has a good example of BBC think:
Abroad Again in Britain
BBC2 7:00pm – 8:00pm
Salisbury Cathedral
Salisbury Cathedral boasts the highest spire in Britain. Jonathan Meades, who was raised in its shadow, returns to one of the country’s finest medieval buildings. He wonders how an atheist can love a building dedicated to the propagation of medieval superstitions and fears.
Can you imagine that last sentence being used to refer to, say, a mosque or a temple or a synagogue? No, me neither.
are you mildly irritated by the bbc’c climate change rhetoric.
if so please read http://www.johnkay.com.he is among the ft’s best correspondents together with martin wolf and samuel brittan.both john kay and brittan have recently written about the subject.
Jesus didn’t lead armies, Mohammed did. Jesus preached turning the other cheek, Mohammed did not. For the first four centuries of its existence Christianity was a persecuted sect. From the first century of its existence ib Islam has been a conqueroring, expansionistic religion.
See the differnce?
The Crusades might arguably be described as an attempt to retake formerly Christian lands from ‘occupiers’. Anonymous does know that the Middle East and North Africa had been part of the Classical world for six centuries and Christian for two when the Islamic Jihad came rolling through??
Just for the record I am *not* Christian.
frank gardiner has been injured and is not fair game.he has been a fine reporter in the past and will hopefully be in the future.
meanwhile the bbc should be dissolved.the country will save a great deal of money and we will no longer be patronised by the crap it turns out.
There must be two “Anonymouses” posting here. A peecee Beeb-defending one and a non-peecee Beeb-critical one. Gets confusing sometimes.
Either that, or it’s one person with a serious case of schizophrenia.
Alan G:
I didn’t mean to imply that the BBC has made a *decision* to reflect international opinion. I meant to imply that the BBC (unlike commercial US networks, etc.) quite naturally ends up reflecting international public opinion because its journalists are drawn from the world around it, and aren’t chosen because a private company thinks they will appeal to a particular market, such as rich conservative Americans, rich Yorkshire businessmen, etc.
Should there be any opinion at all on the BBC? Of course. The BBC doesn’t employ people to reword Reuters reports for public consumption. It provides analysis pieces on its website, pays for investigative journalism, conducts tough interviews, and produces news analysis programmes such as The World and Newsnight on television, and numerous programmes on BBC World Service radio and BBC 4 radio.
You seem to be demonstrating a common conservative misconception that a journalist should be a neutral arbiter of raw facts: never making links, never analysing, never trying to answer urgent questions which haven’t been answered by the facts served up by some press release.
However, any journalist will tell you that, in its serious form, their job is like that of a scientist — they must come up with a proposition and then try to prove or disprove it.
Those who complain of bias in the BBC’s coverage seem concerned about the importance given to certain stories compared to others, and the kinds of questioning public figures are subjected to. This would seem to stem from the choice of proposition that journalists have decided to test, and this choice is naturally influenced by international public opinion.
Like it or not, the majority of the BBC’s viewers in the UK and Europe are not in a hurry to find out how right the UK and US governments think they were to invade Iraq, but how they can possibly argue that it was a good idea. The BBC tries to do its bit to put such politicians and politics advisors under the pressure that the democratic process can’t seem to provide otherwise.
BBC Fan ” The BBC tries to do its bit to put such politicians and politics advisors under the pressure that the democratic process can’t seem to provide otherwise.”
But the BBC never puts pressure on those to whom it chooses to give air time, who can be seen to support the BBC line – anti-war, anti-US, pro Kyoto, pro-EU, pro asylum/immigration etc.
News24 have just had a report on suggestions of a timescale for the removal of coalition forces from Iraq.
They find an “expert” who is pleased to be asked whether the US administration had changed their ambition to stay in Iraq for the long term.
The expert says that they have had that ambition knocked out of them. The BBC do not produce any evidence of this long term occupation policy. I’ve never heard it proposed by US leaders. Have you?
Re earlier post about Birmingham grand mufti’s buts –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4721261.stm
BBC Fan,
you write: Those who complain of bias in the BBC’s coverage seem concerned about the importance given to certain stories compared to others. . .
What benefit does publicizing the “softer side” of Mr. Rachid Ramda, wanted in France for suspected involvement in the murder of 11 people, possibly provide to BBC viewers?
