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 Reynolds
Sorry about using the word sneer in relation to your remarks. And thanks again for your inputs here.
But many of us feel that the verb applies very aptly to a lot of BBC output. Sneering at the things that do not fit the BBC worldview sneering at capitalism, sneering at Bush, sneering at Thatcher, sneering at arguments that criticise the EU or the UN, sneering at anyone that does not join in the dangerous multi-culti nonsense, sneering at America (remember Justin Webbs admission that he had done a lot of that ?), sneering at religion in Britain and America etc.
You bstte there is no “BBC worldview”. It my not be monolithic bt it sure is detectable. It is the Guardian view. At your offices, I bet the Telegraph buyers are relatively under-represented compared with Gurdianistas. And have you seen comments here earlier about the BBC posting stuff from the Morning Star every day on its news reviews ? That is simply LOONY LEFT.
Sneering at ideas that the BBC/Guardinista mindset disagrees with slips in so often, it is TANGIBLE. You can see the curled lip even on radio !
I referred earlier to Chrenkoff’s blog. I note you do not comment on the main thrust of the many Chrenkoff posts – that there is a lot of positive news from Iraq. He gives a far fuller picture of what is happening there than the BBC.
Yes, the VJ Day coverage on Sunday was moving and proper. But that is what we have every right to expect from our national broadcaster. We also expected it to give proper coverage to Trafalgar – and it failed.
As for news blogs, RealClearPolitics gives excellent signposting to far deeper and more varied news from the US than nything on the enormos BBC website or on BBC channels. And Powerline’s news site refers to hndreds of news sources – not just the BBC.
(Cockney – why don’t you have a look before criticising ?)
I still hope the bloated BBC website gets cut back to size. Simply to save OUR money. Anthony Jay’s suggestions of savings of some £1 billion sonded eminently reasonable – I don’t think the cuts he talked of would be missed. The usual 80/20 law applies. 80% is dross.
Im only a recent blogger and stumbled across a lot of the blogs such as this one through googling the odd story and seeing the links. Til then i was largely unaware of how well they work. More specifically, having often moaned to the odd sympathetic colleague/peer about how biased the BBC is in its current affairs programming, when i discovered Biased BBC it was huge relief to find like minded people on this blog willing to examine this further given the fact that we have to pay it or go to jail. As for the BBC website – it is a very well organised website, no doubting that and i do hit this site to compare and contrast as do many others. That doesnt mean this is in any way indicative of how well it is liked. Ive forwarded the link to this site to many others who continue to enjoy it. Journos at the BBC get paid to investigate and discuss issues. Bloggers do it for strength of feeling. That speaks volumes in itself.
Af,
I’m sure many people use the BBC website, as I do, as a starting point. I then EXPAND my search from an interesting article to find the real/deliberatly omitted facts.
I’m sure many people do the same.
Doing this has made current/future events far less suprising! The number of times I see a news headline on the BBC about a subject I knew about MONTHS ago truly demonstates to me how the license fee is an abomination.
Here’s a job for all those BBC news staff.
The BBC have been giving much publicity to Oxfam’s criticism of the US for failing to support a new UN treaty on genocide. e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4150002.stm
Oxfam has urged the US, Russia, India and Brazil to support a UN reform that would require the organisation to act quickly to prevent genocide.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4171782.stm
Tony Blair has been urged to use his influence to increase support for an international deal to stop genocide.
Monday’s “Today” interviewed an Oxfam person & asked for details of the US’s objection. The Oxfam person didn’t know.
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that the BBC might have found out the reasons for the objections – after all their resources are far greater than Oxfam’s.
I wonder if the US are reluctant because the world will expect them to actually act & pay following UN resolutions. The rest of the world are satisfied at just passing resolutions that they then ignore – such as Kyoto.
Indeed, dan, we Yanks know exactly whose military will be expected to be used as a world wide “resource” for the do-nothing bureaucrats at the UN and the oh-so-sacred “world community” as exemplified by Oxfam. Considering the “thanks” we got from “the world community” for trying to “fix” Somalia and the Balkans — no thanks.
I can just see it now — the US sends troops into Darfur at the UN’s behest and the BBC, the AFP and all the other usual suspects trot along looking for whatever dirt they can dig up on our troops while studiously ignoring wholesale slaughter, rape and mayhem from the Islamofascists.
No thanks.
dan
the facts are even worse.after the usa gets involved militarily then the stephen sackurs ben browns and brian hanrahans will start sneering giving no credit where it is due.
exactly as in bosnia and kosovo.
Whilst the BBC news hounds are asking questions at the UN, they could look into that body’s attempt to turn itself into a mega-EU by it taking on tax raising powers. It seems that flight of fancy has been occupying it instead of the UN bureaucracy concentrating on cleaning up its previous corruption.
Most egregious of all, perhaps, is the bold grab the Draft Outcome Document makes for “globotaxes” — the authority to raise revenues for U.N. functions by levying taxes on various international transactions. Obviously aware of the radioactive nature of such an idea with most tax-averse Americans, the drafters have come up with a variety of euphemisms to obscure what they are about: “innovative and additional sources of financing for development on a public, private, domestic or external basis;” “solidarity contributions on plane tickets to finance development projects;” and “other solidarity contributions that would be nationally applied and internationally coordinated.”
