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.
Paul
“The Panorama story has come as a surpise to some of the contributors here. But not to those who take a wider view”. When you say surprise what do you mean?
Im not posting my name etc but will say im half english half polish, born here, in my early thirties and married to a Brazilian who came here on a student visa 3 years ago. We live in London.
Blogging “a paedophile’s dream”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4209801.stm
Online Safety – How to Chat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/search/int/today/today/allbbc/protect%2520online%2520safety/-/http://www.bbc.co.uk/chatguide/
One in four ‘touched’ by ID Fraud
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4311693.stm
Public Worried by online ID theft
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4575255.stm
If its all the same to you, I think I’ll continue to sign my name as “Rob”.
To Ritter re the funding debate: of course, people in the BBC discuss this, just as people everywhere discuss it. It is up to society as a whole of course. I did say to Andrew once — be careful what you wish for. Without the BBC, there would be no Biased BBC!
To AF: by “surprise” I referred to the remarks from several contributors who felt that the Panorama programme was an exception. I would argue that it is the rule, that it is part of the BBC remit to examine all aspects of society. I could agree that this light could have been shone in some quarters before now but better late than never perhaps.
I am happy to leave the anonymity debate where it is.
Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent
BBC News Online
I’m confused. I use my real name, there is a link to my blog with pictures and email etc – does that mean I have more right to comment than others?
Of course not. We get the odd ‘anon’ who slips in to leave a silly remark about ‘what a bunch of wombats’ we are (rudely) but having been here for a while I know where most of the posters are coming from. The nutters soon get banned or sat upon.
Most comments made here are in the main CONCERNED that the picture the BBC gives worldwide and within the UK is not the impartial one they should be giving. I haven’t seen a similar left wing site…anyone know of one?
Moving on:
Can someone explain why Caroline Hawley always looks so flipping miserable? She’s in a five star hotel, and I’ve not seen her reporting from anywhere other than the Green Zone. Could that be why the terrorists try to explode things as near to her as possible so she thinks the rest of the country is like that? The vast majority of Iraqi provinces haven’t seen any significant ‘insurgent’ violence since the end of the invasion two years ago! The day she smiles and reports a bit of good news will be the blue moon Chrimbo come early edition of the lunchtime news!
Paul reynolds has a point, sometimes identity is important:
“Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.”
Fayad Abu Shamala, BBC correspondent in Gaza Speaking at a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001.
“Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry… without warning.”
Barbara Plett, neutral BBC reporter, Ramala.
Best,
Max Collin Skapol Jr.
Left-wing peace activist
philanthropist media tycoon,
Sweden
I am happy to state that my real name is John Anderson qnd I do live in London. And I probably have more political knowledge nd experience thn % of the people in the BBC news rooms.) Most blogs of right, left or wherever have ALWAYS used anon names, so I prefer to use the one I am known by here and elsewhere.
Yes, Mr Reynolds, the Panorama programme was good. But this is the FIRST time on mainstream BBC TV or radio channels that the MCB and the MAB have not been given the easy ride they usually get from the BBC.
The last time you posted here, the BBC newsroom had simply been acting as a PR front for the MCB in erroneously posting a fatwa that was NOT a fatwa, and then in FAILING to probe the wording of the real declaration it when it was released to the BBC.
Surely you can see that John Ware’s programme was out of the ordinary. Entirely different in tone to the normal kid-gloves treatment and abject acceptance that the MCB nd MAB usually gets. For instance, where were the BBC’s questions when Sheik Yassin of Hamas was being lauded by the MCB ?
Where has the BBC drawn attention to the terrorism-endorsing of the MAB, plain as pikestaff if they wanted to look. When EVER did the BBC mention this when talking about Galloway and Respect and giving them a platform they would rightly deny the BNP ? Why is it that we have to wait for John Ware to show the clear links, to join the dots ?
4000 news staff – yet the BBC mostly treats these orgnisations ss though they are as pure as the driven snow.
