Bombs (sorry, blasts, as you term them) take lives – they do NOT ‘claim’ them (see News Online homepage and Turkish resort blast claims lives).
Sky News’ online version, Deadly explosion on bus, is appropriately unequivocal. Unfortunately, the twerps presenting Sky News just now are also using the emollient ‘claim’ for the apparent murder and grievous injury of real people, all of whose lives mattered as much to them and their families as those of you and your families do to you. Think about it.
Update: As if by magic, the BBC News Online headline now says Turkish resort blast kills four.
Joerg, what’s wrong with this BBC report on Amir Khan. Surely it is something to celebrate if it is true that a Muslim from an immigrant family has truly integrated into this country?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/…ing/ 4690285.stm
Good question. Hindus, Sihks, Chinese, Jews…These people develop thriving, colourful, exciting communities in any city where they are present in large numbers. So where does this exaggerated sense of lovingly nurtured victimhood that characterises Muslim communities derive from? ‘Everyone hates us, we’re Muslim. And it’s all your fault.’
Can anyone enlighten me? I have Chinese friends who pay literally everything they have to get to the UK just for the opportunity to learn English and earn the pound stirling. Feelings of self-pity simply do not occur to them.
I hope I am wrong but in my bones I feel that a nation or a people in the future, maybe yours and my children and grandchildren, are going to have to stand up to Islam, for the sake of free civilization.
Hal. Couldn’t agree more about a wholesale cleanout of the BBC. But I see Mark Thompson has backed down on his 2,000 job cut pledge and no one, not even this site, has called him to account.
No, there needs to be some good old fashioned consciousness raising done by the sort of people who contribute to B-BBC. That means organising into an accountable body and having spokespeople on call to handle media inquiries. I can imagine James Whale at Talksport would be knocking at the door straight away.
Once your average Brit realises exactly how his criminally extorted fee is spent it is doomed, and the Beeb’s funding model becomes what it should be: subscription, with a limited tax subsidy to keep up the quality free-to-air progs they do well.
But it will take lots of angry joe civilians to create the cracks in the edifice. So Hal, and you others…put up or shut up.
simo
The Chinese do not have the concept of the ummah dinned into them. And although the ancient Chinese Emperors felt superior to all other monarchs, modern-day Chinese are not inculcated with notions that they are superior to the rest of us. They are different in the sense that eg Sikhs or Jews feel different – but not superior. That perversion was the creed of Aryan Nazism in Hitler’s Germany. It was reflected in wartime Japan.
And I fear it also permeates the Koran. And we know of the wartime links between Nazi Germany and the Muslim Brotherhood crowd in Egypt.
By “know” – I mean we have probably seen such information, and are worried about it. Only a sense of utter moral superiority could sustain suicide bombing. But we do not get this info on the BBC.
simo: if that day ever comes I’ll delight in not being on your side. And I’m a white, male, middle-aged, middle-class, professional, C of E, Brit. Have you thought about seeking help for your paranoia, by the way?
Al-Beeb loses another fan thanks to 7/7. Swedish pro-capitalist writer Johan Norberg (who’s a strong critic of his own country’s Stalinist-controlled state-sponsored media) suddenly realizes what the Beeb’s all about:
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=7&year=2005#1129
12:26 – HOW TO DISAPPOINT A BBC FAN: I like BBC a lot, and always watch it when I get the chance. It could be the impressive international outlook, or perhaps it´s just the beautiful British accent. Whatever. What a difference however, to follow BBC World as the only media source for two weeks, which I just did. Suddenly you see the bias you don´t see by watching a few minutes here and there.
It was most obvious in the reporting on G8 and on the US. The experts on US they used always had a strong anti-Bush attitude. The experts on climate issues I saw was a representative of Friends of the Eart and the anti-capitalist writer George Monibiot. And Bob Geldof explained the problems of Africa.
The problem was not just the bias in selecting experts, but the kinds of questions they got. Whenever there was something about the environment or aid, BBC skipped the normal critical questions (How do we know that this is true? Will this work? Won´t this hurt poor economies? Could these resources be better spent somewhere else?). Instead they were always asked about the chanses of success (Do you think you´ll succeed? Is the pressure on the politicians sufficient? What is standing in the way for a deal?)