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050822-100712-6462r.htm
(Avid readers may recall that in May the EU proposed a euro-airtax to aid the world’s poor.)
Rob – i totally agree, i use it to expand my search also. But im only just discovering it all. any help anyone can give on blogging tips do let me know. id prefer to acquire advice here than in printed media.
Mr. Reynolds,
I happened to have been witness to events and security video which indicated that there would be concerted attacks on the world’s financial centres a couple of years ago. The BBC, in almost all of its coverage of this story, dismissed it as a possible hoax dreamed up by the neo-cons or Bush to deflect attention from various Middle Eastern misadventures. That’s when I started questioning the institutional bias of the BBC.
I used to be a “Guardianista Beeboid” myself when it came to my main sources of news. In a way, I was a liberal mugged by the reality of two young Middle Eastern lads casing the building in which I worked over the space of twenty minutes to a half hour. They weren’t tourists and there was nothing exceptional about the building other than it being suitable to targeting another major financial building.
What I had seen, and what I knew about this situation also made me quite skeptical of that three-part pack of innuendo and misreprentation presented as the flagship documentary of the BBC last year. It turns out that, hey, there is a global network of terrorists after all! And many of the “facts” presented in that documentary are patently false. (for a slight dissection of one of the episodes go here to my own blog.) It was almost as if the producers of the documentary read Chomsky’s brilliant Manufacturing Consent as a textbook. It was very smartly done propaganda.
As for the relatively easy ride that the MCB has received over the past several years: It is quite apparent on camera that Iqbal Sacranie was not used to this sort of analysis being leveled at his statements and the statements of those he chooses to affiliate with. It was also quite apparent in the MCB’s and MAB’s denunciation of Ware as being a tool of the Zionist entity that those organisations are not used to being spoken to that way. A five minute stretch on Google over the past five years would have uncovered all (plus more) of the connections made by Ware on the Panorama special. Why haven’t they, up until now, decried the BBC as a Zionist tool?
Because no one from the BBC has bothered to say “boo” to them.
On the issue of anonymity: I remain relatively anonymous because I know someone who has received death threats from Islamists merely for being commissioned to paint a mural commemorating 9/11, the most politically antagonising part of which was an American flag. And in Europe, the UK, and the United States, many writers, publishers, editors, and broadcasters have received death threats for voicing opinions that go counter to Islamist doctrine. What sort of mercy would a private citizen receive from these Islamic nutjobs, and how do you think it would be reported by law enforcement agencies? (It’s interesting to note that Yasser Arafat went from being the evil scourge of the terrorist world to cute, cuddly elder statesman of Palestinian freedom fighters after deliberately targeting the Beirut foreign press corps with the body parts of a Lebanese publisher who didn’t tow the PLO line. One wonders how much of the “news” we receive is filtered through these sorts of lenses.)
Anyway, enough rambling. If you are Paul Reynolds, I am glad you are here.
Regards,
“innovative and additional sources of financing for development on a public, private, domestic or external basis;” “solidarity contributions on plane tickets to finance development projects;” and “other solidarity contributions that would be nationally applied and internationally coordinated.”
More slush funds for Kofi Jr. to skim off! More lifetime sinecures for Scandinavian welfare bureaucrats who can’t get real jobs in the private sector.
Sign me up, I’m so enthusiastic!
jamesg01: yes I am here at the moment, though I do have normal work to do most of the time!
re the bomb plot on the financial institutions. Here is a link to a BBC story at the time which does not support your claim that this was “dismissed”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3526486.stm
I watched my recording of another part of Peter Taylor’s investigation into al-Qaeda last night and he deals with this event very fully and very seriously.
I am sure you know that during one of his films, Taylor said that he had never gone along with the thesis that al-Qaeda was a “nightmare” dreamed up by neocons.
Paul Reynolds
It’s nice that you can drop by and stand up for the BBC in general, Mr Reynolds, but I would still appreciate it if you would address my concerns about the balance of one of your reports that I brought to your attention in a previous comments thread:
http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_biased-bbc_archive.html#112169363933730462
For some reason you didn’t respond.
To recap, this is the piece of yours in question:
The London bombs and the Iraq connection
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4693437.stm
Here are my questions and concerns, slightly updated for the present tense.
Given that one side of the story (as argued by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) was that the so-called “Iraq connection” was bogus, would not the title of the piece have been better presented as a question? How about: London bombs, was there an Iraq connection?; or even better, to avoid the glancing possibility of anyone thinking Iraqis were involved, London bombs, was the Iraq war a motive? Unfortunately the title “The London bombs and the Iraq connection” looks rather like a leading statement.
