with my esteemed colleague Andrew’s harsh description [CORRECTION: Andrew has pointed out that the description was Stephen Pollard’s rather than his own] of this piece by Justin Webb as “drivel”. On the contrary, it is rather clever. Look at this:
Rita and Katrina have both been events of massive force, sweeping away an awful lot, but Katrina – because of the ghastly failure of the authorities to prepare and to rescue those at risk – is thought by some to have done more than physical damage.
Bill Clinton is among many eminent Americans who wonder whether Katrina’s biggest impact might be psychological, political.
Students are invited to discuss the following, with special attention to what was not said: (1) “The authorities” (2) “Thought by some”(3) The citation of Bill Clinton as an eminent American who thought the impact of Katrina would be “psychological, political.” (Bonus points for candidates who raise other relevant statements by Mr Clinton.)
Now look at this:
Will the American social and economic system – which creates the wealth that pays for billionaires’ private jets, and the poverty which does not allow for a bus fare out of New Orleans – be addressed?
It has been tinkered with before of course, sometimes as a result of natural disasters. There were for instance plenty of buses on hand for this week’s Rita evacuation.
The first sentence might seem odd coming from a graduate in Economics, until you remember that Mr Webb got his degree from the LSE – sorry, couldn’t resist that – and has spent his entire working life at the BBC. What I meant to admire was the way these two paragraphs talked about buses without talking about the wrong sort of buses.
More blogging on this story from:
Andrew Sullivan– a partial defence which makes several fair points.
Many of Mr Webb’s pieces do admit his own propensity to prejudice, and that is a start. At the start of an article he often throws out a bit of red meat on a string to the chattering classes (“The real question – putting it baldly – is whether there is going to be a revolution”, “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 … I have done my bit to paint that picture…”) and then draws it back at the end. It is good that he tends to draw back in the end, but it would be even better if he didn’t pander to his readers’ prejudices in the first place.
(Hat tip: Kerry B and others)
UPDATE: Take a look at this commentfrom Jim Miller, too. America, rightly or wrongly, spends a great deal on welfare. It isn’t the devil-take-the-hindmost society portrayed here.
Yes, I heard this idiocy last night. I noticed how he states his opinion that America needs to change as indisputable fact I was wondering what kind of revolution he has in mind. Evidently a kind of grey socialist ‘utopian’ equality which will preclude rich or poor.
This passes for journalism at the BBC.
OT:
Those carefully PC little dhimmies at the BBC World Service have also been reporting on the Israeli attacks in Gaza but have made no mention of the fact that several Israelis have been injured by rockets fired from Gaza.
All they will say is this: “Home-made rockets were fired from Gaza at an Israeli town.”
Doesn’t seem like they even had the power to reach that “Israeli town.”
Propagandist swine.
Particularly infuriating is that when hundreds (in some cases, thousands) of license fee payers write in with specific examples of inaccuracy, distortion, bias or lies, some grey apparachnik comes on to say “No we didn’t.” And that’s that. That’s what passes for accountability at the BBC. No engaging in debate about issues raised, about the overall picture painted. Just “You’re wrong.”
I cannot now find the response from the BBC to those many viewers who wrote in to complain that the BBC had used Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to attack President Bush. However here’s an example of such issue-avoidance to a complaint which I made recently
I wrote
Reporting on the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza
More disgraceful comments which reveal the bias of the BBC and its top
reporters on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Oral Guerin comments
‘Israel stole thirty-eight years from them; today, many were ready to
take back anything they could.’
Stolen years? What is the woman talking about? This disgracefully
emotive comment reveals Guerin’s hatred for Israelis as well as disregard for the truth. Does she really not know that Gaza was occupied by Egypt from 1948 until 1967? If so she is a hypocrite, and if not then her ignorance renders her incompetent.
In the meantime, by passing off such emotive untruths as fact, she is
contributing to the gross misrepresentation of the State of Israel and giving every anti-semite in the Middle East and beyond an excuse to further their violent aims against Jews everywhere.
What makes this particularly infuriating is that I am required to
contribute to the BBC’s vicious anti-Israel campaign. As a further
example of the spiteful reporting of the Middle East, in the following
report on the BBC website,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4242886.stm
your reporter fails to mention that the ‘building materials’ being
looted by a Palestinian mob are being ripped out of greenhouses which
for years provided Palestinians with much needed jobs, and which had
been left by the Israeli government and by a trust fund to provide an
income for the Palestinians.
