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.
Some observations for Paul Reynolds.
“America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge.
I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture, and that picture is in many respects a true one.”
By Justin Webb
BBC Washington correspondent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4400865.stm
“the delightful former royal correspondent Jenny Bond describe Bush as “looking like a chimp and talking like a baboon”.
And Hannah Bayman’s post on her blog telling us her hopes for last years US Presidential elections:
“…instead of a warmongering, oil-grubbing, vote-rigging, drink-driving – haven’t you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? – weapons-of-mass-destruction-buying, Kyoto-smashing, bible-bashing, chimp.”
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-bias-by-omission.html
And about those WMD’s, Paxman wrote a book, the BBC and rest of the world media condemned America for arming Saddam with them – until it became clear that WMD’s were one of the justifications Bush was using against Saddam. To their horror the BBC and world media found they were on the same side as Bush. Presto! They changed over night.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-saddam-had-weapons-of-mass.html
And Paul, that my friend is just the tip of the iceberg.
Ron Daniels,
The Government being allowed to restrict the right to own a TV on threat of jail is not something for society to decide.
The license fee needs to be abolished ASAP. This member of society ain’t paying a fee for a Government OK-TV.
The other fact is that subscription would be cheaper to collect. Every month the BBC tries to jail 35000 people.
Of course the BBC can help it’s post extortion funded chances by actually reporting the news for once, and making programs for the other 50% of the electorate.
P.S. Can Jon Ware do a Euro-corruption program?
Want more? OK. And don’t take my word for it, take the BBC’s, among others.
“The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of “unvetted” stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/04/nbbc04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/04/ixhome.html
Ouch!
How about some great round ups of BBC bias by other people besides me and BBBC?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gross200406181018.asp
And here:
http://discoverthenetwork.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=6960
So what? You say. Well, what if the BBC bias is so bad it adversely affects British troops who are in a war zone?
The flagship of the Royal Navy is the HMS Ark Royal. Its crew in the Persian Gulf became so disgusted with the one-sided anti-war slant of the BBC that they tuned their television sets to Sky News.
Geez, I could go on all night.
“The Government being allowed to restrict the right to own a TV on threat of jail is not something for society to decide.”
Rob, I think the funniest thing I’ve ever heard in that regard was in a comment on this blog. It went something like this:
During WWII German people could be sent to jail for listening to the BBC. Sixty years later, British people could be sent to jail for not paying to watch it. 🙂
“Rob Read”
I hear you loud & clear on jailing people.
Obviously people (mostly poor) should not go to jail for watching TV and it is an utter disgrace that this occurs (wouldn’t it be nice if the BBC did a story or perhaps even a romantic comedy on the subject).
Here is something you won’t see on the BBC.
Remember how MSM were all a flutter that the US Army was failing to meet its recruitment and re-enlistment goals? Guess what? Turns out Iraq could be the best recruitment and retention tool the Army has as they have exceed all their goals to date. Most by well over 100%
check it out.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/america-iraq-war-best-recruiting-tool.html
Marc
Thanks for the points you made and particularly for this article, which everyone owes it to themselves to read.
http://www.nationalreview.com/ co…00406181018.asp
I’m glad Paul has checked out. Reading this article made me simmer with rage, and I don’t know how courteous I could have been as I flung his reply to my assertion that the Beeb has a world view.
” Fran:
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.”
In his face!
Fran:
Sort the link please…..which article?
Marc:
Hey, welcome from the “City of Discovery”!
Dave, see my post at 6:10pm for the link and others.
Ah, so you’re in Dundee then?
Cheers, Marc
Paul, I see you failed to reply to my question, except to post some non-related blurb about a time when none of us had a problem with the BBC. In fact I think it’s fair to say that it is for precisely the reason that we know what the BBC ‘WAS’ that we are so disappointed, sickened and frustrated with how the BBC ‘IS’ today. In fact it uses it’s past glory to aid the spread of its mostly insidious garbage that is the ‘BBC agenda’.
But I’m not surprised you didn’t answer the question – because you can’t, at least without admitting what we already know.
So here’s another one for you, perhaps you can do better with this one. Since you feel that the BBC’s online pages are such a mine of information, perhaps you can explain it’s failure here.