In your rebuttal to other comments in the thread, you stated that “the Chatham House analysis is relevant here but nobody says that it justifies terrorism”. It is absolutely true that the briefing paper (or mention of its contents) does not offer justification for terrorism. Indeed, as your report makes clear, the Chatham House paper does not even directly suggest any Iraq motive whatsoever for the London terror attacks. In addition, given that one of the report’s authors states that ” there is no doubt that Britain was on the target list before the invasion of Iraq” – was your suggestion that the issue of the Iraq war motive “has been highlighted in a report from [Chatham House]” rather overstated? Would it not have been more accurate to say that one side of the argument was making use of the Chatham House briefing paper to highlight a supposed Iraq motivation (that Chatham House didn’t actually directly support)?
Further to that, regarding the first quote you chose to offer from the report:
“the UK government has been conducting counter-terrorism policy ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the US, not in the sense of being an equal decision-maker, but rather as a pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat”
– what relevance did that quote have to the notion of there being an Iraq motivation for the 7/7 bombings?
Rather than use up space covering irrelevant (to the Iraq motivation angle) subsequent condemnations of the London bombs, why did you not refer to the very relevant possibility of alternative motives for the atrocity – such as the propaganda coup of a terror attack occurring concurrently here in the UK with the high profile G8 meeting?
In the interests of balance, would it not have been fitting to complement the quote sidebar from your anonymous source arguing that there was an Iraq motivation; with one arguing the contrary, perhaps from the aforementioned Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?
I bring this up again because I see your story as a usefully typical example of unbalanced BBC bias. Since it’s your piece, perhaps you could address these points and explain how it isn’t unbalanced and biased. Perhaps a response to this might be seen as a more useful insight than your opinions about the merits of the BBC generally.
With partially anonymous regards,
Peter
PJF
Good questions.
re. poor coverage of the US by the BBC – WHEN are they going to start covering the Able Danger story ? It has been running for 3 weeks already. A dramatic story – 9/11 might have been averted, PLUS signs of a cover-up at the 9/11 Commission.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/politics/23cnd-intel.html?hp&ex=1124769600&en=ed47ced9232725eb&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Peter: The headline indicated that there was an Iraq connection. The article tried to examine how strong that connection was. I do not think anyone seriously questions that Iraq is part of the equation. MI5 certainly thinks so. In a report published post 7/7, it stated:
“Though they have a range of aspirations and “causes”, Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.”
http://www.mi5.gov.uk/cgi-bin/webglimpse.cgi?cache=yes&ID=1&query=iraq
I quoted an anonymous source ( yes anonymity has its uses!) who had been montitoring Islamic websites. She said clearly that Iraq was a prime subject.
Zawahir, bin Laden’s number two linked Iraq and the bombs in a video publlished in August.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8807560/
I think therefore there is firm ground on which to state that Iraq was at least part of the motive for the London bombers. It was part of the mix and perhaps the trigger for the explsoive mixture in the minds of the these terrorists.
I do think that we need to be realistic.
To suggest that G8 was the cause is speculation of kind which is so often criticised on this site. It might have helped determine the timing, but not the attack itself I think.
I was on a BA flight which arrived on the afternoon of that day in July. The captain came on and suggested that “there are people out there who object to London winning the Olympic games.”
I will strick with MI5: Iraq is the “dominant issue”.
Paul Reynolds
It’s not really that dramatic is it? The word of two blokes, who may or may not be angling for a publishing deal, with no further evidence.
I’d be wanting a bit more than that before my respected national broadcaster got stuck into it. A valid criticism of the BBC is that recently it has been publishing TOO MUCH unsubstantiated rumour and speculation (i.e. dead Brazilian bloke episode).
Sen. Chuck Hagel made some ChickenLittle remarks the other day about pulling out of Iraq. I thought “I bet the BBC latches on to tht.” Sure enough, they did. All prt of the doom-and-gloom/Bush-was wrong-line that the BBC has pushed for ever on Iraq.
But they would NEVER tell us the sort of stuff people are saying about Hegel :
http://lyflines.blogspot.com/2005/08/chuck-hagel-useful-idiot-or-just-plain.html
Mr Reynolds,
I am sorry to inform you, but you arent listening.
As regards the 6 British soldiers deaths, the military police, the day that they were massacred, the BBC chose to put that story second after EU Farm subsidies. I know, because i have just watched a repeat copy of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3023552.stm
The news that night implied that the British soldiers shouldnt have been there. What the BBC forgot was that these were men, brothers, fathers, husbands. They forgot in their quest to prove that the war was wrong,that these men died because they shouldnt have been there.
Fact was, they were there, and i say again, you cant clearly justify or are being told about internally is that The BBcs newscoverage that 10 O clock news was terrible.
ITV dedicated 20 mins+ to that, how they died, who they were, etc. You just dont seem to get it.
For all i know you might not even be Reynolds, this could be an imposter, for if you are a world affairs correspondant and you dont know that, i think someone needs to ask what you are doing?
Trafalgar day was still not continuously live as On the continent, with our European neighbours, and we were the hosts..embarassing really.
And you still cant answer the Steven Sackur pro european argument because its so clear that the BBC is biased.
The sooner you accept that the bbc doesnot like the notion of anything “british” from times past, the better for neutral balanced reporting.
I ‘m also afraid to say, you dont even realise that what you are told to report comes from your boss, who is controlled by the No.10 PR machine.
