Since our Friend of Biased BBC Paul Reynolds has been calling round lately it seems only fair to deal with one of his articles- ultimately comparing his powers of prognostication now, with those demonstrated in the past. Reynolds- one of the first to float the quagmire meme in the mainstream media- gives us his latest effort, showing that this week’s image, just like almost every week’s with the Beeb, is that of Bush running as fast as he can (on an apparent Iraq hampster wheel).
We find him saying that Bush’s failure or success will depend on whether he creates a ‘stable Iraq’. No- that may be the measure du jour- but the true measure is whether the threat Saddam signified- taken as a composite threat, geopolitically in his threat to Israel and significant stranglehold on oil reserves, through terrorism (see anti-Israel activities, but other tentacles too), via the distraction he represented from any other gathering threats, through his UN corruption, alongside his regional repressiveness and his hard-edged Islamofascism- has been blunted and deferred in its lethal path of collision with the West. It has, and so Bush cannot possibly be judged through any spurious definition of stability, a tormented concept endlessly susceptible to media speculation and UN-isation, and terribly open to the argument that Saddam did stability better than anyone.
Reynolds averrs that it’s an achievement that Iraq hasn’t disintegrated before now- while he insinuates that it might be heading that way. He talks about ‘the violence of an insurgency whose power was not predicted and never planned for.’ . Well, not predicted and planned for if you don’t count part five of my (organised in no particular way) composite argument for war- namely the Saddam Islamofascism part. Had ‘we’ not been batting away the beeb sponsored moonbats ‘we’ might have talked a little more about that one- might even have got round to a policy about it.
Reynolds finishes his straw man construction right at the end of his article when he asks ‘But will his (Bush’s) rush to come up with an “exit strategy” force him to abandon the aspiration to create a modern secular democracy out of the ashes of the Saddam dictatorship?’ (emboldenings mine)
Note how we’ve morphed from stability to ‘modern secular democracy’*, and that Bush is still rushing as fast as his little Texan legs can carry him to create the long awaited ‘exit strategy’. Such goal post shifting in the course of one article is a little mystifying (stability = secular democracy?), but not at all an unaccustomed experience for Reynolds’ readers.
As one can see from the comparison of then and now in these two Reynolds efforts- despite cosmetic goalpost shifting- little changes in the Reynolds’ analysis or expectations. I commented about it elsewhere- er, at length.
PS– maybe we could have a B-BBC poll about this little complimentary from the Beeb viewsroom. Should we recommend this article for the news or opinion section? Seems like they can’t decide (which also means, watch out for edits). To quote:
‘The president is facing mounting problems politically and in terms of public opinion, says the BBC’s defence and security correspondent, Rob Watson.
Opinion polls suggest more than 50% of Americans think Iraq is going badly.
Most also believe some or all US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, according to the polls.
Our correspondent says there even signs of splits within the president’s Republican party, with at least one senior senator making that most damaging of all comparisons by likening Iraq to Vietnam. (imagine!!!- who’d do a thing like that)
Meanwhile the US anti-war movement has been reinvigorated by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq. (yup- the corpse twitches, so to speak)
Ms Sheehan’s supporters have been camped outside the president’s ranch at Crawford, Texas.
This is not a president who would be interrupting his summer holidays unless he thought his political future was really at stake, our correspondent says.’
(all additions, snide remarks and whatnot, mine. Er, or the Beeb’s)
Vital Update *
I see that- thanks to an intervention from Mr Reynolds himself- I need to acknowledge an error. A totally unintentional error where I mixed up the conclusion of a current Roger Hardy article you can find here, with the Paul Reynolds one I link to in the post above. Thus the mystery over the changing definition of success for Bush in Iraq was not the mystery I depicted it to be.It is Roger Hardy who goes for the ambitious ‘modern secular democracy’ as his measure for Bush, at the end of his article. I might add though that Paul Reynolds does propose a measure for Bush as being ‘Iraq as the democratic example which justified the war and the cost’– in addition to a ‘stable Iraq’. There are no shifting goalposts in the way that I described, however.
On the other hand, one can still argue that Reynolds’ notion of ‘Iraq the Model’ is only one side to the argument over Bush’s legacy- and does go well beyond a ‘stable’ Iraq, presenting a confusion of a sort- and that my case outlined above concerning the negative virtues of the Iraq invasion should at least be on the table when considering it.