No doubt you are familiar with Omar Bakri, the cleric who just fled to Lebanon to avoid treason charges. The BBC has given several interviews over the last 5 years with this man as well as giving him ample opportunities to state his twisted point of view. (Where are the Zionists controlling the BBC when you need them?;)
In the first of these articles on 14/10.2000 following Bakri’s appearance on Radio 4, the BBC reported that Bakri said http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/972207.stm
“A Syrian-born activist has called for Muslims in Britain to join a holy war against Israel following the outbreak of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed said it was the duty of all Muslims to give support to the Palestinians.
“They are obliged to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine by raising funds, giving them complete moral support and even some of them going abroad to be joined with their Muslim brothers fighting against Israel,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “
Just over a year later, on 7/1/2002 they quote him as saying
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1746454.stm
‘….But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group, said …”We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities.”
totally opposite to his previous quote above, AND NO-ONE at the BBC picks up on it. If you read all of the articles, you will see that this is not the only time he contradicts himself, as the prevailing political wind demands, without seemingly any BBC ears pricking up or pointing out the real story behind this man.
Aren’t you ashamed of this poor reporting, when the interviewer doesn’t even research previous interviews, or is it that the BBC simply doesn’t care what these extremists say for fear of antagonizing them?
I wish you better luck with this question.
Dave
Sorry about failed link. The whole thing printed out, but didn’t link. Thanks Marc for pointing Dave in the right direction.
Fran: cheers
Marc: Go due North then West along the coast and find ELGIN…*jumps up and down waving frantically* Yoo hoo!
Another classic 10 O’Clock News piece reflecting a World view so beloved by Paul R.
Pat Robertson the (right wing) evangelist – not normally featured in the BEEB, is shown suggesting that it might be necessary for the US to ‘take out’ Pres Chavez of Venezuela. What follows is a full 5 minute report from the country which (apart from a brief comment from a British estate manager) could be lifted straight from the Socialist Worker on ‘land reform’ whereby land is taken from private hands to be given to machete wielding workers. It’s different from Zimbabwe apparently because ‘compensation is paid’ although we’re not told how much. Closing scenes of Chavez being warmly embraced by other S.American leaders accompanied by ‘winds of change’ and ‘tides of history’ wealth redistribution type Marxism determinism style commentary. The reporters tone throughout is one of unconcealed awe and reverence for what is happening.
Paul this is all very fine although not entirely appropriate for a NEWS program and just might be acceptable if this sort of thing was balanced by the BBC. Are there no incidents of abuse of union power in lets say Germany worth featuring?, no outlandish European politicians deliberations on the evils of capitalism?, no outstanding examples of blatant corruption in Brussels. Just an example Paul:- nothing to say on the widely reported (in the Press) open letter today in the Central Banker from an ex member of the Bank of England’s committee to the President of the ECB that it was failing in it’s duty and was technically and morally negligent. ‘Land reform’ and political change in S.America may or maybe not the stuff of News Paul, but even you must see that the overwhelming agenda featured is the that of the Left. This, the fact that the BBC is meant to represent “us” in the eyes of the world and that we are forced to finance output reflecting a ‘World View’ which most fourth year college students have grown out of, is the the reason that individuals feel compelled to contribute to this Blog.
In case you’re interested this is an extract from fascist Fox – warts and all!
“The Bush administration swiftly distanced itself Tuesday from a suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson American agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez long at odds with U.S. foreign policy.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld , appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: “Our department doesn’t do that kind of thing. It’s against the law. He’s a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.”…………………
..The United States was believed in the past to have been involved in the assassination in 1963 of South Vietnam President Ngo Binh Diem and attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro of Cuba……………..
..Political assassination was put off-limits by former President Gerald R. Ford in an executive order in the mid-1970s.”
BBC’s on-line bit about Venezuela’s revolution
‘The big question is will land reform and President Chavez’s other proposals, actually make society more equal or simply further divide the nation. ‘
No, auntie. The BIG question is why do you publicize racist xenophobic crap like this in Venezuela, yet condemn it outright when spoken in Europe.
