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.
Hi Paul,
I commend you for taking the time to engage with those upset with BBC bias. I hope it will be educational for all involved.
You seek to defend the allegation of BBC Bias with evidence of good, unbiased journalism.
However, when the Met was judged to be institutionally racist, it wasnt for lack of eveidence of good treatment of minority groups. It was deemed to be “racist by default”.
The charge we (I) have for the BBC is that it is anti-american, anti-isreal, anti-conservative, politically-correct, by default. Pro-american/isreal/conservative or (gasp) anti-muslim journalsim at the BBC is all but non-existant. Perhaps its not that they *mean* to be biased – but the poor souls just cant help it. Its the institution that is biased.
Lets take your “statement of the obvious” regarding GW Bush’s race to stabilise Iraq before the end of his presidency – to ensure his legacy.
Is that how you see the stakes in this conflict in Iraq? Its all about GWB’s legacy? Are you trying to suggest that is how GWB sees it?
I would have thought that failure in Iraq would be a failure for all of us – not just GWB. I would have thought the implications for the Iraqi’s, or for security from terrorism might rate slightly higer in importance than Bush’s legacy. The implication of your statemtent is that GWB and the “whitehouse” (read “republicans”) are more worried about GWB’s legacy than Iraqis and Americans (and British, etc)
The BBC are quick to point out almost anything negative as “a blow to GWB/the whitehouse”…
Yet rarely is anything (say, the successful Iraqi election) painted as a win for the whitehouse…
Now, the charge being made here is not one of a conspiracy – but environment in the BBC which fosters a very narrow world view. Everything seen through the prism of anti-american/isreali/christian/conservative culture at the BBC is very like to foster reportage that is “more of the same”.
Now, while this is the view held at Biased BBC, I take note of a practice that I think is far more sinister. The hand-picking of studio guests to present as fact that which he BBC could never defendably do.
Post July-7 a discussion on terrorism and was conducted on the BBC with two studio guests. One guest was an american (nice start) but was a frothing critic of the US administration. As far as he was concerned, all terrorism was caused by the united states. Was he challenged by the chair? Not really. Was he challenged by the 2nd guest? No, because he was of the view that terrorists were “freedom fighters”. So… a supposedly balanced discussion on terrorism following four horrific acts of terrorism (no, sir, they are not militants or bombers, they are terrorists) – and the two views presented by these “experts” are “its all the USA’s fault” & “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”. Do those opinions strike you as representative of our community? Or balanced?
I would like to see if anyone here or at Biased BBC can think of an instance where the studio guest gave a pro-american or pro-isreali viewpoint or presented strong criticism of muslims or arabs.
-Nigel Barret.
London
I feel sorry for Paul Reynolds! I reckon that most of the people who use the BBC’s website consider it to be pretty damn cool. So I was interested to see what the general view was on a website like this which criticises it. I was hoping to find rational debate, instead there’s just a massive wall of paranoia. Lighten up, guys!
Wall of paranoia?
Thats your idea of a “rational” contribution to this debate?
You think we should “lighten up” so that we can find the BBC “pretty damn ‘cool'” too?
The BBC certainly has some questions to answer – and many questions are being asked here. But no-one much in the BBC is answering them…. matter of fact, no-one much anywhere is answering them… they are all living in BBC-is-kool world to notice that the “news” organisation has become more “opinion” than news. Their position far too often is that while they feel it is their duty to report negative, anti-american, anti-military news, they feel that to report anything positive is propaganda.
-Nigel
pediatric pharmacy practice pediatric pharmacy practice pediatric pharmacy practice // purchase mortgage nj purchase mortgage nj purchase mortgage nj