who think it’s clever to bugger around with photos as a means of expressing their own petty political prejudices have been busy again.
|
The photo of Norman Tebbit (see right) on the story Tebbit attacks ‘unreformed’ Islam has clearly been tampered with – first off they’ve selected the worst photo they could find of him, then they’ve slanted it to the left, then they’ve whacked up the white balance to make the picture look completely overexposed. |
 |
Looking through a selection of other BBC Tebbit (hey, that has a ring to it) photos, we can see that there are none anywhere near as bad as the one they’ve cooked up for this story.
Likewise, if we look at the BBC’s selection of pictures for a couple of randomly selected leftie elder-statesmen, Lord Callaghan and Robin Cook, we can see that none of their pictures have been manipulated in such a malicious manner.
To the Beeboids reading this, please do kick the backside of whoever cooked up this Tebbit picture – it’s not big and it’s not clever, and it clearly shows just how paper thin your claims to impartiality really are. To be fair, I suppose it could just be down to sheer incompetence – of the graphics person, the story compiler and the sub-editor, rather than bias – but that’s not saying much for you either.
I’m taking a summer break, so this may be my last post for a little while (unless I get some time to spare before going away), but I’m sure my colleagues will keep a light shining on the BBC in the meantime.
Update: I am informed on good authority that the picture of Norman Tebbit was not digitally manipulated. I am happy to accept that that is the case, however, the selected photo is poorly composed and very badly overexposed. It is therefore unrepresentative of and unfair to Lord Tebbit, and should not have been used. Lord Tebbit was shown on Newsnight on the campaign trail during the recent general election, looking rather hale and hearty. A screengrab from that would have sufficed if no better photo was available in the BBC’s archives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4162398.stm
Hmm, Something seems a bit missing. Lets google.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050818-1024-norway-blast.html
No suprises why info was deliberatly left out.
“…Police charged a 20-year-old Norwegian man of Pakistani origin, who had been in the flat at the time, with taking part in an illegal explosion…”
Are there any legal explosions in Norway?
Let’s just hope our God makes sure they keep blowing themselves up without anyone else getting hurt!
George Galloway’s researcher who is helping the JdeM family:
“Asad Rehman played an active role in organising the Stop the War Coalition and worked for Amnesty International for 10 years” He also claims to be a marxist AND a Muslim. Thought that was not possible udner their religious rules?
Ooh so AI trained then? Now helping non English speaking Brazilians to accuse the Met Pol of lying etc…he knew the old AI PR course would come in handy one day! How come the Beeb haven’t pointed this out …oh wait..
Panorama on Sunday night – watch it and see if they HAVE or HAVE NOT watered it down.
Well this a total surprise (not)
Politics kills off comedy at the Edinburgh Fringe
Yesterday, they described this year’s shows as “silly”, “flat” and “of the level of fifth-form humour”, and complained that they concentrated too much on politics, particularly on Tony Blair, George W Bush and weapons of mass destruction
No doubt the BBC will be looking to book this sad collection of comedians in the near future.
But the trouble is that the BBC straight men have been doing the act for so long that it’s stale.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/21/nperrier21.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/21/ixhome.html
Found on WIZBANG blog:
The very last word on Sheenan!!!
I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
Let her meet with the President. That’s right. I’ve finally changed my tune.
Let her meet with the President who thwarted the United Nations Security Council and made the case for war.
Let her meet with the President who hindered the progress of United Nations weapons inspectors.
Let her meet with the President who lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that they’d use on Americans.
Let her meet with the President who killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Let her meet with the President who came to office in a rigged election, and maintained his grip on power through rigged voting and militaristic patriotism.
Let her meet with the President who turned his country’s media into a mouthpiece for his fascist and discriminatory policies.
Let her meet with the President who transformed his country into a single-party dictatorship, sowing fear and resentment against any who dared to oppose his iron-fisted rule.