Do you think that anyone who lost family or friends (or an arm or a leg or an eye) in the 7/7 atrocity (which makes the Paris Metro bombings look like a dress rehearsal) is at all interested in the sophisticated poetry stylings of poor, misunderstood Mr. Ramda?
The BBCs fan seems to be mistaking the BBC for an impartial organisation that doesn’t exclusively recruit from the grauniad.
Is incapable of producing analysis which isn’t state power friendly. Is incapable of supporting calls for personal choice and responsibility.
This is because the BBC is corrupted by the way it’s funded. i.e. State power.
The sooner the BBC is funded by voluntary subscription and the License fee is abolished the quicker the BBC can erase it’s corruption by the state s extorted cash.
Anyone going to respond to the fact that the sailors eventually decided the BBC actually provided the best coverage? (bonus points to anyone who does so by implying that Sky News is also Evil Leftie Propaganda…)
Dan:
US policy on occupation of Iraq has changed continuously since the famous “Mission Accomplished” day at what was then considered by some to be the end of the Iraq invasion.
I clearly remember when the US administration was talking about leaving within 6 months of the end of the invasion. They wanted to stay around to help set up new government institutions, form new police and army services, etc.
When the insurgency (a word I’ve never been happy with, but that’s another argument) began, this policy was shaken. I’m sure many people remember Rumsfeld giving speeches that indicated, for the first time, that the insurgency would take a long time to overcome, and this could take “months or years”. The policy at this time was that US forces would somehow beat the insurgency and leave a peaceful Iraq behind it.
That policy stood for a long time, and quite rightly had a lot of international support, because everyone knows that the chaos of an unoccupied Iraq will be almost certainly be at least as bad as the chaos there now.
Now the US is trying to move its policy towards withdrawal from Iraq. Australia is doing the same thing. I’m not aware of the UK policy, but UK forces would hardly hang around after the US leaves.
So, yes, the US never wanted to stay in Iraq for a long time, but they did want to make it peaceful before they left, and they now seem to be changing their policy to leaving quite soon, presumeably because they don’t know how to stop the insurgency.
As for “But the BBC never puts pressure on those to whom it chooses to give air time”, please watch one episode of Newsnight, where you will find that every argument is supplied with strong proponents and opponents, and the presenter always puts the best points of one to the other. They frequently give airtime to the more articulate Republican US policy makers like Daniel Perl.
I think you mean Richard Perle (Daniel Pearl is less articulate now than he was pre-2002).
john b:
My apologies: yes, I meant Richard Perle.
Perle is apparently on the Beeb so frequently that even one of its devoted fans doesn’t know his name.
Hmmmm. . .
there are some bbc correspondents like paul adams and johnny dymond who are honourable and never strike a false note.they are never patronising and always interesting.
that does not make up for the vast numbers who are leftists and dull as can be.
my vote is to close the organisation forthwith.
Susan:
I am afraid I know nothing about the case of Rachid Ramda. I can understand that if he is implicated in the Paris Metro bombings that many, especially the families of the victims, would be offended by a piece, which I have not read, which tries to put him in a sympathetic light.
I haven’t seen anything about the article that would make me think the BBC shouldn’t publish it. Outside the US, there is a strong tradition in the first world of trying to understand the motives and conditions of prisoners.
I write “outside the US” because I am aware of the power conservative thought has over opinion in the US; I also remember the case of the United Colors of Benetton billboards which were removed after public pressure, all because they gave some life details of death-row in-mates. I doubt there would be such outcry anywhere else in the first world.
And please don’t make petty remarks about my mistake in referencing Daniel Pearl (which I appear to have misspelled into the bargain!), it only leaves you open to the same irrelevant scrutiny. e.g. why can’t you spell ‘aficionado’ or ‘gratuitous’?
Why do you think a British person would use an American phrase like ‘irony-challenged’?
And why don’t you know the definition of irony? For the record I enjoyed your parody of “BBC Online in 1943”, even though I don’t agree with your point of view. I suggest you look up the definitions of irony, sarcasm, parody and satire.
I won’t hold you to high editorial standards if you extend the same courtesy to me.
I have heard a soldier who fought in Iraq report that he and his fellow troops switched off the radio, BBC World Service, I think, because the reporting was so defeatist. He said:’We thought we were doing rather well, the BBC kept telling us that we weren’t.’