There is much common ground between Hardy and Reynolds (indeed there are no contradictions between them, when viewed side by side), and I find it interesting that even down to imagery we can find a dovetailing of the BBC’s various analyses into one seamless whole. Given that that analysis removes from the table of discussion so much that might vindicate the President, the balance of the BBC’s coverage remains very much in question.
Finally, let me thank Paul Reynolds for stopping by and stooping to correct me openly, and apologise once more for my error. Thank you also for helping to shed even more light on the BBC’s analytical point of view by highlighting my error- I feel it is very helpful to everyone, but myself in particular.
Can I reiterate yet again that the vast majority of the public and the people who post here ARE supportive of the BBC PROVIDED it does what it is meant to do; produce good programmes and dramas (Dr Who -yaay! Blue Planet – yaay!) and gives us the news without bias.
The problem as detailed time and time again (with LINKS in most cases) is that there is a STRONG perception that much of the news output and particularly the BBC news website if slanted, or carries stories that omit rather important bits (ie “Palestinians fighting with IDF soldiers” were armed with machine guns and opened fire from behind a group of children). If there were not this perception can someone please explain (a) why the viewing public are deserting the BBC in droves and going elsewhere for their news and (b) why should I as someone who does not agree with what the BBC are doing be forced by penalty of jail to pay for this?
The Government pays millions so that adverts for all the silly non-jobs are carried only in the Guardian thus ensuring its survival when it should be competing like the other papers(and it would have folded years ago). Same for the BBC – set the BBC free and see it sink or swim.
Mr Reynolds seeks to defend the BBC by arguing that although there is evidence of bias in some programmes these are an aberration. In the main, the totality of the BBC output is thus objective.
If we were talking about the BBC with which I grew up in the 1950s and 60s that would be a reasonable case to advance. However, the BBC of today is no longer as it was, an objective source of information and I now avoid watching or listening to its news output.
I don’t believe this is a conspiracy nor do I believe that it is intentional, hence the vast amount of denial from anyone who works as a BBC journalist. The problem is that most of the current staff seem to be unable to separate their personal opinions and prejudices from the process of factual news reporting.
This leads to a tendency to under-report the facts which conflict with their view of how the world should be whilst over emphasising anything that supports it. I strongly suspect that this is not even a conscious action, merely seen as natural by the journalists – to whom there is only one view of the world where Israel is always wrong, the UN and the EU are always right, socialism and equality are good, conservatism, patriotism and merit are to be scorned (except in sport).
The danger is that these people are major opinion formers and the effect on our society is corrosive.
I have no problem at all with BBC journalists writing opinion peices and expressing their personal viewpoints, but they should not allow their personal opinions to colour the way in which news is reported
Paul R,
You go get them. Keep up the good work!
Damn that unrepresentative blogosphere.
😉
After seeing some posts on this tread relating to the shameful way the BBC website has linked the story about the killing of the British student to the death of 4 Palestinian terrorists, I thought I would see how the BBC1 six o’clock news approached the subject.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4183622.stm
Imagine my surprise to find that there was actually no bias in the report on this bulletin. Why you ask? Because they did not even mention it.
Its amazing, a British black man is killed with an axe and the BBC has, absolutely rightly, stories all over the place. There was even (again rightly) coverage of the funeral on the 6.0 news today. Yet, when a British Jewish man is killed with a foot long knife by a Palestinian terrorist (or freedom fighter/militant/whatever if you work at the BBC) they can’t find the space to even mention it. There was room, however, for a really important piece about a new reality game show, glad they got that in.
Imagine a British soldier killed in Iraq, or a British Muslim killed by a white fascist coming out of a mosque, do you think these would get a story?
Still, its good Paul Reynolds says there is nothing wrong at the BEEB, that’s all right then. You know, although I would like to thank him for his inputs lately, his attitude reminds me of exactly the problem highlighted by Hutton, the absolute inability of anyone at the BEEB, from bottom to top, to even consider they might be wrong. When a large number of the public, politicians, other media outlets, governments, serving soldiers, and even members of the BEEB’s own staff start complaining of the bias, do you not think the least you could do is consider that there might be a problem?
J>G> How many times do I have to repeat this? My case is not that the BBC does nothing wrong. It is that what is does wrong does not discredit its whole output.
Paul Reynolds
etc
Yes but there’s a common threat to what is “wrong”.