A lot of us already KNEW everything tht John Ware “revealed”. It is a public scndal that the BBC should now be claiming credit for this – at this late stage. After dozens of murders caused by the Islamist extremism thaat taints the MCB and MAB.
If anything, Ware let them off lightly.
Oh and on Iraq – try googling Chrenkoff. You will find a wealth of detiled reports from Iraq over the past 18 months that NEVER get through the BBC filter of “quagmire”. You say there are not many optimists. Maybe if the BBC started calling the people who car-bomb civilians and hack off journalists heads “Terrorists” instead of all the other weasel words the BBC staff use, if the BBC reported even a fraction of the stuff Chrenkoff collects from Iraq, there would not be the DELIBERATE gloom the BBC has applied in its erroeous reporting from Day 1 in Iraq. Erroneous reporting on the militry campaign, gross exaggerations nd endless-looping about Ab Ghraib and Gitmo, pessimistic reporting of positive events such as the lead-in to the January elections.
You see the nub of the problem, Mr Reynolds ? The BBC is no longer RELIABLE as a comprehensive source of news. It conducts a lot of sloppy shllow journalism, and then has a string of biases that further throw the picture out of true.
And in the present case, it has shown bias in continually lapping up the MCB and MAB propaganda, and failing to probe behind it. Failing to turn over the stones. How do we know ? Not from BBC output – but from blogs here and abroad.
So please pass on the suggestion that BBC news staff should pay more attention to the leading blogs. That is what mainstream chnnels in the US are starting to do – because they will be left behind if they don’t. There is more “news” about the Islam scene in Britain at Harry’s Place than from the BBC. And that is not a “rightwing” site. H-P could have written the script for John Ware. And for that matter, so could we here.
So please – no high-horse stuff about “BBC quality”. At about £10 million per day for the BBC news services, we expect far higher quality and depth than the BBC normally gives us.
Mr Reynolds
You mention the impact of Reagan and Thatcher behind the Iron Curtain. In the days when the BBC World Service properly reflected the UK.
So why is the standard treatment of Mrs T and Reagan at the BBC these days one of ridicule, sometimes even of hate ? Why the adulation for Robin Cook who actually achieved very little, but endless disrespect for Mrs T ? Why the general line of many at the BBC that peace in Europe was won by the EU – when it was NATO and US protection that delivered peace.
In short why are so many at the BBC so lacking in any real sense of modern history ?
To Anonymous: I try to avoid getting on a high horse, but I fear re Iraq you are blaming the messenger.
Paul Reynolds
etc
Does Lord Tebbitt have a point?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4167142.stm
By Stephen Evans
BBC British Affairs correspondent
Tebbit suffered the sneering from Stourton on Today, but Stephen Evans says, Yes, he has a point.
Paul
Thanks for dropping by and engaging with us. I agree with Dave T and wish more BBC people would do take the trouble.
This blog does not consist (solely) of people who hate the BBC. I have been a Radio 4 listener all my life and can remember my parents telling me of the harrowing broadcasts from 1956 Hungary in which they appealed to us in the free world for help and we did nothing. The BBC deserved its reputation for honesty and great reporting.
I and many others here are grieving for the impartial reporting that we used to receive from the BBC in their Home and World reporting. Perhaps people in the old Communist bloc were appreciative of BBC reporting in the ’80’s. But that doesn’t detract from Susan’s point that nowadays Margaret Thatcher’s and Ronald Reagan’s names are hardly ever mentioned without a sneer on the BBC. Only yesterday I was listening to one of the (usual) left wing contributors trashing Mrs T (who was referred to throughout as “Thatcher”} without any hope of redress as it was a documentary on film. Ronald Reagan likewise is rarely mentioned outside a snide joke, with your admirable coverage of his funeral an honourable exception.
What we object to is the constant presentation of speculation and comment as hard news.
That the glass through which this comment refracts is reflexively left wing, internationalist, pacifist, anti-American, anti-religious, particularly anti Christian, pro Arab and anti Israel is doubly provoking if one does not happen to share that world view.
