LYNDA: “How come you don’t watch it?”
THE DOCTOR: “I didn’t pay my licence fee.”
LYNDA: “Wha-? You get executed for that!”
Comment would be superfluous dangerous.
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 Nov 16, 12:25
Weekend 16th November 2024
Sometimes I have low blood pressure – so I listen to BBC moneybox . This week the feckless get their… - Lucy Pevensey Nov 16, 12:20
Weekend 16th November 2024
It’s a shame Farage has gone soft. https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1857680283526475896 Rupert Lowe- “Put yourself in the shoes of the parents of a… - The Mouse Nov 16, 12:11
Weekend 16th November 2024
Mark Mark, They are not police they are TOCs (Tools of Control) - vlad Nov 16, 12:04
Weekend 16th November 2024
So now the little weasel Khun’t says ‘Let’s give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt’. Oh, how very gracious… - Fedup2 Nov 16, 11:24
Weekend 16th November 2024
She must be arrested and charged and the CPS decide on the ‘public interest ‘ … then she should sue… - Fedup2 Nov 16, 11:22
Weekend 16th November 2024
Let’s hear it for Laura Helmuth . Ms Mr / miss/mrs whatever – was the editor of Scientific American -… - MarkyMark Nov 16, 11:06
Weekend 16th November 2024
from order-order.com JUST IN CASE THE POLICE ARE READING THIS AND WANT TO KNOW THE SOURCE! HA HA HA A!… - MarkyMark Nov 16, 10:59
Weekend 16th November 2024
Good morning Lazy Cat – that was a funny rant for a lazy cat! - MarkyMark Nov 16, 10:56
Weekend 16th November 2024
“put her on a plane to Iraq” – oh dear – “Iraq to lower the ‘age of consent’ for girls…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Callum S.: Very weak attempt at satire — why don’t you actually try to understand what is being said here instead of parodying what you inaccurately perceive as our viewpoints?
Susan,
It’s the market that generates ‘nihilistic trash culture’ in broadcasting, not the cultural left, right, up, down or inside out. Nobody is forcing people to watch this stuff.
Cockney –
I see, so the BBC is responding to the market. Fine, then let it sell its service on a commercial basis.
In any case, it is undeniably the left which promotes such a culture. The latest example being that twittish ‘Mock the Week’.
Does the market really demand yet another comedy quiz with the usual suspects (Jeremy Hardy, Jo Brand, etc, yawn) making jokes at the expense of George Bush, Americans in general and saying ‘fuck’ as if it’s edgy and dangerous?
Will these dullards ever realise that they are, in fact, boring?
Susan –
The producer of Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic has just been interviewed on BBC 5 Live. He may not have done the Islamic case any favours.
His stated aim was to bring into the light the fact that following 9/11 many muslims, while maybe not supporting it, at least ‘understood’. Not to recognise this is a pretence that should not carry on.
Fine, I hope they understand the rest of us who don’t appreciate 3000 of our family, friends and compatriots being murdered. If they want to be more assertive regarding their culture, their rights and their worldview they’ll have to expect an inevitable, forthright response.
Cockney: Really? Who started “pushing the artistic envelope” all those years ago? Who pushed for liberalized broadcasting standards; more and more violence in movies and TV; who archly and cutely celebrates the drug culture in movies, pop music and comedy routines?; who fawns over “art” works such as “Piss Christ” (but never “Piss Mohammad” of course) as “daring” and “edgy”?
Was it Mrs. Whitehouse and her supporters then?
No, — it was the same people who now tell us we’re a bunch of degenerates in contrast to those “pious” and “pure” Muslims.
Catch-22, Cockney, Catch-22.
Ah, well, Susan – that’s the thing.
P J O’Rourke once claimed that if he ever ran an English course at a Uni, he would start by setting the students to write parodies, as this was the best way to really understand an author. OTOH, Callum S – like most Beebheads – doesn’t even consider that their opponents might have even the makings of a point. Opponents of the Beeb are eviley evil members of the VRWC and that’s all you need to know. Hence, his attempted satire is an attempt to caricature a caricature. Is it any wonder it sucks ?
Pete, I agree that the BBC following what it perceives to be the market instead of providing what the market clearly is incapable of (high quality, stimulating and informative programs with a decent budget) seriously compromises one of its main reasons for existing.