A faustian pact with The Guardian; sheer uncriticalness of the EU (the guy on Newsnight last night was positively squirming to avoid saying a bad word about it); the deeply depressing spectacle of multiculturalism politics being played out between every other program (Indian dancers – is this supposed to be worldly or assuming that Britons of Indian descent are irreconcilable with mainstream culture?; the racist “hideously white” outburst (an apology would have done; not the disgusting treatment you dragged Ron Atkinson through ); the delight when the EU imposes sanctions against America; the assumption of Clive Myrie the other night that the land grabs in South America would be okay if it enabled “equality”.
And did I detect a shrillness and a look of “we told you so” in the report from Baghdad last night?
The London Evening Standard gave the stabbed Brit in Israel its full Page 1 headline – and the billboards carried it too.
But the BBC 6pm News does not even mention it ?
Amazing. Well not really.
The BBC really is out of step. I think Mr Reynolds suggestion tht it somehow morphs its worldview to stay in step is totally wrong.
“Unrepresentative” – that’d be the BBC all over wouldn’t it?
Oops – we’ve missed/mixed up/skimmed over the Daily Mail from Newsnight/today’s papers on news online.
I’ve a hunch their readership trounces daiky the beloved Guardian for representativeness.
Go get ’em the Mail :p
Paul
But the problem is it does discredit the whole output. When the news output is biased, when studio discussions are biased, when drama is biased (even snide one liners in Dr Who) the whole output must be called into question.
When the MET was accused of institutional bias the BBC had numerous news pieces and special programs examining this claim When the BBC is called institutionally biased the same program makers bury their collective heads in the sand.
also
I notice you didn’t reply to the main part of my post
Seamus, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t or wasn’t there legistlation pending to make attacks on religion illegal?
Seems like Great Britain is the one with a problem re: free speech – at least certain kinds.
Now in my country there’s a movement to outlaw ‘hate speech’ the latter basically being defined as anything the Liberal Elite disagrees with.
Show me the BBC show where BNP members were allowed to shout down representatives of Britain’s minority community and we’ll talk.
Anon: I disagree with these new fangled laws which I believe are an attack of free speech.
Actually, the much-hated (on here) Guardian has printed many articles that were criticle of this legislation.
But of course, as Mr Reynolds points out, Biased BBC and its followers only digest information that furthers their hard right agenda.
As soon as the issue becomes relevant (ie, as the war on terror is relevant when showing extreme Muslim views), I would certainly like to see a show (such as Question Time) presenting a diversity of opinion, from BNP members to Zionist Jews to Islamic fundamentalists.
As I believe I’ve already made clear.
What Paul Reynolds et al at the Beeb are most guilty of is their utter and total contempt for their core audience of white, middle class, Middle England viewers.
In the privacy of newsrooms they are sneered at as “Daily Mail readers” and their views largely ignored in favour of the Islington-lurking, Guardian-reading metropolitan elite.
Though these hand-wringing, bleeding heart polenta-munchers represent just a tiny fraction of TV licence payers, their influence over BBC “culture” and news agendas is staggering.
Instead of focus groups and wine-swilling managment strategy meetings in swish hotels, BBC bosses would be better off dragging their sorry backsides out of London and actually meeting some ordinary viewers…but that would never do….might hear a few home truths.
seamus
thanks for the company you provided zionist jews. bnp members and islamic fundamentalists no less.
Seamus
You state
“Biased BBC and its followers only digest information that furthers their hard right agenda”.
Not that it should matter, but I happen to be a life-long supporter of the Labour party and am a supporter of our Tony (4 more years!). The point is not that the bias is in any direction (although it happens to be to the left), but that it is there at all. Some of the left bias the BBC puts out is in directions I happen to agree with, but so what. Surely you agree that on a force-funded channel there should be no bias at all.
Further to my post on the lack of mention of the killing in Israel. I have been trying to think of another situation where the murder of an innocent British subject by a terrorist would not get a mention on the BBC news. I cannot. We see stories about backpackers killed in Thailand, tourists thrown off bridges in Australia, holiday makers killed in accidents, but the deliberate Islamo-fascist murder of a religious British man by a terrorist gets no mention. An interesting comparison is the shooting of the British peace activist by an Israeli soldier. Reams of output for weeks/months. I can think of only two reasons the story did not get a mention:
1. the BBC is racist
2. the BBC is institutionally biased, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli
Both of these positions is, in my opinion, abhorrent, but if I just can’t come up with another explanation.
