I have been having a busy few days and have got behind with the email. See you* next week.
*Actually that is quite unlikely.
Apologies.
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- BRISSLES Dec 21, 18:42
Weekend 21st December 2024
There is a lot of truth in the sayings …. A face for radio A face only a Mother could… - Up2snuff Dec 21, 18:10
Weekend 21st December 2024
harry, on R4 lunchtime news JustRemainIn Webb contributed that the man driving the car into Magdeburg Christmas Market was anti-Islam!… - wwfc Dec 21, 18:08
Weekend 21st December 2024
Very Very good watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaU8akdpUqY&ab_channel=Rodaportal - Fedup2 Dec 21, 17:38
Weekend 21st December 2024
I think one of the reasons the msm is top toeing around the German slaughter is because of the CCTV… - Sluff Dec 21, 17:36
Weekend 21st December 2024
Sometimes it is the choice of story that gives away the BBC bias. Here’s one from the front page of… - Lefty Wright Dec 21, 17:24
Weekend 21st December 2024
moggiemoo I have found that if you make a close study of his facial features they resemble Cheetah the chimp… - Sluff Dec 21, 17:20
Weekend 21st December 2024
….so says the person who let us remember was employed by the BBC as the ‘impartial’ economics editor on Newshite,… - Fedup2 Dec 21, 17:19
Weekend 21st December 2024
510 bbc tv news – guess what re Germany – Islam mentioned ? No – Muslims mentioned ? No -…
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
I have a request to make from most of the contributers here.
Many examples of BBC bias that you observe end up getting buried in the archives here. Also, there is no clear indentifiable record of each of the points observed by the posters, except for some points which are headed in the mainpage. Often there are more severe examples within the comments section.
I have recently opened a new forum where each separate example of BBC bias can be recorded, and kept updated with any additional transgressions by the BBC. I think by having this clear record, any readers visiting the site can easier compare their observations with our own, and hopefully we can eventually become a pressure group instead of just ‘moaning about the BBC’.
Therefore, would posters please consider also posting their observations on my site as well as here. Your assistance is much appreciated. Please see my homepage shown below for the address.
You say dictators pay the BBC to broadcast in their states. Can you give any examples?
Local Cable and Satellite companies contract with the BBC for BBC World and BBC Prime TV broadcasts. According to their webpage, shown below
BBC World is available in 173 million homes in 200 countries and territories worldwide.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1107470.stm
Another recent example is
http://www.bbcworld.com/content/template_clickpage.asp?pageid=2152
I wish I had more information on how much they receive for this contract.
Could there be a connection between this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…fic/ 1107470.stm The BBC’s international television channel, BBC World, has been granted an independent licence to broadcast in China for the first time.
and this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4318551.stm#graph
China’s influence on the world is seen as positive by more people than is the case for the US or Russia, according to a new BBC World Service poll.
Why do you think the BBC included Lebanon in its poll?
Notice how they not only promote China, but stick it to the US at the same time. BBC bias in full action. :-: But this is what China is paying for, and our independant impartial BBC is only too happy to oblige.
But lets not forget that Rupert Murdoch is more than happy to kiss Chinese govt arse.
Somewhere its been pointed out that of course his (very young) Chinese wife could well inherit a good portion of his empire. Dont count on Sky/Fox/Star to upset the Chinese…ever.
Recently its been revealed that many Chinese in the US and elsewhere are active in spying/data gathering for the homeland. The Chinese seem to regard them as overseas Chinese and are not troubled by quaint hyphenated notions of Chinese-“Americans”. Of course Mrs Murdoch is quite different.
Absolutely no surprise there, intellectual property rights aren’t a forte of communist nations. Concordski anyone?
BBC Ceefax actually used the word “terrorist” in reporting this incident
“‘Al-Qaeda chief’ killed in Saudi”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4645765.stm
Not quite there online –
“Saudi Arabia has suffered several terror attacks in recent years.”
Democrats, & others of the left, are quick to suggest that Bush is insufficinetly critical of the Saudi regime – even if his approach is little different than that which applied thru the Clinton years & before.
Perhaps the BBC is not onside with this view. Saudi can have terrorist attacks, but Iraq & Afghanistan do not. Has the Saudi government got better democratic credentials than those other governments who face only militants who seemingly never make “terror attacks”?
But lets not forget that Rupert Murdoch is more than happy to kiss Chinese govt arse.