Perhaps you might like to look into that one?
And yet again, when you find that i am right, you can come back here, or even do a programme on it.
Stop playing the fool, it doesnt suit you. Moreover, i might add you are slowly beginning to sound like a politician, not answering the questions/ points put to you.
Its alright, because we know you can’t and its probably not even remotely under your remit to control such things anyway.
Fact is No.10 sold everyone out, including the beeb, i’m surprised you havent realised yet.
not a good day for the bbc euro agenda(“we have to be in the heart of europe.”).the conservative’s ken clarke said he was wrong and now thinks the euro is a dud.
will the bbc mention ken clarke?
Cockney
Your dismissal of the Able Danger story as just a couple of officers looking for a publishing deal is really obtuse – and cheap. You obviously don’t understnd the militry, and the constraints on the Navy Captin who has now added yet more credence to ALL the earlier reports. Not just the Lt Col’s statements., but the NYT reports that they had spoken to the members of the the Able Danger team who actually did the data mining that threw up Atta’s name.
Like I say, Cockney, you won’t know what is happening in the US if you rely on the BBC.
bbc culture
the bbc culture has taken over the bookshops in the uk.
they do not stock milton freidman but there is a massive library of chomsky.who the hell wants to read chomsky?
John,
I’d want it to be firmed up a bit more before my national broadcaster devoted my taxes to reporting it that’s all.
You also refer to the Hegel issue. Personally I think it’s news if a Republican Senator demands US withdrawal because it potentially suggests a shift in Congress’ backing with implications for the future conduct of the war. It’s news that he compares the conflict to Vietnam solely because I understand he was in Vietnam.
A wholly predictable right wing response isn’t news unless they come up with killer facts. I really don’t think we need to know about the seemingly ever increasing gaggle of zealots who churn out hellfire condemnations every time someone farts across the pond (left or right).
I wouldn’t expect saturation coverage of the minutae of US politics from the British national broadcaster, just a heads up. In any case, a cross section of media is necessary to get a true representation of anything.
“I will strick with MI5”: Paul Reynolds
Funny how the security services, who were a pile of poo when publishing the pre-war dossier on Iraqi WMD, are now gospel when they say something which chimes with the BBC line.
The BBC have been obsessed with the Iraq conection ever since 7/7.
Mr Barnes: I am happy to engage in reasonable discourse (as with Peter over an article I wrote about the London bombs and Iraq). I cannot however engage with abuse.
To take however those points you have made.
You have dropped I see the claim that BBC was responsible for the ambush which killed six British soldiers. You refer to the placing of the story in the news bulletin. I cannot really answer for that. Which news was it exactly? The link you provide does not indicate that.
As for your suggestions that the BBC editor is controlled by Number Ten –untrue. What exactly is the evidence for this? Even your fellow bloggers, no friends of the BBC, have not made that charge.
re Stephen Sackur. I would have to see the words he used. Do you have them? I cannot without them beleive that he would denounce “anyone who didnt want the Euro, or constitution, or enlargement” as you put it. Just doesn’t sound like him or any BBC correspondent. Chapter and verse, please.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
“In any case, a cross section of media is necessary to get a true representation of anything.”
Cockney
Quite so. So why should one source of information be funded by tax?
To Dan: MI5 of course was not involved in the assessment of Iraqi WMD.
Paul Reynolds
Cockney
It is the clear BIAS that annoys us. The BBC reports Sen Chuck Hagel – but it does NOT say that he is out of step not only with nearly all Republicans but also with many senior Dems. Only the moonbat usual-suspect Dem Senators are taking the Hagel line. Most Dem Senators are not. So the Senate lineup is probably 85-15. Trust the BBC to focs on one of the 15.
On the Able Danger story, with that overblown website surely the BBC has room to mention a story that is amongst the headlines in the US ?
Or is it because at the root of the story are signs that lawyers in the Clinton administration set up rules that may have obstructed the prevention of the 9/11 terrorists. The clear parallel is that lawyers in the Blair government set up laws and rules that blocked attempts to kick out or close down people here in Britain preaching terrorism.
“Hman–rights” PC nonsense leds directly to many deaths. But let’s not focus on it, eh ? Human rights GOOD, fierce law enforcement BAD.
Cockney
A bit more on the significance of the serving Navy Flag Officer confirming the Mohammed tta story.
So we hve @:
1 /11 might have been prevented – but for the legal screw-up by a senior Clinton lawyer
2 9/11 Commission denies it was told – but keeps changing its story.
3 The senior Clinton lawyer was a member of the 9/11 Commission. People are alleging “coverup”
Join the dots. If this isn’t worth a bit of coverage on the huge BBC blogsite, I don’t know what is. The signs are that human-rights-oriented Clinton legalism might have obstructed the FBI stopping 9/11.
JohninLondon,
Especially as a lot of these “rights” are not Rights at all. They are entitlements that make taxpayers poorer.