Middle-England home truths such as:
We don’t like dark people or other cultures represented so much.
We LOVE George Bush…like most of the UK, of course.
Palestinians are rabid animals with rabies.
Israeli’s might have a few rough edges but they are defending us against the Muslim hordes.
Liberals are traitors.
Bring back national service.
I’m not a racist, but…
Dole scum must be flogged back to work.
What about going private?
Gordon Brown is a socialist.
Every 14 year old gets pregnant these days.
Of course the Tories won’t lose!
And other pearls of wisdom.
The BBC website has the full available details of that Jewish-British man’s murder.
Hank – time for a long lie-down in a darkened room. Must be hard for you to accept that the British people are waking up.
But the 6 O’clock news chooses not to mention it.
The Brit student murder was the main headline in the Evening Standard, and is in the top stories listings at TimesOnline and the Telegraph.
There are 39 stories listed on the BBC News homepage. No mention whatsoever of the murder in Israel. nd it is not even mentioned on the World News page.
Sick, sick, sick.
Saxon Brother?
Is that you Alan Partridge?
John, it’s here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4183622.stm
It is TUCKED AWAY. Along with hundreds of other stories on that sprawling website. It is not judged by the BBC to be worth mentioning among their top 40 stories or even among the several dozen on their World News page.
Sick, sick, sick.
I’ve never heard of the BBC being labled as “right wing”, in all the 39 years I’ve been alive.
Isn’t that a good indicator of how the media and the people of the UK think of the BBC ?
JohninLondon, I agree. If this had been a Briton killed by an Israeli then it would have been one of the lead stories on the main page, instead of which it’s buried in Middle East news.
Basically, I’ve had it with the BBC. They aren’t getting a penny out of me. If I go to court, my defense will consist of the BBC charter and a schedule of their output in the week leading up to the G8 summit:
– Endless news items on “Global Warming”, Kyoto, George Bush the eco-terrorist, etc
– “Africa Lives on the BBC”
– Bob Geldoff on every night of the week
– Live8
– Richard Curtis’ propaganda about a Minister going to a G8 summit.
THE BBC IS NOT ALLOWED TO PROMOTE OR SUPPORT ANY POLITICAL PARTY/MOVEMENT.
I agree with Fair Trade, more aid, etc. But it isn’t for the BBC to push this agenda.
Why should I pay for this?
Cockney
It looks as thogh an investigtion by the Senate Judiciary Committee is starting on the Able Danger affair.
You still think this is not worth any report anywhere by the BBC ? Just mere speculation ?
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005312.php
Alan,
I live in London. We’re not that out of step with the rest of the country. The BBC is.
I consider myself right-wing, and am prepared to comment, unlike most, but I am FAR LESS strident than MOST people I know.
The young in the London (at least) are socially “leftish”, but financially “rightish”. i.e. No-one I know “tolerates” gay people, they’re just another person. But people HATE those that come here to do nothing and live off others. We’re strongly culturalist, not racist.
OT:
“I agree with Fair Trade, more aid, etc. But it isn’t for the BBC to push this agenda. “:Rob
Rob Sorry to say It’s time to get a proper education. Trade NOT aid will help Africa.
Aid just help the Wa Benzi buy more Mercedes.
I totally agree Rob. Skin colour, sexuality, gender, etc are all irrelevant. Its all about “right and wrong”. Non of my friends have any time for the spongers/thieves/racists/facist/scum in society. Is it too much to ask immigrants to respect our views?
The moral of the story is: If you want to die a quietish death (without getting mentioned by the MSM) make sure you’re in Israel.
Not sure if anyone read this story:
“Representatives of various Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday accused Israel of burying “toxic materials” under the rubble of dismantled settlements to prevent Palestinians from exploiting the land.
The allegations were made during a press conference in Khan Yunis that was organized by the Popular Committee for Defending Palestinian Lands.
Committee coordinator Abdel Aziz Qadih claimed that the IDF and the settlers had buried the toxic materials six meters under the rubble of the settlements that were evacuated last week. He did not specify the type of toxins, but claimed that they were placed in large barrels underground.
“They want to destroy the land to prevent the Palestinians from using it after it’s handed over to the Palestinian Authority,” he said. “We call on all those who support our people to expose this matter and to help us deal with it.”
Qadih also claimed that Israel was stealing water and sand from Gush Katif.”
