I think it’s worth saying that the BBC often misses the point- where it wants to- while appearing to be covering matters fairly. They give an article over to Blair’s (alleged) apparent discomforture at Prime Minister’s questions, which today I watched (though I can’t comment on the BBC’s tv coverage of it as I watched on another channel). They pick up Michael Howard’s rather inapt metaphor for Blair on Europe, ‘wriggling like a fish on a hook’, and the view they depict of Howard’s position tallies well with Blair’s oft-repeated accusation that Howard wants to the leave the EU.
Yet watching PMQs I definitely, 100 percent, felt that Blair was not discomforted- in fact he was witty and waspish in batting away criticism while painting, as usual, his opponents as extremists. So, in some ways I would say I think that the BBC are exaggerating the situation. Why? Why was it seen fit to misrepresent Blair as on the defensive, unless… unless perhaps to compensate for not presenting the readers with the big slip of PMQs- the one that could damage Blair politically in a Euro area that hurts-, when Blair did a Prescott in his own much less obvious fashion. How could the BBC have missed it when it stood out like a sore thumb to me and to EuRef:
‘”The constitution can’t proceed until a way is found round those referendum votes…”‘
Cat, bag- phew, the Beeb closed it just in time to stop the cat escaping. Almost. It’s not a question of referendum, but circumvention.
“BBC are exaggerating the situation”
As in 6pm BBC1 News where for some reason the Tory MP’s decision on leadership election procedure is a “humiliation” for Howard.
They use the word “humiliation” with great frequency in respect of politicans. Why can’t they notice their hyperbole?
Wouldn’t a ‘saw thumb’ fall off rather than standing out? Try ‘sore thumb’.
Can I just say, Peter Mandelson. Blair backs ‘Mandy’ to the hilt when the press are slavering for his hide, packs him off to a juicy quango in Brussels and the treacherous little parasite repays the PM by rounding on him in his hour of need in the confrontation against pyschopathic liar Jack Chirack, actually supporting the French position on the EU rebate. I’m not sure what the Beeb have said about him to be honest, but Traitor wouldn’t be too far off the mark.
OT Mr Ballard i see you have upped the stakes with a real cretin.http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=2439
o/t
Honest Reporting is a US based organisation that monitors anti-Israel biased reporting from the free press. It should come as no surprise that the BBC gives them a lot of ammunition, and were in fact the receivers of the most biased media outlet award in 2003, and generally get a (dis)honourable mention every year.
The BBC run a webpage titled ‘On the same day’ which concerns events at some time in recent history for a particular date. A gross attempt on the 13th of June to demonize Israel (what’s new) was picked up by a professor at Haifa university, who promptly pointed out their misinformation. It was so blatant, that even the BBC had to correct it. Here’s a copy of the letter to the BBC by this professor, which I think is great, and their reply.
Sir,
I refer to your web item “on this day” of 13 June 1967,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/13/newsid_3023000/3023159.stm
Although the account is generally fair, I would like to draw your attention to a significant ommission in the “in context” section of that page, an ommission that creates a distortion of the truth.
In that section you print:
“The [UN Security] Council, after long discussions, on 22 November unanimously adopted Resolution 242, which became the basis for future United Nations policymaking on the Middle East conflict. It stated “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.”
This creates the impression that UN resolution 242 puts demands only on Israel, which is untrue. This is what the relevant clause actually says, here quoted from http://www.mideastweb.org/242.htm :
“[The Security Council] Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”
The second principle, which the Council explicitly links to the first, means that Arab countries are obliged to acknowledge Israel’s sovereignty etc, and agree on “secure and recognized boundaries”. To this day, only Egypt and Jordan complied, and even that many years after the resolution was taken.
I hope you’ll agree that taking the single sentence “Withdrawal … conflict” out of context creates the false impression that demands were directed solely at Israel. For fairness, a correction would be appreciated.
Yours faithfully,
Prof. Anat Tcherikover,
University of Haifa,
Mount Carmel, Haifa
Israel
2. BBC answer:
Dear Anat
Thank you for your email to On This Day.
I have re-read the article on the Six Day War and agree that our summing up of UN security council resolution 242 does give a one-sided view. I have therefore added a line referring to the acknowledgement of sovereignty of nation states etc and republished the story.
Many thanks again for contacting us and I hope you will continue to use the site.
Regards
Alison Trowsdale
For On This Day
3. The following paragraph was indeed added to the account:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/…000/3023159.stm
“It also called for the acknowledgement of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every national state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure borders.”