Cockney
I can get this amount of detail and updating on Able danger every day from a lone blogger in the US – but NOTHING from the BBC.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005290.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005289.php
Mr. Reynolds,
The online version of the financial stories may have stuck to facts as highlighted in the article, but I distinctly remember yelling at my radio as the story was covered in on Radio 4 on both the Today Programme and PM. I think, although, can’t recall specifically, that even Broadcasting House even got in on the conjecture bandwagon.
As far as the Peter Taylor documentary goes: I actually applauded it here in the comments section somewhere on this site. But I almost got the feeling it was a little bit of too little too late. One wonders what effect it would have had on public opinion, and, perhaps, government policy, had it been broadcast before the London bombings could have happened. Of course, that is mere conjecture on my part.
As for the Panorama special, I applauded that too, and in fact, like many other bloggers sent in words of praise (mixed, of course, with a few critiques on where it did not go far enough). Predictably, as with almost every reasoned and reasonable complaint, observation, or comment that I have sent in to the BBC online, it has not been published. Instead, the so-called “balance” of opinion has been published to show upset or offended Muslims.
I do hope that the Panorama special (and Peter Taylor’s recent work) is a bellwhether of future BBC reporting on the issue of Islamism in the UK; it is much needed. Up until now, the Islamists have been given a relatively free ride by the BBC [for instance, I very rarely see Jeremy Paxman and any MAB or MCB people in the same room…I wonder why? :-)]. I would have expected more by now.
Regards,
Excuse me interupting you both cockney and JofL but I wish to post! please continue when I have done so.
Paul Reynolds
I for one welcome your comments on this blog and admire the way in which you return to defend your stance. However.
The BBC is a public corporation, financed by (lots of) public money; to compare it to a privately owned blog is nonsense as is the question of anonymity. A valid question
or observation is not invalidated by anonymity and is still worthy of discussion.
Also the number of visitors to BBC online is immaterial unless you personally know the reason for each visitor. Enough red herrings and lets get to the main thrust of this thread.
The BBC like Caesar’s wife, not only has to be impartial but seen to be impartial. I, and many others who visit this site do not believe it is. Accusations of anti- Americanism, Israeli and right wing politics are not based on individual accounts but on a consistent reporting stance over many years. It therefore cannot be attributed to an individual reporter or news story but an inherent attitude from within the BBC. That is the reason why the term “BBC’s world view” is so often reported here.
The BBC has “willingly or in collusion”, allowed itself to be a stooge for this government and opened itself up to attack by spouting the agenda of and employment through a left wing news paper, namely the Guardian. I will not go into details as examples of which have been reported here many times and covered in depth. Suffice to say the BBC’s political editor refers to the Labour party as “We” and is married to a Guardian reporter.
From my own observation the BBC news coverage during the General Election was not only bias but also blatant. Not only was it the disparity of time allotted to each party as mentioned here but also the carefully selected footage the BBC chose to broadcast. From the subtle clip of Mr Howard licking his lips whilst flying between venues (an hour filming him and they choose that clip) Arriving at the venue, Mr Howard smiling and addressing the supporters? No, the BBC showed the backsides of the entourage rushing into the building. Of course no coverage would be complete without old footage of the miners strike or poll tax protest (just in case the public had forgotten). And last but not least, how can we forget Labours rallying cry “A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Tories” repeated by the BBC at every opportunity. A far cry from the way in which they portrayed another party leader.
Ironically my biggest gripe with the BBC at the moment is over something rather trivial in the great scheme of things and that is the ruin of a fine programme, “Gardeners World” Not content with hiring a twat in a hat, an aged hippy and a bag lady, they now constantly lecture gardeners about environmental issues, from the patronising “We only use peat free compost here” repeated on every show to Monty’s “embrace the complex diversity that is the garden slug?” Lecturing gardeners of all people on the environment, pushing the Global warming agenda at every opportunity and building “a pond” that even the cuddly Bill Oddie described as “it’s a lake you daft prat,” makes me rather annoyed.
Before returning to my dayjob I want to deal with the claim which originally brought me back to contribute to this site.
This was the assertion from Andrew who claimed that that someone at the BBC had thought it was “clever to bugger around with” a photo of Norman Tebbit.
Nobody was guilty of perversion with this photo.
It came from a picture service used by BBC Online. It was one of five similar photos and these were the first ones of a number offered by the service. It was logical therefore to use one of them. The others look much more dated. Therefore, nobody, as Andrew claimed, “selected the worst photo they could find”. They used the first ones to hand. Another of the five had already been used on the BBC website, to no complaint as far as I know.
I cannot, for copyright reasons obviously, reproduce all five here. But I can say that they are all rather badly exposed. Hence the rather whitened effect on the used photo. However nobody, as Andrew claimed, “whacked up the white balance”. The photo system we use automatically adjusts the balance but cannot make perfect an imperfect photo.
Nor did anybody “slant it to the left”, as Andrew claimed. The angle is the same in the original.
I realise that readers of this site have to take this on trust.
However it is good example to me of a critic making assumptions about a bias which does not exist. Andrew has read into this photo a background which is not there.
Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online
OT
who the hell wants to read chomsky?
