectator.
Isn’t Edward Said dead? Better put him in the past tense :+:
Was he called “Edward Says” while he was alive?
Watching Mary Beard smirking about her atrocious article blaming merica for 9/11 made me puke.
Good old BBC stuff, I suppose. Or sycophantic rubbish ?
OT but recently discussed. You know how the Beeb always seem to have photos like ‘vote con’ instead of ‘vote conservative’ etc? Well Andrew spotted a Labour one that won’t make the front pages of the Beeb website! ‘Labour for war’ not ‘forward’!!!!
See: http://nontrivialsolutions.blogspot.com/2005/04/labour-honesty.html
Slightly OT:
In the article “Killer jailed over poison plot” the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4433709.stm) finishes with a quote from a Deputy Assistant Commissioner Clarke: “I would like to make it absolutely clear, as I have in the past, that the police service knows that they are not representative of the overwhelming majority of the law-abiding Muslim community who have stated their total rejection of violence and terrorism.”
Hm, what a surprise! But have they actually stated what he’s saying??? I don’t think they have.
Ah, I didn’t read the comment by the Beeb’s legal analyst.
Quote: “…Or is this case more notable for the way in which criminal investigations are shamelessly exploited for political purposes by governments in the UK and United States, whether to justify the invasion of Iraq or the introduction of new legislation to restrict civil liberties?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4442479.stm
Yes only 20% of Muslims support terror!
Or is this case more notable for the way in which criminal investigations are shamelessly exploited for political purposes by the BBC.
Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terorists seem to be muslims.
Interesting article on the Frontpage Magazine Website
Unholy Alliance: The “Peace Left” and the Islamic Jihad Against America: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17702
You could probably substitute UK for America and change the names of the parties involved.
I just deleted a comment for obscenity. This isn’t a kids’ site and I personally don’t care about the occasional indelicacy, but would commenters please lay off the grosser swearwords.
OT:
This morning Scott Mills played U2’s “Beautiful Day” just after 8am, the peak time for a breakfast show.
This song does not appear on their A,B or C lists. However it has been placed as the campaign song for the Labour Party.
Would this be considered a blatant attempt to introduce an association with the Labour movement, or is it indicative of the ignorance that Radio 1 frequently shows for all things politics?
The LRB claims to be a ‘ fully independent literary paper.’ However, it does have its snout in the public money trough, as it is ‘published with assistance from Arts Council England.’ So it’s a bit like the BBC, not everyone wants it, but everyone is forced to pay for it. How long would the LRB survive if the its subscribers had to pay its full cost? The LRB will be fully aware of what opinions are not acceptable if it is to continue recieving Arts Council cash, so even its literary independence must be in some doubt.
BBC news is good for Lib Dems
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaelection/story/0,15906,1458864,00.html
tell me something I dont know
As well as being blind to the attack on Oona King and elderly Jewish people last week, the BBC has not reported exactly why North Holloway was the target for the Algerian Mslim nutter :
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=629209
Of course there is no pattern to this.
gary “BBC news is good for Lib Dems”
That continues today with appeals to our better nature by claiming that the LibDem policies redistribute from rich to poor. Whereas in reality their policies are set to firmly benefit middle England. The poorer folk will receive no benefit from their policies as they are already exempted from university & care fees & council tax.
I think “rich” people have been punished enough by people jealous of their success.
The BBC allways mentions “for public services” when tax is increased, it never mentioned future poverty.
Wonder why?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4442769.stm
Once again, the Beebsters portray a lib dem election issue, in this case the launch of their manifesto, in unquestionably positive form.
The Beebfolk can’t decide whether to stay with their traditional new labour clients or to hitch their wagon to the lib dems – Whatever, their is no doubt that the enemy is the conservative party. Andrew Marr is rightin his quote at the top of the blog the bias is not pro labour – Its anti-conservative and any leftish cause – labour, lib dem, green, Nat will do.