“A gross attempt on the 13th of June to demonize Israel”
Of course if it was a gross attempt to demonize, you’d have expected the BBC to not have agreed with the professor, admitted error and made the change.
Nor would a gross attempt to demonize be in an article described as “generally fair”.
For the BBC to omit the full meaning of Resolution 242 shows either
Gross ignorance
or
Gross bias
Which is it?
The correct meaning of UN Resolutions too difficult for the average BBC journalist to understand? Well never mind, just give some free publicity to the anti-settler movement instead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4095364.stm
Apparently the majority of the downloads have been in the BBC newsroom. Well maybe not, but I’m just “illustrating a wider truth”.
Eamonn
Probably a bit of both….
I sent a link through to a friend about the “Ronaldo visit”. He really couldn’t see how it wa biased. People in England are so used the BBC’s bias, that they accept it as fact. Its really quite worrying.
OT – BBC Radio4 9am News bulletin this morning. Siege at a school in Cambodia. Newsreader points out that the school is ‘private’. What’s that go to do with the siege? The answer is ‘absolutely nothing’, but it is facinating to think that a beeboid journo does think it is an important element to clarify. Listened to Radio5 live from 9:10am who were having a phone in on the EU. Different audience who tend to call a spade a spade and generally more centre-right in view. R5 live kept listeners up to date regularly on how the siege at the school in Cambodia was developing, but correctly stated that the school was an ‘international’ school. Much better. It is of note that the school was ‘international’ and that the children were from various countries, sadly I think a Canadian child was killed. But whether it is public or private? What is the relevance there? Again, just reinforces my view of beeboid lefties who can’t help but live in a strange BBc bubble where there is a left of centre world view i.e. public = good, private = bad, and don’t miss an opportunity to tell your audience so.
OFF TOPIC
The BBC continue to cover up for Koffi Annan over his involvement in the oil for food scandal.
On two webpages the BBC makes this false claim:
A UN team looking into the former UN Iraq oil-for-food programme cleared Mr Annan of any wrongdoing in March.
I have repeatedly emailed the BBC over this in the past to no avail.
Here is my post on the subject with links to prove the BBC is lying. I say lying because, as I said, I have emailed them repeatedly about it.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/06/iraq-un-scandal-cover-up-continues.html
I’m fed up being nice to them, so this time I got nasty. Here is a copy of my latest email to them and to Sarah Brown with links to what Volcker and his investigators actually said.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/06/britain-bbc-covers-up-for-annan.html
“Asked point-blank whether Mr. Annan had been cleared of wrongdoing in the $10 billion scandal, Mr. Volcker replied, “No.”
Marc
Good work. Those who feed at the taxpayer trough need allways to be reminded of who’s the boss and who’s the servant. If she doesn’t reply I’d start sending letters to the Governers.
From http://publicinterest.blogspot.com/
“Imagine, for a moment, a world in which the EU did not exist”.
Writes Mrs. Andrew Marr. Imagine. It isn’t hard to do.
“It would be a world dominated by the ruthless and often protectionist power of the United States, not balanced by any competing western system, and by the rising low-cost juggernauts of Asia. What price then a modern social-welfare state on our small cluster of offshore islands?”
pete_london
is that from the Guardian article? didn`t know that was Mrs Marr.
Anyhow, I sent her the following on her email link
Your beloved welfare state is funded by taxes imposed on imported oil.
When the cry of “no blood for oil” goes up, it should really be “no blood for oil for western welfare states”,
Globalization, the pillage of Africa and greenhouse gasses are produced to pay the taxes for decadent
European welfare.
You cannot have it both ways.
Alex, I’m struggling to understand what you’re on about so I doubt Mrs Marr can??
perhaps la Marr is smarter than you are!
Would that be Mark Lamarr the abysmal gameshow host or Lamarr the abysmal R&B ‘singer’?
Any chance of a translation in vaguely grammatical English for us remedials?
“Any chance of a translation in vaguely grammatical English for us remedials?”
The BBC’s Andrew Marr, whose quotation from May 2001 can be read in this blog’s sidebar, has a spouse called Jackie Ashley who writes for the Grauniad.
It is Mrs Marr who has authored the piece on Europe that has been mentioned by commenters.
I hope this suitably clarifies things for any self-proclaimed remedials.
Dispite having suffered a ‘progressive education’ I found Alex’s email perfectly comprehensible.
He is pointing out that high taxes on fuel fund the welfare state, no oil, no money. Right?