Lurker | 03.07.05 – 1:07 am | #
Rupert Murdoch doesn’t masquerade as AN IMPARTIAL INDEPENDANT MEDIA OUTLET and receive forced payments from the public via the TV license.
What do you think this site is about?
Panorama on Darfur. US blamed for inaction. Funny how the US was wrong to go to Iraq without UNSC approval, but should act in Sudan without UN backing.
Sudan said bring it on – lets have more Islamic uprising against the Great Satan. No doubt the BBC would have been quick to get onside with the jihadists if the US had invaded Sudan.
Annan spent the programme mouthing platitudes, but that brought no pressure at all from the BBC man, who reserved his venom for the US spokesperson.
see http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/62777.html
Comments submitted to Panorama at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4647403.stm
Most think US to blame for failure to act. Are these people equipped with compartmentalised minds that allow them to criticise the US when it acts & when it doesn’t?
Great piece David, do you mind if I reproduce it?
Dan, an interesting point in the BBC webpage on this interview with Annan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4643647.stm “Human rights groups, the US Congress and the US government say that genocide is taking place.
However, a UN team sent to Sudan to investigate concluded that war crimes had been committed, but there had been no intent to commit genocide by the Sudanese government.
The relevance of this is not apparent until one goes to another webpage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4225219.stm where one finds the following:
Is the Darfur conflict genocide?
A United Nations report has stopped short of saying that the Sudanese government and its militia allies have carried out a genocide against non-Arab groups in Darfur but says war crimes have been committed.
A finding of genocide would have carried a legal obligation to act by the UN.
“A finding of genocide would have carried a legal obligation to act by the UN.”
Panorama reported that Bush had declared (at the UN) that genocide was taking place, but this was just for domestic pre-election purposes – to placate the Christian Right – who for once were the good guys in the BBC’s eyes.
Panorama reported that Bush had declared (at the UN) that genocide was taking place, but this was just for domestic pre-election purposes – to placate the Christian Right – who for once were the good guys in the BBC’s eyes.
Dan | 04.07.05 – 1:35 am | #
How insightful of the BBC, to realize that Bush’s statement had nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands murdered, but hey, it vindicates the UN. Even the BBC reports “More than two million people have been forced from their homes in a conflict in which at least 180,000 have died.
The ICC’s prosecutor told Security Council members there was a significant amount of evidence about the killing of thousands of civilians, widespread rape and destruction in Darfur.
But that’s not really genocide, it’s more like ‘social engineering’.
On the Panorama programme last night an inordinate amount of time was spent dealing with………the USA. Although important, it was perfectly clear that Keane was using it to some extent to work out his own agenda (soft left focus, mild anti-Americanism). Not enough was made of the role of other countries such as China, and little of the fact that the religion of the murderers and ethnic cleansers might have played a role in the way Sudan is seen and treated by other nations and the UN.
As Dan has said above, the BBC wants it both ways; USA takes decisive action and it is wrong; USA does not take decisive action and it is wrong. Oh well, plus ca change.
The Today programme – My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
At around 7.40am an anarchist going to the G8 protests is interviewed and given a completely free ride, as though his views are mainstream and acceptable (maybe they are in the Today editorial room). No tough questions. Nothing.
Radio 4 – “Intelligent speech”.
Who will get a tougher ride on the Toady programme – an anarchist who intends to break the law, or a law abiding Christian businessman who according to his conscience and beliefs chooses not to stock Harry Potter books?
Well, both have been on the programme this morning and there are no prizes for getting this one right.
I was flicking channels last night, hit Panorama, but when I heard Feargal Keane’s voice I kept flicking, I have simply heard too much of his whining.
How entirely predictable that Keane would drip his anti-US poison into the programme.
What a disgrace. Time was, Panorama was authorative, required viewing. Now much of it is biased, incomplete. And how come Panarama has taken so long to focus on on Darfur ? Maybe it was waiting for Keane to come up with an anti-US tagline, a way to avoid hammering the UN and Annan.
I bet there was lots of criticism of Arab neighbours a of oil-hungry China for their inaction !
George Bush has given a major exclusive interview to ITN for his UK visit – which the BBC keeps quoting from.
I wonder how many licence-payers will wonder “How come Bush did not give this interview to the national broadcaster, the one we pay all that money to ?”
It’s such a pity that ITN didn’t put that question to Bush.
Could be perceived either way really. Either the US government is justifiably p*ssed by anti-Americanism on the BBC, or they were scared that the BBC might not provide the glossy bullsh*t easy ride he’s used to at home and went for the easier but less honourable option.