BBC Fan, thank you for your lengthy reply about US intentions for the occupation of Iraq, but this pm’s item was based on the BBC deskman proposing, & the expert agreeing, that the US, at one time, had an intention to stay in Iraq on a semi-permanent basis – the better to continue world domination ie crush Syria & Iran.
You could not support that supposed policy. I repeat I have never heard it from Bush etc.
So if it is so little known, should the BBC just magic it up, or should they have shown a clip to support it?
Dan:
I presume the BBC presenter used the words “for the long term”, as you originally quoted, and not “stay in Iraq on a semi-permanent basis”, as you have written now.
I’ve never seen anyone on the BBC claim that the US wanted to stay in Iraq on a “semi-permanent” basis, and by that I mean any presenter, correspondent or interviewee. Nor have I seen it written in any serious newspapers.
Therefore the presenter’s phrase “for the long term” surely meant what I said earlier: the intention to wait until Iraq is peaceful and can look after its own affairs before leaving.
As for “world domination” and “crushing Syria and Iran”, I think you’ve been watching the version of the BBC they send to Bill O’Reilly on tape, with a label saying, “Bill, you better sit down for this one” !
No BBC Fan, I am afraid that the BBC discussion is lost in the ether, but the discussion was about the US obtaining long term bases in Iraq for the control (my whimsy “crush”)of the Middle East.
I am sorry if I was not clear. But as I said before the BBC & guest were attributing to the US government a policy that I have never heard proposed.
Dear BBC fan,
Where to begin? Your post reveals the liberal-left snobbish/elitist and blinkered world view that perfectly mirrors the BBC’s. No wonder you are such a big fan. To wit:
Outside the US, there is a strong tradition in the first world of trying to understand the motives and conditions of prisoners.
Obviously your knowledge of US media extends only to what you hear from the BBC or read in the Guardian. Otherwise you would know that attempts to “understand the motives and conditions of prisoners” in the US abound in our media. Pro-criminal charities/non-profits in the US outnumber victims’ rights organizations by quite a lot, just as they do in the UK (I believe you have 1 victims’ rights organization to about 100 pro-criminal NGOs, is that right?). Pro-criminal organizations in the US in fact get huge funding and lots of big-wig support from the academic “experts”; victims’ rights organizations struggle by on a shoestring, mostly ignored by the media. Have you never heard of our beloved literary lion’s, Mr. Norman Mailer’s, periodic “Hug a Murderer Today” campaigns? Have you never seen “Dead Man Walking”? etc. Surely you must have seen or read something about the grotesque media lionization of cop-killer Mumia that has been appearing in our media for years?
And please don’t make petty remarks about my mistake in referencing Daniel Pearl (which I appear to have misspelled into the bargain!), it only leaves you open to the same irrelevant scrutiny. e.g. why can’t you spell ‘aficionado’ or ‘gratuitous’?
Both Daniel Pearl and Richard Perle are rather famous individuals at the moment, for very different reasons. It seemed odd to me that a person who claims to be so au fait on BBC coverage and current affairs would confuse them.
I don’t care about spelling mistakes by myself or by you either. I rarely check my spelling when posting online — why bother? I spell well enough to get my point across and that’s better than a lot of peopel who post online.
This is a cyber version of a telephone conversation. I don’t interrupt my callers to correct their grammar either, nor do I bother to worry about my own when I’m talking on the phone. Same applies here.
Why do you think a British person would use an American phrase like ‘irony-challenged’?
I don’t think that a British person would use such a phrase. It was merely my characterization of the oft-quoted phrase that we (Americans) don’t “get” irony.
I suggest you look up the definitions of irony, sarcasm, parody and satire.
I have a very good sense of what those things mean, thank you very much.
Re Ark Royal & no-BBC
John Simpson returns to “quagmire” in Baghdad, courtesy of a RAF Hercules.
“During the hour-long flight the pilots scarcely spoke to me.”
(He landed in 50C degree heat – hotter than a Guantanamo cell – but troops will be patrolling in full body armour!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692881.stm
The BBC has dismissed claims that its news channel, News 24, has been banned from a Royal Navy aircraft carrier in the Gulf because the crew felt it was too pro-Iraqi.
News 24 was available aboard HMS Ark Royal for an 80-day exclusive period, then the crew sampled rival channel Sky News but had now gone back to the BBC service, according to a BBC spokesman.
“We think it is great that they have this choice. They apparently sampled Sky for a while and have now returned to News 24,” he said.”