When, for example, are you on the Foreign Desk, going to get round to reporting the appalling persecution of Christians in the Muslim world – in Indonesia (30,000 deaths in the last 3 years) or Sudan (God only knows how many deaths there!)
When will we see some of the REAL stories surrounding the Oil for Food Scandal presented in a way that does not conceal the seriousness of the allegations made against the Secretary General?
When shall we have a documentary examining the indoctrination of Palestinian children to hate Israel, or an expose of the official Palestinian/Arab threats to annihilate Israel? Your viewers might have a clearer understanding of the measures that Israel takes to defend herself if you were to show them just a few of the clips from Arab TV freely available on the internet, and have John Ware take them up on their words.
When, Paul, when?
I have a distinctive name, live alone and therefore choose not to identify myself on an open blog. My address would be easily obtainable. And as a blogger in Afghanistan discovered, it can be dangerous to mix with BBC personnel if you are saying what some people do not wish to hear. However, please feel free to drop by on my website and I shall be happy to correspond further with you should you so wish.
Yes Ritter. But your point makes my point. Both the Tebbit comment and Stephen Evans’ article were on the BBC!
Paul Reynolds
etc
What do people know of real world news these days, if they only know what the BBC gives them.
Anyone following the BBC would have expected the Iraq elections in Janury to be a flop. They now expect virtally nil chance of a constitution agreement. They expected Bush to lose to Kerry.
That was the BBC “flavor”, the BBC speculation. The BBC is wrong so many times these days on major issues. It really needs to start concentrating on NEWS and cutting out all the opinion it slides in.
That is the tragedy. Unreliable and biased – with the bias csing mch of the unreliability.
To John in London: The BBC news website got 3,714,935 unique users and 37,840,457 page impressions last Friday, a bit down on the 4,004,474 users and 40,558,004 impressions on 1 August. But then August is a slow month. So plenty of people must feel they are getting a reasonably useful view of the world. They even write in saying so! Nothing is all perfect but nothing is all bad. Paul Reynolds etc
Stephen Evans’ article actually isn’t that good. It highlights the lack of technological progress in Islamic countries. But didn’t Tebbit point out that Islamia was backward in a lot of other ways, not just technologically?
How come Evans didn’t highlight the fact that human chattel slavery is still legal in several Islamic countries, as well as stoning to death gays and adulteress women?
Yes, but Paul, a lot of us are reading the website for the comedy effects, not for the “news”.
Too quick to praise Steven Evan’s article, Ritter
The rulers of the Christian Catholic theocracies of mediaeval Spain and Italy had a deep suspicion of new knowledge – witness the persecution of Galileo after he challenged the view that the sun revolved around the earth.
And today, one wonders how much curiosity about evolution there might be in the American Bible Belt where evolution’s scientific worth is denied.
So it is suggested that there is some comparison between Galileo’s persecution by the most powerful of the age & the views held by some current day provincial churchmen.
Is evolution being denied in any US university?
The BBC recently suggested that Bush was endorsing intelligent design & implying that he would introduce it into the school curriculum.
Bush made 1 answer to a journalist, merely stating that pupils should be aware of the argument.
In this case & many others the BBC grossly overstate the power of the US president. He is no more responsible for school curriculums than he has the power (even if he wished) to sign up to Kyoto.
If Paul Reynolds wished to say something negative about the BBC he would discover the attractiveness of anonymity. Under his real name he couldn’t do this even if he wanted to. His opinions on this thread are necessarily straitjacketed by his very lack of anonymity.
This is one of the best threads ever! Why? Simply because Paul has taken time to come back again and again.
Now if we discover that in fact his real name is Bibal Patel (that well known sender of comments (129 ACCEPTED at last count) to “Have your Say” I for one will be very upset.
Paul thank you. (It IS you right? )
Can we have other BBC peeps popping in please!
Hi Paul- I remember you coming here previously and it’s good to have you back. I venture to think it is you in fact.
You’ve raised a good many points, but chiefmost among them is this one of anonymity.