Thanks to Paul Reynolds for responding to my concerns this time. The reply was certainly interesting, if incomplete.
The headline indicated that there was an Iraq connection.
This saves a lot of time. I had expected to have to try various angles to get to this point but you’ve come straight out and admitted that the headline was indeed a leading statement. This confirms my first example of the bias and imbalance of your report.
Forget for the moment that both you and I agree (though almost certainly from very different perspectives) that the Iraq war was a motivating factor for those carrying out the atrocities on 7/7. Instead, try to imagine that you are a senior journalist reporting on a contentious story for a serious United Kingdom news organisation that has a legal (if not moral) obligation to be balanced and impartial, bearing in mind that one of the ‘sides’ in the story is the elected government of the United Kingdom. Given those circumstances, is it really appropriate to deliberately headline such a report with a statement that indicates one side of the story is wrong? Would it not be more correct to start off by representing the reality that there is a conflict of opinion?
The article tried to examine how strong that connection was.
Then why wasn’t the article openly presented in that manner? It doesn’t open with “how strong was the Iraq motivation?”; it opens with “Was Iraq the motivation for the London bombs?”
“I do not think anyone seriously questions that Iraq is part of the equation.”
When you wrote in your article, “the argument linking Iraq to the London bombs is firmly rejected by the British government”, did you believe the British government was lying? Is it your position as World Affairs correspondent for the BBC News website that the UK Prime Minister and Defence Secretary were not serious?
MI5 certainly thinks so. In a report published post 7/7, it stated…
Yes, post 7/7 – indeed published a month after your article. Are you implying that you had prior knowledge of the contents of that report? If not, what is its relevance to the issue of balance in your article dated 18th July?
“She said clearly that Iraq was a prime subject.”
Yes, highlighted on a sidebar – the only one. Is having just one sidebar representing one side of the story appropriate to journalistic balance? (and I hope you haven’t significantly reduced the anonymity of your source by revealing her gender)
“To suggest that G8 was the cause is speculation of kind which is so often criticised on this site. “
Once you accept the notion that the UK is a terrorist target regardless of Iraq (as do MI5 and Chatham House), the occurrence of the G8 summit is an obvious propaganda motivation for carrying out an atrocity. Indeed, the Prime Minister stated on the day “…it is also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4659953.stm
Such “speculation” was part of the story and should have been included.
“It might have helped determine the timing, but not the attack itself I think.”
It is abundantly clear what you think, Mr Reynolds. My point is that it shouldn’t be. I believe this is also the position of the BBC.
I’m still intrigued as to how you saw the release of the Chatham House report as highlighting the issue of the question “Was Iraq the motivation for the London bombs?”, and of course am especially keen to know the relevance of this:
“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”.
Your insights have been very helpful. You’ve certainly narrowed down the root causes of the bias and imbalance in your article, and I must say they were in line with my expectations. It is clear that you believed Iraq was the motivation for the London terror attacks, and it’s clear you engineered your piece to promote that view.
The most enlightening thing of all is that you still just don’t see anything wrong with what you did. And that is classic “wet fish” BBC bias. Thanks again, Paul.
Regards,
Peter
cockney
your posts are always interesting.re withdrawl from iraq.i was a supporter of the invasion hoping it would be over quickly.i did not forsee the complications that followed.
now i think that the usa should withdraw as soon as decently possible.there is nothing to be gained by staying except futher divisions and polarisation of opinion in the usa.
in effect i was wrong and the whole thing was a terrible mistake.the iraqis are particularly difficult customers.
For those of you who disliked the BBC pics of Tebbit & Ken Clarke, here’s a similar one of Charles Clarke (admitedly, another face that only a mother could love).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179044.stm
I do not know how deliberate the unflattering portraits, but I do not think, unlike others here, that the BBC are big fans of Blair or ministers following Blairite policies. The BBC are to the left of that position.
pjf
I think the main criticism of the report which you cite was that it was stating the bleeding obvious. In order to clarify and caveat every single point of a report you would turn it into a legal document and it would be nigh on unreadable.