Let her meet with the President who proved himself a coward by fleeing when his country was attacked.
Let her meet with the President who should be brought up on war crimes for his dastardly misdeeds.
Let her meet with the President who spent billions of dollars on weapons while social welfare programs went unfunded and the poor continue to suffer for it.
Let her meet with the President who has a track record of invading Arab Muslim countries for oil.
Let her meet with the President who knew full well about the bloodthirsty torture and murderous horrors at Abu Ghraib.
That’s right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein.
’nuff said!
Is this the same dave t who posts at Harry’s Place ?
The Muslim Council of Britain is trying to directly interfere with tonight’s Panorama programme :
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553441,00.html
“Biting the hand that feeds it” ?
the bbc’s philip hayton
interviewed an older person from the israeli foreign ministry perhaps about two years ago.
all went well until mr hayton exploded in a brutal and discourteous manner at the israeli.
the palestinian on the same programme was treated with kid gloves.
i was puzzled by this awful lack of manners until i read that mr hayton had spent time in jordan as a voluntary teacher earlier in his career.
there are some bbc people who do their jobs well and compare with the best in the business
1 nik gowing
2 lindsey brancher
3 mishal hussain
4 paul adams
5 jonny diamond
But Nik Gowing apparently implies that the US military deliberately targets journalists – he was buddy with Eason Jordan who hd to resign from the top post at CNN for similar smears.
So he sounds to be part of the bias syndrome ?
Indeed, JiL:
http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=104600
Note too that nutty Nik is clearly identified as a BBCoid, meaning that – sleazy disclaimer to the contary – his rantings do carry a weight that they would not if he was writing as a ‘concerned citizen’.
Sir Anthony Jay wrote a scorching letter last week to the Times on endemic BBC bias – he has now written an article arguing that the BBC needs to be cut back in the digital age. He quickly proposes savings of £1 billion a year. And suggests the closure of BBC Online and other non-TV/radio empires if they cannot pay its way.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1743208,00.html
He gives the BBC only a few more yers to really change its remit and its attitudes of broadcasting dominance.
DumbJon
That article by Nik Gowing is outrageous. What the hell are we paying BBC staff for when they take lots of time – OUR TIME ? – to write vitriolic moonbat stuff like that ?
Note that he is also part of the Chatham House crowd. Typical – their people feed a lot of anti-US stuff to the BBC.
BBC never tires of telling us about Enron, Worldcom or anything negative about Walmart. They even sought to devalue the House of Lords committee reporting on global warming by crowbaring Enron into their reporting.
Meanwhile Euro company failures make little news, we saw it with Parmalat & now the Tealgraph reports on problems with several major German companies.
The Telegraph says of DaimlerCrysler
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/08/21/ccgerm21.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/08/21/ixcoms.html
At DaimlerChrysler, US regulators have asked their German counterparts to help with an investigation into allegations that the car company kept dozens of secret bank accounts to bribe foreign officials. Last week, the German securities regulator also launched an official investigation into possible insider trading in shares of DaimlerChrysler, which soared in value before the formal announcement a few weeks ago that Jürgen Schrempp, the chief executive, would be retiring early.
The BBC’s coverage sees only blue skies & a little bad judgement by Schrempp.
New boss bolsters DaimlerChrysler
He came under fire from investors when Daimler’s merger with US firm Chrysler was not an immediate success and when the carmaker had to pull out of an expensive partnership with unprofitable Japanese rival Mitsubishi Motors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4166724.stm
Um, JIL, he also rejects getting rid of the licence fee
‘The licence fee must be kept for as long as it can be justified and collected.’
‘Many people would like to abolish the licence fee and let the BBC fend for itself with advertising, subscriptions, pay-per-view and whatever other ways it can find of earning itself a living in the marketplace.