The fact is that people who comment or write here do so on a hobby basis-they aren’t paid, and they don’t get any money from this blog. You seem to think we should accept similar terms of non-anonymity to you and your colleagues, yet we aren’t paid to take any flak, let alone paid by people from state resources. The question, it seems to me, is not why don’t we, but why should we, publish our full and complete names? Please illuminate that point.
There are many issues here, not least of which is that there are people out there who will target people with so-called un-PC views- such as so-called ‘anti-Islamic’views. I hope you don’t think I’m joking here. Basically I remain unconvinced that full disclosure is necessary, even if it might be desirable.
On the point you initially raise, I naturally noticed the Tebbit article, and was surprised- mildly. However, Norman’s a thoroughly faded Conservative star, fairly safe game if you want to highlight a long past event like the Brighton bomb- the IRA’s finest hour some might say. What about the victims of Omagh- did you ask what they thought about the new era of peace without justice?
I too appreciate Paul Reynolds’ contributions to this thread it’s just a bit of a shame that he appears to have become a little bit sidetracked by the anonymity debate. First of all the people posting on this thread (with a few exceptions) are not bloggers, they are commenters. The actual Biased-BBC bloggers are people such as Natalie Solent, Scott Campbell, Kerry Buttram etc who are manifestly not anonymous. It’s no more necessary for commenters on this thread to give their full names than it would be for the contributors to the ‘Have Your Say’ section on the BBC website.
But isn’t it significant that a lagre part of PR’s argument boils down to ‘we need to know who you are before we decide on the strength of your arguments’ ? Isn’t that itself revealing of what’s gone wrong at the BBC ?
In the words of the oh so repeated BBC “classic” – I know my place – & anonymity is no more than I deserve.
All i know is that if the BBC are actively reading this website and others, they are clearly concerned that perhaps their messages are tainted and perhaps they are wrong.
What makes me laugh is that they can;t even accept the fact that they sound like a New Labour Broadcaster.
I mean if you stand back and watch the news, its always pro government agenda, anti anyone who legitimately criticises. And dare i say if you happen to be conservative, or straight you are quite frankly chastised in such a way that is reminiscent of the Soviet era.
I cannot help but feel that the BBC is lost somewhere,in what appears to be a quagmire, a little like Iraq has become to the US. The BBC is lost in itself, and rather than represent true british values and british people, they are trying to alter our very existence.
As i’ve said before, and i’ll say it again, the bbc is destroying itself. For as long as i have had the misfortune of watching the news, it is consistently without fail biased.
And yet, BBC journalists have the audacity to try and make out that they are neutral.
Lord Tebbit, is just a smokescreen used in this instance by the BBC, and government to divert from their major problems of the day.
The facts are that during the election it was calculated that Labour had twice as much air time as the Conservatives. Perhaps an explanation why they won?
All i know is that The word “british” should be removed from BBC, and replaced by EBC. European. Lets face it, anything remotely Pro European is glorified, i remember not so long ago Stephen Sackur standing infront of a building in Brussels denouncing anyone who didnt want the Euro, or constitution, or enlargement, (and infront of Soviet flag waving supporters, nice little imagery there, and yes we did notice).
Overall, that has gone quiet because Blair cant now commit to Europe. How funny that Sackur hasnt been heard of since then?
All i know is that no BBC journalist will ever convince me, what will convince me is seeing the news reported in a balanced way, not as it is, as a Pro New Labour mouth piece.
I am happy to be British, why isnt the BBC?
The idea that an argument is to be evaluated with respect to the person who makes the argument reduces to Lenin’s “who” “whom”.
It is far better to adopt the motto of the Royal Society “nulius in verbum” “take no one’s word for it”
Oh and can i also add, the thing that did it for me, was when the 6 British soldiers were massacred in Iraq.
The 6 MPs, killed by 600 hundred people, the 6 men were executed, and the BBC at the time unlike ITN put the article second after a lengthy debate on EU farm subsidies.
ITV dedicated the whole programme to our brave soldiers, the BBC just 1 minute 30 seconds on “how they shouldnt have been there.”