Alex
Good point! I hope you don’t mind me using it too.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=72509
This link should be required reading by BBC staff…
Sorry, there didn’t seem much connection between Mrs Marr’s and Alex’s arguments but I assume the full Grauniad article contains the missing links.
Whilst Mrs Marr is obviously talking b*llocks I’m not quite clear about the ‘no blood for oil” bit. Couldn’t we just as well fund our decadent welfare state on taxation of oil extracted by monopolies operated by hideously oppressive middle Eastern regimes, as on taxation of oil extracted by private corporations having bombed the f*ck out of the hideously oppressive middle Eastern regimes and auctioned off their industry?
pete_london
“Imagine, for a moment, a world in which the EU did not exist”
John Lennon R.I.P (Bret, first comment) once wrote an alternative version of Imagine intended to become the EU anthem, so far unreleased.
Imagine no possessions
No food or water too.
No children’s toys or comforts.
And there’s not much to do.
Imagine all the people living in the dirt.
You may say I’m a cynic,
Yeah I’ll admit I’m one,
I’ve seen great ideas ruin millions of lives,
And this is just another one!
____
Has anybody noticed that a major story about human sacrifice in London, has been relegated to “below the fold” on the BBC News frontpage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4098172.stm
Its not even mentioned in the “UK section” of the website, despite the story originating with the Metropolitan Police and relating to activities in London.
Not too sure what to make of it, but very unusual. Personally, I consider it to be a massive story.
Rob Read
Good link. I specially liked:
“Either from a feeling of post-imperial guilt or simply succumbing to fashions of the time, the British have landed in a trap where the agenda is set by shrill activists who force entitlement claims down the throats of a bewildered society.”
And:
But if the state insists on indiscriminately supporting asylum-seekers and then spending more money buying special books for them as also making welfare grants to fanatical religious preachers who use multi-culturalism for their benefit, while not believing in it themselves, then you run the risk of converting middle-of-the-road tolerant citizens into immigrant-bashers. I am continuously surprised as to why the British government is unable to make a statement as follows: “Select immigrants are welcome. We will set the selection criteria. Since no one is forcing them to come in, we will expect that once they are here, they will blend into our culture and not expect Britain to accommodate their cultural needs which they are welcome to address privately at their own cost”.
First, someone mentioned a Ronaldo, above. Is that Peter Mandelson’s ex-significant other Ronaldo, or a different Ronaldo?
Second, Pete_London says, in part: … and not expect Britain to accommodate their cultural needs …
Anyone with cultural “needs” needs to stay home in his own culture and not bother the rest of us.
BTW, there should be absolutely no welfare – none, zero, zilch – for “asylum seekers” who had the funds to travel through 10 or 12 safe countries.
Alex, you say: ‘decadent European welfare’
I say: ‘welfare policies that I disagree with’
sadly (happily?) the European electorate disagree with you. But that’s OK, because you know best. Dem-oc-ra-cy.
Alex, she won’t think you’re a nutter, oh no. It will fundamentally change her view. No to the welfare state! Bring back the workhouse!
Ronaldo, here:
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/05/ronaldo_the_aut.html
Peter Mandelson’s boyfriend was Brazilian. If I remember rightly, he was also involved with the Hinduja brothers who were desperately trying to avoid prosecution in India by getting British passports. I think Ronaldo may have introduced the Hindujas to Peter Mandelson and somehow, the passports got granted.
I wonder who Pete’s seeing these days in Brussels.
Of course if it was a gross attempt to demonize, you’d have expected the BBC to not have agreed with the professor, admitted error and made the change.
Nor would a gross attempt to demonize be in an article described as “generally fair”.
You know Anonymous, I don’t think you are as stupid and ignorant as your post suggests, I just think you’re WAY out of your depth here. If you really want to serve your masters, you’d be much better off sticking to twisting the truth to the ignorant, as you and your kind
have so much experience with, and avoid those that really know what’s going on.
You missed out the end of her sentence, so you are guilty of the same ‘demonization’ as the BBC.
Although the account is generally fair, I would like to draw your attention to a significant ommission in the “in context” section of that page, an ommission that creates a distortion of the truth.
Pity there’s no way to edit posts after posting.
Of course if it was a gross attempt to demonize, you’d have expected the BBC to not have agreed with the professor, admitted error and made the change.
Nor would a gross attempt to demonize be in an article described as “generally fair”.
You know Anonymous, I don’t think you are as stupid and ignorant as your post suggests, I just think you’re WAY out of your depth here. If you really want to serve your masters, you’d be much better off sticking to twisting the truth to the ignorant, as you and your kind
have so much experience with, and avoid those that really know what’s going on.