There’s more:
“GAZA CITY (AFP) – Palestinian medical experts fear a looming health crisis after Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip unless patients are guaranteed access to life-saving treatment beyond the territory.
While Israel regards its departure from Gaza as signalling the end of its 38-year occupation, the Palestinians argue that Israel will remain an occupying power as long as it retains control of its borders and is thus still obliged to meet the health needs of the local population.
“I fear a worsening of the health situation after the withdrawal from Gaza as a result of the Israeli cordon,” said Dr Majdi Ashur, president of the Palestinian relief committees.
“Israel is refusing to recognise its obligations as a continuing occupation power by meeting basic health needs of the population and we do not foresee a resumption of proper freedom of movement in the short term,” he told AFP.”
Story one courtesy of http://www.dhimmiwatch.org
Story two courtesy of http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com
Anyone else see a “spokesman” from the Cato Institute on BBC News tonight. The guy rubbished both the Americans and the Iraqi government while the BBC hack just lapped it up. What is the Cato Institute ? Why did the BBC give this “expert” carte blanche to spout his anti-US views ?
I have seen outrageous posts on this blog but none so stultifying as those of Mr Paul Reynolds.
Hes the BBC master of “Yeah But… No But..”
Nonsense Paul Reynolds. Like Mr Rod Liddle, he appears to believe that the BBC just want everyone to “get along”. How Touching.
Rod Liddle used to be the editor of the Today Program. He lost his job because he sided with the anti hunting lobby. Mr Liddle now writes Faux Conservative pieces for The Spectator. Where was Liddles Conservativsm when he was Editor??
Paul Reynolds should P*ss off. BBC cant is easy enough to find should we all need it.
Reynolds talks of acusations of a BBC conspiracy but nobody here actually mentions that. Wha concerns us is a BBC mindset, ie a CLOSED mind. CLOSED to any notions that
-burning fossil fuels may not be the cause of global warming. BBC CLOSED.
-post 9/11 the world needed reordering and the United States alone has recognised and responded to this challenge. BBC CLOSED.
-multiculturalism might not be a good idea. BBC CLOSED.
-The EU is a 1970`s answer to a 1950`s problem. BBC CLOSED.
-Socialism hurts people. BBC CLOSED.
-Abortion may not be a good idea. BBC CLOSED.
-Capitalism provides the best solutions for the greatest number of people. BBC CLOSED.
-Israel should exist. BBC CLOSED.
-The UNITED STATES provides solutions to the problems of how best mankind might organise himself on earth. BBC CLOSED.
It seems you have found yet another way of rationalizing the increasingly undefendable.
We, as you say, can’t measure Bush’s succes or failure by anything that can actually be verified or measured to wit, the future stability of Iraq, but rather things that can now only be speculated about –the possible threats that Saddam’s contained, disarmed secular government might have posed sometime in some theoretical future.
In other words, we mustn’t measure whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea in any quantifiable way –and by eliminating any possible criteria I guess the policy can not fail.
No matter how many more al queda members we help train in Iraq, or how many civillians and soldiers killed and maimed –no matter how unstable the country and the world becomes we can always comfort ourselves by imagining some possible (however debatable at best) worse situation had we oh, say not invaded, and persued some less aggressive, less profitable for certain corporations policy.
Circular logic is often convenient, but ultimately not very convincing.
Well, at least the topic “Sex is my job” gets a mention on the BBC News Homepage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157728.stm
I don’t see how a presenter on a porn channel could ever be considered to “get exploited”. After all she’s not an actual hooker, is she?
Nice boobs, by the way…
Woman ‘admits causing Paris fire’
“A woman detained after last week’s fire in a Paris hotel which killed 24 people has admitted that she may have started the blaze by accident, police say.
According to the Paris prosecutor’s office, the fire started when she threw a pile of clothes on top of candles lit in the breakfast room after a row.
The 31-year-old woman, identified only as Fatima, was detained on Monday.”
Okay, no racist attack then. Sounds ressuring to me.
Ooops, old story from April of 2005. Why did they put the link there, I wonder? Shoulda noticed though – after all I’m not working for the BBC.
Dear Mr Reynolds,
Sorry, but there was one point you made which I would like to pick up on. You stated:
“In my experiecne [sic], the BBC and other media outlets simply reflect what is going on in society [with regard to anti-americanism]”.