Personally I’m amazed the government got off so lightly for its initial unevidenced suggestions that there was no link. I also think that mainsteam opinion (rather than the usual nutcase Stop The War crowd) has been extremely lenient in the face of fairly concrete evidence that the war has not made British citizens safer from Islamic extremism, at least in the short term, which was and is presumably the point of the ‘war on terror’ (if Iraq is supposed to be part of that – I can’t remember what the bullsh*t rhetoric was??).
btw, I think the jury is still out on the merits of the war and will be for a decade until the dust settles. It would clearly be madness to withdraw now. I’m just surprised that the above hasn’t been more of an issue.
cockney “government got off so lightly for its initial unevidenced suggestions that there was no link
I think the government were forced into that position by the knowledge that that admission was all that the anti-war media were interested in & it would have filled their output with the angle for days & days. That media would have made Iraq the 100% reason, which is as unlikely as the 100% denial.
That’s the problem, if Paul Reynolds is indicative of the BBC mindset, then they are in complete denial that there is an issue of bias, never mind how massive it is. This does not bode well.
It’s a bit like alcoholism; the first step to recovery is recognising one has a problem. The Beeb deny there is a problem so the chance of addressing it is zip.
The BBC coverage of the UK elections, US politics, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, the Palestinian question or indeed anything middle East iss hugely, massively, monstrously, obscenely bias. Worse it’s very cleverly subtle, much more so than any the propagandists of the fascists and communists of bygone eras though occasionally the obscenity of it breaks through for all to see like the Question Time audience packed with angry bloviating Muslims post London Bombings and the audience profile in Question Time post 9/11 deflecting attention away from the perpetrators and onto the victims …a vile gut wrenching, gross obscenity both laid bare for all to see. Most of the bias is more insidious and much more subtle, it is done by omission, innuendo and the way a story is framed. This makes it all the more insidious. The BBC is very much a manifestation of the Guardian mindset…very left leaning with the occasional crumb thrown in the other direction so as to be able to claim some objectivity. That’s fine for the Guardian and I personally use the Guardian to keep a handle on the World from the leftist’s perspective. However given the BBC charter, that it is publically funded and its claims of objectivity it’s just not acceptable. We should stay on that message until they change or are privatized and no longer receive public funds.
I guess the BBCs institutional bias is worth a few percentage points in an election, if this is true they are subverting British democracy, which is my biggest beef. This and the insidious effect they have on folks views internationally and how that bares on good governance everywhere.
Personally I’d break up the Beeb and flog it off in bits…give it the British Layland and Post Office treatement. There is nothing the BBC offers that the private sector can’t do just as well if not better; be it news, documentary, culture, analysis or education, that argument’s been pretty much pole-axed. Stuff that the BBC do that there is a demand for will continue under another brand. If the UK government sees fit to subsidies cultural activity, orchestras or whatever that isn’t sustainable by the market they should do it directly through the arts council.
Thankfully, thanks to the web and the choice of blogs more and more folks can get a more balanced World view than is offered by the BBC, hopefully from these small shoots a groundswell will grow that will eventually bring down or reform the monolith that is the BBC and its subversive, cancerous effect on the UK and the World will be bought to an end. I certainly hope so.
richard
I personally think that a withdrawal now would pretty much guarantee either a lawless area of interminable ethnic conflict in which terrorists could operate unmolested, or a requirement for a new utterly ruthless strongman capable of suppressing dissent (i.e. Mr S Hussein). In either case we would have accomplished precisely jack sh*t at a cost of billions and lives.
I think there’s a possibility that things could settle down into a relatively stable reasonably well functioning democracy integrated into the global economy which coupled with gradual progress in Palestine would in the long run make us all safer (and richer). It might mean dropping a few sacred cows though in terms of how the US would like to see Iraq conduct its affairs – my reading of the culture and history of that part of the world suggests that a united entity called Iraq, foreign ownership of national assets and free market-ish economic liberalism might all be problematic in practice.
Cockney
You and most sane people recognise tht it would be madness to withdraw from Iraq. Only the naive or vehemently anti-American think withdrawal is right, or would argue that a strict timetable should be announced to the terrorists.
What proportion of BBC staff do yo think fall into the “withdraw now” cstegory. Jst an insignificant few ? Or one hellava lot ?