Anonymous | 27.07.05 – 1:25 pm | #
I wouldn’t be getting any wet dreams just yet. The Guardian (BBC Lapdog) merely quotes the BBC who deny reports, (where have we heard that before?) that the men from The Ark Royal were unhappy with their coverage of the war, but they didn’t interview any of the men themselves, (as journalists are supposed to do to get to the truth), merely quoting from the original Hargreaves article. But why should a journalist who was on board the Ark Royal at the time make this assertion?
Navy axes BBC from ship
The Sun, April 08, 2003, Richard Hargreaves
From Richard Hargreaves, of The News, Portsmouth
– on board HMS Ark Royal
MILITARY leaders have axed the BBC from the nation’s flagship amid claims of pro-Iraqi bias.
The Navy has taken rolling news show News 24 off the air on the HMS Ark Royal after weeks of grumbling from crew.
Sailors on the Portsmouth-based aircraft carrier have become increasingly disenchanted with the BBC’s slant on the war.
They claim the news organisation places more faith in Iraqi reports than information coming from British or Allied sources.
“The BBC always takes the Iraqis’ side,” one senior rating complained.
“It reports what they say as gospel but when it comes to us it questions and doubts everything the British and Americans are reporting.
“A lot of people on board are very unhappy.”
Ark is one of a handful of task force ships which receives live TV direct from Britain with rolling news and two entertainment channels beamed into the warship as part of efforts to improve creature comforts.
But officers and ratings alike are angry at the Beeb’s coverage of the war so far.
A BBC correspondent has been on board the flagship – and the crew have no gripe with his reports – but they were particularly incensed by comments made by presenters and commentators about the carrier’s Sea King tragedy a fortnight ago.
Then the BBC suggested poor levels of maintenance played a hand in the deaths of seven fliers.
News 24 was switched off on Sunday and replaced with Sky News.
Dear BBC Fan
As I understand it I think there are many definitions of irony. But it is said that “Irony is wasted on the stupid”.
This is probably the most relevant aspect of irony in this instance.
The Media Guardian clearly states that shortly after the BBC was switched to Sky, it was switched back.
You are clutching at straws, in the possession of precisely no evidence, to suggest it wasn’t. Can you find a statement from Hargreaves or the Ark Royal suggesting the later article is wrong?
According to the logic I’ve seen in a few posts here, taxation is a crime. Most sensible people would beg to differ.
I see you’ve already been corrected on YOUR reference to the license fee as a tax, the crime that you are unable to perceive is that of NOT representing properly the views and aspirations of the society that is forced to pay for it.
But surely this is a simple matter. Hitler had just invaded another country and was in the process of invading more. UK, Canadian, Indian, Australian, French, and other forces had little choice on any basis but to declare a war nobody wanted. I would not have expected the BBC to be sceptical at the time, and it wasn’t.
In the first Gulf War a similar story was played out on a much smaller scale in the case of Iraq/Kuwait. The international outcry was smaller because the country that invades is commonly viewed as “the bad guy”. Internaional public opinion wasn’t highly sceptical as it is today, and neither was the BBC.
So why does the BBC make Israel the bad guy according to your logic? It has been (and is still) attacked numerous times by its neighbours, in fact it lives within a constant state of war.
The BBC’s coverage today reflects international public opinion, that invading Iraq because of numerous scare stories about weapons, imminent attack, etc., goes against informed geopolitical reasoning.
BBC fan | 27.07.05 – 5:58 am | #
BULLSHIT – If you get your head out of the BBC ass you’ve got it rammed up in, long enough to go back through the archives here related to this subject, you will find it DOESN’T properly reflect the public opinion that has a lot more awareness and reasoning than most of the ‘experts’ the BBC chooses to portray.
But of course, you assumed that what the BBC was telling you ‘the truth’, and that’s why you assume you’re ‘informed’.
Anonymous
The Guardian has no credibility whatsoever. It claimed in an article that Paul Wolwowitz had confessed that “Iraq was all about oil”. They later had to withdraw the story having been found to be inacurate (i.e fabricating the quote by Wolwowitz).
It depends whether you believe the guardian or not, personally I do not. But to be fair at least the Guardian is honest about which side it supports (i.e being from the left point of view). In the Gilligan debacle the BBC came out clearly for the BBC (and they argued that all people who believed in the BBC should support it- even though they had lied and caused a poor man to commit suicide).