Actually, richard, although this is off-topic, I think Chomsky has lost the plot a bit since the mid-90s, I have learned a lot from his books, particularly regarding his work around the propaganda model. I do not now agree with even 20% of what he had stated up until that point, but I do think he had presented a good counter to the US establishment propaganda machine of the time, even if it came from the left.
For instance, I think he made some very valid points about political correctness having started around about the time we started giving war euphemistic names such “police actions”. Both the left and the right knew/know how to twist the meanings of words. (I don’t think the right in this country has been as successful in the culture wars as it has in the States, however.)
Mind you, I do think it sucks that I have to order all my libertarian/conservative books online rather than from the bookstores!
“The number of times I see a news headline on the BBC about a subject I knew about MONTHS ago truly demonstates to me how the license fee is an abomination.”
Good point Rob. Given the Beeb’s worldwide monitoring at Caversham etc can’t someone at least LOOK at the blogs etc outwith the normal newssources such as Reuters/AP and AFP? You obviously don’t use them for the news without additional sources but as a start point they are brilliant because they often have messages or news from the PEOPLE INVOLVED who tried to tell the media but were ignored only to see the media then scramble to speak with them afterwards when the story finally gets so big it HAS to be reported by the media!
Mr Reynolds – I repeat: thanks for coming along and at least trying to put your case. If we keep it polite then we all get much more out of the discussion.
Honestly; you knock off for the night and there are another 40 posts when you come back!
Jamesg01:
On Noam Chomsky the self styled intellectual of the left. No wonder they are all daft as brushes….
“In general, I don’t take too seriously the radical rants of some pampered academic living in affluence in New England, working 9 months a year with guaranteed lifetime employment at a university dependent on defence contracts and the tuition payments from some of the wealthiest of Americans. In preference to soap-box invective and shrill accusations of exploitation, Chomsky could have resigned years ago as a sign of protest against MIT’s military connections or its elite student body or its emphasis on research for the capitalist war-machine or its use of exploited part-time teachers and graduate students or its tendency to hike tuition above the rate of inflation. Instead, he is a court jester for the privileged—but most working Americans dismiss him as a spoiled brat of sorts mad that his country does not take his juvenile tantrums too seriously. In general the American professoriate is about as in touch as Hollywood entertainers; that both do quite well in America perhaps explains their guilt and angst.”
Says it all?
No worries whatsoever anon!
John,
I still haven’t read anything that isn’t an unevidenced claim surrounded by a vast amount of speculation and fluff. I’m aware that given the relatively polarised political climate in the US there is a lot of speculation, mudslinging and point scoring that occasionally results in something tangible. I think that those of us in the UK can wait for the tangible facts to be resolved without becoming bogged down in the partisan nonsense.
Regarding Hegel I’m inclined to agree. There are lots of idiots in the US congress (and demanding immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq is certainly idiotic) and his particular pronouncement would be worthy of UK publicity only if it was indicative of an overall swing in Congress potentially affecting policy. Not the case as far as I know.
Dave T,
I’ll get me coat…
🙂
As for your suggestions that the BBC editor is controlled by Number Ten –untrue. What exactly is the evidence for this? Even your fellow bloggers, no friends of the BBC, have not made that charge
Plenty of people have made that charge, including the BBC’s former employees.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4740000/newsid_4748000/4748011.stm
Perhaps you should ask Mr Liddle about the control that Number 10 exerts over the BBC.
The former editor of Radio 4’s Today programme admits that he was forced by senior executives to sack Frederick Forsyth, the novelist and commentator, for being too Right-wing.
Rod Liddle, who resigned as editor of the Today programme in September, reveals in today’s Telegraph that BBC executives ordered him to take the fortnightly broadcasts by Mr Forsyth off the air because they objected to his political stance. The revelation will provoke further allegations of bias within the BBC.
Mr Liddle, writing in today’s Review section, acknowledges that the corporation’s managers objected for months to Mr Forsyth’s “politics – rather than his writing style”. The broadcasts, which were paired with Saturday essays from Will Self, the Left-wing author, were finally pulled last May.
Mr Forsyth’s essays were frequently used as a platform to mock New Labour, the European Union and the “blithering incompetence” of Tony Blair’s Government. Their anti-Blairite messages were long believed to be deeply unpopular within the BBC.
“Eventually I was told, outright, to get rid of them both,” writes Mr Liddle. “And I cannot rid myself of the suspicion that the motive for sacking Freddy was because of his allegedly uncouth Right-wing politics – and Will got axed alongside for reasons of symmetry and expediency.
“I think that among many [BBC] employees there is an unconscious revulsion at views which they feel are intrinsically beyond the pale and, in a way, uncivilised.”
Mr Liddle says that the Left-wing bias within the BBC was “more a reflex than something consciously partisan”.
“You sometimes catch a whiff of it in reports about the European Union, or asylum seekers, or single parents, or immigration. It is much, much, less evident than it used to be. But I suppose it’s still there.”
Mr Liddle also reveals how a “senior editorial figure” dismissed the Eurosceptic lobby, fronted by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the Conservative peer, as insane.