And you say the jury is still out on the merits of the war. Again a measured opinion. But do you think that is the general opinion at the BBC ? Or do you think most of them were against the war then or definitely against the war now ?
Dan,
Could be, but a dignified ‘let’s wait for the evidence’ silence might have been a better move.
richard the whole thing was a terrible mistake
Yes very difficult, isn’t it.
I have some sympathy to the view the admirable Michael White (Guardian) attributed to the Hurd & Riffkind over Bosnia, “They are all pirates, let’s keep out of it.”
Unfortunately with Saddam, the left were pressing for a lifting of sanctions. Saddam left unchecked would certainly have been a threat to the ME, & through the ME oil, the world. Something would have to have been done about him, sometime.
Would the post-Saddam Iraq ever have been easier to deal with?
Paul Reynolds said: “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.”
Well, being provided with a mere choice of five shots of one of the most newsworthy cabinet members of the last quarter of a century is pretty poor.
However, a better example of “dirty trick” photo selection came in a BBC Online story about Ariel Sharon.
The BBC has used a considerable number of images of Mr Sharon over the years: Click here
However the shot used to illustrate a “No corruption charge for Sharon” story is one that makes Sharon look shifty and dishonest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4273295.stm
This is a prime example of “childish leftie twits at BBC Views Online who think it’s clever to bugger around with photos as a means of expressing their own petty political prejudices”.
No, like Tebbit this is a prime example of rabid paranioa. Sharon looks like a slightly bored fat bloke, which is probably what he was at the time it was taken – in fact were it to be a ‘lefty’ who suggested that he looks ‘shifty and dishonest’ there would be accusations of anti-semitism.
Presumably of the front page photos now Clarke looks terrified because he’s aware of what fighteningly illiberal mischief he’s about to inflict on poor Islamists, whilst Michael Owen is sticking his tongue out in delight at the absurdly vast signing on fee he’s about to receive NONE OF WHICH HE’LL DONATE TO THE POOR!!
Right?
cockney
i am very supportive indeed of the americans.i believe they are a source of good and all things positive.
i also believe there is a measure of selflessness in all american actions.this is not a quality found elsewhere.
so wishing them the best i believe there is no possible positive outcome in today’s iraq.the whole situation will weigh heavily on the americans.
it will also discourage them from acting in other areas.
in short i do not see a positive outcome while the loss of young americans is deeply troubling.
do i not care about loss of iraqi lives?most people do but then the young americans are not directly involved.
dan
“they are all pirates lets keep out of it!”
i love that.it is in fact exactly my view.
i have to admit that i was entirely wrong when i expected that the iraq war would be a very quick one.
bismarck said something similar in relation to the balkans.
“these warring shepherds are not worth the life of one grenadier”
Who said the BBC is against preemptive actions?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179106.stm
Popped back in to pick up my mail but really this is only for Peter since he has raised specific points.
Peter, you have picked your way through my article line by line but have I think ignored the main issue. Did Iraq have something to do with the Lndon bombings?
Most people think so, including I note the uncle of one of the bombers in a News of the World interview.
MI5 obviously thinks Iraq is important. Whether it published its view before or after my piece is not really relevant. It would not have come to such a view in the few days between the bombs and its report.
So why do you think this is an improper issue for discussion?
As for the government view, no of course I do not claim that the government lies. But government statements can be compared with those of other sources.
The Chatham House report quote which you have raised is relevant because it stated that British policy was so close to that of the US that it faced the same risks and benefits, while not having such control over policy direction.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online
Paul, care to respond to my research into the danger the BBC pose to the world?
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-bbc-danger-to-society.html
Snippets:
From the BBC itself:
“The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of “unvetted” stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous.”
And there’s the BBC’s Paul Adams accusing the BBC of lying in its Iraq coverage:
“I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties’. This is simply not true,” Adams said in the memo.
“Nor is it true to say – as the same intro stated – that coalition forces are fighting ‘guerrillas’.
And
So concerned was the BBC about the BBC’s anti-war bias, that it ordered all of its “presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors” not to participate in anti-war marches.
And there is lots more of that.