As I understand it the original story was not from the Guardian, so it is probably reputable.
The Media Guardian clearly states that shortly after the BBC was switched to Sky, it was switched back.
You are clutching at straws, in the possession of precisely no evidence, to suggest it wasn’t. Can you find a statement from Hargreaves or the Ark Royal suggesting the later article is wrong?
http://www.staffordukip.com/news.asp?tbl=releases&ID=273
Crew Fury Over BBC ‘Bias’
John Kay for The Sun – 09 April 2003
BBC TV news was switched off aboard HMS Ark Royal after its crew complained reports were biased towards Iraq.
The Beebās News 24 satellite channel was replaced by Sky News on TV sets throughout the aircraft carrier, Britainās flagship in the Gulf.
Newspaper reporter Richard Hargreaves revealed the fury in an onboard despatch.
He said the 1,200 crew were “incensed” and quoted a senior rating as saying: “The BBC always takes the Iraqisā side.
“It reports what they say as gospel but doubts everything from the British and US. People are very unhappy.”
Yesterday the Navy denied a row and quickly reinstated News 24 after Richard sent his report.
The BBC called its coverage “comprehensive and impartial”.
Don’t try my patience – only a fool would be unable to understand what happened behind the scenes – Fact is THE BBC WAS SWITCHED OFF on the Ark Royal on the 6th April following complaints by the crew, and later re-instated by high-ups in the Navy on the 9th following pressure by the BBC who could then declare that ‘everyone in the Ark Royal was happy with them’. They hardly had time to decide if they liked Sky News or not.
This makes the BBC more scummier than the original story, not that they need it. Absence of comment from Hargreaves after the fact does not imply any change from the original story, but clearly pressure has been brought to bear.
Lee, The original story was also in The Guardian – the day before the one above http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,932306,00.html
Although I still agree with your sentiments about the Guardian (anagram – A nude hit rag)
Susan
You mentioned above:
Pro-criminal charities/non-profits in the US outnumber victims’ rights organizations by quite a lot, just as they do in the UK (I believe you have 1 victims’ rights organization to about 100 pro-criminal NGOs, is that right?).
At the last count it was 1 to 38 but that was a couple of years ago so it’s anyone’s guess how many organisations are given taxpayer’s money to promote criminal rights.
The one organisation on our side is the Victims of Crime Trust, a charity which helps the families of murder victims and an organisation I’m happy to give money to each month.
It was set up and is run by a full time serving Policeman, PC Norman Brennan, who’s very much an unsung hero in the UK and a man who john b thinks is a wanker.
The British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) provides the radio & television services for British forces and families overseas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_Broadcasting_Service
BFBS TV Home Page
http://www.ssvc.com/bfbs/tv/index.htm
The current 6 channel line up specially selected for our forces has 6 channels. A good mix of entertainment, music sports, and, oh – News! There are 2 ‘News’ channels available on the line up.
One News channel is available 24 hours a day – a real ‘rolling’ 24 hr channel, (4th channel on the line up).
the other News channel is trasmitted between the hours of midnight and 8am (on channel 1). then channel 1 goes general entertainment 8am – midnight (BFBS 1).
So night-time airplay for one, 24 hour airplay for the other.
the two channels are BBCNews24 and Sky News. Can you guess which has which slot on the line up?
http://www.ssvc.com/bfbs/tv/dth/index.htm
Thanks Pete. I believe that is the one UK organization I was thinking of. Somebody wrote about it on Samizdata a while back.
Victims’ rights organizations in the US have come a long way from where they were 15-20 years ago. They are nowhere near to achieving a balance with the pro-criminal orgs, but they are achieving some results.
Crime victims are now allowed to address their victimizers in court, for instance. We just had the mother of poor little rape/murder victim 5-year-old Samantha Runnion ripping her convicted murderer a new one in front of the whole nation. I don’t suppose her speech was picked up by al-Beeb? (why even ask?)
I don’t know why lefties support pro-criminal measures and organizations so much. Most victims of crime, especially violent crime, are the weakest members of the society, including the poor who can’t afford to live in gated communities etc. Could it be that lefties don’t really care that much about what happens to the weakest members of society?
One of the earliest heroes of the victims’ rights movement in the US was a little old lady named Doris Tate — mother of actress Sharon Tate, so brutally slaughtered by the Manson Family while 8 months pregnant.