I am not saying that these persons are always wrong. They are not. I am saying that BBC presupposes that they are always right. That´s disappointing for a former fan.
PS may I put in a plug for Norberg’s “Defense of Global Capitalism”? Great book.
Sorry, that wasn’t in response to the Beeb’s 7/7 coverage, but to its G-8 coverage.
shugar. that last comment was directed at JohnInLondon, not simo.
Phil
What is paranoia about stating a few facts ? Didn’t the Muslim Brotherhood lot have links with Nazi Germany. And doesn’t Islam teach moral superiority ? – while Christianity certainly doesn’t.
I am all for the C of E line of “reaching out” to Muslims, whoever. Bt that does NOT apply to the minority of crazies inside Islam. And the C of E is too willing to deny that reality. Too damn happy-clappy these days.
This looks interesting, although I’d like to know their views on suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq and exactly what “atrocities” they think are being committed by Israelis and the US Coalition and the armed forces of democratic Iraq in fighting terrorism?:
“The council said Muslims should not use “atrocities being committed in Palestine and Iraq” to justify attacks such as those in London that killed 55 when suicide bombers struck in three Underground trains and a double-decker bus, the fatwa declared.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050717/ap_on_re_eu/britain_bombings_20;_ylt=Akjd5qd1o0LoBopRHRhY86q9Q5gv
Hal, I still doubt he (Khan) has fully integrated. If he had why would he accept an arranged marriage? I only trust muslims who, well, aren’t muslims, to be honest.
“Joerg, what’s wrong with this BBC report on Amir Khan. Surely it is something to celebrate if it is true that a Muslim from an immigrant family has truly integrated into this country?”
Please, please do not use the c*l*br*t* word in this context in polite company. It sounds like a press release from Islington Council and makes me want to vomit.
More peaceful protests from muslims and their buddies (including our friend GG): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4690413.stm
Check out the beautiful “In pictures” celebration of the “protest”. Aren’t these nice people?
Simo wrote:
“So Hal, and you others…put up or shut up.”
Quite what this sort of rhetoric is supposed to acheive is beyond me.
As far as your views on how to slay the beast of BBC bias goes though, I think the only thing to do is to form a political party to stand on a broad range of issues under a platform that some might call ‘neo-conservative’. It would be a provisional party formed to fight by-elections in the hope of bringing the currently worse than useless Tories to their senses, as realistically, the type of counter-subversion purge that can restore the Beeb to its former glory is only going to be brought about by a renascent Tory Party in Government. Not only would it (hopefully) haemorrage support from the Tories to give them that huge wake up call, but would also hopefully haemorrage some support from decent Labour and Lib-dem supporters who put democracy before party. I would join such a provisional party in a shot. I think ‘Independent Democratic Party’ would be a good name.
The issue of BBC bias is no basis for a political [party. What might be needed is a pressure group.
The recent example is MigrationWatch. The guy there got fed up with all the BS from the Home Office and the well-funded immigration lobby. MWatch provides n expert” view of the figures. it is a clearing house, a database, an easy source of quotes, a commentator on statistics etc. Nothing very grand – just very CIVIL but very determined and very precise.
Single isse. The forst nu,m,ber any journalist would phone. Just a few press releases, dirt cheap in the Internet age. A few quid for the headed notepaper.
Journalists like their story – or the alternative story – written for them. MWatch does jst that. Lean and mean.
Another thing the BBC is going to backtrack on is moving the sports dept to Manchester, my home town. Apparently the London Olympics will be used as the excuse. I was appalled when I heard that thousands of BBC staff were coming here, and so were most of the London based BBC staff concerned. However it looks as though the staff will get their way. I know Manchester will be a better place without them, but it grates that such a bunch of self-serving, money wasting people can continue to prosper at my expense. All the BBC job cuts and relocations will be quietly forgotten, and the vast money-grabbbing monster will continue to pump out propaganda and drivel from London. What a cancer the BBC is.
JohninLondon,
You could say that MWatch is being done here, but any attempt to further it along these lines would have my support, although I think its success will be the same as MWatch – very minimal. How often do you hear its spokesmen on … the BBC for example??
I wasn’t suggesting a single issue party, but one that would campaign on a range of issues under a platform that could be called ‘neo-conservative’, and a party that would be provisional for the purposes I have described. If such an enterprise could get off the ground, I think it is the only realistic way that we can reverse the extremely dangerous erosion of democracy in our country.