This is the difference, and for those of you who dont remember, it was the day Greg Rusedski was swearing his head off on tv, the BBC at the time gave more air time to that, than the deaths of British servicemen. That was the turning point for me.
And dare i say when the Blackwatch moved north from Basra, the BBC practically gave away their location and route at every opportunity.
They didnt stop to think that British servicemen and women would be killed or maimed or burned, what they wanted was to tell a story. A story with dire consequences, as many soldiers died as a result.
I will never forgive the BBC’s stupidity for that. I cannot, people are dead at the end of the day. And that risk could have been drastically reduced by not disclosing the location or routes taken.
Perhaps correspondants can think of that next time, it might save some young men’s lives, not that the BBC cares.
And what if the BBC has used its massive newsgathering resources in London and the regions to probe the signs of Islamist extremism ? How far are Dewsbury and tht mosque John Ware was talking about from the Look North studios in Leeds ? When did the BBC ever look into such extremism on its own doorstep ? It has by far the lrgest newsgathering operation in Britain, so why did it not raise ny warnings ?
Not just that, JiL. The BBC wasn’t just asleep at the wheel, it poured scorn on each and every person who did try and sound the alert. Now it finally notes the elephant in the room, and we’re all supposed to applaud its courage ?
climate change
i am indebited to the bbc for joining us here and stating their views.to encourage this glastnost the following is relevant.
1 why did the bbc not fully cover the house of lords economic affairs committee on this subject.the committee included two former chancellors of the exchequer.
2 would it be unreasonable if readers of the column thought you were trying to discredit lord wakeham by referring to the enron scandal.
3 samuel brittan of the ft wrote the following ” a level headed summary of climate change has just been provided by the house of lords economic affairs committee.it is likely to inflame zealots.”is it possible that the bbc are the zealots.
samuel brittan and john kay of the ft and james schlesinger the former defence secretary have written on the subject and they clearly reject your “salvationist” approach.are you necessarily better informed?
To John in London: The BBC news website got 3,714,935 unique users and 37,840,457 page impressions last Friday, a bit down on the 4,004,474 users and 40,558,004 impressions on 1 August. But then August is a slow month. So plenty of people must feel they are getting a reasonably useful view of the world. They even write in saying so! Nothing is all perfect but nothing is all bad. Paul Reynolds etc
Paul – what is your point? Guardian Unlimited has pretty impressive content & traffic too, but they don’t threaten me with prison if I don’t fund them.
Guardian Unlimited traffic
Page impressions: July 05
Total: 124,491,980
UK only: 54,575,315
Unique users: July 05
Total: 11,220,372
UK only: 2,977,409
Source: Red Sheriff & ABCe
http://adinfo-guardian.co.uk/product-performance/index.shtml
Your numbers don’t impress me at all. Give any half decent journo/media/publishing outfit £££s of guaranteed state funding for the next 10 years and they would have to be completely incompetent not to produce a website with tons of content, that would get plenty visitors worldwide.
Many good websites eg Economist. FT, Spectator are working v v hard with a hybrid free content/subscription content model. Stand on your own two feet, look for paying customers, then come back and tell us about how your website is doing. You got it easy mate.
I think the BBC website costs about £150 million to produce.
And for all that it is shallow, biased and unreliable.
Far better to scan the most informative blogs – free.
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/ecosystem.php
Paul Reynolds – Welcome to the forum, it is good to have some feedback from ‘the other side’.
I have one question for you.
One that penetrates our individual political or religious views, and confirms whether or not the way we view the output of the BBC as biased is valid or not is purely according to our own biased perspectives, or that we have our basis in truth and intelligent and informed observations. You do not need our real names and addresses to answer this question, but I can assure you regardless of what name we use EACH OF US IS REAL, and your answer will determine how we might relate to you in future.
The question is this – following the ousting of Saddam, Eason Jordan of CNN, after previously denying it, finally admitted to the NY Times that they had been guilty of bias, . He claimed it was because Saddam had threatened physical assault on their staff and closure of their offices if they didn’t follow his perscribed line.
If you need a link to this article I will happily provide it, but I’d be willing to bet you are already aware of it – or should be.
