Had to get back into the special ‘Biased BBC’ posting seat to keep up with the excellent output of Scott the Expatriate.
The latest thing that caught my eye- though this is a fascinating issue-related post called ‘A molehill’– was this thing about Chavez. The Chavez- you know, that ‘colourful’ fellow with all that oil in South America- who has said that ‘“If anything happens to me then the man responsible will be George W Bush. He will be the assassin, This is pure terrorism.”
Anyhow, Scott said he was uneasy about the BBC’s branding of ”assassin’ Bush’ in their headline for an article about this Chavez pronouncement. I think he’s right, and then some. For those who have been following l’affaire Reynolds-Expatriate it will come as little surprise to find that Paul Reynolds swung by the expatriate’s to tell him he was wrong (Mr Reynolds has a fairly good record in informing posters of their errors)- and when I piped up he came back and said the same to me. He said that Scott was wrong- that Chavez did call Bush an assassin, and so the headline was right.
Wrong, unfortunately. Chavez said that if he was assassinated, Bush would be the assassin. Bush, therefore, has been labelled an assassin in the present tense by no-one but the BBC (and maybe the inmates of the Democrat Underground etc.)- even if they clearly attributed it as Chavez’s view. What he said doesn’t equal the headline’s meaning- which it vitally should at some level. As it happens, Chavez also accused Bush of being a terrorist- but the Beeb eschewed that epithet for their headlinewriting somehow. On such small points though hangs a great deal.
Of course we all know why Chavez called Bush a terrorist. It was a crude populist jibe of the sort that is popular among the sons and daughters of Mother Sheehan. See, Dumbya can’t tell that though he thinks he’s fighting a war on terrorism, he’s actually the terrorist! (incidentally, a second thought might be that Chavez is giving the headline writers an easy option present tense accusation, rather than a problematic predictive term- but the BBC headline writer at any rate didn’t see the need for that option, perhaps seeking a juicier option.)
Why did Chavez go out of his way to talk about who to blame if he was assassinated? Obvious, isn’t it. The paranoid ideologue is trying to boost his image as the opponent of so-called ‘American imperialism’ and at the same time win more than a scintilla of US protection by making it clear that if ‘anything happens to him’ (as the BBC puts it) it will be Bush’s responsiblity. I’m tempted to call that terrorism by soundbyte.
It’s a strongly political message, a cynical one, and one which the BBC not only promote through reportage but amplify through misrepresentation.
With the great numbers of visitors from all around the world that Paul boasts about, should they be doing that for Hugo?
dave t, before you start running from your errors and hiding behind the `personal insult` cop out, you might want to look at the part where you called me a Vulcan, and referred to me as `Captain Spock`.
Simon
The BBC page on wikipedia isn’t protected – your (multiple) edits were all reverted – by wikipedia users – because of POV aand unsourced claims. Assume you’re both simonwi and 172.216.226.107. When you post to wikipedia you need to remain neutral and back your claims up. Looks like you did neither.
# last) 15:05, 28 August 2005 Marknew m (→Funding – Added space)
# (cur) (last) 15:05, 28 August 2005 Marknew (→Funding – Removed indent from “main article” section – NOTE: Jonathan Miller reference needs checking)
# (cur) (last) 15:01, 28 August 2005 Marknew m (→Funding – Added paragraph about tv licence controversy (mostly copied from television licence))
# (cur) (last) 14:42, 28 August 2005 Marknew m (→Funding – revert pov)
# (cur) (last) 14:37, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Funding)
# (cur) (last) 11:31, 28 August 2005 Robertbyrne (Revert unsourced claims.)
# (cur) (last) 11:29, 28 August 2005 Simonwi (→Funding)
# (cur) (last) 11:26, 28 August 2005 Robertbyrne (Revert to last version by Everyking to remove unsourced POV (which is obviously false).)
# (cur) (last) 11:24, 28 August 2005 Simonwi (→Funding)
# (cur) (last) 11:03, 28 August 2005 Everyking m (Reverted edits by 172.216.226.107 to last version by Everyking)
# (cur) (last) 11:02, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Internet)
# (cur) (last) 11:02, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Worldwide)
# (cur) (last) 11:01, 28 August 2005 Everyking m (Reverted edits by 172.216.226.107 to last version by Everyking)
# (cur) (last) 11:01, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Worldwide)
# (cur) (last) 11:01, 28 August 2005 Everyking m (Reverted edits by 172.216.226.107 to last version by Inkypaws)
# (cur) (last) 11:01, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Worldwide)
# (cur) (last) 10:59, 28 August 2005 Inkypaws (rvv paragraph blanking)
# (cur) (last) 10:58, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Worldwide)
# (cur) (last) 10:56, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Funding)
# (cur) (last) 10:53, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Television)
# (cur) (last) 10:49, 28 August 2005 Inkypaws (rv POV-reference your source please)
# (cur) (last) 10:46, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Worldwide)
# (cur) (last) 10:42, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107 (→Television)
# (cur) (last) 10:40, 28 August 2005 Inkypaws (rv POV-reference your source)
# (cur) (last) 10:38, 28 August 2005 172.216.226.107
Oh, and the ‘history’ is here – http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC&action=history
I find the BBC entry t Wikipedi very self–congratultory. For instance on Hutton it seems to be trying to revise or soften the judgment.