Hal
For a virtually one-man band, Migration Watch gets lots of publicity, and a lot of TV and radio interviews. They have helped inject a lot of alternative statistics into the immigration debate and call BS when the Home Office tries to slide dodgy figures through. They act as a readily-accessible CHECK.
I think any remit wold hve to be kept narrow. The 3 or 4 main aspects of BBC bias eg proEU, antiUS, anti-science objectivity – and the hot-potato topic of pro-Palestinian.
Hal, Migration Watch has had a disproportionate effect in raising public awareness on the single issue it concentrates on. The spokesman, whose name escpaes me, has enraged the Home Office by simply but effectively countering their claims and evasions with statistics. The media pounced on the MW research and several front page leads, including Sunday Times, and lots of air time on talk radio and I think, 5Live, was the result. MW is the definition of lean and mean. A website and one main spokesman. In the same vein, a B-BBC version could derive from this site or similar, and present one or two spokespeople to be on tap with the facts when the media call. And they will call.
Excellent point, simo.
Simo, I was referring to your comment above about the “Everyone hates us, we’re Muslim and it’s all your fault”.
simo
From memory, Sir Andrew Green, ex Ambassador to Saudi Arabia heads up Migrationwatch, but it is more than aone man band. They have an impressive line up there.
The important point, however, is that Migrationwatch is absolutely credible (unlike my spelling after another scorching, boozy day at the BBQ.) It’s numbers have been tested and not found wanting. That’s why the media does call. Migrationwatch knows that its credibility disappears with just one balls up.
simo
I agree entirely.
I remember dealing a lot with the press when I was involved with a project that had a political edge. Pre-Internet days – but we had better press contacts than our opponents who hapoened to be a consortium of BT, GEC and Marconi. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. I have a whole sheaf of favourable prwss cuttings – including leaders in the Sunday Times and the Economist. We had no budget, no PR staff. We juust told the truth to people who wanted to print the facts.
Lean and men is the key, as i suggested earlier. Just one press release every week or so, latching on to a current BBC issue. Closely drafted, muust be accurate and not over-the-top. Forensic steady criticism of the BBC. Every newspaper has a media correspondent, plus the specialist journals. They WANT critical copy.
Hal
Why not call it “The Conservative Party”. This page;
http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm
contains a list of political parties and there is no party of that name. (Only one called “The Conservative and Unionist Party”)
David
You just don’t get it, do you. The bias is not along party lines. It is on specific issues. Iraq, for example. The EU. The UN. On these issues the BBC runs its own agenda, its own worldview. It opposes Labour as well.
John,
If you want an example of bbc having own agenda, you should see how distorted their views on country sports are.
When confronted with the fact that their parliamentry talking heads are not declaring a financial personal interest , they simply refuse to respond !
roger
That is why I recommend sticking to a handful of issues where they are most exposed. Country sports is of course one of them – but I would play it sotto voce, just point to the PROOF of bias without expressing an opinion either way on the merits of the matter. Their position on the EU is another area where they have been SHOWN to be biased, to have suppressed the other side.
Indeded each press release could carry at the foot a link to their ADMISSIONS of bias these earlier cases. “Don’t ask us – just look at these proven cases where the BBC or its staff members have coughed”. Plus maybe links to that BBC jpornal;ist who is about to publish a book all about the BBC and its internal bias. And to a think-piece by either Janet Daley or Mel Phillips about their own experiences in BBC studios.
I think there is much less bias from the BBC than there was about ten years ago,probably due to the fact that they overstepped the mark,especially about the EU.People got agitated with them and they`ve unwillingly toned down some of their emphasis and outright lies.THe internet has also helped.
I hope you guys never get round to doing this: I suspect it would get a lot of attention, despite its lack of merit…
(see that lying self-publicist [deleted] for an example of a genuinely shoddy one-man operation that gets regular press mentions from spoonfeeding lazy hacks interesting quotes.)
john b: kindly desist from posting potentially libellous comments here – I’ve deleted the name of the individual concerned from your comment above.
Interesting though your contributions here sometimes are, a repetition of this sort of thing will get you banned from here – condemning you to a life of lonely micturition on your own blog rather than the much larger and more cosmopolitan audience you get here 😉
Thank you.