The BBC operated similar offices in Iraq, but have never admitted to being subject to the same restrictions, which it is fair to assume they would have also been subject to, unless they were very happy anyway to do so for their own agenda.
WHY???
Paul Reynolds waded in with a pathetic tuppence worth with regards Lord Tebbitt (ie we should all be grateful for a few crumbs of “straight” reporting, and on a Conservative no less) I believe that he has been roundly demolished by superior arguements from all of the above posters.
Another unexpectedly unbiased report on BBC London News. Respect and the “Stop the war” coalition are behind the de Menezes “justice” campaign. Interesting… more of that, please!
Lurker in a Burqua is entitled to his name and his views. I simply try to point out that the generalised and sweeping accusations made on this site are not balanced. I used the Tebbit interview as an example to counter what Andrew had written. It was not a diversion as Ian Barnes claimed. It was a fact. Worth a pathetic tuppence maybe but worth something nevertheless.
Also to Ian Barnes: the tragic death of British servicemen was on a route well known to the insurgents. It did not need and did not take anyone else to tell them. That I am afraid is the reality of Iraq.
To Teddy Bear: like all Western journalists, BBC reporters are at risk in Iraq and have to tread carefully physically but this does not affect what they say. They seek simply to describe the situation for better or for worse. That was the principle established in the Second World War when truth was felt to be superior to propaganda and that the public could take the worst news in its stride. The same holds today.
To Ritter: I thought the point was rather obvious. The BBC website is rather popular. You have counted the aggregate Guardian figures for a month. Mine were for the BBC for a day. Compare and contrast as they used to say in exams. As for funding, that is up to British voters and the British government.
To John in London: you are of course free to think that the blogs are an alternative to the BBC website. I do not think readers of the BBC site would agree. The blogs are a complement, not a replacement,IMHO.
To David H: I was not sidetracked by the anonymity debate. I started it. It seemed to me odd that people with such forceful views should be so shy.
To Dumbjon: No, I do not need to know a name. I take all arguments seriously. But public debate and discourse is surely improved when we all declare who we are and where we come from. But as I said before, I am not seeking to take this argument any further. I made my suggestion and let us leave it there.
Paul Reynolds
etc
paul r.
its just not good enough mate, listen to the Today program, listen to eddie mair, listen to broadcasting house, listen to that leftie lovefest with gavin essler on sunday morning on tv.
all you will hear are the acceptable and recieved opinions of fellow travellers. all the current orthodoxies swallowed whole with sir bernhard ingham thrown in for good measure.
indeed, its people like you (ie current employees) who should be making the loudest noises and the biggest fuss about the ridiculous bbc output, not seeking to defend the status quo.
Mr Reynolds
You suggest we are too sweeping. People here may go over the top from time to time, but the archives of this blog contain endless SPECIFIC examples of BBC bias and poor reporting.
You sneer at the idea of using blogs as primary news sources. But the good ones link to all the worthwhile press stories. RealClearPolitics for example links to 20 or so stories each day aacross the whole US press. And Powerline now runs a NEWS site with all the main feeds. A far better way to get worthwhile US news than depending on the BBC crew. Because WE CANNOT TRUST THE BBC CREW ANY MORE.
That is the painful reality. The BBC has lost a lot of people’s trust. And it is no longer the essential source for news. Its role is sharply decreasing for many of us.
I will say gin : John Ware’s Panorama programme contained NOTHING NEW. We knew it all before. But the BBC has kept it concealed from its audiences.
And still behaves shamefully by refusing to call terrorism by its name.
Re: the photo
Good grief! They’ve got this guy looking like that creepy old man in the Poltergeist II movie.
To Teddy Bear: like all Western journalists, BBC reporters are at risk in Iraq and have to tread carefully physically but this does not affect what they say. You mean like Rajeh Omarr’s crawling letters to Saddam’s sons? I notice since those letters were discovered, he has been given a very low profile at the Beeb. 😆
They seek simply to describe the situation for better or for worse. That was the principle established in the Second World War when truth was felt to be superior to propaganda and that the public could take the worst news in its stride. The same holds today.