Doris is gone now but she worked relentlessly for victims’ rights for nearly 30 years. She appeared at every single parole hearing for Manson and his followers to make sure that the parole boards would not let any of them out of prison.
Hug-a-Murderer-campaigner Norman Mailer, in contrast to Doris Tate, used his celebrity to get a poor misunderstood killer out of prison back in the late 70s. (Plenty of sympathetic media coverage regarding the sensitive, brilliant literary stylings of this particular murderer, BTW. Reminds me a lot of the Rachid Ramda article, as a matter of fact.) The killer then murdered another person within two weeks of being out of prison. Normie never bothered to apologize to anyone for the incident, least of all the latest victim’s family — he just stayed quiet for a while, then moved on to the next celebrity criminal-worshipping cause du jour.
Teddy Bear – what, your response to the point that the sailors liked Sky less than they liked the Beeb is a UKIP press release? Christ, even the most loony leftie bloggers don’t cite RESPECT press releases as news…
I think I’ve made my point perfectly clearly, and it doesn’t make a difference in this case if one takes the news report from UKIP or the 2 Guardian reports, or wherever you like, the outcome and conclusion is the same. If you were interested in truth you wouldn’t be so apparently slow on the uptake. As it is, you’ve had enough of my time.
Whatever the truth of the switching off and on of Ark Royal’s News service during the second Gulf War, there is no doubt that there was deep concern about the way in which news from the battle front was being edited by the Beeb news team for consumption in the UK to reflect their own anti-war stance.
Remember the BBC Defence Correspondent Paul Adams’ memo to his BBC editors complaining of their half truths, distortions and downright lies?
If not, link in, recall and digest.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31742
Good article here about Mailer and his pet murderer:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/terzian021502.asp
It also mentions that the murderer in question has at least had the good manners to top himself.
“…even though they … caused a poor man to commit suicide”
Lee, this wasn’t a finding of the Hutton inquiry, and it’s a bit much to accuse the BBC of this.
.
Hmmm, now I understand why some posters get ‘Anonymous’ names at the end. Sometimes it doesn’t load one’s previous information.
Anyway, that was me at 1:36, if it wasn’t obvious.
Miam, it’s incredible that other than show the BBC News 24 logo amid the others of Sky and BFBS channels available, they don’t even give the BBC a mention in their advertising blurb. In fact, the way they hype Sky for the rolling news “especially in times of conflict”, really socks it to the beeb. Priceless, thanks for the link.
Lurkder,
Thanks. I see from your link that Mailer did in the end acknowledge some responsibility for the killing of that young waiter by his pet criminal rehabilitation project. But I didn’t know that “Saint” Susan Sarandon named her kid after the poor misunderstood, sensitive murderer. That’s truly disgusting.
I confess I laughed when the sanctimonious Susan Sarandon puppet got blown away in “Team America.” Now I don’t feel at all ashamed of myself for doing that š
Exploding Susan Sarandon puppets — F*ck Yeah!
Fran, thanks too for your link. Wonder if ‘BBC Fan’, or others of his/her ilk will emerge and have anything to say about that.
Actually, who *is* of my ilk around here? Hopefully not people who think references to cow dung and rectums constitute part of a meaningful debate.
Is ‘Teddy Bear’ indicative of the quality of conversation around here?
Teddy Bear:
I would advise you to stop reading ‘The Sun’ if you want to improve your analytical abilities.
Rather than looking through the archives of an anti-BBC forum, largely written by conservative thinkers who, against non-US first world public opinion, thought a pre-emptive strike on Iraq was a good idea, I found this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm
I suppose all of the surveys quoted here are lies? Indeed, are you going further than the claim that the BBC is biased, and trying to prove that is systematically lies? Or does Andrew Gilligan’s 6.45am slip prove the whole of the BBC is a sham? Please.
Here are the highlights (article published February 2003):
“More than 87% of Germans oppose war on Iraq”
“Yet public opinion in eastern Europe is even more hostile to war than in the west.
A Gallup International poll of a few days ago found low support in the region for war, even if sanctioned by the UN – just 38% in Romania, 28% in Bulgaria and 20% in Estonia.
The figure for Russia was 23%.”
“In the UK […] only 25% thought enough evidence had been found to justify a war.”
