A belated hat tip to PJF and The American Expatriate for pointing out an exquisite use of ellipses. Please note that the Dowdified quote originally appearing in this article has now been removed by the BBC. Still, purely out of historical interest, here is what Scott Callahan observed:
Quoth Rumsfeld:
You just can’t hear day after day after day after day things like that that often aren’t true, with a lack of balance, and not come away thinking, gee, that must not be a very good country.
And after coming through the BBC quotation grinder:
You just can’t … not come away thinking, gee, that [the US] must not be a very good country.
To be totally fair, the mangled quote appears in a quote box on the side of the article, and the body of the article does contain the full, proper quote. But the quote box is highlighted and in bold, and is the first thing the eye is drawn to apart from perhaps the headline and the photo of Rumsfeld. And in it the BBC has altered what is an implicit criticism of the media into an unqualified and derogatory observation about the US itself.
The quote box now has an entirely different Rumsfeld quote, “The United States is notably unskilful in our communications and our public diplomacy.”
MMMmmm – smacks of the same kind of tactic as they did with their explanation of Resolution 242, posted a few days ago. It seems they run it until they get enough complaints to change it. Doesn’t seem like they are sticking to their commitment to provide balanced reporting, and their ‘errors’, as they no doubt would like to have it seen as, invariably appear to be in keeping with their bias.:(
After years of having to put up with the ‘distortion’ of BBC world service, I adopted the habit of emailing the particular US govt service, eg State Dept or Defence Dept, which had been the target of that days BBC propaganda. The email contained an apology, on behalf of the balanced UK listening public, for the unwarranted reporting by our public service. I also copy the email to the BBC chairman.
I appreciate this may not get far but at least it shows both sides that the BBC’s institutionalised anti-US ideology is unacceptable.
If you lived in [Arab satellite TV channel] al-Jazeera’s area… and you heard every day the pounding that the United States takes from a television network like that, you’d begin to think very poorly of the United States, too. You just can’t hear day after day after day after day things like that that often aren’t true with a lack of balance, and not come away thinking, gee, that must not be a very good country.
Hmmmm, Arab satellite TV channel area – Al-BBC qualifies for that too, wonder why they didn’t advertise themselves:?: http://www.tvradioworld.com/region2/irn/
Guess they don’t want to make too big a deal of it.:lol:
Fact is: The times when I thought about spending the rest of my life in the UK are over… and part of it is down to the BBC and its agenda. I suggest all US liberals repatriate to Europe and all good conversative Europeans go on to live in the US. Go, Fox News!
Here’s a must read.
Although the BBC are attempting to explain how and why they’re impartial and objective, they actually end up showing the very opposite. Pay extra attention to what is being said in the last paragraphs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1510_accuracy/page7.shtml
Joerg, you must have ESP. That’s exactly what I was thinking! a:a)
Whoops, I was trying to put a smiley there. Didn’t work.
I can imagine many of us have considered the same : + ) = 🙂 (without the spaces and +)
:+)
Dang. Oh, well.
You need help with your smileys, people! 🙂
It does help that I have a girlfriend in Ohio (re. my actual statement).
Just noticed that on the BBC News Website (I only missed the “Christian” in the headline):
“A California court convicts a religious zealot of killing nine of his children, several fathered incestuously.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4106038.stm
P.S.: I’ve got to add that I don’t live in the UK – I’m still stuck in Germany. Until about ten years ago I considered moving to the UK but what Labour and Political Correctness / Multiculturalism has done to my once favourite country is a crying shame. I guess I am one of these bleeding “Neo-Cons” and am probably best off in the US after all.
Possibly the funniest reporting I’ve ever read about the EU:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4106086.stm
Seems we are having an impact on the BBC lately. A small impact, but maybe they are starting to pay attention.
I emailed them over their false claims that Volcker had cleared Annan of wrongdoing in the UN oil for food program.
Here is my original email to the BBC.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/06/britain-bbc-covers-up-for-annan.html
Here is their reply, correcting (lamely) one webpage but not the other and my response back to the BBC.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/06/america-koffigate-bbc-response.html
Still, the damage is done. Few will be aware of my emails or the subtle changes to the webpage and there is no mention of any of this on their vaunted Newswatch webpage.
We need to continue to email them and challenge them over these issues; merely posting about them is not enough.