He writes: “I do not agree with the senior editorial figure within the BBC who took me aside after a particularly splenetic (and, as ever, amusing) missive from Pearson and whispered, ‘You do realise, Rod, that these people are quite mad?’ ”
Mr Forsyth said that Mr Liddle’s revelations were “very honest” and called for wholesale reform of the BBC. “Our current Government has an appalling philosophy of character-assassination of people who criticise or oppose them. They have reduced the House of Commons to a cipher and taken the BBC down with them,” he said.
“I was told at the time [of my sacking] that the decision came from above; that it came from Downing Street via Greg Dyke because I got up the nose of the Blairites. The court of King Tone doesn’t like mockery. It prefers blame.
“I don’t think there’s enough centre-Right opinion at the BBC. I think I was the only one and then they got rid of me. That’s more a comment on them than on me.”
Lord Pearson, the Eurosceptic peer, said he was “unsurprised” to have been branded “mad”.
“It’s no surprise at all,” he said last night. “I expected this from the BBC anyway – it’s absolutely par for the course.” Lord Pearson, who has commissioned a series of independent reports monitoring references to Europe in BBC programmes, added: “Not only is the coverage biased but the BBC doesn’t allow any debating of the issues. We have a ghastly stand-off at the heart of our democracy.
“The BBC won’t really do anything to upset the Government and the Government does not want the BBC to start any sort of lively debate.” He added: “The people who run the BBC are indelibly, hopelessly, Islington-dwelling socialists who think the European Union is wonderful. It’s no surprise that people like Freddy who have a critical opinion of the EU are sacrificed.”
The BBC declined yesterday to comment on Mr Liddle’s revelations.
To Dan: MI5 of course was not involved in the assessment of Iraqi WMD.
Paul Reynolds
Anonymous | 23.08.05 – 3:00 pm
Cheap shot.
I stated “security services” in my post.
The BBC have made much of the JIC assessment, issued before the war, that invading Iraq would increase the threat of terrorism in the UK.
The BBC have cherry picked this JIC prediction whilst suggesting that the security services were generally incompetent.
Jamesg01: why do you need your coat? It is gloriously sunny up here in the Far North of Scotland..oh wait. You’re in Sussex aren’t you? Ah. Right. You’ll need one then.
The best insult I heard during the last election (in Edinburgh) “…you Chomsky reading SNP voting organic vegetable eating cat lover!” (from a Tory candidate to his ex!)
get back on topic! Get baaack….
Rob,
There’s nothing in that passage that directly suggests that No 10 has any input into the BBC’s politics, apart from unevidenced inferences from the not entirely unbiased Forsythe and Pearson. What Liddle is saying is that BBC bosses’ OWN politics serve to push out right wing views, an entirely separate allegation.
‘I cannot, for copyright reasons obviously, reproduce all five here. But I can say that they are all rather badly exposed. Hence the rather whitened effect on the used photo. However nobody, as Andrew claimed, “whacked up the white balance”. The photo system we use automatically adjusts the balance but cannot make perfect an imperfect photo.’
No, but you can post urls of Tebbitt photos the BBC have previously used. Like this, for instance…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2200529.stm
compare and contrast with…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4163484.stm
£3b gouged out of the traxpayer each year and you can’t afford a decent photo of Tebbit?
It’s not your job to make him look good but it is your job to bin substandard work, and the mug shot of him glowing like an alien isn’t up to scratch.
Also, opening that file in photoshop and pressing auto-levels would have made the second mug look more human –the work of 30 seconds…but then you couldn’t have Tebbit looking human now could you.
Mr Reynolds claimed that “not even bloggers” have suggested that “the BBC editor is controlled by Number Ten”.
Forsythe was a BBC employee and claims to have been told that his sacking came from Number 10, via Greg Dyke. Its an allegation that is impossible to prove either way. However, to suggest that nobody has ever made the accusation is clearly untrue.
Simo, are you seriously suggesting that the first photo is any better than the second photo?? If he wants to look human I’d suggest eating a few pies and indulging a brisk powdering and make up session before public appearances. I’m sure he wouldn’t want the BBC airbrushing him afterwards at taxpayers expense.
It’s a minor point, but you know it simply wouldn’t happen to one of the BBC’s sacred cows…Iqbal Sacranie/Tatchell/Baroness Amos
In fact, here you go…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4085322.stm
Sir Iqbal at his eloquent best. The camera is at enough of a distance to capture the shoulders and collar of a sharp suit, and to capture that important flourish of the hand.
Again, compare with what you might call the hostility of this over-exposed close-up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4163484.stm
Bias? You be the judge.
More Beeb photo fun.
“Closer to the camera Mr Clarke ….closer …….closer..”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4175908.stm
Drat! Sorry I missed Paul Reynolds as I had a ton of questions for him.
I’d also like his comments on the case against the BBC I’ve been building. Perhaps he could have read it in his own time and got back to us.
In case Paul comes back or is still looking in, here is my case against the BBC.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
And I hope Paul researches Biased BBC for there is wealth of proof on how biased the BBC is.
I hope Paul invites his co-workers to drop by for our goal is to fix the BBC not tear it down. And for that we need both sides working together.