Their graph shows the following percentages of people in opposition of the war without “fresh UN support”, i.e. the situation which eventually obtained, and even if a second UN resolution was passed, which of course it never was. Remember, the first figure is the relevant one because it indicates the percentage who were actually against the war.
UK: 68% against, 15% against.
Portugal: 70% against, 35% against.
Ireland: 75% against, 42% against.
Spain: 78% against, 42% against.
Belgium: 78% against, 40% against.
Finland: 78% against, 66% against.
Denmark: 79% against, 25% against.
Italy: 78% against, 32% against.
Netherlands: 80% against, 28% against.
Luxembourg: 82% against, 32% against.
Sweden: 82% against, 52% against.
Austria: 85% against, 72% against.
Greece: 86% against, 72% against.
France: 86% against, 28% against.
Germany: 88% against, 50% against.
The BBC has therefore hardly been more anti-war over the last three years than the 68% to 88% range indicated here. Had a second UN resolution been passed things might have been different.
As for the Ark Royal debate, it seems rather a distraction. I simply don’t find the opinion of soldiers who are trained to do as they are told by their superiors, and who probably don’t have much time to research and analyse international foreign policy, at all relevant in the question of whether the BBC is biased.
I can understand how much of the BBC’s coverage might have been disheartening, and how turning it off is probably a strategically good move for the armed forces, although it appears they failed to keep it off for some reason.
BBC Fan writes
“I simply don’t find the opinion of soldiers who are trained to do as they are told by their superiors, and who probably don’t have much time to research and analyse international foreign policy, at all relevant in the question of whether the BBC is biased.”
It is precisely this type of dismissive attitude towards the views of others that Biased BBC exists to expose. Over and over again the BBC – and its fans, it would seem – airily brush aside the experience and opinions of those whom it considers ill informed and unthinking, simply because their world view differs from its own.
However, my understanding is that this blog is not about changing the BBC world view, but about insisting that an information outlet paid for by the public is doing what it’s paid to do – to inform the British public without trying to impose its own narrow, oh yes, BBC fan, narrow world view on world events.
i love the self-praise implicit in dame simpson’s self serving adverts on the bbc.the one about how his underpants saved him from getting badly wounded.
i never knew he had any.
Yes BBC fan, and how would you go about addressing that:
Tony Blair
John Howard
George Bush
…have all been easily re-elected whilst the anti-war Gerhard Schroder and Jacques Chirac are on the verge of departing the leadership scene in disgrace. Seems there’s more to life than your outdated surveys! š
“I simply don’t find the opinion of soldiers who are trained to do as they are told by their superiors, and who probably don’t have much time to research and analyse international foreign policy, at all relevant in the question of whether the BBC is biased.”
How dare you treat men and women, that are prepared to die for their country, with such contempt? The people on Ark Royal would have access to the true information on the war’s progress. They would be perfectly placed to assess BBC bias. You, sitting safely at home, only know what the BBC tells you.
You are what’s wrong with the BBC. You can’t even countenance the possibility that you might be wrong, or that somebody else might have a perfectly valid but different viewpoint.
I really am disgusted by your attitude towards our Armed Forces. I grew up near Salisbury and a lot of my friend’s fathers were in the Army/RAF/Military Intelligence. For you to insult them as ignorant morons, I find totally abhorrent.
Miam
That link to the British Forces Broadcasting Service channel line-up us very significant.
The mere idea that another rolling news channel would be overwhelmingly preferred to the equivalent BBC channel would have been laughed out of court in the past. The NATIONAL broadcaster with 4000 news staff dumped into the wee small hours – unthinkable.
BBC fan
You keep citing “first world” opinion about Iraq. Frankly, I don’t give a toss about what other countries may think, except as an INPUT. THEIR opinions should not be driving OUR news. That is the tail wagging the dog. Why should opinion in France, the major supplier of arms to Iraq, up to their necks in Oil-for-Food corruption with Saddam and historically anti-US influence OUR news ? By your approach US opinion which nearly matches EU population should drive all the news channels in Europe. Even in France where the TV sevice is effectively Government-run. Tell us what Chirac thinks about your proposition before you trot the trite non sequitur out any more.
And you somehow fail to mention the opinions in the US. Or the source of the polling – who was it , scale of poll, was it polled with no skew in the questions ? Did it ask “if it proves impossible to obtain a further UN resolution, which some say is unnecessary, would war still be an option ?” etc
Your arguments are false and warped. A load of nonsense. The “old” BBC that WE used to be fans of would laugh its socks off at what you say.