Of course this is possible, but every study has shown that the result must be a serious impoverishment of television in Britain. Subscription and pay-per-view could not begin to replace the missing £3 billion, and advertising, apart from not generating enough income, would also seriously diminish the advertising revenue and consequently the production budgets of the commercial broadcasters.’
and
‘The principal reason why so much of the BBC’s output is so undistinguished is lack of money. Its resources are too thinly spread over too many channels.’
Am I alone in thinking that maybe the BBC v MCB “war of words” is nothing else than a well planned show to prove to critics like us that the BBC aren’t actually in bed with muslims? I will only believe that the Beeb have changed their tune when they start reporting critically about Islam in the long run, not just because of one Panaroma programme I haven’t even seen yet… We’ll see.
steve jones quoting Jay “‘The principal reason why so much of the BBC’s output is so undistinguished is lack of money. Its resources are too thinly spread over too many channels.’
SJ gives that quote as if Jay wants more money going to the BBC. But Jay does want that situation rectified by increasing the BBC’s forced funding – he wants it to get out of producing the rubbish that currently fills its schedules (junk shop shows/gardening/DIY/(2nd)house purchase) & restrict itself to 1 TV & 1 radio outlet
Ooops “does” in my 2nd line should, of course be “doesn’t”
“Subscription and pay-per-view could not begin to replace the missing £3 billion”
Translation. There is no way people would voluntarily pay that much for the BBC. The UK public must be enslaved for a few hours each to pay for it.
Only when the BBC competes for money, will the BBC compete to tell the TRUTH first. People don’t like paying to be lied to.
Defund the Haw Haw channel.
Futher thoughts on the future of the licence fee
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1743392,00.html
LORD BIRT, former director-general of the BBC, will tell broadcasters this week that the corporation should lose its monopoly on television licence fees and that some of the money should go to other programme makers
Rob. Read the thread old chap.
JIL said Jay’s piece was interesting. It was. It also seemed to conclude that the licence fee was the ‘least worst’ current system of funding, as all others either wouldn’t produce enough money, or would distort the market.
I like how every argument (to you) is reducable to how the BBC’s funding model is wrong. Must be simple in your world.
‘defund’ ? What a curious word. It’s not in my OED.
So steve jones you look forward a future of having a licence fee top up added to your broadband subscription do you (assuming you have to pay for internet access & don’t just steal your employer’s service & time)?
Jay points out that the licence fee will soon become impossible, even if it is “least worst”.
I think this reliance on a licence fee is too negative. The quality of US programming doesn’t have to be the model for all TV. Many people in the UK are prepared to pay a subscription for the internet, for sport & films on TV & to buy quality newspapers & magazines. Why shouldn’t a subscription be a viable source of funding of quality TV programmes.
OT
You guys might be interested in this:
http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/08/bbc-spread-initial-rumours-about.html
s jones
Jay recognises that abolition of the licence fee right now is not going to happen. (Politics is the rt of the possible.) But with the advent of digital services it will become POSSIBLE to move across to a subscription basis around 2012. The technology will then allow it.
So here on one day we have two ex-BBC people recommending that even if the licence fee continues pro tem,, the BBC should get less – not more -money. Jay says the BBC needs to be cut back by a billion. Birt says the BBC should not get the total licence fee revenue.
The BBC may have thoght they were having an easy ride towards the final decisions on the Charter Review, where they are bidding for an increase above the level of inflation. It looks as though the debate is far from over. The BBC wants to expand even further into digital TV etc – senior people with good contacts in Government are saying NO, BBC revs should be CUT.
steve jones
how dumb do you have to be to pay for “news” from an unreliable, biased, socialist, metropolitain elite enamoured of all of the prevailing orthodoxies.
you are the human equivalent of a turkey voting for christmas.
Rob Read (if he is enlish) is too good for this browbeaten country.
Jay does not see the licence fee lasting for ever. He puts a timeframe limited to 10 years – and recommends a 30% cutback in the meanwhile.