This may be the case, but I don’t think that this really should influence news output, which should above all be based on fact. Another BBC employee argued the same here at B-BBC a few months back and it was equally as stricking. Unless polls are taken on every issue it is difficult to know what the mass are thinking and even if so, the news should be as divorced as much as possible from mass opinion – enlightening and truth seeking rather than reflecting any societal prejudices, mis-information etc.
Sorry, this site is taking up a lot of your time, but I just wanted to raise this point as I think maybe it links to many of the problems found in BBC news coverage.
R. Levin
Tokyo
Paul Reynolds, thanks for responding to me but I note instead of addressing the issues I raised, you merely defend the BBC with a broad brush and claim it is not a giant conspiracy.
And yet, at the risk of repeating myself how do you explain things like these directly 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 from Justin Webb your Wash. reporter:
“”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.”
Your defence reporter Paul Adams, accuses the BBC of lying in their reporting on Iraq. His words not mine:
“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.”
And
“Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ‘small victories at a very high price?’ The truth is exactly the opposite.”
I have twice caught the BBC using well known anti-war activists, to fabricate stories alleging war crimes against Ameirca. See here and here.
Former royal correspondent Jenny Bond, speaking on Radio 4, described US President George Bush as “looking like a chimp and talking like a baboon”.
And BBC reporter, Hannah Bayman, writing on her personal blog, told her readers who she hoped would win last years US Presidential race. Hoping John Kerry would win, Hannah said this:
“…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.”
These are but a few examples, I have many more. This proves the BBC is anti-American and biased to the core.
You continue to defend the BBC but fail to address these issues. It’s plain to see why.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/08/britain-bbc-danger-to-society.html
Saxon Brother,
The Cato Institute is essentially a libertarian/free market institute, dedicated to promoting the kind of limited government for which the US constitution was designed. I did not see the show in question, but I find the “anti-American” characterization difficult to believe regarding Cato. Among the think tanks in Washington, it is, in my experience, the most classicly pro-American one around.
It does not, however, toe a party line. Because its mission is expanding freedom and limiting government, it attacks Republican policies just as it attacks Democrat policies, since both parties have essentially capitulated to the idea of expanding government control. Although, if I am honest, Cato does tend to favor Republicans, if only because Republicans still tend to give at least lip service to limited government.
With regard to the war, as I said, Cato is a libertarian organization, and there is a significant isolationist strain of thought that runs through libertarian circles. It is therefore not surprising that a Cato rep would be trashing the Iraq effort, nor that the BBC would invite Cato on to talk about the war. Whether or not Cato would ever be invited on to talk about, say, the license fee (Cato would be appalled by the use of governemnt coercion to finance a monopolistic media outlet) is another question.
http://www.cato.org/
Scott
TAE
A British man is shot in Israel, and the BBC devote hundreds of articles to the event
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4625743.stm
A British man is stabbed to death in Israel in a terrorist attack and you really have to work hard to find it on the BBC website. For example, this morning, it is not present on the front pages of the UK and world news sites.
What could the difference be? I wonder?
It is interesting to note that like the BBC, the Guardian tries to avoid awkward facts such as Palestinian terrorism, whilst the story is very prominent on the Times and Telegraph websites.
j g
your posting on the briton killed in israel and the bbc’s lack of attention was rather good.
yasmin alibhai-brown
why does the bbc insist on bringing us the views of this truly witless woman.
with the best will in the world she has nothing to say and continually re-gurgirates long-forgotten cliches.
paul reynolds
why should we pay a non-representative group to give us views the britsh people have no sympathy with?
paul reynolds
why should we be forced to pay the bbc 126 pounds failing which we are threatened by jail sentences?
why should not the bbc go and raise its funds in the market-place like other news organisations?
paul reynolds
the more i think about it the more amazed i am that there has been almost no coverage of the briton murdered in israel.
paul reynolds
why should you force your anti-american views down our throat?
A question for Paul Reynolds: How can you so lightly dismiss a webpage about the Holocaust which didn’t mention Jews as an example of ‘bad writing’? That was a scandal. Why don’t you tell us if the person (s) concerned were reprimanded or sacked?
abd al bari atwan
the editor of an arabic paper in london often appears on the bbc and treated as a man of temperate opinions.yet this gentleman spews poison and venom when he appears on the arabic sattellite stations.he is possibly the most extreme of those interviewed by al jazira etc.
should not the bbc stop misleading their audience about this man’s extreme views.