You missed out the end of her sentence, so you are guilty of the same ‘demonization’ as the BBC.
Although the account is generally fair, I would like to draw your attention to a significant ommission in the “in context” section of that page, an ommission that creates a distortion of the truth.
Verity
There has long been suspicion about the legality of Mandy’s boy Ronaldo’s presence in the UK. From what I’ve read there are more than a few people who have a strong suspicion that Mandy greased his boyfriend’s path around immigration obstacles but have always been blocked in investigating the case.
Am I seeing things, or is Question Time actually pitching four leftists against Iain Duncan Smith…
Not quite. Rod Liddle is a lefty with some non-leftist views, especially on the EU and immigration. Now he’s just said that more aid to Africa would be wasted.
I’m watching Question Time as well. Who’s the guy with the grey hair? I actually agree with a few things he’s saying – CAP, Geldof, ebay, etc.
As for the winging Welsh woman, Claire self-promoting Shaw and the frog…….
Blimey, we’re all tuned in.
Rob –
That’s Rob Liddle, former Editor of the Radio 4’s Toady Programme. I must admit to a creeping admiration for him since he left the BBC. He stillhas the odd abberration in the Spectator, but that’s a publication which gives licence to spark debate.
It’s a little odd week. Clare Short and an obviously insane woman from Plyd … Plide … the Welsh Nationalists are on the panel. Each on their own would be bad enough but they come well within the orbit of Planet Earth compared to Marc Roche of Le Monde. His nose looks like it’s been broken a few times.
Good.
plaid cymru.
Did you know that the current flood of third world doctors and nurses to the West is America’s fault?
I didn’t either, but thanks to the Today programme I do now.
I couldn’t quite work out exactly why it is the USA’s fault, but according to the interviewee (around 8am), America buys and sells medics like commodities, in fact “like oil”.
Of course such silly comments go unchallenged on the Today programme.
Elsewhere Today tries to pin the blame on the USA for “watering down” the G8 proposals. All very predictable but they didn’t actually provide any evidence, apart from shadowy sources, no doubt with Iraq/Kyoto-type axes to grind.
Then we move on global warming. All intelligent people belive that, don’t they? Just to make sure, Today interviews someone from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, backed up by a UN-employed scientist. The presenter goes along with the very one sided views presented, so there we have it. QED. Oh, and America is the world’s biggest polluter as well. Bet you didn’t know that, did you?
Radio 4 – Home of intelligent speech.
OT
I thought this story was a bit bizarre.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/women/4102440.stm
UEFA president Lennart Johansson has claimed that the best way to boost revenues from women’s football would be to push the ‘sweaty, lovely looking girl’ angle. This apparently is ‘set to spark a sexism row’.
It might well do, but not yet as there are no quotes whatsoever from aggrieved parties, sweaty and lovely or otherwise. It seems that the non-PC detectors have twitched and they’re just dangling this one out hoping that someone will bite. Not very professional.
Cockney,
No-one blinked when women started watching football to see good looking men in shorts…
Of course this time it’s a BBC designated victim class, so it might be different.
Cockney, The article does seems a little bit confused – Johansson himself seems somewhat confused – afraid of the mention of tight shorts but in favour of selling more sweaty girls playing on the ground? It looks like the writer is trying to fish for support a future “football is sexist” headline… as if it needs one!
Now if Blatter or Johansson really wanted to use sex to sell womens football, a simple idea like the opposition team having to remove an item of clothing everytime a goal is scored would work like magic!!! It provides instant sexism headlines galore to suit all the PC journo’s and Women’s football would become the national pastime…Everybody would be happy! 😉
Lovely looking sweaty girls, competing with each other to dribble over balls.
Sounds like a party to me.
Pete_London – “strong suspicion that Mandy greased his boyfriend’s path around immigration obstacles but have always been blocked in investigating the case.”
I’m shocked. Shocked. Mandelson also apparently was instrumental in getting the Hindujas their British passports, although, oddly enough, this has never been confirmed either. The Hindujas have their passports, Peter’s on the gravy train in Brussels and Cherie has a closet ful of saris that are at least two sizes two small.
Er . . . “Discomforted” (used several times). Shouldn’t it be “discomfited”? Check with a dictionary (though some will pass anything if it’s used often enough). “Discomfit” (more severe than “Discomfort”) certainly suits the context better.
Just a small comment from Pedant’s Corner. “Discomfort” is primarily a noun (though practically any noun can be turned into a verb). “Discomfit” is a verb and nothing else.
Yes, I know that both words sound alike.