His figure of around £1 billion will attract attention in the Treasury, I think. Nice round sum, big enough to be concerned about, to focus on. Jay mentions specific ways to make the savings. None of them are politically unattractive – just a whittling away of unnecessary stuff. It might well be attractive for the Government to announce that the Charter Review had shown that subscription will become at least part of the revs in the future, and the BBC’s role needs to be limited to what is really necessary. Some people would see political benefit in saying “We therefore intend to REDUCE the licence fee to £100 per annum – or under”.
And I bet Birt picks up some of Jay’s cost-cutting ideas for his Edinburgh speech.
It seems tht David Elstein’s ideas are far from dead. His report was the only one to properly examine the technical future.
http://www.beyondthecharter.com/pressrelease.html
jil
could be i was not paying enough attention to nik gowing.but he does not seem to be selling anything.
(enoch powell in a complement to ted heath said that ted never tried to sell anything meaning he had no personal agenda)
he also seems to have a gravitas lacking in the bbc light-weights.
i will however pay closer attention.
eason jordan was a classic beeboid working at cnn.good to see the back of him.
most of all it is the sneering tone of stephen sackur, ben brown and brian hanrahan discussing america.it is quite unbearable.
richard
Nik Gowing and Eason Jordan shared conference platforms and seemed to have shared an obsession with the “targetting of journalists” by the US military – when in fact any targetting has been by terrorists.
What i dont understand is 2 things:
Why MI6 agents are in Palestine talking to Hamas terrorists? Israel has lodged formal complaints and no news of that?
Tony trying to meddle again with things that dont concern him.
The threat level has been secretly lowered in the uk, and no one knows about it. In the US that kind of thing is public information.
I have a feeling that we are falling into a kind of dare i say, communist neo soviet environment in the UK, whereby, the people are fed misinformation on a daily basis.
No one ever picks up the government, except at times Michael Howard who dares to criticise, then is character whipped to the extreme, by the BBC.
So overall, i’d say, the bbc is going to lose out one way or another, its just a question of when…
The BBC Seems to think that glorified porn is just what our society needs.
BBC’s £58m explicit Rome drama
The BBC is about to broadcast the most violent and sexually explicit programme ever to be shown on British television – and at £58 million for 12 episodes it is also the most expensive.
The BBC, however, last night defended the content. “We want people to understand what ancient Rome was really like and we are trying to give them an authentic feel of life back then.
“What you have to remember was that the real Rome was 10 times worse than anything we are showing on screen.”
So why are they so investing so heavily into turning our society into something that they are depicting as so debauched in ancient Rome?
More Radio 5 live bias: This morning James Reynolds from Gaza repeated the lie that the settlers had poured acid over police and soldiers during the disengagement. The ‘acid story’ had already been found to be untrue 48 hours prior to the broadcast. Strange that JR wasn’t aware of this…
I phoned, texted and emailed the studio. To no avail. No correction was forthcoming.
Incidentally, Yvonne Ridley made the same false assertion on James Whale today.
I have now complained to OFCOM. See where that gets me…
trevor “Why MI6 agents are in Palestine talking to Hamas terrorists?”
The former MI6 man Crook was featured in an extensive Newsnight report about a year ago. Crook was meeting with Hamas etc in Lebanon. Also attending was a (former?) CIA man. It was not clear on whose authority Crook or the CIA man were operating.
Melanie Phillips picked up on these meetings on herweb diary some months later – she despaired of Bush having anything to do with Hamas.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/2005_04.html
April 19, 2005
The crooked response to terror
It’s a rare event when I can actually commend the BBC for anything, but so far, what I have seen on the Panorama programme justifies it. They are actually reporting from the perspective of our society with a present danger inside it, instead of its usual appeasement. I can understand why Sacranie has done his best to undermine it, since its his, and others of his ilks’, failure to answer the questions put to them that really shows them up – which is the truth. Well done to Mark Ware, and also to hear the voice of some Muslims who really agree that they do need to change, and that there are serious problems within their faith.