Cockney
You suggest that mainstream US media give the US President an easy time. Rubbish. Try listening to the usual hacks at his press conferences before the election – “When are you going to resign, Mr President ?”.
Or how about MSNBC, one of the main TV channels, and the amazing interview just before the election with a leading Swift Boat Vet :
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15696
After the ridiculous outburst in that interview – far worse than even our loutish John Humphrys – the interviewer/presenter was not sacked by MSNBC. He has recently accused Karl Rove of outing a CIA operative. The US media can be viciously anti-Bush – look at Dan Rather for example.
Fair point Cockney, but I think you’re underestimating the left wing liberal press in the US – it’s not all Fox. http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/
Perhaps more to the point – will the BBC Governors ask why ITN got the exclusive interview ? And will they ask not just the BBC management but the US Ambassador ?
John, I might well have overestimated the respect that the US media gives their politicians. I know that there are some pretty aggressive and partisan commentators but I always thought that face to face interviews and the like were more reverential than over here? Maybe not….
I still think that it’s not necessarily a bad reflection on the BBC if Bush chooses not to appear. Let’s see whether ITN raise the questions that your average Brit would want to put, or if there have been any big blokes in shades advising against it (or let’s not as I’m sure we’ve got more pub related activities to pursue on a Wednesday night, but you catch my meaning).
BBC is prepared to cut Chirac some slack – more than Prince Philip would get
“Chirac jokes about British food”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4649007.stm
“”The only thing they (the English) have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease,” Mr Chirac said”
Chirac of course suffers not from BSE but BDS (Bush/Blair Derangement Syndrome)
The French might be in a position to take the p*ss out of British food, but the Russians and Germans???
I think a rousing G8 chorus of ‘If it wasn’t for the British you’d be Krauts’ is in order.
When are you going to resign, Mr President?”
Google finds one solitary example of this, shouted to Joseph Estrada.
Amazing for such a widespread phenomenon of aggressive questioning against George Bush, no-one seems to have a record of it.
Ok anonymous, how would you like to ponder on this historic fact:
When the entire chain of command of John Kerry in Vietnam came out in a press conference to denounce him as ‘unfit for command’, it got no coverage from the mainstream American media.
Why is that do you think?
I listend on the internet to the TODAY interview with the Labour bloke and David Davis concerning Charles Clarke. The Labour guy having the first half of the interview to himself and then Davis.
It reminded me that as soon as – *as soon as – Labour came to power in 97 the BBC stopped insisting that Government spokesmen be interviewed with their opposite numbers, because now “we have entered into a new era of non-confrontational politics”. The Tories used to try to get the same rights before but TODAY always told them they wouldn’t be interviewed if there wasn’t an Opposition spokesman present.
TODAY had some anniversay do shortly after, and oodles of ‘de-powered’ Tories attended to lavish their praises (lick arse), and only one had the integrity and gumption to boycott it because of blatant bias such as the above: Peter Lilley.
I used to regularly make written complaints to the BBC about bias, but when you hear so many idiot Tory politicians lauding the likes of Humphreys and Naughtie for their journalism when they are patently as bent as houses, well, there really didn’t seem much point any more. The fact is, as with the Unions in the seventies, Tories are too afraid to take on the Broadcast Barons. Where is today’s Thatcher to save us from the British Pravda of the airwaves?
Hal “I used to regularly make written complaints to the BBC about bias, but when you hear so many idiot Tory politicians lauding the likes of Humphreys and Naughtie for their journalism when they are patently as bent as houses, well, there really didn’t seem much point any more”
Well said, Hal. It also bodes ill for us ever achieving our wish to see the end of the licence fee.
Dan, I myself dont have a desire to see the licence fee disappear. At least not until someone comes up with a better idea. I think this is a completely separate issue to BBC bias. The BBC, not that long ago, used to be a source of tremendous pride for its integrity and impartiality. That’s what we need to get back to.
I did, incidentally, email virtually every Tory MP the other month with the suggestion that the first leadership candidate who congratulates James Naughtie for his Party winning the General Election (viz: “If *we (my emphasis) win the election”) might be worth voting for.