Interestingly Mrs Andrew Marr (Jackie Ashley) stated in her Guardian column recently that in her Islington (where else?) constituency she would be voting Lib Dem as a tactical vote to keep the conservative out.
via USS Neverdock
The BBC seem to be late (or never) with this story –
“The friendly fire shooting at a U.S. military checkpoint last month in Baghdad wounded Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and killed intelligence agent Nicola Calipari.
Now, NBC News has learned that a preliminary report from a joint U.S.-Italian investigation has cleared the American soldiers of any wrongdoing and provides new details into the shooting.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7491280/
NBC News
Updated: 7:37 p.m. ET April 13, 2005
A “US oilmen”, a Brit and a Bulgarian have all been indicted in the Oil-for-food scandal. Guess how the Beeb headlines the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4445073.stm
Gee, I wonder what made them change their mind about the Oil-For-Food story’s “news value”? It now occupies the Online Beeb’s top news spot of the day!
Could it be those two magic words, “US oilman”?
Naw, of course not! The Beeb’s anti-American bias is all in my mind; I’m just imagining it; I need reeducation services from the Ministry of Truth.
The BBC will catch up in 2014
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1569115,00.html
OFF TOPIC:
Just thought I should bring to your attention this glaring piece of BBC Bias: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4444513.stm
“Veritas is not a vanity project or a one-man band (and, to be fair, deputy leader Damian Hockney was at his side to talk about the party’s flat rate tax proposals, which they have imported from the same East European countries Mr Kilroy-Silk seemed so keen to close Britain’s borders to). “
Remarks don’t come much snider than that.
BBC’s latest anti-US stories:
1. Chirac says strong europe needed to oppose big powers
2. Glazer submits fresh Man Utd bid
3. Prisoners ‘aware’ in executions
4. US airmen held in Ecstacy haul
5. US tycoon in oil-for-food scandal
6. Mould eating beetle named after Bush
Actually, the story I saw on #6 was that the name was intended by the scientists as a compliment.
“US tycoon in oil-for-food scandal”
When they discuss the U.N. at the end of the article it becomes an “alleged scandal.” It would appear that the beeb has already sentenced the “tycoon” but the U.N. is innocent until proven guilty. (despite the evidence already made public) Is this a double standard?
Oh, there’s a Brit involved too. They do mention that once. He’s an “oil trader”. The Yank is a “tycoon”. The baaaaad American “tycoon” must have been a bad influence on him.
Curious, too, how the Congo peacekeepers scandal has only been mentioned in passing, whereas Abu Ghraib was wall-to-wall.
No Americans involved in the Congo?
Indeed, StinKerr. Nor any Israelis.
See Rule #1.2.05 in the BBC Handbook of Political Correctness:
“Only Americans, ‘Jews’, or Israelis are capable of wrongdoing. Accounts of wrongdoing and mischief by all other groups are strictly imaginery; and thus, reporting of which is not allowed under the BBC Charter. PS — this rule especially pertains to reports of wrongdoing in Islamic countries.
Or in Haiti. The BBC site reveals what a sorry place this is, but it never makes the TV/radio bulletins.
This case last weekend does not even feature online –
“PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP)Gunfire erupted Saturday as UN peacekeepers patrolled a volatile Haitian slum dominated by street gangs, killing a 15-year-old girl and leaving two other children wounded”
http://www.cfrb.com/content/cp_article.asp?id=/global_feeds/CanadianPress/WorldNews/w040977A.htm
The BBC did find time to cover the shooting of “footballing teenagers” in Gaza on the same day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4428351.stm
For anyone that follows links, the Haitian link above has changed. perhaps this will last
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050409/w040958.html
It appears that the Beeb didn’t get the UN press release on the investigation of rape accusations against UN peacekeepers in Haiti. Some Kiwis did, though.
Hmm, they were Pakistanis though. Nevermind.
If US troops had been involved in an incident in which a 15 year-old girl was killed, it would have been a major news bulletin.
We hear alot about “trigger-happy” US troops on the Beeb, but not much about the rapists and child-shooters of the UN.