Paul, thank you for taking the time to reply, but I’m very disappointed that you take us for fools. The BBC did not maintain offices in Germany during the war, otherwise they would have been subject to severe restrictions to continue there. The same that Saddam did with CNN, and without a doubt with the BBC too. So your analogy doesn’t hold water. You failed to acknowledge if restrictions were placed on the BBC by Saddam, and if not, why not? If so, why hasn’t the BBC come clean instead of STILL trying to have us believe that you’re a shining beacon of integrity.
You (The BBC) did the same recently over the T word, first claiming that your avoidance of using it was “not to be a barrier to understanding” until Helen Boaden finally admitted it was to avoid offending your world service listeners, and we know how many of a particular persuasion that make up the majority that you are referring to. I think all of us would have a lot more respect for the BBC if you did not take us for fools.
“How far are Dewsbury and tht mosque John Ware was talking about from the Look North studios in Leeds ? When did the BBC ever look into such extremism on its own doorstep ?”JohninLondon
The answer is of course right on their doorstep , but BBC Look North have no interest in looking for such things.Indeed to prove the point, tonight on their evening news they had an astonishing report which was nothing more than a shameless out and out assault on the Panorama program!To judge from BBC Look North , nothing but a torrent of love ( even for those christians!) ever spews forth from the mosque in question on Panorama.
Having said that , it should be no surprise that Look North rush to the defence of their favourite ‘oppressed’ victim group and their tainted fantasy of ‘multicultual’ harmony.Just days before the Bradford riots they were putting out pieces to ‘inform’ viewers that the city was a model of harmonious loved -up muticuturalism. The government reports commisioned after those riots laid the truth bare – that the various groups merely exist around the same patch of earth + have little in common with each other. If your only source of information came from the BBC , then you would know little of reality.
OT
I contrasted the images used for John Kerry and George Bush and there do appear to be some differences.
John Kerry
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+%22john+kerry%22
President Bush
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+%22george+bush%22
These is more emphasis on protests with Bush, and perhaps a more family values orientation for the Kerry pictures.
It’s all rather qualitative and subjective however. Still, interesting to observe.
Here is an example of “al-beeb” objective-speak, from the mouth of one Orla Guerin:
“They thought they could live on occupied Palestinian land forever.”
Can anyone tell us why “Cry Baby” Barbara Plett is still working for al-beeb?
Paul
Once again, thank you for taking the time to comment on our posts. Although you have not responded to points which I made. Perhaps they were too specific.
Your arguments seem to boil down to two points. Firstly, that because BBC News Services are very widely used, they therefore must be reliable and balanced. This is a non sequitur. We, and many other individuals and organisations believe there is a distinct world view through which the BBC spins much of their news material. This world view, which I outlined in an earlier post, is also one which the BBC aims to PROMOTE. Many of us object to this and resent having to fund an organisation which stands for much which we do not hold dear.
Noone suggests that comment and analysis should not form part of news coverage. But the BBC should acknowledge that they have a responsibility not to SPIN comment, with a distinct world view masquerading as moderate, neutral ground. Our contention is that the BBC constantly fails in this respect. Widespread usage of BBC news services does not constitute evidence of impartiality as your post suggests.
Your second point is that comments made on this site are not ‘balanced’. What can you mean by this? The site EXISTS to highlight specific examples of the kinds of biased reportage which you, so far, have pointedly avoided commenting on. Understandably perhaps. What, IYHO, should people who post here be doing? We already acknowledge those examples of reportage which approach current affairs from a different angle, such as the recent Panorama documentary. What else should we do?
I see this blog as an opportunity to provide concrete examples of BBC Bias so that it doesn’t go unremarked. Who knows. Perhaps someone who can make a difference to BBC policy will have their awareness raised, and try to do something about it.