To date I am left completely cold over who wins the leadership election. There’s noone telling the truth to the British people like Maggie did. Apart from of course the wonderful Lord Tebbit. We need a candidate that’s going to have Real Tories fighting Real Labour, which as a basic litmus test means reasserting Clause 28 to stop homosexuals having access to little boys at school to teach them getting buggered is normal. Somehow, in one form or other, whoever wins we’re just going to get the Conservative Party trying to become New Labour MkII like Labour became the Conservative Party MkII and have politics become an even bigger pointless yawn than it is now. Failing the chance of Fox (maybe) or Davis (can’t see it) putting some ‘oomph’ into true toryism, we might as well have a gentleman like Malcolm Rifkind to give the party a bit of Tory gravitas and decorum, no matter how completely meaningless it will be in effective terms to the life of our great nation. For proper Tories, style always has to count for something in life.
“John, I might well have overestimated the respect that the US media gives their politicians. I know that there are some pretty aggressive and partisan commentators but I always thought that face to face interviews and the like were more reverential than over here? Maybe not….”
It depends entirely on party. The MSM is very reverential of Democratic pols, the lefter the better. Only Republicans get hardball questions. If you doubt me contrast the Clintons’ interviews with Bush’s.
Exactly *why* do you need a license fee? Our PBS supports itself with viewers’ contributions as well as a generous assist from Uncle Sam and and assorted foundations.
This fee of yours isn’t a one time deal is it, (like when you buy your TV) it’s yearly, isn’t it?
Roxana
Yes, an annual licence fee.
The BBC is of course far larger than PBS, a truly huge and sloppy empire. The licence fee dates back to the beginning of broadcasting, an historical anomaly.
Cockney – there is ample evidence that the 3 older TV networks in the US always give the Dem slant on events. That is why Dan Rather was able to bluster for weeks about the fake memos, and still has not admitted they are fake. Then along came CNN, owned by a very leftie guy, at that time married to Jane fonda which is as nearly as far left as you can get. CNN’s bias has been slapped twice in the past two years over major transgressions/omissions, including the Eason Jordan resignation.
Fox is often attacked as being totally rightwing. Yes, it has some very rightwing presenters, actually very crisp, but also some lefties, and their studio discussions tend to have far more balance than the older networks. That is partly why Fox has trounced them on viewer ratings.
Anonymous
Sorry – the other question always being asked at Bush press conferences was “When are you going to apologise for Iraq, Mr President”. It was so predictable it became a joke. For example, dear old Helen Thomas and her rants :
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31759
http://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/media/helen_thomas_the_vitriol_of_a_woman_scorned.htm
Not sure about those links. Malkin tries a hit job by accusing Thomas of loving Al Jazeera, which is a cheap jibe to set up the usual line that those questioning the war and how it is being prosecuted are somehow traitorous or UnAmerican.
Fleischer’s assertion that “we always treat them humanely” is provably false.
The second piece is a simple fit up too. Much as her critics would like to, writing hack jobs on her just smacks of little men doing their master’s bidding, and if the clown on the second link sees fit to lecture Thomas on objectivity, he’s missing his irony bone.
For a more objective view on Thomas, I suggest her Wikipedia profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas
Anon
Can’t you read ? Helen Thomas posively despised Bush. Just read her own words.
“…dont have a desire to see the licence fee disappear. At least not until someone comes up with a better idea.”
How about: split the BBC up into smaller units (one per channel) and sell them off. Put in place an effective monopoly monitor that limits any individual or corporation from owning more than 30% of total UK TV channels (i.e. give Ofcom something useful to do). Remove all (ridiculous) pretence at impartiality and so-called “public service” obligation.
Then let the market takes its course. The result will be most channels (especially free to air) offering a diet of crap, with a few channels (especially subscription) offering better wares of various flavours. Everybody will choose their quality level and flavour according to their means and their desires, and only utter fools won’t be aware that, as far as news and documentary, they are getting a biased viewpoint/s.
The basic notion is called “freedom of the press”. It works well, is a cornerstone of our civilisation, and nobody (except sheep and authoritarians) should be scared of it.
.
Radio 4, the Toady Programme this morning, James Naughtie:
Africa: is big business the problem or the solution?
Yawn. There must be students who can do better than this.
I have no wish to end the licence fee. I just want impartial coverage of politics/news/current affairs. When the BBC does something well, its unsurpassed – e.g. Blue Planet.
I’d just like to see it drop its left-wing, right-on, bullshit.
Rob
“I’d just like to see it drop its leftwing, right-on bullshit”.
You’ll be loveing all the coverage of Africa and Global Warming then !