I agree. The program is worth the price of the licence fee. For this year at least!
Agreed, a good programme for once. I just wish Mark Ware had also focussed on the concept of Jihad. Apart from that well worth watching.
Agreed. 3 cheers for the BBC and particularly for Mr Ware who has shown tremendous courage in fronting this programme.
Pretty one-sided debate on the Panorama comments page so far: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4162514.stm
I guess some of us should try to have our say.
Unfortunately, its not available to watch on the website. Hopefully I’ll watch it tomorrow. Did anybody make a digital recording of the show? It might be worth making it available on BitTorrent…
Sorry – it should have been John Ware, and not Mark. 3 Cheers for him for actually making me feel good about something the BBC has done.
I just tried to post on the Comments website. We’ll see if it (or any other pro-Ware comment gets on.
Rob
The link to the transcript is
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4171950.stm
Instructive.
Yes, the old don’t have your say or comment BBC crack squad seem to be in action already. Plenty of outraged Mohammeds making comparisons to the BNP and supposed links to Tony Blair when none exist. Also those outraged by such freedom of speech and lack if limitations on TV. Ha ha, it’s a laugh I tells ya’.
I find most of the comments so far laughable but the Beeb had to come up with something that would counter John Ware’s good piece. Has anyone tried to write in as Bilal Patel yet?
I note no mention of the fact that Cherie “Blair/Booth/Gimme the Moneeee!” was Begum’s QC for her appeal…..but a good programme – should have been on earlier so more people would have seen it.
Ha, i’m sure this page will end up being as representative of the famous comments page about the Power of Nightmares documentary.
Some parts of the Beeb are desperate in their MORI polls on multiculturalism etc. Anyway, it makes a change in that Panorama have at least realised what they should have been investigating when they were actually going after Nick Griffin and the evil working class whites.
Some good points being raised over at Harry’s Place:
“I saw this too, and thought it was very good – apart from one thing. YET AGAIN several Muslim spokesmen were allowed to get away with the locution (when condemning suicide bombers) that ‘it is wrong to kill innocent people’.
As WE all know, in radical Islamist circles – and maybe some wider Muslim circles – kuffars like us are inherently NOT innocent, simply by being unbelievers, or living in a pro-Israeli state, or liking a pint, or being Jewish, or whatever. Therefore it is OK to kill us, therefore the speaker is not actually condemning the suicide bombers.
It’s so annoying that experienced journos (and Ware was otherwise excellent, I thought) are seemingly unaware of this bit of weasel-wordery. Every time a Muslim spokesperson uses the words ‘innocents’ he should be asked exactly what he means by the phrase”
Go here
Sean: a point I spotted as well. They regard, for example, all Isrealis as NON civilians and therefore targets because they believe all Israelis serve in the Armed Forces. Thus the civilians they kill are in fact serving or reserve forces soldiers and legitimate targets. Where the 3 year and 5 year old girl victims qualify is difficult to say….and why did they not pick up on the fact that the Koran allows Muslims to LIE if it is for the cause thus allowing most of the speakers to say one thing when they really believe another.
A good programme and let us see if it brings better and more open discussion.
Just looked over the balance of opinion in DHYS on Panorama special. There are ONLY 2 comments from people supporting the programme – is this REALLY representative of the feedback so far.
Also note that, once again, a DHYS is becoming a forum for those who want to trash the legitimacy of the State of Israel under a mealy mouthed veil of concern for human rights.
dave t ” Every time a Muslim spokesperson uses the words ‘innocents’ he should be asked exactly what he means by the phrase”
Same with the term “Israeli occupation”, some saps think that they refer only to the post-67 territory, whereas it often means the whole of the state of Israel.
(Like Galloway’s “Onward to Jeruselem” – I don’t expect that he is saying that with a silent “East”)