A useful discussion of the Panorama issues :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/08/23/do2302.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/23/ixhome.html
Paul Reynolds is as ignorant as he is stupid. If he looks back at the BBC news archives, he will clearly see that prior to the Blackwatch moving north the BBC went out its way to publicise every single last detail, then all of a sudden after a few british soldiers had been killed, Ben Brown at the time suddenly starts saying “we cannot disclose the soldiers location”, but he could the week before that led to them being regularly ambushed?
Havent you worked out yet that terrorists watch the BBC? havent you understood that they know exactly how to give you the story you want? My god you guys are slow.
As for the 6 british soldiers massacred you have no answer to that because i am right, the BBC acted disgracefully, and i am right about the Pro European argument with Steven Sackur.
And dare i say the Trafalgar day celebrations, which for your information were live on numerous state broadcasters ironically in EUROPE! I.e. Germany, but the BBC decided that the biggest maritime festival ever, wasnt newsworthy to show live? Just repeats 3 days later.
Mr Reynolds, i’d ask you to be a little more informed before you come here trying to make out we are wrong. The simple facts are you still havent publicly accepted that the BBC is so out of touch is not true, demonstrated by yourself.
And you still cannot deny that the BBC has some kind of fear of accepting that it is British?
Very sad at the end of the day.
And as for this, who are you all business, why is that so you can publicly list everyone and then slate them? come on, lets grow up a little shall we..
methinks
i quite agree.orla “hot -torroties” guerlin has been on her best behaviour recently but her prejudices will show in spite of herself.
oversight of the bbc
is there any official organisation with an oversight on the bbc?i mean their political content.if there is not then why should we not expect them to behave just as they please?
i would not be surprised if there is peer pressure making them as left as possible.this “monopoly-thought” can only be acceptable if the open market supported the bbc with funds.
John,
I strongly disagree that blogs are a useful resource for balanced news output. They are a source of entertainment and an opportunity to have a good argument. The more forcefully right/left wing are the more successful as these are the most interesting – pragmatic centralism may be the politics of the majority but it isn’t particularly interesting to debate.
By definition blogs are usually established to further a cause, to make a point or to advance a particular ideology, otherwise what’s the point? Sure one can link to legitimate news sources but almost always to cherry pick stories for praise or criticism. This isn’t balance.
Ian,
Being mildly offensive to people, blustering lots, declaring that you are right and condemning people for not ‘admitting’ that they are wrong in every way doesn’t win many arguments, unless your own position gives you an inside knowledge of how terrorists operate.
Is so, do tell?
JiL: I would prefer a debate without the use of words like “sneer”. I simply disagreed with your claim that there is an alternative to the mainstream news sites via blogs. Power Line itself by the way links to the BBC among others. If this was a real alternative route it would be heavily trod. It is not.
Fran: The growing use of the BBC website does not prove balance. It does indicate a level of trust.
Someone mentioned Chrenkoff’s site on Iraq. He actually has this to say about the BBC in Iraq: “Meanwhile, BBC is gaining considerable audience throughout the country:
BBC World Service is the biggest speech radio station in Iraq, according to new audience figures released.
Weekly audiences in the country have increased to 3.3 million (22%) from 1.8 million weekly listeners (13% of the radio audience) last year – an increase of 1.5 million.
The independent surveys also show that 43 per cent of opinion formers in Iraq listen every week.”
There is no “world view” on the BBC. It reflects many views. You can of course pick out this or that but it is too sweeping a judgment.
To Ian Barnes. Mr Barnes, I was away during the Trafalgar events but I did see the BBC television coverage of the VJ service on Sunday morning. My father and my wife’s father were at opposite ends of the Burma railway. We know the meaning of the word “British”. So do people at the BBC. The BBC website incidentally has many pages devoted to the war. Here is one of them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4143196.stm
As for the deaths of the British soldiers, I am not aware of any report from the British army supporting your thesis. The army remains happy to welcome reporters to its units in southern Iraq.
with regards
Paul reynolds
World Affairs correspondent
BBC News Online
Come on, Ian. Ad hominem attacks won’t persuade anyone. Forensic examination and thoughtful debate are the proper rejoinders to the ‘institutionally biased’ BBC.