Susan, catch 22 is that short of a vast improvement in the nation’s intellectual capacity through educational improvements over several years (decades?) the only way to eliminate the crap is to ban it – which surely would be an example of lefty nanny state interference in market choice and individual liberty.
Susan,
I agree completely with what you say about Key Messaging.
Cockney,
You say it’s the market fault? Hang on, the BBC is outside the market – so why are they promoting trash culture?
That’s why they are given the license fee – to avoid the market, and ensure quality.
One of my favourites was the BBC night, “The Joy of Text,” a few years ago. It was brilliant; sexual innuendo, dumbing down, and mobile phone advertising – all in the one show.
Tom
“Fine, I hope they understand the rest of us who don’t appreciate 3000 of our family, friends and compatriots being murdered”
Hmm. Are you claimiing 3000 Brits died on 9/11, or are you just wishfully-thinking that we’re part of the US?
(BTW, amused at DumbJon’s suggestion that pro-BBCers are bad for deliberately ignoring their opponents’ points, given the extent to which he gives time to liberal ideas before mocking them in sub-Richard Littlejohn terms…)
the only way to eliminate the crap is to ban it – which surely would be an example of lefty nanny state interference in market choice and individual liberty.
It was never about individual liberty, artistic freedom or any of those sorts of nice-sounding things, Cockney. It was about dismantling and degrading our culture, our heritage, and our way of life.
Now that the cultural leftists have found something far more toxic to the things they despise than porn, Marxism and drugs — i.e. Islam — see how quickly they embrace “piety and purity.” See how quickly the same people who worked themselves into orgasmic frenzies of admiration for “Piss Christ” start shrieking about “Quran desecration.” See how quickly the “feminists” (Germaine Greer ring a bell?) start embracing the “dignity” of the burkha.
Doesn’t it freak you out a bit Cockney? The same people who raked Mary Whitehouse over the coals are now to be found seriously kissing the ass of a belief system that makes Mrs. Whitehouse look like Madonna in contrast.
Gosh, john b, you’d almost have a valid point…but wait, right-wingers aren’t demanding people contribute shedloads of cash to employ a whole bunch of other right-wingers to fill the airwaves with programs about how great the right.
Other than that, it’s a perfect analogy.
Talking of which – Steve Wright this afternoon, with George Galloway fielding toughies like ‘do you think the media has treated you fairly ?’ and being complimemted as a ‘a pretty straight-talking guy’. What is this ? National Bullimia Day ?
Susan,
It’s amusing you upbraid someone for parody and then go into a frothing rage – virtually parodying every boneheaded stereotype about your idea of “liberals”.
This reads like a neo-McCarthyite screed, only substantially less logical. Substitute “reds” for “liberals” and hey presto, all of society’s evils, laid at the door or cultural leftists: porn, drugs, blasphemy, family values, respect, the incursion of heathens and moors into the political machinery. In short, the VERY FABRIC OF SOCIETY.
No, really, your rhetoric is that shrill. Who exactly are these all-powerful cultural leftists that can con right-minded people and governments and bring about the very destruction of OUR NATION’S HERITAGE, seemingly without people even being aware of it?
Snipe at me all you want Anonymous but it won’t cover up the points I made:
1. The BBC (and other cultural elites) promote Islam/Muslims as “pious and pure” while at the same time ridiculing and demonizing conservative Christianity/Christians for having conservative social values, even though the Christians’ social values are usually far less draconian than Muslims ones (I don’t recall reading that Mary Whitehouse advocated stoning people to death or throwing gays off of tall buildings).
2. Germaine Greer of “Female Eunuch” fame really did praise the burkha/hijab recently, and so have other so-called “feminists.”
3. The same cultural elite which found Piss Christ and Sh!t Mary such an edifying contribution to our Western “art” heritage, and who loudly proclaimed their support for the artists’ “free speech,” are strangely silent about the murder of Theo Van Gogh for producing the short Islam-critical film “Submission.”
4. (Not a point I made above but similar) The same cultural elite which excoriates various Christian sects for refusing to recognize gay clergyman are busy trying to “understand” Muslim clerics who want to throw them off of tall buildings. (See Red Ken and his rapturous embrace of Sheikh al-Qaradawi.)
What conclusions can one draw from the above about-faces of the cultural left except that their main interest is in overthrowing/destroying the prevailing order, not in having actual principles and beliefs?