And it seems clear that they have people watching the site like a hawk to make sure thaat BBCspeak is the way the entry remains. And THEY decide what is “true”. Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, I suppose.
I note that the entry is very light on how much all the BBC empire costs us and where the money is spent.
But 15% goes on local TV and radio. £400 million a year !!!!
Gross waste of money just on that item alone. That is about the sme size as Sky’s budget of a few years ago.
There are statement’s to the effect that the BBC is answerable to its viewers and listeners. Now THAT is absolute tosh, a complete lie, a travesty of the legal nd political eality. Why don’t those BBC staff correct that lie ?
‘seems clear that they have people watching the site like a hawk to make sure thaat BBCspeak is the way the entry remains. And THEY decide what is “true”. Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, I suppose.’
No, other wikipedia volunteers.
If you dont like something on there, change it. Be warned, if it’s biased towards a point of view (POV) the edit’ll be reverted.
I wonder if this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4186140.stm
will be updated to include this
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15901511&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=my-booze-and-sex-shame-name_page.html
gfh,
I wonder if he was worried about bloggers digging these things up.
They can no longer rely on a pliant media to cover things up for them.
steve jones
Are you suggesting the BBC Wikipedia entry was constructed and is monitored by a lot of volunteers ? Come on, pull the other one.
“dave t, before you start running from your errors and hiding behind the `personal insult` cop out, you might want to look at the part where you called me a Vulcan, and referred to me as `Captain Spock`.”
Shearer: READ the thing…I did not refer to you as Captain Spock – that was a quote at the end AFTER one by Toynbee. To be called a Vulcan is an INSULT???? In fact I said there needed to be some Vulcan (ie logic) thought applied…
Perhaps you had better read what I said before you start spraying spittle on your monitor and saying I’ve half a brain etc….stop getting excited about non-existent things and DISCUSS the issues. All you seem to be doing is slagging off people and then whinging saying I am insulting you when nothing of the sort is happening. YOU are the only one insulting others around here. Kindly contribute to the thread or buzz off. Thank you.
Anyway must dash – I’ve a 2500 essay to do before next Friday on “From your reading in the course do you think that historians have successfully overcome the problem of bias in interpreting the history of Northern Ireland?”
Hmm – will only need quarter of a brain for that! Want to contribute?
Meanwhile, Hitchens is in fine form:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?pg=1
LET ME BEGIN WITH A simple sentence that, even as I write it, appears less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal: “Prison conditions at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival of Coalition troops in Baghdad.”
I could undertake to defend that statement against any member of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, and I know in advance that none of them could challenge it, let alone negate it. Before March 2003, Abu Ghraib was an abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp. Now, and not without reason, it is an international byword for Yankee imperialism and sadism. Yet the improvement is still, unarguably, the difference between night and day. How is it possible that the advocates of a post-Saddam Iraq have been placed on the defensive in this manner? And where should one begin?”
Excellent article on the moral bankruptcy of the anti-war left.
And just to cheer you up –
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/cat_media.html#004325
Where have we seen this sort of thing before?
I’m out of here! Have a good week!
It makes a nice change to see a reporter get out of Baghdad and into the field to get some direct coverage of the insurgency :
http://www.planetvids.com/html/Reporter-In-Iraq.html
Much better than the miserable stuff we get from HawHaw.
Steve Jones
Vital of course that Wikki`freakin`pedia exists as a lonely bastion of truth in a sea of cant and bias.
what a great shame it is that we volunteers at BBBC have to monitor and correct the POV and unsubstantiated crap spewed forth by the wretched smoked salmon socialists employed by the BBC with MY money.
‘Are you suggesting the BBC Wikipedia entry was constructed and is monitored by a lot of volunteers’
yes. how do you think wikipedia works?
steve, you should be in bed mate, the Today Program starts in a few hours.
Steve jones has never been exactly the sharpets knife in the pro-BBC drawer.
True enough, probably feels that he gets jolly good value from his licence fee and is more than happy to pay it!
