Via Norman Geras, news that we’re not the only ones.
The trust that MPs had in the BBC has collapsed, with a majority of Conservatives and a large proportion of Labour members now believing that the corporation’s news coverage is biased.
Four out of ten Labour MPs and two thirds of Tories told MORI, in research conducted for the BBC, they did not believe that it was “free from influence and bias”.
The finding has unsettled BBC governors, who revealed the existence of the research in the corporation’s annual report. But it has not surprised MPs, who believe that the BBC is losing its reputation for objectivity.
But the BBC is now reporting Tony Blair without excising the T word :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4688909.stm
One up for the blogger community ? This would be the first time any UK-based blogswarm had had any effect.
But what will they do about it?
“MPs lose faith in ‘biased’ BBC
The trust that MPs had in the BBC has collapsed, with a majority of Conservatives and a large proportion of Labour members now believing that the corporation’s news coverage is biased.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1695839,00.html
Isn’t it about time we stopped paying our licence fee?
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/16/do1601.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/16/ixopinion.html
and condemnation from the turkish TM
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=15131
OT: “Live 8 swearing angers US parents” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4685415.stm
No mention in that article about the fact that BBC received 400 complaints of its own from British parents.
I cannot find the report about BBC bias – drawn from MORI data provided to the BBC itself – on the enormous BBC website.
How strange !
John, I had similar problems when trying to confirm this from an article on MediaGuardian,
“The report will also reveal that the proportion of British households holding TV licences has fallen for the first time in living memory, from 97.7 per cent to 97.4 per cent. The decline comes despite the BBC’s successful crackdown on licence fee evasion, which has dramatically reduced the number of people who avoid paying the tax. Although the decline in TV licences held is small, it means that nearly 100,000 fewer households have a television than last year”
Re: Turkish resort blast claims lives
From the report:
” The BBC’s Jonny Dymond in Istanbul says Kurdish militants are the most likely suspects if it was a bombing.
If?
OK, I understand why you lot get excised about the difference between “terrorist” and “bomber”. But what the hell is the difference between “kills” and “claims lives”? Why does this matter? What on earth are you suggesting the different implications of the two phrases are…?
(side news: the PKK’s civilian-murdering tactics are disgusting, but its grievances are entirely legitimate; Charles Moore is a paranoid conspiracy theorist.)
“the PKK’s civilian-murdering tactics are disgusting, but”
Spoken like a true lefty john b.
“(side news: the PKK’s civilian-murdering tactics are disgusting, but its grievances are entirely legitimate;”
Not any more they aren’t. Terrorism de-legitimizes any cause – or should.
Sorry all – that was me.
“Not any more they aren’t. Terrorism de-legitimizes any cause – or should.”
Just a small point – was the cause of Zionism de-ligitimized by the King Davids hotel “bombing” or other “terrorist” activities carried out by the Stern gang et all?
Another small point; the Stern Gang
was a splinter group – not the main spokes-organization for the movement, like the PLO, (now Palestinian Authority). Oh, and the Stern Gang stopped killing when the State of Israel was established. On the other hand the Palestinians turned down a state and launched a terrorist offensive in 2000 making it clear that an independent state is *not* their objective but the destruction of
Israel.
And yes, the Stern Gang’s activities did damage Zionist credibility.
I take your point, I would agree with your statement “Terrorism de-legitimizes any cause – or should” when applied to the cause of the group actually doing the terrorising.
As such, any group that engages in terrorism should not be allowed to negotiate their cause. In the case of the formation of Israel, while the Stern Gangs acts of terrorism were done in the name of Zionism they were not the driving force behind the formation of the Jewish state so negotiation was still possible.
I’ll lay my cards on the table here and state for the record that I am not going to attribute any noble cause to the acts of Al Qaeda and their hangers on – they are ultimately seeking the destruction of western civilisation and the attributing of any other cause to their fight is dangerous folly. I also recognise the right of Israel to exist and negotiation with Hamas etc who are calling for their destruction is inconceivable.
However, do you or anyone else think that there is scope in the middle east to negotiate the establishment of a Palistinian state with an organisation who do not seek the destruction of Israel? (Does such a group exist).
Just a quickie before I forget.
“Oh, and the Stern Gang stopped killing when the State of Israel was established”
Yes I accept that you are making a comparison to the intifada but this sounds uncomfortably like a “this terrorist isn’t as bad as that terrorist argument” which begins to sound like “one man’s terrorist, another man’s freedom fighter” argument. I agree with your points about the PLO but if you stand by the statement “Terrorism de-legitimizes any cause – or should”
then it sounds a little disingenuous to make comparisons between terrorists. You can talk all you like about warnings given, number of people killed, methods used etc. but terrorists are terrorists.
P.S. I accept that you had to make that comparison to make your point about the PLO and the Palestinian Authority and it doesn’t necessarily mean that you do think that terrorist’s relative “merits” can be compared – it just sounded like it.
“However, do you or anyone else think that there is scope in the middle east to negotiate the establishment of a Palistinian state with an organisation who do not seek the destruction of Israel? (Does such a group exist).”
That of course is exactly the problem. As far as I know there is *no* Palestinian organization – certainly not the PA! – that has not only sanctioned but engaged in terrorism, nor one that will accept Israel’s right to exist.
I would love to be proven wrong in this but I doubt I will be.
The point I meant to make is the Stern Gang laid down their weapons when their demand – a Jewish State – was met. The Palestinian Authority did *not*. So what’s the point of making concessions when all concessions get you is more violence in the hope of forcing further concessions?
In other words it is clear a Palestinian state on the West Bank is *not* the aim of the PA or its splinters.