Also Paul, can you tell us how Ibrahim Helal, the former editor-in-chief of Al Jazeera, is working out for the BBC in the training of reporters?
For the BBBC audience, let men know what you think of the post and by all means if you have more to add I may include it.
But part of the problem may be with the fact that Chatham House is not really what I (personal view) might call impartial; one example – Rime Allaf (?) et al keep getting quoted yet: “Mrs Allaf uses the Chatham House imprimatur to promote a personal web site that comprises in its entirety inflammatory op-ed columns, media citations, a web log and reader comments such as “It is horrible how the Jews have treated the Palestinian people.” (Oliver Kamm another CH member)
The infamous CH report:
“In other words, the authors are consciously avoiding the explicit statement that the British civilian deaths caused by the London bombings (or by other terrorist attacks that have claimed British civilian lives) are ‘costs’ of British subservience to the US “war on terror”. They are neither denying nor affirming that the London bombings were linked with the war on Iraq. ”
That last from an antiwar website!
http://www.j-n-v.org/London_Blasts/L_B_rapid_rebuttal_050718.htm
CH is NOT an unbiased organisation yet the media often neglect to point out this fact so that people may make their own assumptions as to the veracity etc of the various reports.
Martin Kramer attended a conference on ‘Is Islam a treat to the West?’ at CH. Answer: “No, but America is!” Huh?
“The blame-America mood runs deeper at Chatham House than it does in the general public. But it infects many elite British analysts, who already sound like the Middle Eastern studies guild in America after 9/11”
So I would always take anything CH claims with a bag of salt especially stuff from Rime Allaf who writes anti UK/US screeds in the Middle East press all the time yet this is not commented on either…
OT
Here’s another example of BBC bias. They have a positive article about Iraq and guess what? there is not a single mention of America’s contribution to the progress they are talking about
http://www.di2.nu/blog.htm?20050824a
Francis, I posted about that this morning as well. I call it bias by omission.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/iraq-water-returns-to-iraqi-marshlands.html
Nice work Marc..
Reynolds has his snout so deep in the public trough that he is unable to be anything other than an apologist for Al Beeb. Disregard this man and all other Beeboids until you are not forced under penalty of law to pay thier salaries.
Lets have a free market in ideas. In the right to broadcast and smash this BBC monolith that has swallowed whole every single prevailing left wing orthodoxy.
Mr Reynolds
I agree with dave t. Chatham House is well known to have a political tinge. And some of its staff members are very dubious, with a strong anti-US slant. The BBC treats CH as if it is an august body with Olympian detachment. As does your article. In fact it should be treated as just another think-tank. The BBC often labels certain US thinktanks as “rightwing”. (Touch of derogtory sneer ?) But it seldom labels US or UK thinktanks as “leftwing” or “liberal”.
Rime Allaf’s name on anything should ring some bells. She has been a strong critic of virtally everything the US does in the Middle East. And her stance on the UK’s involvement with the US was lways highly critical – for instance this article suggesting Blair is Bush’s poodle :
http://www.rimeallaf.com/articles/a0050.html
This list of her articles shows lots of signs that she is anti-merican.
http://www.rimeallaf.com/articles/index.html
The Guardian has come under strong criticism for publishing articles by a member of HuT, Aslam Dilpazier, whom they then had to fire. They knew he was a member of HuT, which HMG is abot to ban as an extremist organisation and which is already banned in other countries as well as from UK university cmpuses. But they did not say so when presenting Dilpazier articles. Not even his article on the jilbab case – where HuT were known to be closely involved. A senior Guardian editor then resigned. Dilpazier had achieved “entryism”.
I suggest, Mr Reynolds, that you have done something similar with the Chatham House piece. You and the BBC gave a lot of prominence to an obscure report part-authored by a shrill Syrian critic of Bush and Blair. A critic who has in effect achieved “entryism” at Chthm Hose.
Gee, thanks. One is tempted to say, “with friends like the BBC, who needs enemies”.
The nub of the qestion is — did you know of the leanings of Chtham House ? Did you know of Rime Allaf before you published your story ? Did you check her out ? Did you check her out – a google search takes a few seconds and finds her instantly. If you did check her out, why didn’t you qualify your article a touch ? Or better uyet – why didn’t you spike the article as coming from a highly dubious source, a polemic source ?
er….. because he`s a beeb apologist.
