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.
dave t 19/8/2005
i do agree with you about brazil and was about to make the same post when i saw yours.we have been hearing about the killings of brazilan street children for many many years.
this is still happening.it certainly makes you think that brazil doth protest too much.
yet the killing of the gentleman in london was a massive blunder and the untrue stories attached to the innocent man does leave a bad taste.
“Islamists accuse BBC of being pro-Israeli” The Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1745081,00.html
i do think that sites such as this will inevitably be listened to and we may see a slow amelioration of the bbc sneering and generally contemptable behaviour.
if i may say so the target for us is still to abolish the license fee and so force the bbc to raise funds in the market-place.
Richard – no doubting it was truly awful and needs investigating to the full – but the facts need to be out before we all rush to judge the police for a mistake that occured at that unprecedented moment in a major man hunt. It is unfair to attack the police about compensation (which was an interim payment), when the Brazilian foreign minister put it at the top of his ‘need to know’ list on arrival. It smacks of hypocrisy that they send their officers over when 30 000 officers are held up on criminal charges in Brazil and none of the families of innocents killed by police there are entitled to an ivestigation.
The IPCC also demanded silence from all parties to not prejuidice the investigation and now the police are accused of a cover up. The leak was abhorrent and generally it all stinks of a witch hunt. We need to get facts first and make accusations later rather than trial by media.
I feel I know more about this young man than i do about the innocent people killed on July 7 which is surely wrong. None of those families will get justice, questions answered…And Hussein Osman who threw us all into a nightmare is all but forgotten in the quest for justice by this campaign.
Yep! and this is the stuff on the Bazilian Police:
…A study by the Institute for Religious Studies (ISER) concluded that 10 percent of all Rio de Janeiro homicides were civilians killed by police. The ISER study also documented that in a sample of 697 cases of fatal police shootings between 1993 and 1996, Rio de Janeiro police officers rarely fired to immobilize rather than kill; half of the victims were killed with four or more bullets, and the majority of victims were shot in either the shoulders or the head. Forty cases clearly demonstrated execution-style deaths, where victims were first immobilized and then shot at close range. Victims were generally young, black, and without criminal records. Human rights groups continued to criticize “bravery” awards conferred by the Rio de Janeiro authorities which have had the effect of encouraging police to use excessive force…
Andrew’s comment about the Tebbit photo is another example of how this anti-BBC blog highlights examples of where the BBC might or might not have shown bias and comletely ignores examples where it has shown balance. Your readers might like to see this story, from just recently, of extracts from an interview with Norman Tebbit in which he talks about “life for those injured by terrorists.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4727129.stm
Let us have balance not just from the BBC but from the blogs!
Puul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent.
af
i agree with much of what you say.the innocents have indeed been forgotton.
Paul Reynolds
This isn`t some kind of a trade off, the BBC must not expect praise for examples of balanced reporting when it ought to be the norm and quite unremarkable.
Nobody here is looking for prizes but they do expect the same sort of balance in criticism that the critics seek in the writing. By the way, why is this blog written under false names and anonymity. I declare who I am. Why not you?
Paul Reynolds
World Affairs corespodnet]
BBC News Online
Paul
Doesn’t your comment, and the example you give, illustrate beautifully the way in which the BBC regularly edits commentators whose stance does not fit in to the BBC world view, presenting them in the worst possible light. Thus Tebbit on caring for his wife disabled by terrorism = good. Tebbit expressing concerns about that shibboleth the multi-cultural society = bad.
Further, had you read the ten or so posts immediately before yours you would have seen praise for the BBC’s excellent Panorama programme last night.
Although nil points for (Don’t) Have Your Say on the programme which, when I last looked, only contained two comments praising the programme amongst a depressing plethora of whinges from the Muslim community for the BBC daring to expose and challenge robustly the extremism in their midst.
Reynolds’ comments are startling in their naivety. Look at the front page of BBC News Online every day, the Have Your Say topics, the daily news bulletins, the reporting we see from the Middle East ‘corespodnets [sic]’ and tell me that it’s balanced.
Trawling through the archives of BBC News to pluck out something to support your view is the very definition of clutching at straws(and, yes, supporters and opponents of the BBC are guilty of it on this Blog).
By the way, I’m sure I see more than just the odd BBC News Online article that is anonymous. Unlike us, BBC journos are paid for their work and should at least own up to their own articles.
Oh, and by the way, the two comments I sent in to (Don’t) Have your Say have my name and email address on them. And the letters which I send to the Beeb, both of complaint and congratulation have my full name and address on them too.