Better for you to stop worrying about my “shrillness’, Anonymous, and start asking yourself why your co-ideologues seem to be abandoning their principles so precipitously. Gay rights, women’s rights, freedom of speech and artistic expression, sexual liberation — it seems like your lot is happy to flush those values you claim to love so much right down the toilet whenever/wherever a certain religio-politico system raises its head.
“The BBC (and other cultural elites) promote Islam/Muslims as “pious and pure”
Balls. Look up “islamic” on the BBC website, for example. How many news stories relate to purity or piety?
“The same cultural elite”
Which cultural elite? Who are these mythical group of people you loathe so much? On my reading, cultural elite = anyone in the field of media/culture you disagree with.
Who are the media working class, the honest joes in Susanworld?
Danish TV risked blasphemy charges for showing the film. It was shown on Dutch TV. It galvanised Dutch liberals and performers. Newsweek was banned in Pakistan for its coverage of the murder. Rai state TV apaprently showed clips from it. Are these the cultural elites?
Oh and McCarthyism — please. A defender of the BBC should blush a very deep shade of red indeed before he/she ever even thinks of using the term.
My co-ideologues?
Who would those be? Not the Conservatives, who I voted for.
The BBC? You’re kidding. They might be a bit PC and happy clappy why-can’t-we-all-get-along at times, but you can’t be watching them if you think Islamic fundamentalism is given a free pass. See above – look up “islamic” on the News site and look at the proportion of positive to negative stories.
john b
“Hmm. Are you claimiing 3000 Brits died on 9/11, or are you just wishfully-thinking that we’re part of the US?”
Ignoring your inability to understand simple English, yes, I’d happily hang Blair, shut down Parliament and see Britain (or England, the irredeemably socialist celts will have to fend for themselves one day) become a US state.
In using ‘our’ I did mean Britons and Americans. We ARE the same people. We share blood, history, culture, morals, aspirations, language and a million other visible and invisible links.
You share far more with a bible bashing redneck than you do with a Gaulouis smoking Frenchman. Denying your heritage is pointless, john b. You can lie us but not to yourself. Accept it.
Susan is completely correct – these lefties are deeply illiberal. Take a close look at any of them – spend some time with them, and it always goes back to having some unresolved problems with their parents.
“A defender of the BBC should blush a very deep shade of red indeed before he/she ever even thinks of using the term.”
I’m bright red. Possibly puce. Now tell me why this amazing change has come about.
Is it because McCarthy was a nice guy really? Loved his kids, was kind to pets and the elderly etc etc. Didn’t use hyperbole to bring about a state of paranoia among middle Americans of the communist *ideological* threat or persecute scores of people with either no or minimal connection to communist organisations?
I’ve read a fair bit of McCarthyite revisionism. It’s just that: revisionism.
Ok john b, of course you can understand simple English so I’ll keep my cheap jibes for another time. American victims of mass murder, committed in the name of Islam on 9/11 (I’ll get those jibes in now, before a government goon decides to lock me up for them) certainly fall under the category of ‘family and friends’.
Danish TV risked blasphemy charges for showing the film.
Not a good analogy. Denmark has a conservative government which came to power in part for some anti-Islam political measures. Even their queen has told her subjects to resist Islamic theofascism.
Why hasn’t the Beeb, that bastion of liberal values that you love so much, shown the film? Do you seriously believe that al-Beeb as presently managed would ever show that film?
It was shown on Dutch TV. It galvanised Dutch liberals and performers.
Some of ’em, maybe. But lots more excoriated Ayaan Hirsi Ali and blamed Theo Van Gogh for his own murder. Tellingly, there are no “left-wingers” currently under 24/7 police protection in Holland — only two “righties”, Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders. What does that tell you?
Newsweek was banned in Pakistan for its coverage of the murder
Big deal, they reported about Holland’s most famous political assassination since Pim Fortuyn’s. It was a news item they couldn’t ignore. How does that translate to standing up for liberal values?
PS lots of things are banned in Pakistan. There were riots there five years ago because TIME magazine innocently published an illustration of Muhammad, unaware that Islam prohibits any pictorial depiction of Muhammad.
OT
Are not Bono and Geldof exempt from income tax in Ireland becuase they are classed as artists?The same for a certian BBC reporter who liberated Kabul.