This footling about polling back in 2003 misses the main point about much of the debate. (polling which omits Japan, Australia etc.)
The CORE point is that AFTER the decision was taken by our democratically elected Government, supported overwhelmingly by a vote in the House of Commons, the strong bias of the BBC has been to attack that decision up hill and down dale. They opposed it at the time, in locksteep with the LibDems and the Guardian/Independent extreme left, and they have used their broadcasting power to take every opportunity to revisit and discredit the DEMOCRATIC decision. They keep trying to turn the clock back. As do you.
Initially the BBC portrayed the military effort in a bad light as per the Paul Woods internal memo which was NOT challenged at the time. Along the line they put Abu Ghraib on endless loop because it chimed well with their anti-coalition stance. They still keep describing Iraq as a quagmire, accentuating the negative and airbrushing out most of the positive. The latest report from John Simpson is actually headlined “quagmire”, almost as a parody.
Abu Ghraib got endless-loop treatment. (Compare that to the three major statements by Blair on the current terrorism – the are no longer linked on the BBC website unless you dig deep).
Then the BBC kept casting doubt on whether the elections would work. They seldom have IRAQIS being interviewed – they prefer to interview known anti-war Muslims from other countries.
And their worst, really nasty ongoing way of biassing the news is to describe all the Al Qaeda suicide bombers in Iraq as insurgents when they are NOT Iraqi so cannot be described as insurgents. They still REFUSE to call outright terrorism by the T word in Iraq, and indeed in most of their reporting from Egypt on the Sharm bombing.
The BBC has mispresented much of the Iraq news from Day 1. There is a pattern of blatant bias on Iraq by omission and commission, week in, week out.
BBCFan.
UK: 68% against, 15% against.
Portugal: 70% against, 35% against.
Ireland: 75% against, 42% against.
Spain: 78% against, 42% against.
Belgium: 78% against, 40% against.
Finland: 78% against, 66% against.
Denmark: 79% against, 25% against.
Italy: 78% against, 32% against.
Netherlands: 80% against, 28% against.
Luxembourg: 82% against, 32% against.
Sweden: 82% against, 52% against.
Austria: 85% against, 72% against.
Greece: 86% against, 72% against.
France: 86% against, 28% against.
Germany: 88% against, 50% against.
I’m not entirely sure what you are trying to prove with these figures.
Are you suggesting the the BBC should provide biased commentary/reports in accordance with whatever the opinion polls suggest is the ‘majority’ public opinion of the day?
The BBC has therefore hardly been more anti-war over the last three years than the 68% to 88% range indicated here. Had a second UN resolution been passed things might have been different.
So BBC reports should be 68% to 88% against the Iraq War? I would agree with you that many reports re Iraq War on BBC are biased against the War.
I would strongly argue however that the BBC has no right or mandate to provide such biased reporting, and I havent heard them use polls of public opinion to justify this, but perhaps the BBC would agree with you.
Whatever your views are on the Iraq war, however is not the issue. You might be happy with how the BBC is dealing with the Iraq issue now, because it fits in with your current political view. But what happens when the BBC takes a ‘view’ on a subject that you take the opposite?
You see it’s not really a case of what the publics view on Iraq or whatever subject is. The important thing is that the BBC has no right or mandate to provide biased news. Period. The BBC should just report the news. Others can give their views but the likes of Webb (US) and Simpson (World) pontificating and ‘analysing’ events, I can do without.
OT Webb seems to have been promoted. He popped up on the ‘Today’ programme this am.
OT Funny listening to Humphries this morning and the piece on USA/Australia/China/Japan et al voluntary agreement on climate change technologies. Humphries seemed peeved that these countries had put together a ‘voluntary’ agreement – and ‘outwith’ the UN and with no targets!!!! As the ‘Americans’ are involved, of course it was pooh-poohed as a waste of time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4723305.stm
The Oz spokesman was quite good though. Pointing out that even though Australia had not signed up to Koyoto, it was actually meeting the reductions discussed at Kyoto that had been envisaged for Oz. That’s without targets, and whilst some European countries beat their chest about bad old Uncle Sam, they have failed to meet their Kyoto targets.
Funny old world aint it?
Is an American-led pact on global warming a threat to the Kyoto protocol?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_usledpact_20050728.ram