Not that the Beedoids ever bother to reply to them specifically. There is the first paragraph which acknowledges the date and time of the programme in question, followed by the same two standard paragraphs, “there is no editorial bias, etc etc”
As my sister who worked in news at ITV for years commented to me “They won’t answer your points because you don’t count and they don’t give a f**k.”
That, Paul, is why we don’t feel the need to be balanced in our comments, although we do treat your organisation with rather more fairness than you treat us. At least everyone can have their say ….
Paul Reynolds,
In the blogs’ charter, the obligation to be fair and balanced is not to be found yet.
Further, readers of blogs are not forced to pay for blogs and won’t go to jail if they don’t pay.
Bloggers don’t change posts without a note or attribution as in (recent example):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4170302.stm
BBC article yesterday (balanced):
Israel has controlled the Gaza Strip since capturing it from Egypt in 1967.
BBC article today (biased):
Israel has occupied the Gaza Strip since capturing it from Egypt in 1967.
People notice your foul ways and you should be held to account when failing to uphold your own (public funded) commitments.
The Panorama programme was so out of the blue last night i spent the entire programme with my chin on the floor. It was great to see such a line of questioning and resolve from the interviewer. We should be able to expect this kind of current affairs programming ALL THE TIME. But one Panorama and an article about NT dont constitute an overnight achievement towards balance and fair programming on important issues. Whilst we have to pay for this, we will continue to demand this. If anything blogging and press interest have successfully pushed this to the front of the BBC’s agenda.
Paul should be thanked for actually coming in here….pity more of those whose wages we pay do not – they might learn something.
This site has many comments praising the BBC when due as well as those critical of the organisation. As I pointed out, Panorama does a good programme then the “Have Your Say” lot ensure that only a couple of pro-Panorama comments are published; the vast majority are anti-Panorama!
A further point: there have been complaints about the Tebbit photo; so why did the BBC show an Israeli flag with flames in front as the photo to accompany the Gaza pullout article? Hmm? There was an article on Bush which was accompanied by a picture of US soldiers’ coffins when the article had bugger all to do with Iraq. And so on.
Paul: thanks for popping in – please continue to do so; I’ve served worldwide in several wars and the BBC I knew and watched/listened to had a great and well deserved reputation; it is just a pity that there are too many cases now where things are NOT being said in the famed BBC way ie with balance and impartiality.
PS How long is Natasha Kaplinsy on honeymoon for? Can we have a whipround to keep her on holiday for an extra week or two?
Panorama – Ware questioned Sacranie on his refusal to attend the Holocaust Memorial ceremony. Ware pointed out that Sacranie wanted the ceremony to make reference to “genocide & human rights abuses” in Palestine, Chechnya & Kashmir, i.e. only conflicts involving Muslims, but making no reference to such as Rwanda.
Surely Sacranie could have been put more on the spot by the omission from his list of the genocide in Sudan. Sacranie should have been made to explain why Muslim on Muslim genocide does not register with him.
(Once again I have had my comment on Have Your Say ignored. I have NEVER had a comment printed.)
Paul Reynolds Good morning
Don’t you know that comments on blogs are almost invariably anonymous ? Has the BBC any idea what is said about it on blogs worldwide ? Has it any idea how much its former image is now tarnished by its bias, how much scorn is expressed about BBC standards of journalism ?
And if you want to leverage the odd occasion when the BBC reverts to old-fashioned standards of balanced journalism, can you please come back with ANY examples where Orla Guerin or Caroline Hawley have used the word “terrorism” to describe the murder of civilians in Israel or Iraq or Turkey or Egypt ? Or ANY example where Caroline Hawley has expressed optimism about ANYTHING in Iraq ? Or ANY example where Orla Guerin has commended or expressed optimism about ANY action of the Israeli government ?
And is someone as prominent as Nik Gowing still being allowed by the BBC to allege that the US military are deliberately targetting journalists ? Has he made ANY reraction of the highly inflammatory and derogatory stuff he has presented via Chatham House or elsewhere ? Does the BBC management even CARE that he makes these allegations ?
And when was the last time the BBC said anything complimentary about Bush ? Or when was the last time the BBC had any of its resident comedians like Jeremy Hardy slagging off the US Democratic Party – rather than indulging in childish rudeness against the President of the country that is our historic ally and protector of our freedom ?
Finlly Mr Reynolds, back to the topic of Islamist jihadism which you discussed here before. We have all said that the Panorama prog by John Ware was good. Yes, he skimmed over the dangerous ambiguity in the word “innocent”, on which we never really had proper replies from you when you were looking at the “fatwa” confusion in the BBC newsroom last month.