Is it because McCarthy was a nice guy really? Loved his kids, was kind to pets and the elderly etc etc. Didn’t use hyperbole to bring about a state of paranoia among middle Americans of the communist *ideological* threat or persecute scores of people with either no or minimal connection to communist organisations?
Umm, you’ve rather broadly missed my point. You should be blushing because the BBC uses McCarthyite tactics as well to push its own political agenda. Guilt by association, for example, which is amply documented on this website.
(See the coverage of “The Power of Nightmares.”)
“In using ‘our’ I did mean Britons and Americans. We ARE the same people.”
We are? I didn’t realise our national cultures, beliefs, politics, ancestral ties could be summarised so briefly.
Given that so many Americans also think of themselves as, for example Italian Americans or African Americans, they must be a pretty confused bunch if they’re now also Anglo-Americans.
I’d be extremely surprised if you could find more than one person in ten in the UK who agreed that they felt “American”.
We’re much, much closer to Australians and you’d still be hard-pressed to find many Australians who will admit to feeling British.
Anonymous
You say that Islam is not given a free pass by the BBC. Really ? What was that hour-long programme on Snday evening about then ? A bunch of Muslim crazies being given free rein to spout all sorts of arrant nonsense – like 9/11 was Americas’s fault, the perpetrators were not necessarily Muslims, Osama is a good guy. Not a word of challenge. A whole hour of it. If that isn’t a free pass, what on earth is ?
You are simply in denial.
johninlodon
Al Beeb has a lot riding on the sucess of multiculturalism (which has nothing whatsoever to do with colour but with the need to assimilate whoever you are) as they have been the main cultural proponents of the policy. To speak the truth now would show that the game is up and that the entire postwar consensus (laughable) is and always was very much a minority view.
Oh – and I am Australian, but feel fairly British.
The Aussies I know are fielcely independent – but do NOT deny their British or Irish heritage.
As ever, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.
And if there is strong affinity between Britain and some of its former Dominions, real ties of blood and history – why does the BBC not reflect that, instead of pushing the EU all the time as our closest “friends”.
Indeed JIL, why is Britain culturally “closer” to its distant cousins than to its own children? When has Germany or France ever come to England’s rescue? Meanwhile, Oz, Canada and the US are usually to be counted on when England is in a pinch.
Fact is, all the English-speaking nations are becoming closer because of the Internet and mass communication.
Many of the biggest stars in Hollywood today are Ozzies: Nicole Kidman, Russel Crowe, Naomi Watts, Cate Blanchette, Mel Gibson (well, he’s not Ozzie, but Ozzie-raised.)
And US TV has so many shows with Brits on it nowadays it’s kind of embarassing. Even a lot of our TV commercials have Brit voice-overs (i.e., the woman who announces for Jaguar cars and pronounces it “Jag-U-are” to the vast amusement of most Yanks. And then there’s the endearing vaccuum sweeper guy who just wants to clean our rugs with a vaccuum sweeper that works “properly.”)
In Beebland, we stole Ausralia from the Aboriginies and were ghastly pillaging colonialists, nothing to celebrate there! Naughty, Naughty white people. Still a Monarchy and an a supporter of Bush`s America, Australia has a very long way to go before it is any kind of “friend”.
Doesn’t say much good about you if you have to use the name Anonymous on a forum which is rather anonymous anyway… Your name’s not Al-Zarqawi by any chance?
On the off-topic subject of the BBC programme about UK Muslims, I would urge the same cautious interpretation that should be applied to any BBC output. It shouldn’t be assumed that a BBC presentation of UK Muslims is any more a balanced representation of reality than, say, a “Question Time” audience is.
I didn’t see the programme in question but it does sound rather like a BBC/leftoid ‘ideal’ view of Muslims in the UK, fitting in nicely with leftoid guilt and anti-Americanism.
It is possible that the vast majority of UK Muslims are an arrogant, unassimilable fifth column seeking to undermine our society but it strikes me as far more likely that this is just an impression generated, unwittingly, by self-hating multiculturalists. Such as those at the BBC.
PJF: Go to http://www.jihadwatch.org to get confirmation that “…Muslims are an arrogant, unassimilable fifth column seeking to undermine our society…”
Susan, perhaps a tad OT:-
“What conclusions can one draw from the above about-faces of the cultural left except that their main interest is in overthrowing/destroying the prevailing order, not in having actual principles and beliefs?”