In fact it would be nice if we could set up a schedule to do that; say one day a week. That way we could come prepared with the proof of what we say and have a better discussion. Likewise, Paul, or someone at the BBC could research our complaints and get back to us. The current system at the BBC is abysmal at this.
cheers, Marc
er… with that facial expression he looks like a monkey contemplating an invisible banana. Nice try though – you should work in PR.
Ritter, a classic!!
You can almost hear the sniggering as the sub-editor crops that photo to portray only the bulging eyes and alcohol-inflamed cheeks and nose of a pooterish Tory clown.
Superb.
I’m not saying Tebbit and Clark are Calvin Klein models, but compare to the respectful distance Sir Iqbal is given. Then again, wouldn’t want any complaints from the sainted Ethnic Minorities now, would we.
I for one am very glad that Paul Reynolds is here (if it is he… no website Paul?).
I also don’t ‘hate’ the BBC and Reynolds is right to say that the licence fee is a matter for society but it is absolutely correct to say that BBC news coverage has become ‘institutionally biased’ on many topics.
‘Green’ issues… (Actually scientific coverage in general) I listened to a BBC radio 4 discussion (intelligent speech) a few weeks ago on climate change and the ‘hockey stick’ graph came up… this is an extremely controversial graph which even many leading climatologists are suspicious of… the graph was lauded on radio 4 with absolutely no mention of the debate surrounding it! The BBC in general appears to be absolutely certain that…
(a) Kyoto will save the Planet
(b) Global warming is entirely manmade
(c) Global warming will destroy the planet (the end of a recent Horizon documentary had a desert earth in less than a hundred years)
(d) Bush is evil for pulling out of an agreement (although most countries won’t be able to meet it anyway)
… which is strange because most Scientists are not certain of these things.
The BBC will often use ‘Friends of the Earth’ spokesman & other special interest groups to comment on these discussions (usually with softball questions like ‘so what is to de be done?’), rarely will they use scientist for anything more than a quick soundbite.
‘Israel/Palestine’… Could the BBC perhaps mention from time to time that the Palestinians could’ve had their state (& its ‘soil’) five years ago if it hadn’t been for that ‘old, frail man’ & his bloody interfada?
‘Africa’… Truly abysmal; the coverage going so far as to show a romantic comedy before the G8 summit with the message of ‘give more aid’ (perhaps we can have more romantic comedies with political messages?).
‘Terrorism’… According to the BBC a suicide bomber who deliberately blows up (sorry ‘claims the lives of’) a score of kids as they eat sweets is a ‘militant’… presumably morally equivalent to a ‘militant animal rights activist’?
Peter Taylor’s (a terrorist expert… sorry militancy expert) documentary is pretty decent but it could’ve & should’ve been done years ago, likewise with Sundays Panorama.
What the BBC instead first chose to produce was Alan Curtis’s (not an expert on members of the bombing community) ridiculous ‘Power of nightmares’ (now a favourite among conspiracy theorists & anti-Semites across the world) and the awful Question time ‘specials’ (where do they get those audiences? The BBC sure knows how to pick ’em!).
‘Immigration’… During the election the BBC went on & on & on & on & o & on about whether or not the Tories were being racist. They weren’t, full stop! Only a bloody fool (or perhaps the BBC) wouldn’t want controlled immigration.
‘Tories’… to be honest they have become a bad joke but does the BBC really have to give their extramarital affairs more coverage than ‘New’ Labour extra marital affairs?
‘America’… What is it with Justin Webb? Why was America getting all the negative press during the Tsunami disaster?
‘Reform of the welfare state’… barring a single report by Richard Watson on the North Wales Police it is safe to say that the BBC has been wholly negative to the idea of changes to the welfare state (unless they’re hikes in our taxes) like students paying something towards their education. For instance it is taken for granted that working class people will be ‘scared off’ and yet the BBC does much of the scaring… is that not a self fulfilling prophecy? Is that Biased?
‘EU’… Was it just me or when Blair made his ‘dramatic’ U-turn to allow a referendum on the (now defunct) constitution did the BBC not act like the sky was falling in (followed by yet another of those ‘will Blair quit so Brown can come & save us’ spasms)? I doubt Blair made his decision because of intense pressure & questioning by the BBC?
‘General attitude’… why is it that the first thing the BBC seems to ask when a problem occurs is ‘What is the government going to do about it’?
Interestingly I don’t think the BBC’s Iraq coverage post-war* has been too out of line (and indeed is similar to what the rest of the MSM is showing) I’d obviously prefer a few more news stories from places outside of the Sunni triangle, perhaps less depression when events like elections occur & especially less use of the disgracefully woolly ‘militant’ term (particularly when civilians are deliberately targeted) but on the whole post war Iraq has been difficult & the BBC doesn’t seem to advocate immediate withdrawal so it’s not that big an issue with me… I’ve always been of the belief that history (not Amnesty International) will judge whether going into Iraq was the right thing to do.
*Pre-war & during the war it was awful (watching the BBC it felt as if we were losing when those Sandstorm’s hit).
On almost all issues the BBC betrays it’s left of centre leanings (inevitable perhaps considering the way it is financed).