I’m sorry –
WHY is this a suprise to anyone?
OT
Want to see something funny?
Check out this old Hollywood film clip of Bob Hope. Timeless wisdom as LGF points out.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17187_Some_Things_Dont_Change&only
Wait for Hope’s punch line at the end. I was on the floor laughing. 🙂
Suggestion.
I know most of the contributors to this blog are on vacation, but can one of them open a new thread. This one is getting quite long to scroll down.
Just an idea.
Beeb never missed a chance to push the ‘global warming’ agenda…..
Portugal battles on against fires
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4179894.stm
In each report on this (see links right hand side), there is no mention of ‘global warming’ being a cause of the fires. Arson & bad land management yes,.. global warming?, err..No.
So how come there’s a link in every article on the Portugal fires on the right hand side under “RELATED BBC LINKS” to their Climate Change propaganda site?
Global Climate Change
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/climate_change/default.stm
I couldn’t understand it until I read this….. it was “too tempting” for the socialist workers at the BBC news website to miss.
Is extreme weather down to climate change?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4176988.stm
“With fires raging through southern Europe – a region experiencing its worst drought for decades – and some parts of the continent submerged by floods, it is tempting to ascribe such extreme weather to the effects of global warming.”
Why would it “be tempting” to ascribe weather to the effects of global warming? Why is it not “tempting” to ascribe the fires to arson or bad land management? At least there is some attributed facts in the article to support such possible conslusions.
Unless of course you have a global warming axe to grind or agenda to drive…..
I’m not saying global warming may have had no impact, but how can I trust the BBC to give me balanced, impartial news if they just want to push the global warming argument down my throat without justification? If the experts quoted in the article say “bad land management” and “arson”, leave it at that. Why ‘add’ something extra that (in the words of Hutton) appears to be “unfounded” (in the article). This basic stuff you might learn when doing a thesis for a college degree. Don’t add in a conclusion at the end unless you have a thread running through your paper to lead to that conclusion from the start. This is not just sloppy journo its overtly biased and misleading. Belongs in the Guardian (where I wouldn’t object to it), not at the BBC.
Bias by omission again at the BBC:
“Livingstone backs Met chief Blair”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179364.stm
The point of this is that Livingstone backs the pc PC; Here is a radical and reforming commissioner who is making major changes in the police, he has many enemies in there who really don’t want to see these changes, who want to hold on to the old ways… and I am sure many of them are taking every chance here to undermine him, Mr Livingstone told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
We all know what ‘radical’ and ‘reforming’ means – we hug criminals instead of bang them up. What the piece ignores is the fact that the anti-semite Livingstone also compared Palestinian terrorists to Mandela and the ANC under apartheid. I’ll assume he means it as a compliment. But that’s the BBC; anti-semite makes inflammatory, pro-terrorist comments, the BBC ignores it.
On my lunch break in the trough, I find that several more points have been raised.
To JiL: I certainly know who Rime Allaf is. But I have just reread the article and find that I quoted one of the authors of the Chatham House report, Professor Paul Wilkinson no less. I was careful not go beyond what the report said.
I wrote: “The report does not say that anger over Iraq was behind the London attacks, but draws the conclusion: “There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has posed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism.”
I also said:
“Professor Wilkinson’s remarks and his report do not directly suggest that Iraq was the prime motive or even a motive behind the London attacks, but they do describe how al-Qaeda has exploited Iraq.”
This seems to me fair enough.
I have to say to Mr Read that I am disappointed at the tone of his contributions. A free market does not have to mean a bear market. I entered this site to try to answer points raised. After all, contributors do pay my salary.
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4172504.stm is an article entitled “Harold Evans on Bushs hostility to science” which then does not actually say such and in fact Bush has repeatedly said he likes BOTH sides of an argument to be put forward…but again it gets reported (eg)as Bush hates Darwin, agrees with Bible Belt etc when he does not, he merely says look at BOTH sides. Yet another example of how the title of a piece bears little or no resemble to what the piece actually says.