Hey fellow taxpayers and terrorist huggers who staff al-beeb, take this one on board:
Muhammad waged many wars to conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula, forcing people to convert or die. Backed by a strong military, he robbed them of their material resources and political authority, legalized, of course, by “revelations” in his Quran to kill and tax them. His companions finished the conquests and then stormed out of Arabia, shedding blood wherever they went. They robbed cities of their political authority and their material resources.
Has this been anywhere on the beeb, or have I just missed it?
London, August 27: A Muslim scholar banned from the United States is to take up a post at Oxford, his college said today.
Tariq Ramadan has been elected to a visiting fellowship (general) at St Antony’s College for the coming academic year and is expected to begin work in October
In late July 2004, Ramadan’s US visa was revoked and he was forced to return to his native Switzerland.
Progress on BBC job cuts
The BBC is continuing to advertise for more than three times as many administrators and managers as programme-makers despite promising that job losses of almost 4,000 would lead to a new focus on creativity.
Seems plenty of creativity required to make this into a real job
Among other jobs currently advertised is that of “occupational risk adviser”, at a salary of up to £41,000.
Reporting to a “principle risk manager”, and through him to yet another tier of management, the “head of occupational risk”, the adviser is asked to provide advice on “systems of work, objectives and plans for the management of security and safety risk”.
Inflation plus licence increases will obviously be needed to fund a BBC that gives no sign of slimming down
The BBC plans to reduce its overall public service workforce by 19 per cent by 2008, with the loss of 3,780 jobs. It says at least 50 per cent of the losses are to take place in business support jobs.
But insiders say they have not seen any evidence of that so far.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/29/nbbc29.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/29/ixhome.html
And where were the jobs advertised ? In the Guardian, of course. And probably only in the Guardian.
steve jones might be absolutely deluded in thinking that the very long and detailed Wikipedia entry was not structured and drafted at the BBC, and that they are not monitoring it to keep it intact and in the way they want it.
I think his comments on this matter undermine pretty well anything else he ever says here. He is a busted flush, a hardline defender of the BBC. To the point of telling obvious porkies.
Or he could be treating us as fools.
Gaving Esler on Start the Week hosts a discssion on the UN. Three pro, one critical and calling for severe reform.
And he slips in the fatal lie that the BBC really believes in – “It is the UN that has kept the peace since WW2”. Shrugging aside NATO, that has protected Britain for 60 years.
Half the programme consisted of attacks on the US.
Nothing changes.
dave t, stop squirming out of your hypocrisy.
You did insult me.
As for engaging with the issues, I believe I clearly justified how the BBC were right and how Ed was wrong concerning the Bush-Chavez `assassin` story.
It’s the classic BBC Biased disease:
Never let a feeble complaint against the BBC get in the way of an unrelated rant.
However dave t, to show I’m not a rude person, there was a recent pro-Loyalist piece in the Guardian lately by Lionel Shriver, the novelist, which you should check out. I think it was from about 10 days ago if you can find it on the website.
Not sure if it’ll help with your work but it was interesting nontheless and actually reflected my views on the topic, more or less.
dave t, here’s the link to that article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1526336,00.html
Shearer: But I am still baffled about how I “insulted” you. Vulcans equal logical people so I was merely saying your logic (to me) seemed faulty and yet again look WHERE the Captain Spock quote is and you will see it is not aimed at you – how can it be when I’ve changed the subject AND stuck a quote between…
Perhaps I will just leave it there.
Agree to disagree?*
Thank you for the link. I will check it out.
(*waves white flag as all he wants is a peaceful life)
If your son or daughter did something which he/she believed in, you would respect it even if you disagreed strongly with it.
What you would certainly not do if you were a loving parent, is use that person without their consent to push your own views.
Casey Sheehan is of course dead, yet his mother uses him to advance her own agenda, which very likely was not his. Has Cindy produced any evidence of her son’s views?
Cindy Sheehan is entitled to express herself and protest, but she has no right to exploit her son’s death.
Zevilyn
She is sing her son’s coffin as a soapbox. Sicko extremist peacenik.
BTW An interesting problem for the US Left is that many in the anti-war camp are isolationists.
The Left can kiss it’s beloved “humanitarian interventions” goodbye if the anti-war folks get their way.
The fact that Casey’s brother Andy also wants to join says it all about her. Very sad – wish she would realise she is being used and that the people using her do not give a damm about her or her son.
Agree on the truce date t, sorry if I was over-sensitive and seemed personal.
Arguments are good but it’s good to stay civil.
To Marc:
I see that Marc, captain of the USS Neverdock has a posting which quotes the Daily Telegraph attacking the BBC over Iraq:
This is what the Telegraph said on 28 August:
“To listen to the BBC’s coverage of Iraq’s tentative steps towards a constitution is to become deeply depressed. The BBC creates the impression that the talks about the constitution are bound to fail. The country is heading towards civil war between the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds: three irredeemably opposed groups itching to kill each other.”