Isn’t there any way of launching a legal action against the BBC for betraying its alleged commitment to impartiality? Or some equally legalistic way of compelling them to hire non Left-wing staff at middle management level? If that makes me sound like a dyed-in-the-wool BBC hater – far from it. I actually do support the licence fee as a funding mechanism and the programmes the corporation makes. But I can no longer support the BBC’s news service. Its persistently negative reporting on the Iaq war and anything to do with George Bush and the US (to name some of the more glaring examples) are beyond a joke. Are there good things going on in Iraq? Of course there are. So why do we hardly ever hear about them? Why does the BBC not devote as much coverage to the numerous infrastructure projects financed by the coalition as it does to the killings and bombings? Why does it not mention the peace and inceasing prosperity for those who live outside of the Sunni triangle (which is to say the majority of Iraqis)? Or the schools (rebuilt with coalition money) or the countless acts of generosity and kindness by soldiers in the field towards Iraqis of all ages? Fair enough if they cover the negative aspects but they also have a duty to report the positive aspects as well. Look, I’m not requiring the BBC to become a bloody cheerleader for either the war or George Bush but there’s such a thing as impartiality – that is, to treat all sides without prejudice. And who, looking at the BBC’s coverage of the Iraq war, at the interminable negativity of their reporters – not least the doom-laden tones of Baghdad correspondent Caroline Hawley – could possibly conclude that the corporations coverage has been anything other than relentlessly and persistently negative? And the more the BBC news continues pushing this solipsistic left-wing viewpoint, not just on Iraq but on many other issues, the more they end up alienating viewers like myself. I tell you, sooner or later, there’ll be a reckoning with the BBC. Either in the courts or in some other way. But sooner or later it’ll happen. Guaranteed.
Rob,
Any organisation funded by coercion feels it is entitled to your money. A sense of entitlement and specialness attracts lefties and slowly the organisation will be filled with people of the left wing.
Only subscription can save the BBCs impartiality.
Who do they think they are? The Guaridan?
Re. Iran election – now that is a funny quote. I wonder what this guy is on and why, if Iran is a democracy, he chooses to live in the UK:
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4091508.stm
“As an Iranian living in the UK, I would definitely go out and vote for the next president of Iran. I go back to Iran every summer and I see the changes for the better all the time. We must accept the fact that Iran is the biggest democracy in the Middle East and the great majority of us Iranians know it. I do not say everything in Iran is perfect but things are improving.
Reza, London”
Denise, after : just put in ) 🙂
“Africa Lives on the BBC: Out of Africa: The Many Faces of the Black Icon
Adrian Lester presents a celebration of some of the extraordinary contributions black people have made to the world. Contributors include Nelson Mandela, Muhammad Ali and his wife Lonnie, Colin Powell, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dr Maya Angelou, Lenny Henry, Morgan Freeman, Rio Ferdinand, the Williams sisters and James Brown.”
I like Black people and I’ve got a lot of Black friends but how many of those listed above were actually born in Africa? Maybe it does help if you grow up in the West, the same West the BBC despises so much???
“how many of those listed above were actually born in Africa?”
& how many are black?
Thanks, Teddy Bear! 🙂
Pete,
Bless their poor little hearts. I think I hear violins playing. Is the EU president wiping tears in that picture? 😆
>>Any organisation funded by coercion feels it is entitled to your money.
But the BBC isn’t ‘funded by coercion’. In fact the licence fee has the supported by the majority of the public.
>>Only subscription can save the BBCs impartiality.
I understand the sentiment but subsciption won’t save anything – especially the BBC’s obligation to provide something for everyone some of the time. If, like me, you’ve felt that the Beeb’s progamming over the last five years has emphasised soaps, reality shows and DIY programmes at the expense of its public sevice remit – then believe me the problem would be a 100 times worse if a small user base paid subs for specific shows. Under subscription you really would see ‘wall to wall Eastenders/DIY/Reality shows.’ I’m sure you’ll agree that’s not a prospect likely to warm anyone’s heart.
Marc, good job and well done.
Denise – you’re welcome 8)
“But the BBC isn’t ‘funded by coercion’. In fact the licence fee has the supported by the majority of the public.”
I’m sure the majority of people in the southern states of the US supported slavery so that made it OK?
“the problem would be a 100 times worse if a small user base paid subs for specific shows”
If people paid for what they wanted then I wouldn’t be able to force them to watch the highbrow rubbish that I want to force them to see. The BBC could have a charter to only show the type of shows elitists want to force on others, we could see whether the majority of people in the country really feel that’s worthwhile.
Rob “In fact the licence fee has the supported by the majority of the public.”
Wrong! A poll by Panorama in 2004 showed more wanted subscription than a licence fee
“Asked which alternative they would most like to see as the main source of BBC funding, 31 per cent chose the licence fee, the same proportion went for advertising and 36 per cent preferred a subscription paid only by those who want to receive BBC programmes.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/06/nbeeb06.xml
>>I’m sure the majority of people in the southern states of the US supported slavery so that made it OK?
You’re comparing the licence fee to Southern slavery? Exaggerate much?
>>The BBC could have a charter to only show the type of shows elitists want to force on others
But that’s an inaccurate characterisation of what the BBC does. The BBC’s duty is to provide programmes that everyone can enjoy some of the time. It is only the Beeb’s PSB remit and the funding mechanism of the licence fee that makes this possible. Remove the licence fee and the concept of public service broadcasting falls with it.