The conclusion I draw is that the left has no values of its own, but merely a fluid ranking system in which certain groups rate better than others.
Consider: the BBC likes Islam because it’s an anti-western religion. It sneers at Christianity because it is a western religion. It celebrates the conservatism of the former, to the point of ignoring its brutality, while berating the milder conservatism of the latter.
Next instance: al-Qaradawi, the gay-hating cleric, escapes leftist censure for hating gays because he’s a Muslim. A fundamentalist Christian who hated gays could expect to be hated himself by the left, on behalf of gays.
Muslims invented black slavery, and are still at it, but the left has nothing to say about this; you’d think slavery was invented by the USA. But it’s actually OK for Muslims to enslave blacks, because they outrank them. Blacks, in their turn, are excused from civilised behaviour should they so wish. If any of them wants to rap about shooting gays in the head, that’s fine.
So we can see that, among these 4 groups, the heirarchy here is:-
1/ muslims
2/ blacks
3/ gays
4/ Christians
and the left sides with them and endorses their views in strictly that order. Each group can hate and belittle in a downwards direction only. To hate upwards is pure bigotry.
Of course, this is simply a quadripartite view. Between Muslims and Christians, there lie many tiers occupied by variously less favoured groups. Women, for instance, are between 3 and 4 – it’s fine for blacks to rap about their bitches, and lefties like Germaine Greer endorse the hijab, so women are clearly somewhere below Muslims and blacks. They’re above Christians, because of the abortion issue, but probably below gays.
I’m not wholly clear where Jews are, but I think they’re very marginally above Christians at present; I could easily be wrong.
If one had an appetite for swimming in cesspools, one could probably identify — and rank — from the BBC’s output every one of the various lumpen groups that the left thinks we all fit into.
One could also amuse oneself identifying the groups who’ve fallen from favour over the years: strikers, miners, trade unions, Irish terrorists, communist dictators, “da workers”…
I tend to agree with PJF on this. The Jihadi tendency undoubtedly exists and is systematically downplayed.* But it is doubtful if we can gauge its penetration from this documentary. (I saw the last third or so of it.) My guess is that footage of any of those they interviewed who came across as integrating in an unspectacular manner would have a disproportionate tendency to end up on the cutting room floor. The documentary makers would have been likely to perceive such people as inarticulate, or unreflective or uninteresting. I think they were happy to show the guy who changed his name because he fits with their narrative of oppression.
*As Susan said, there are intensifying contradictions in the BBC attitude towards Muslims. On the one hand, no one not of the annointed is allowed to “question their loyalty.” On the other hand any Muslims who do express loyalty to Britain – or (not the same thing) hostility to terrorism – are sneered at as subservient dupes.
The quote from Joerg’s link that equated opposition to terrorism with denying their Muslim heritage is a case in point.
Natalie, it is just a coincidence that jihadwatch.org now has the BBC “documentary” listed on top of the Dhimmiwatch page. I recommend jihadwatch.org generally as a forum for people who are afraid that their heads are going to be cut off in the long run. Jihadwatch.org and this blog here are two of my favourite websites.
camp_commandant has provided a useful and revealing survey which I believe to show how the Left Wing have scant regard for the content of a persons character but seem to hold in the highest regard those whom they can most easily patronise and convert to the status of “client”.
Contemporary Socialism is “top down” phenomenon and does not eminate from the Grass Roots, I believe Conservativism to be opposite to this.
One reason the government won’t object to the BBC pro-Islamist stance can be seen here:
Over a quarter of MoD arms sale unit works for Saudis
David Leigh and Rob Evans
Wednesday March 9, 2005
Guardian
More than a quarter of the government’s arms sales machine is dedicated to selling to a single regime, Saudi Arabia. A Ministry of Defence publication circulated to defence firms and obtained by the Guardian shows the extent of Saudi dependence on Britain to run its air force.
According to the document, no fewer than 161 of the department’s 600
officials work for the “Saudi Armed Forces Project”.
Ministers will today address a closed annual conference of the Defence Export Services Organisation (Deso), the Whitehall department which sells British weapons round the world.
Outside the meeting a group of anti-arms sales protesters will gather.