As Marc says: New thread please….me fingers are getting sore scrolling down and I’m wearing a plaster cast with pins in my arm just now!
Can we calm down on the shouting at Paul please? He might not come back if he gets yelled at and it is useful to get his input.
You must have missed my post Paul.
Paul, care to respond to my research into the danger the BBC pose to the world?
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com…to- society.html
Snippets:
From the BBC itself:
“The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of “unvetted” stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous.”
And there’s the BBC’s Paul Adams accusing the BBC of lying in its Iraq coverage:
“I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties’. This is simply not true,” Adams said in the memo.
“Nor is it true to say – as the same intro stated – that coalition forces are fighting ‘guerrillas’.
And
So concerned was the BBC about the BBC’s anti-war bias, that it ordered all of its “presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors” not to participate in anti-war marches.
And there is lots more of that.
Also Paul, can you tell us how Ibrahim Helal, the former editor-in-chief of Al Jazeera, is working out for the BBC in the training of reporters?
Ooops. That link didn’t work Paul.
Here you go.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-bbc-danger-to-society.html
Mr Reynolds
Noted, thank yo.
But just because someone is a professor does not imply objectivity. The BBC is quite good at giving platforms to leftie profs !
And it surely raises qestion marks straight away when you receive and then publicise a Chatham House PR release headed “UK rides pillion passenger to US” ? Axes being ground there, surely ?
Seems someone in Parliament took an interest in my post about the danger the BBC poses. So, I’ve updated the post to include the IP address of whoever it is.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-bbc-danger-to-society.html
I’ve also posted a Sitemeter screen shot of the visit from Parliament here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-parliament-reads-neverdock-it.html
Click on the image to enlarge.
Good. Maybe they can do someting about the BBC.
Paul, i am somewhat surprised at your statement, the BBC caused the death of 6 Military Police? Please note this incident is separate to the Black Watch incident. Just so we are clear.
Re: 6 MPs, the BBC was not responsible, i never said that, you are in fact twisting my words.
the BBC just didnt feel it necessary to report the story in full. that was the point.
“Six Royal Military Police soldiers were shot down at a civilian police station in Al Majar al-Kabir, near Basra, on 24 June 2003. They were Sergeant Simon Alexander Hamilton-Jewell, 41, Corporal Russell Aston, 30, Corporal Paul Graham Long, 24, Corporal Simon Miller, 21, Lance Corporal Benjamin John McGowan Hyde, 23, and Lance Corporal Thomas Richard Keys, 20.”
that is all i can find, the actual news story no longer exists on the bbc website? so perhaps you could tell me about chapter and verse please? because i have no idea where it is?
The difference as i have explained 3 times now is that on ITV news at 10pm, this particular story ran for 20minutes? what the BBC reported on this story was all of 1min 30. Major difference.
re: the blackwatch incident, when the troops moved north, the BBC constantly gave away their exact position hour by hour, Ben Brown was reporting, and all of a sudden after soldiers had died, and Ask Andrew Marr, he was the one that also brought up the point that British soldiers had been over exposed.
My point is, the BBC indirectly influenced the outcome, there was absolutely no need to repeatedly tell everyone about their operations and movements, this is war at the end of the day, people die. If you could minimise that risk by not giving away precise details, dont you think that is a better outcome for all concerned?
Unfortunately as a result i suspect the BBC will one day be brought under control, when it is, i suspect there will be sweeping changes.
Isnt it convenient now how a Labour government now has the BBC under the thumb and has just fired thousands of staff? Perhaps its already happening?
Paul, good luck with the reporting. Just remember, the BBC is a state broadcaster, run by the state, don’t let anyone tell you it isnt, and please try not to imply that the news is independent. All the other people that watch the BBC may be brainwashed by the bias, but i am not, and i know i am not alone.
All the best.
Ian
Ian
I disagree about the BBC being under Government control.
The problem is, the BBC is under NO control other than the Governors. It propounds its worldview (subconscious worlkdview OK Mr Reynolds?) regrdless of anyone else.
But the debate continues. Hopefully questions of bias and balance will be brought into the ambit of OFCOM. So that the BBC is no longer the judge and jury in its own case.