Let us therefore look at what the Telegraph itself said about Iraq on 26 August.
The Headline?
“Iraq on brink of meltdown
By Oliver Poole in Baghdad
(Filed: 26/08/2005)”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/26/wirq26.xml
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online
‘steve jones might be absolutely deluded in thinking that the very long and detailed Wikipedia entry was not structured and drafted at the BBC, and that they are not monitoring it to keep it intact and in the way they want it.
I think his comments on this matter undermine pretty well anything else he ever says here. He is a busted flush, a hardline defender of the BBC. To the point of telling obvious porkies.
Or he could be treating us as fools.’
nope. you’re happily doing that yourself.
If you think wikipedia is formally biased towards the bbc, and the bbc entries are written by BBC employees, well, there’s no hope for you.
Look at the list of changes to the bbc article. There are over 600,000 english language entries on wikipedia. Are they all written by bbc staff?
Goodness me.
Look at the list of changes to the bbc article. There are over 600,000 english language entries on wikipedia. Are they all written by bbc staff?
The logic of this “point” escapes me? Why would anyone think that the BBC staff writes anything for wikipedia except its own entry?
It’s quite logical to speculate that the Beeb has written its own entry. How that connects with the Beeb’s supposedly writing all the other entries in the English language — or why steve jones thinks he is making some kind of point here by asking this question — I have no idea.
Anybody else here understand the alleged “point” that steve is trying to make?
JiL, Susan, you don’t understand how wikipedia works. There are multiple changes to articles over time – the BBC piece has more than twenty changes just yesterday.
It’s written by individuals in rooms, and corrected by other individuals.
You all just look silly. Anyone reading this who knows how wikipedia works will see this. Please at least read about POV and NPOV on wikipedia befaore continuing your claims.
Simon (above) claimed the article was locked – which was why his changes were reverted. The page’s history shows it wasn’t locked, but that his changes were reverted because of bias.
The fact that you see bias in wikipedia bodes ill for your suggestions of bias elsewhere.
one comment from a user
Criticisms – Removal of adverts for blogs (mostly featuring racists, anti-BBC cranks, and propaganist nonsense, e.g. “BBC Cheering for the Terrorists”.))
_______
other changes.
Recent changes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marknew
I contribute fairly often to the BBC article(s), and rewrote the article for the British ITV network. I am now a participant of the radio stations WikiProject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertbyrne
Robert Byrne
I am an independent researcher. I am most active in mathematics, but I have an interest in politics, technology and the arts. I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Everyking
James, also known as “Everyking”, has been a Wikipedian since February 2004 and an admin since May 2004. Feel free to leave a message on talk.
I am from the U.S. state of Georgia. I primarily enjoy topics related to history, politics, and culture.
Full accountability: review my admin actions here.
It might be better to wiki the phrase TV license and link that in to the BBC.
List the number of people jailed for the BBC.
The cost,the waste, and the corruption caused by the TV-tax.
Something just popped into my head, the reporter Orla Guerrin in Israel., well the other day when she was reporting the pull out of gaza.
She described the few that tried to resist as fanatics.
Nice one orla. i’d like to see how you felt if someone popped over to Ireland and pulled you out your home.
Its just that the word fanatics hasnt been used to describe other more, how could i put extreme groups associated with the middle east.
funny that..
steve jonjes
I know how Wikipedia works, thank you.
But I also know how bureaucracies work. And the BBC is a big bureaucracy. That Wikipedia entry was not drafted by some sort of ethereal mix of volunteers. aaaYou relly are foolish if yo think it ws. The steering hand behind the Wikipedia entry is the BBC itself. And the BBC monitors it.
Whoever’s editing wikipedia from address 172.213.166.55 (an aol address) looks pretty foolish
all their edits (all about the BBC) reverted, and a slap on their talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.213.166.55
‘Please keep our Neutral Point of View policy in mind when editing.’
These are normal wiki users doing the reverts. If the BBC did make changes to this page which were factually incorrect, a wiki user would change them.
You still don’t get it.
How abot I make a change – neutral — giving the facts of how the BBC failed to get into satellite TV ? Let’s see what happens ?
I will not use phrases like “missed the boat”. Just the unadorned and checkable facts of what the BBC did and didn’t do in the 1980s, and the fact that they have had little impact subseqently on satellite TV.
“Of course we all know why Chavez called Bush a terrorist. It was a crude populist jibe of the sort that is popular”
Well yes it is clearly popular in Venezeuela. However, with clear US involvement in the previous coup attempt, it is also, by any definition of the word “terrorist” which does not automatically exclude Americans, true.