They want Deso closed down, but have always been denied information about
the secretive department’s workings.
The team is headed by Air Vice-Marshal John Thompson, based in central London. He has a place on Deso’s main board, headed by Alan Garwood, a former executive of Britain’s biggest arms company, BAE.
Stationed on the ground in Riyadh are two senior military men, Air Commodore Ray Hodgson and Air Commodore John Chandler. They are the British team commander and logistics chief respectively.
The two RAF officers head a squad of 54 British officials who are
permanently based in Saudi Arabia.
The files show that they are distributed between the capital, Riyadh, a navy base at Jubail, and three big Saudi air bases at Dhahran, Khamis and Tabuk.
These figures do not include the significant number of RAF air crew who are seconded to the Saudis to fly the Tornados and Hawks which Britain has sold to Riyadh under its longstanding Al Yamamah arms contract.
The Deso officials are there to supervise the training and technical support which keeps the Saudi air force flying. Their other task is to supervise the payments of £1bn a year which Saudi Arabia makes to BAE in return for spares and maintenance.
The Deso teams range from a small unit at Tabuk in the north, near Israel, with a squadron leader handling training and a warrant officer in charge of supply, to a large team in the capital, where Group Captain Nick Watson is in charge of flight operations and a civil servant, John Radcliffe, heads the finance department.
At Jubail, on the Gulf, a navy captain, Grenville Johnson, superintends the Saudi fleet of Vosper minehunters at the head of a naval team of eight.
A senior Deso official, Michael Salkeld, is also stationed at the British embassy in Riyadh to promote further arms sales.
A team of 81 officials work at Deso’s headquarters, next to Centrepoint in London’s West End, on behalf of Saudi Arabia, headed by the commercial director, Stephen Pollard, and the deputy director in charge of contracts, John Davis.
Deso officials are also stationed at air bases round the UK, organising
training and back-up for the Saudis.
One team is based at RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire, where the Tornado
warplanes of the type purchased by the Saudis are maintained.
Others are at RAF Marham in Norfolk, RAF Stafford and the electronic warfare unit at RAF Waddington, in Lincolnshire.
The department also has a Saudi liaison team posted to BAE’s factory at Samlesbury in Lancashire. The MoD says that all these British officials are paid for by the Saudi regime, who hand over an undisclosed fee to Whitehall in return for what is in effect, the hire of an entire air force.
Deso originally refused the Guardian’s Freedom of Information request for an unexpurgated copy of its staff directory, which is supplied as a glossy brochure to all British arms firms.
However, we have subsequently obtained a leaked copy.
Deso says it seeks to conceal the identity of all its staff on the grounds that they could be intimidated. It also refused to divulge which government ministers will adress its annual symposium for arms manufacturers today.
Beccie D’Cunha, a spokeswoman for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, said: “We are an intrinsically peaceful organisation – there is no question that we would ever attack or harass Deso staff.”
She claimed: “Saudi Arabia is an autocratic, corrupt regime in an unstable area. The use of so many civil servants to promote arms to the Saudi regime is completely unethical.”
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
On Newsnight, they focused once more on new charges of torture in North Korean prisons.
Not really, it was actually the case of released ‘youth’ (under the age of 19) detainees who claimed to have been abused in one of those American “gulags”.
The accusations might be true or might not be, but the way in which Newsnight chose to present them (at least one case) in the form of an actor reconstruction(!)- in which an angry passionate young actor dramatized the allegations (to maximize emotional sympathy)- made the impression of a well-produced hoax. When an accusation is brought forward one might expect to see the accuser (dubbed if he/she can’t speak the local language), or the presenter/reporter quotes or otherwise states what had happened, or a document of sorts (written, filmed) etc. But no. Viewers are left to watch an actor with glaring sparkly eyes accusing as follows:
“One of the guards called me nigger. I remember the word nigger because it stuck with me”
Nigger? Why does the beeb chooses to dramatize this claim of all things and not, say, actual beating or better yet – Offence to the detainees’ relligion as allegedly was the case in previous claims.
One may guess the motives for emphasizing the N word. It comes to show how racist American soldiers are, not only towards jihadists..(hmmm correction:[from the same report] Men, the Pentagon claims are involved with terrorism) but also towards their own. (Is it an attempt to use Guantanamo as a way to raise concerns of racial tentions inside America?)