But it makes a surprising change for the BBC to move away from the multi-culti nonsense it has spouted at us for years. It is just a shame it took home-grown terrorists and the murder of dozens of people in London to get some people at the BBC to START thinking this way.
What we want to see is ALL the BBC news staff starting to use adult analysis of the situation, not continuued regurgitation of sperficial and discredited multi-culti nonsense. Adult journalism, not the trite, biased and undergraduate stuff that so often disfigures the BBC’s output.
BBC1 News – Newsreader enquires of reporter the future of the abandoned Gaza settlements.
Gaza man reports that all the houses will be demolished. He does not mention that the greenhouses will be left intact for operation by Palestinian owners.
Did you notice how many times the interviewees used the word “if” in the Panorama program?
“If” so and so said this and “if” that were true, etc.
Also notice how when challenged by Ware if they agreed to the denouncing of other religions, they said no but refused to condemn those who did.
Certainly the show could have gone much further and Ware could have asked more probing and direct questions, but overall a good start to exposing the danger within Britain.
One question Ware should have asked the MCB and the MAB is if they denounced bin Laden. I’d loved to have heard their answer to that. If Sacarnie thinks Hamas terrorists equate to Mandela and Gandhi, who does he compare bin Laden to – Mother Teressa?
You are clearly paranoid! How can you make such a creepy looking ugly shit look attractive?
Ultonian – Thanks for that incisive comment – you really added to the dabate. What are you, ten? Meanwhile well done to Biased BBC, keep it up! Anything we have to pay for that speaks for/to us on current affairs must be balanced ALWAYS and needs to be held accountable. Blogs such as this are chipping away purposefully and its working 🙂
Hear hear.
JohninLondon “What we want to see is ALL the BBC news staff starting to use adult analysis of the situation, not continuued regurgitation of superficial and discredited multi-culti nonsense. Adult journalism, not the trite, biased and undergraduate stuff that so often disfigures the BBC’s output” – and for the reference to the people who died before these debates were allowed to start – great post.
From last night’s Panaroma, that scene where Dr Tamimi was addressing a crowd from the podium was quite chilling – Allahu Akbar = Sieg Heil.
The central issue is how islam defines ‘innocent’ and, for that matter, what is ‘peace’ in islam? As far as I’m aware, to a muslim, peace can only exist when the entire world is muslim – is this the case?
Following JiL post here’s BBC’s Lucy Williamson in a piece headlined ‘Today Gaza – tomorrow East Jerusalem’, excerpts:
“Today Gaza – tomorrow East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
You hear it from the militant groups too.
It has been the slogan at daily rallies by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others.”
Yes. EAST Jerusalem is what the ‘militants’ chant. If this is not whitewashing I don’t know what is and I find it hard to believe that Lucy doesn’t know that this is BS. If she does believe this then it shows the quality of BBC’s own correspondents.
Then she follows her nostrils:
“The uniformed militants did a double-take as I weaved through the lines. We were there to speak to one of them – how on earth, I wondered, would we find him?
He was near the front, barely breaking a sweat in the August heat.
“The resistance exists because of the occupation,” he said, “and the occupation still exists – in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, so the resistance will continue until we kick out Israel from all our land.”
If this quote wasn’t modified to suit the needs of estrogen filled Lucy, I’m eating my kaffiah for diner.
People here are worried that Gaza will be the sum total of their state: a territory 25 miles long, crammed with nearly one-and-a-half million people, two-thirds of whom, the United Nations says, live below the poverty line.
The Same UN that established a refugee agency, UNRWA, one of only two such agencies entirely devoted to catering the needs of the Palestinian refugees. They’ve surely done a great job. But don’t expect the BBC to blame anyone but Israel.
Television is important in Gaza. Being a news junkie here is part of life under occupation.
Yes, television. But of course the poor man can’t watch it because of Israel’s blockade.
People here hope things will change but there are few signs of it yet. If Israel keeps restricting cross-border traffic the celebrations here could be short-lived.
Lucy doesn’t consider that there’s another side to the Gaza border – Egypt. Maybe they could slip some television spare parts together with the weapons they smuggle.
Read the rest, I think Lucy would have shared with her readers her tears of joy mixed with sadness but concidering that that Barbara Plett incident is still fresh, I woudn’t blame her not to do so.
Sorry, the link:
Today Gaza – tomorrow East Jerusalem
JohninLondon
Hear hear, well said.
