The Beebonline have so far (so far- it’s very early yet) been wise enough not to carry an article linking hurricane Katrina to global warning. Unfortunately BBC World were not so circumspect this morning. I saw one presenter saying to a US environmentalist (invited in apparently to advance the thesis in question) that there was a growing consensus in the US linking hurricane Katrina to global warming. This was not an implication, but a direct comment encouraging a thesis that Katrina was linked to global warming.
So, while many are concerned with doing the constructive things that might help the people on the Gulf coast, the Beeb take time to scour the hurricane newsscape for what it can do for one of their favourite themes.
I can imagine so many people will agree with them, yet again and again trendlines contradict the trend in reporting ever more vociferously and loudly the global warming-world disaster scenario. Here is another one, showing frequency and magnitude of hurricanes hitting the US mainland in the last century and more. (via Instapundit).
The context of the BBC’s alliance with greenish NGOs gives me a chance to link this priceless article from Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. When you’re at a loss to describe the kind of thing (the socialist mentality which is hard to identify, hard to pin down) that repels you about the Beeb, just run your eyes over lines like these:
‘Illiberal ideas are becoming to be formulated, spread and preached under the name of ideologies or “isms”, which have – at least formally and nominally – nothing in common with the old-styled, explicit socialism. These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (T. Sowell) on others against their will, there is always the crowding out of standard democratic methods by alternative political procedures, and there is always the feeling of superiority of intellectuals and of their ambitions.
I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based – as de Jasay precisely argues – on not distinguishing rights and rightism), ideology of “civic society” (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society. I also have in mind multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.’
It would be hard to give a better summary of the BBC’s mentality- but anyway, do read the rest (also via the prof.).
OT
Can the site operators open up a new thread as the comment section here is getting quite long.
Suggestion: Use Charles piece as a new thread as it’s pretty easy to fisk.
RJ White & (D)HYS – a few too many comments along the lines that would consider it OK to bomb Londoners as long as you can be sure they supported the Iraq war.
Actually, dan, the real question is whether the Beeb would carry posts made by people suggesting that it’s OK to kill Muslims providing they support terrorism.
Dan:
Bang on. The comments are critical only insomuch as the London victims may have been antiwar, and therefore ‘innocent’. In other words, let’s determine our country’s policy according to the wishes of the suicide mass-murderers. If Khan had said “we bombed the Londoners because they allow homosexuality to be legal” how many apologists would reply “it’s not fair because some of the victims were against homosexuality, and therefore ‘innocent'”?
To Susan:
you are right to notice a differnce. It was felt that my original reference to SUV’s, while true for some, did not apply to all, so a change was made.
By the way, why this phrase “stealth/sneak edit”? This site often calls for an edit then, if one is made, compains about it. Online articles are often updated. You should welcome that.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
———————-
We do welcome corrections and updates. But how many people see the original biased article vs how many see the stealth edited ones?
Why the bias in the first place?
It’s quite clear that if it were not for the BBBC, Scott, I and others constantly correcting the BBC, the BBC’s bias and anti-Americanism would go unchecked.
Paul was caught at it again and changed his article.
A small success for us.
Paul Reynolds:
“Somebody e-mailed me in fact (I have now an e-mail address for my pieces –you can use it too; it’s at the end of the article) and I reconsidered. After discussions in the office, we decided to change it. I agreed with the change. It’s an example of how we do try to respond to readers. There is no secret.”
A good first step.
Now let’s have all BBC reporters email addresses at the end of each article so we can try and fix more BBC bias.
For example this article by Jonathan Charles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4202186.stm
Which I corrected here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4202186.stm
Can we have his or his editor’s email address so we can have his “errors” corrected?
This site is a place of opinion.
Important distinction.
with regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC Online
————————
So is the BBC.
The difference is that the BBBC, American Expat and I tell the truth and provide the facts to back up what we say.
While the BBC is full of opinion, bias and spin. We’ve proved that time and again.
Long post – apologies but this is excellent:
“I normally have plenty of reasons to thank our current President, George Bush, and few reasons to thank either of the two who preceded him. However, tonight I offer praise to Bill Clinton, who took CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux to task for playing partisan politics with the Katrina relief efforts and trying to embarrass his partner and new friend, George H. W. Bush
MALVEAUX: But do you think this administration responded quickly enough?
G.H.W. BUSH: Of course I do.
CLINTON: Let me answer this. The people in the Superdome are in a special position. And let me say, I’ve been going to New Orleans for over 50 years. There’s no place on earth I love more. They went into the Superdome, not because of the flooding, but because we thought the hurricane was going to hit New Orleans smack dab and they’d be safe in there if they didn’t leave town.
What happened was, when the levee broke and the town flooded, what did it do? It knocked out the electricity and it knocked out the sewage. They’re living in hellacious conditions. …So I understand why they’re so anxiety-ridden. But they have to understand, by the time it became obvious that they were in the fix they were in, there were a lot of other problems, too. There were people — they were worried about people drowning that had to be taken off roofs.
MALVEAUX: So you two believe that the federal response was fast enough?
CLINTON: All I’m saying is what I know the facts are today. There are hundreds of buses now engaged in the act of taking people from New Orleans to the Astrodome in Houston. And you and I are not in a position to make any judgment because we weren’t there.