I too think the bias thing is the most critical argument. But an enforced licence fee cannot indefinitely coexist with bias. I cannot see any way the bias is going to be eliminated. That raises the legitimacy of the licence fee.
Also – new technologies of subscription open up new possibilities. That is why it would be criminal if the BBC get a fresh 10-year release.
You’ll be loveing all the coverage of Africa and Global Warming then !
Indeed I am. Its amazing how many programs just happen to coincide with the G8 meeting. The BBC charter specifically states that the BBC shouldn’t endorse any political campaigns. It doesn’t seem to be stopping them at the moment. But then again, what kind of idiot could disagree with Kyoto or Make Poverty History?
Even the BBC admit that Live8 posed a challenge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4080000/newsid_4080600/4080698.stm
I’m not sure they’ve managed to get the balance quite right:
Will G8 act on climate change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4647889.stm
Good to see the BBC has now established climate change as not only scientific fact, but also man-made….
What is your message for the G8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4620037.stm
No prises for guessing what 95% of people want to say to the G8….
G8 protests: UK panellist’s video diary
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4634767.stm
A great way to get around needing “balance”. Just get somebody from the left to write a diary…..
Why oh why can’t the BBC get inputs from Mark Steyn ? He knows Britain well, has a very mordant sense of humour that used to fit the old BBC ways. And he has done lots of TV and radio work.
http://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/05/do0502.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/05/ixnewstop.html
JiL
It’s because the likes of Mark Steyn are so wonderfully adept at destroying liberal arguments.
Frederick Forsyth springs to mind at times when the EU is under discussion. I still haven’t heard anyone put the case better for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
I personally think that Steyn is abysmal – being perpetually sardonic doesn’t automatically make what you have to say either intelligent or particularly amusing.
He’d get my vote though on the basis that provocative right wing invective is far more entertaining than turgid left wing drool (hence the greater success of right wing blogs). For example, I was vaguely listening to some turgid live 8 b*llocks on the treadmill at the gym yesterday lunchtime when that right wing icon Ron Liddle appeared and declared that debt relief would be disasterous for Africa and that Geldof is an ignorant fool. All of a sudden things livened up considerably.
“It’s because the likes of Mark Steyn are so wonderfully adept at destroying liberal arguments.”
http://tinyurl.com/d6ty [Daily Telegraph link]
“Even that Iraqi National Museum “disaster” was an obvious hoax”
At present, more than half of the looted antiquities, which spanned 10,000 years of humankind, are still missing. [http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=240059]
“I spent a pleasant evening prowling round Saddam’s home town of Tikrit, where I detected a frisson of menace in the air, but marginally less than in, say, Stockwell, south London.”
I think I’d rather take my chances in Stockwell, if it’s all the same.
http://tinyurl.com/8w2ek [Google link]
and just incase you hadn’t heard, “Afica lives on the BBC” (apparently).
Ron Liddle has certainly become far more sensible and respectable since leaving the BBC, but he has some way to go in order to achieve ‘iconic’ status.
Many more years years of hard graft at the coalface are required before achieving the level of greatness attained by Steyn, Hitchens and Littlejohn.
There was a disgraceful piece of the BBC’s bias/ignorance broadcast over the airwaves this morning on Radio 4. It was reported that four Hindus had been killed on the site of the disputed temple of Ayodhya. The BBC then stated that Ayodhya “was the site of an ‘ancient’ muslim temple (NB not mosque)which was destroyed by Hindu miltants”. This is a lie.
It is fact the muslims sacked an ancient Hindu temple on the site of Ayodhya; they then built a mosque over the temple (like Constantinople, Jerusalem etc.). When the Hindus reclaimed the site for their own, by force, it was proven by excavations and surveys that Ayodhya was indeed the site of an ancient Hindu temple.
This is another blatant example of how the BBC will lie to give succour to islam.
“Ayodhya “was the site of an ‘ancient’ muslim temple (NB not mosque)which was destroyed by Hindu miltants”. This is a lie.”
It’s clearly not a lie, regardless of whether there was a Hindu temple there previously or not.
The BBC has covered it before, in particular the dispute over the archaeology:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3183027.stm
http://tinyurl.com/7gjw2
This is another of B-BBC’s “red under the bed” comments where a decision most likely made for practical reasons – only mentioning the recent destruction because it’s easier than banging on about a disputed “fact” of ownership either way – becomes part of a conspiracy to give succour to the evil A-rabs destroying the very fabric of European/Indian/Whatever society.