If the Paul Reynolds above is indeed who he claims to be then thanks for popping by again and be as regular as you like. Having said that, your statements are naive, astonishingly naive for someone in your position. Biased-BBC is private property. If the owner allows us to post anonymously then we have that right. When you work and report for the BBC you do so in all our names. If you wish to work anonymously then seek another employer, preferably one which will not attempt to jail fellow citizens for failing to pay for the State’s permission to own a TV.
Pete_London
None of your business
Essex
1. I do not think either “John in London” or “Richard” from Essex has answered my question as to why bloggers cannot identify themselves. One simply says bloggers do not do that, the other that they have a right not do that. But it is open to contributors to say who they are. I do so. Why do they not?
2. To take up “John in London”‘s points about the use of the word terrorism and the pessimism about Iraq. The BBC does not use the word terrorist in many conflicts, not just the Israeli/Palestinian one. Sri Lanka, Checnya, Colombia are other examples. As for Iraq, I have to say sadly that optimists are few and far between. The US army is now planning on another four years there. Reporters seek to be realists.
Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent
BBC News Online
‘STOP CRUCIFYING POLICE’
‘DONT FORGET JULY 7 DEAD’
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13418231,00.html
After earlier posts here Im relieved to point out that someone, in this case SKY has PROPERLY highlighted Diana Gorodi’s words in 2 news sections/items and given her the coverage she deserves. The BBC just about cover her in a small mention on their website, about 3 lines is given over to her. With practically a whole microsite given over to de menezes by the BBC surely they could manage the same for Diana Gorodi.
-Hussein Osman focus?
-Have Your Say on whether he should be had up on murder charges?
-Diana Gorodi Profile/Background?
JusticeforMichelle anyone?
Paul,
Why are you so hot to have the bloggers here identify themselves? So that you can smear them like you tend to do to anyone else who doesn’t fit the BBC political agenda? Perhaps they are anonymous because they are afraid of you and your vast tax-payer funded influence — now isn’t that an accomplishment? The people you are supposed to “serve” are afraid of you. Give yourself a pat on the back.
AF,
I see the media are still including the four mass murderers in the death toll of those killed on 7/7. Disgraceful.
Paul Reynolds
Are seriously suggesting that you should be able to file reports anonymously?
Pete_London
None of your business
Essex
Paul
Its funny, I don’t have to ID myself when writing to (Don’t) have your say.
How about answering the other points made here re bias? Seems like the BBC is back to its usual excuses, we made one un-biased program, how can you call us biased?
The BBC is being called biased by many people and other news organisations around the world, just like the MET were. Lots of coverage and special progs about the MET, very little about the BBC. Do you not think that some independent research should be commissioned to look at the political bias (or lack of it, if you are right) at the BBC. Would make a good Panorama.
“Susan”. No I do not want to smear anybody. I want to engage in serious discussion with serious people. I follow the arguments on blogs like this carefully and listen to what they say. There is no reason I can see why contributors want to hide behind anonymity. The best rational debates in history have been open ones with the participants named and identified.
Paul Reynolds
“As for Iraq, I have to say sadly that optimists are few and far between.”
In your insular circle of journalists with a pronounced leftward and transnational tilt, I have no doubt that is true. Thanks for stating the obvious, and reinforcing the nature of the BBC’s present condition.
Paul Reynolds,
Your own website constantly tells us to be careful when online • “don’t give out personal information”, etc, etc, etc.
Its common sense not to post your name, address, phone number, etc, online. All posts are available for viewing by the major search engines (by potential employers). If I were to apply for a job at the BBC, and they did a quick Google search, my chances of getting the job would probably be zero (judging by the left-wing bias of your organisation). Perhaps I am being “paranoid”, but I prefer not to leave myself in such a compromised position.
Personally, while not ashamed of my political views, I believe that I should be able to express them “anonymously” if I so wish. As far as I’m aware, that’s why we have secret ballots in our elections. You may not like this aspect of our democracy, but it is my right.
Anyway, thanks for posting. It’s nice to know what the “enemy” is thinking.
What’s up with the sneer quotes around my name Paul? You don’t know anything about me. That could or could not be my real name — but you use sneer quotes anyway, without knowing either way.
Just can’t help yourself, I see. The BBC sneerocracy we all know and (don’t) love strikes again.
Paul Reynold
I shall pass over the fact that a private individual may remain anonymous on private property (such as this site) with the owner’s permission and that I regard your view as a great impertinence. Do expand on what personal information you would like us to provide along with our opinions when we visit here.
Susan, I will drop the quotemarks but would much prefer if you could give your full name.