All I’m saying is the way they got stuck there, I see why they feel the way they do. But the people that put them there did it because they thought they were saving their lives. And then when the problems showed up, they had a lot of other people to save. Now they’ve got hundreds of buses. We just need to get them out. I think they’ll all be out by tomorrow. Didn’t they say they would all be out by tomorrow morning?
G.H.W. BUSH: Yes.
MALVEAUX: OK. Well, thank you very much. I’m sorry. We’ve run out of time. Thank you. OOps did she try to stop them countering what she was trying to do – ie slag off the President…?
G.H.W. BUSH: Let me — I just to want finish. I believe the administration is doing the right thing, and I believe they have acted in a timely fashion. And I understand people being critical. That happens all the time. And I understand some people wanted to make, you know, a little difficulty by criticizing the president and the team. But I don’t want to sit here and not defend the administration which, in my view, has taken all the right steps. And they’re facing problems that nobody could foresee: breaking of the levees and the whole dome thing over in New Orleans coming apart. People couldn’t foresee that.
CLINTON: Yes, I think that’s important to point out. Because when you say that they should have done this, that or the other thing first, you can look at that problem in isolation, and you can say that.
And so I just think that we need to recognize right now there’s a confident effort under way. People are doing the best they can. And I just don’t think it’s the time to worry about that. We need to keep people alive and get them back to life — normal life. END QUOTE
Let me answer this. Clinton took over this interview because he knew that Bush 41’s response would just be considered the normal response of a father defending his son, and that Bush had too much class to go after Malveaux.
Thank you, Mr. President, for reminding people that our focus should remain on the difficult work ahead in rescuing the victims and starting the recovery process.
Anklebiters, nitpickers, and partisan hacks should step aside and let the grown-ups take over.
See the whole thing at:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
RE: THE Hurricane, does everyone realise that it has devastated an area the size of the UK? And yet the media are critcizing Bush?
If the same happened here in the UK we wouldn;t even be able to cope, i mean think about it, cities, towns and villages totally destroyed, up and down the country, and yet people, or should i say the media expect rapid mirracles. I think they should understand that something this large will take months to sort out.
Stop the “i told you so, or should have” syndrome and try to solve the problem and be positive..
Paul, BBC News is a site of opinion. Many people think so. I wonder if BBC staff have been brainwashed into thinking they are impartial. I hope not, I’d find that more scary than them just lying to us about being impartial. After all, just like with the Soviet and Nazi regimes it was the evangelical underlings doing the work of the cycnical leaders that were the real danger.
The thought of Paul sleeping the sleep of the righteous every night, sure in the knowledge he’s performing a valuable public service is downright sinister.
The British Bias Corporation
I would spell it Corruperation.
Teddy Bear | Homepage | 01.09.05 – 8:00 pm | #
————————
The Melanie Phillips article that TB linked to included a link to a new blogger exposing bias in the British media.
Welcome Adloyada! Go pay her a visit and welcome her on board.
http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/2005/08/the_perfectly_b.html
We need all the voices we can to expose the BBC.
“Of course the BBC never reported on the efficiency of the US response to the tsunami” Johninlondon
Actually they did.
the BBC’s Peter Marshall had this to say.
“The Asian tsunami has provided a perfect example of the need for an efective UN under an activist Secretary General. This time Kofi Annan was quick off the mark and America’s independent efforts soon looked superfluous.”
Repeat that again?
America’s independent efforts soon looked superfluous.”
You may recall the US saved thousands of lives while the UN was still setting up shop in swank hotels weeks later.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-us-tsunami-effort-superfluous.html
How bad was the BBC’s reporting on US efforts in the tsunami?
The Telegraph reported how bad here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/09/nbook09.xml
Scroll down to this:
“Last week we were subjected to one of the most extraordinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia’s tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round-the-clock relief operation, providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.
The BBC went out of its way not to report this. Only when one BBC reporter, Ben Brown, hitched a lift from one of the Abraham Lincoln’s Sea Hawk helicopters to report from the Sumatran coast was there the faintest hint of the part that the Americans, aided by the Australian navy, were playing.”
Read the whole thing, it’s pretty damning of the BBC and rightly so.
Regarding the above comments re this web site and the BBC both being a place of opinion.
True, but I visit this site out of choice. I am not forced to pay over £100 or go to jail for the upkeep of the site or its opinions.
THATS THE WHOLE POINT.
OT Interesting that in his transcript Mohammad Sidique Khan states:
“I’m sure by now the media’s painted a suitable picture of me, this predictable propaganda machine will naturally try to put a spin on things”
Is he right? Note the main photograph of Mohammad looking thoughtful and reflective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206800.stm
Of course they could nt find any other photo to use.
Not even a nice old school photo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4141334.stm
At least they did nt use these photos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4693001.stm
The “London bomber video aired on TV” article uses a still from the propaganda video.
However the “London bomber: Text in full” requires a more studious and humane picture so we can hopefully come to a nuanced understanding of the man and his actions.
No doubt the media will pick up the Iraq connection re his reference to gassing and torture.
davet
nice post
I’m sorry I could make no sense of wahatever messge the czech peresident was trying to make or what sad point you were trying to porve