I have my problems with parts of the BBC but there’s no practical, workable alternative to its funding – as a sucession of politically instigated investigations from parties on all sides over the decades have proven. But then unlike you I don’t want the BBC demolished or hived off to the private sector. What I want is for the corporation to sort out the tiresome left-wing bias in its news reporting and I think the best way to do that is to get non-lefty employees into positions of programme-making and middle-management within the corporation. How you do that is the $64, 000 question.
>>A poll by Panorama in 2004 showed more wanted subscription than a licence fee
True, but as with any poll you’ll find that exceptions like that are motivated primarily by short term concerns. The criticism made by both public and critics in that Panorama programme was that the BBC had become too obsessed with ratings and populism at the expense of its public service remit. The complete opposite in other words of Rob’s ‘elitist’ accusation!
There’s also the matter of the way you phrase the question. I mean, if I ask people ‘do you enjoy paying the licence fee?’ then it won’t be a surprise if a majority say ‘no’. Who, after all, ‘enjoys’ paying for anything? But if I then ask those same people if they’d be happy to see the licence fee replaced by an alternative, voluntary form of funding – alternatives which every serious survey has shown would not only cost far more than present but also result in a narrower range of programming – then I can promise you a very different response indeed.
I must admit I’ve always found the idea of having to pay a fee to the government to own a tv pretty outrageous. But then I’m a colonial accustomed to our own sloppy, commercial system.
Actually I think a license fee might be unconstitutional. Would freedom of speech and assembly cover electronic media?
Roxana: “Actually I think a license fee might be unconstitutional. Would freedom of speech and assembly cover electronic media?”
It pretty hard to tell this when your constitution is unwritten.
However, I believe the particular law compelling the payment of the licence fee for this State media organisation may well be unconstitutional.
A compulsory tax that funds a recklessly, unregulated media organsation, one unseparated from the State, seems, on balance, to be (a) unlawful; and (b) a betrayal of the trust of the people who fund it.
Rob
“It is only the Beeb’s PSB remit and the funding mechanism of the licence fee that makes this possible. Remove the licence fee and the concept of public service broadcasting falls with it.”
What exactly is PSB? Why must the state oblige a broadcaster to deliver PSB? Why is it good for me?
In an age of mass mass multi-media it all sounds a bit 20th Century and collectivist to me.
In any case, ITV, funded commercially, is obliged ensure that 40% of its output is PSB.
Rob above seeks to claim that the Panorama poll really proves that people love the licence fee. Are you PM of Luxembourg, Rob?
Hello Rob
I think the BBC is politically biased, but I also think it is crap. The only programmes I really watch are American (24, Sopranos, The Left Wing (Sorry West Wing). The BBC is a waste of £2.4 billion. The BBC needs to get to this level of creativity. The BBC is not earning its keep it should be making programs for export in order to contribute to the UK economy, in an industry that could be of the future growth areas. BBC World is actually on the point of collapse, because in the words of The Economist ‘nobody wants it’. In short the BBC is bad for Britain economically as well as intellectually.
Also, personally, I do not believe it is possible to be impartial, so why pretend. A system of open debate- I guess a bit like the papers (with left and right wing views) I believe is better for promoting debate and advancement within the UK. The BBC could continue to be a left wing channel under privatisation (just like CNN- the biggest contributor to the democrats 2004 campaign)
You’re comparing the licence fee to Southern slavery? Exaggerate much?
Not really, they both rely on forced labour. The only way to avoid them is to leave the plantation (emigrate).
Roxanna Cooper wrote:
“Actually I think a license fee might be unconstitutional. Would freedom of speech and assembly cover electronic media?”
You would think the US Congress giving tax payers’ money to a TV broadcaster would be unconstitutional, but that’s exactly what Congress does for PBS (for now, anyway…)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050615/ap_en_tv/pbs_standards_2
I’ll say one thing in favour of the UK TV Licence – it’s bloody easy to avoid paying it.
.
You’ll never hear a sport fan pressing for the abolition of the licence fee. No adverts at half time. Increases enjoyment of a match by about 100%.
Rob’s right about any poll on the licence fee.
When surveys ask people whether they would like to pay more tax, the answer is a resounding no.
When they ask them if they would like public spending to increase if the extra money was spent on health and education, they get a resounding yes.
Rod Bishop
I’m not exactly what you call a sports nut. In my view outside of Football, rugby, test cricket and skiing there is no sport.
In any case, abolish the TV licence fee. You cannot be serious that your enjoyment of (let’s say) football is enhanced by the inane ramblings of some illiterate ex-footballer.
Put the kettle on, get a round in, whatever. There’s a break in the play anyway.
Rod Bishop “Rob’s right about any poll on the licence fee.
When surveys ask people whether they would like to pay more tax, the answer is a resounding no.”
No he isn’t, because he is inventing the poll question put by Panorama.
Panorama’s question was muliple choice, ie which of the following would you prefer for the funding of the BBC – result a 3 way split between subscription, advertising & licence fee. The 31% opting for the licence fee can only represent a majority to euro-fanatics.