There is I am sure no need to be,as you put it, “afraid”. You might, indeed clearly do, despise the BBC, but it is not a sinister organisation. I have travelled the world over for thirty years and have not found your view widely held. Before and during the end of communism, I spoke, for example,to dissidents in Eastern Europe and Russia who held onto BBC broadcasts as lifelines to freedom. They were humbling.
Yes, Rob, you have a right to be anonymous but you should surely think hard about whether it is a right you wish to exercise. Your wish to protect possible future BBC employment is at least a defence!
My main effort has been to point out that while this and other blog sites pick out examples of BBC failures, they themselves fail to provide the balance they accuse the BBC of lacking.
The Panorama story has come as a surpise to some of the contributors here. But not to those who take a wider view.
Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent,
BBC News Online.
Paul,
Eastern Europeans and Russians may have listened to the BBC during the Cold War, but their real “lifeline” was provided by two people for whom your organization has never bothered to conceal its contempt — Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Identities on this blog are pretty irrelevant to the discussion in hand. I could be John or Julia from Bristol or Budapest. I could be a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker. Any relevance to Biased BBC commentary & debate? No. PaulR, the fact that you choose to let us know you are the BBC’s Paul Reynolds journo is somewhat relevant as you are from inside the organisation we are discussing and this helps us engage in debate. But you could just as easily choose to sign your self as “Paul” and contribute to the debate as normal. It’s the debate that counts. I don’t see the relevance of identities.
Re: anonymity – I can’t see where posting full names will get anyone but in a debate it can be useful to have a basic knowledge of people’s backgrounds as it gives an idea as to whether their arguments are based on personal experience or what they read in the tabloids that morning.
“They were humbling.”
Not quite humbling enough, apparently.
Im not aware of any blogs at all where people post their full identites. Frankly what difference does it make? Sounding a bit big brother brother. The BBC are happy to post comments on Have Your Say from anonymous senders. It really doesnt matter does it? How does that affect the debate and discussions?
Paul Reynolds
Given your experience abroad, particularly with dissidents living under Marxist regimes in Eastern Europe, you’ll be well aware of Vladimir Bukovsky:
Welcome to the ‘Stop the BBC Bias Campaign’ Web site. Vladimir Bukovsky, former Soviet dissident, has joined forces with Jonathan Miller – the Sunday Times journalist campaigning for an end to the anachronistic television licence and accountability in public broadcasting.
“I want a debate on the EUSSR, complete and impartial debate and all its aspects.”
Bukovsky has been appalled at the political bias displayed by the BBC. In order to re-establish impartiality he is prepared to withhold his licence fee and face prosecution rather than live with ‘Soviet’ style reporting.
http://www.bbcbias.org/
As you say, truly humbling.
Pete_London
30″ inside leg
Essex
Paul,
I personally use a false name online because my real one is extemely distinctive making me very easy to find if anybody should be so inclined. I am sure many people here have similar reasons for using pseudonyms. After all in these days of identity theft one can’t be too careful. And in the case of political speech one has to consider the danger posed by crazies on the other side – especially when one is conservative.
BTW, I am an American living in the state of Florida. Does that help?
Not to mention Jihadists who are prepared to slit your throat… And, no, I’m not prepared to give my full details either.
Susan. I can only tell you what people like Vaclav Havel told me and many others. The BBC was in fact broadcasting the views of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. That formed a major part of our output. I remember being with Mrs T in Gdansk and seeing the incredible reception she got there. The BBC was also praised, strange as that might seem. I also recall interviewing Mr Reagan in a plane over Florida in 1979 and George Bush senior in a car in New Hampshire in that same campaign. Both were happy to talk to this supposedly hateful organisation. So was George W Bush whom I met in 1999 and again in 2000. He was also appreciative.
To Ritter and others: I agree that the main thing is the substance of the debate. But I also agree with Cockney that the debate is much improved if people have some respect for each other and are open enough at least to give their own names. I am not seeking secrets.
Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent
BBC News Online
Paul.
Maybe the BBC has changed since the days of Mrs T and Ronnie R.
These days it gives all the appearance of being run by Guardian readers with their love of the UN, EU, the Euro (dream on),the Palestinians, Trades Unions, the LIB Dems, Political Correctness and other left wing causes.
It also makes it pretty clear what it does not like ie the Tories, Multinationals, the USA particularly the USA, Israel ditto, capitalism, Tony Blair etc etc.
While you’re here Paul, is there any discussion/debate within the BBC about the long-term future of the licence fee? I mean, any thoughts on future revenue streams subscription, advertising, ‘fee sharing’ with Ch4, etc etc?