By the way one can sense the ‘refugee camp’ feel in this sub: Guantanamo youth
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4088990.stm
P.S the actor was very good, he embodied the naive firebrand nature of young jihadis wonderfully.
alex:-
…the Left Wing have scant regard for the content of a persons character but seem to hold in the highest regard those whom they can most easily patronise and convert to the status of “client”.
You have delved to the heart of the matter. Once a favoured group – striking miners, for instance – has exhausted its usefulness, the left abandons it and picks someone else to become the beneficiary of its slobbering and uncritical sentimentality.
Muslims should enjoy this while it lasts, for history teaches us that it never does.
the jihadwatch.org website has some discussion of the BBC Islam programme under “Dhimmiwatch” – second item in. This comment from “Zico” seems to sum up the programme – a lot of people with nasty thoughts, bleating and whining, people who approve of aggression and murder but playing the victim card.
The progrmme should be required watching for all liberals – to get them to start to realise what these creeps really think of us.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006628.php#c99603
Max
I agree. ‘Gitmo gulag’ stories have long bored me but I watched anyway. When I saw the actor with the indignant pose mention “nigger” I thought “this is bullshit.”
By next week we’ll be told that guards have been pissing on the Koran beneath burning crosses.
‘Gitmo’??
Personally I think that when a detention centre is given a nickname it’s a sign that the entire issue has degenerated from a reasoned and proportionate analysis of the facts to a pointless slanging match between the usual ideologically blinkered suspects (see also ‘Swifties’, ‘Islamofacists’ etc etc).
And ‘neocons’?
Cockney
Do you ever get off your high-and-mighty perch ?
The issue is – why do some of media spend so much time agonising about trivial things at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib while not covering let alone condemning real brutalities elsewhere ?
It is the constant anti-US criticism that is so biased. Like the New York Times carrying Abu Ghraib on its front page for 34 consecutive days. But beheadings sliding off the front page after a day or two. The BBC similarly lacks proper balance between misdemeanours and outright terrorism – it can’t even bring itself to use the word terrorism.
And ‘neocons’, yes.
As far as I’m aware there isn’t a nickname for Abu Ghraib (‘abgrab’?) as there’s a genuine debate to be had about the balance of media coverage. It’s not just an issue for the zealots to clash over. So my rule is proved.
The Left these days barely mentions the working classes, certainly not the white working classes. Women have also largely been abandoned by the Left.
Muslims are indeed the new client, whose views on women and gays are glossed over because they have a higher “victim status” than those groups.
The Left used to be grassroots, now it’s top-down, ruled by the self-appointed intelectual and media elite.
That’s also why the Democrats have lost their traditional working class base in the US. Most US “liberals” have never set foot outside New York or San Francisco; they will travel the world but would not be seen dead in “flyover country”.
Zevilyn,
There was a time when every American knew the names of the most important union bosses — the head of the Teamsters, the head of the Auto Workers, the Head of the United Unions (AFL-CIO).
I couldn’t name any of these people today without Googling.
The left abandoned the unionized working class when they got wealthy enough to afford suburban four-bedroom houses and Winnebagos. (Actually, it may have been the other way around — the union workers abandoned the left when they started dabbling in “identity” politics and other divisive issues.)
Now the left considers these people along with all other Americans to be “oppressors” of the eternally victimized Third World pauper.
The left realized the game was up when capitalism started making suburban home-owners out of auto workers and truck drivers. So they had to find other victim classes to patronize — Third Worlders being the most promising.
Hear hear… and Howard “Asshole” Dean keeps saying that the only way a Black person can be a success in the Republican Party is by serving lunch (or whatever it was he said specifically). Am I dreaming or is a Black woman Secretary of State ???
The Left these days has the racist agenda. Not the so called “neo-cons”.
Joerg,
Absolutely right. The first female PM of the UK was a Tory, and I predict that the first black PM and gay PM will also be Tories. The Left needs racism and poverty to garner votes, so it is in their interests to perpetuate as much poverty and racism as possible.
Anonymous,
I guess it’s probably down to the fact that the so-called “right” stands for choice whereas our leftist friends stand for what I call “enforced pseudo choices”…
I like to think those of us who consider themselves conservatives are more progressive than those on the left who still sit on the Karl Marx / Friedrich Engels books.