Their reply was:
Thank you for your e-mail regarding a report on our News Website from our Middle East Correspondent, Orla Guerin, on the Palestinian return to the Gaza settlements.
Orla Guerin was in no way trying to “justify” the actions of Palestinian mobs in this report. Her reference to the Palestinians’ sense of having time stolen from them was an attempt to give context to their actions – not to justify them.
As I am sure you are aware, the UN believes that settlements – to which Orla Guerin was referring to in this report when she used the word “stole” – have no legal validity and obstruct the peace process (e.g. Security Council Resolution 446, 22 March 1979). Many governments also hold that Israeli settlements contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that ‘The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. ‘
The British Foreign Office gives this statement on its website:
“Our policy on settlements is clear: settlements are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace … continuing illegal Israeli settlement activity threatens the prospects for a two-state solution and is an obstacle to peace.”
In United Nations Security Council Resolution 465 (1980), the Security Council demanded that Israel “dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction or planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.”
Accordingly, we do not agree with the assertion that this report sought to “rationalize the Palestinian mob violence”. The use of the word “stole” was a reference to Israel’s occupation of this land for the previous thirty-eight years following the 1967 war.
Regards
BBC Information
No mention of the key points in my complaint – the vilification of Israeli occupation of Gaza whilst ignoring the equally illegal Egyptian occupation, and the way in which such propaganda incites further those who hate Jews to violence.
This refusal to address license fee payers’ concerns should not be allowed to continue.
I awoke early today to the sound of BBC’s lies (‘bias’ is no longer appropriate) on the Gaza rocket attacks. In common with all other output on this particular matter, the BBC fails to report the explosion of a rocket-laden lorry which killed 15 palestinians (??) and wounded 85. This catalyst for subsequent attack and counter-attack was admitted by whatever passes for authority there as being an accident with no Israeli involvement.
The BBC is broadcasting absolute and outright damnable lies.
Well-said Fran. Thousands of people up and down the country have been fulminating about this for years. The petition by this site has been signed by too few. So let’s think along the lines of a DELEGATION and a few QUESTIONS in Parliament.
On the horrible bbc “reporting” from the likes of Webb et al, maybe the beeb is starting to take notice of the disgrace. Yesterday on News 24 I actually heard two well-informed and objective American voices reporting on the hurricanes!
They did a good job, no opinions, just the story. So why are we spending tax money to send ignorant, uninformed America-haters like Webb and Frei on an all expenses paid junket?
bryan
home made rockets are sort of heart warming.they remind the viewers of hot cakes and biscuits.
bryan
they also remind viewers that the “poor palestinians” are just amateurs and so should be excused.they really know not what the do.
to be killed by home made rockets is well just plain silly! that is what the bbc intends to say.
The BBC is lying, yet again. They keep uttering the nonsense that “Israel said militants were killed…” or Israeli spokesman said insurgents attacked…” etc.
I know for a certainty that Israel uses the word TERRORIST in all its statements.
The BBC is a gross, lying station and should be banned from Israel. Orla Guerin should be kicked out of Israel and the BBC. The fact that Israel allows her to sit there and mouth obscenities is a measure of Israeli freedom, tolerance, and democracy. It’s the BBC and Britain that are the laughing stocks. Shame on the UK for allowing it to continue!
cnn raises its own money and so this leftist company need not deserve the calumny we heap on the extortionists at the bbc.
however we are entitled to point out various leftoids at cnn.
the leftoid of the day is shihab ratansi.smirks and dislikes america. he hates israel.
loose
“orla guerlin should be kicked out of israel” is fair comment.
bias bbc has an effect
i feel that the zombies at the bbc are cooling their rhetoric.the anti american ben brown (the cut of his brown jacket is atrocious) seems to have lost a bit of his hatred.
he has become a little more reasonable.could be a case of jekyll/hyde though.
brig john lorimer
the brig refuses to apologises over the basra affair.
“it was the right thing to do” he said to the the daily telegraph.
i am happy to see britain confident again.this officer sets a good example.
“glad confident morning again.”
a lesson to the bbc on how to present stories in a fair way
“israeli air strikes hits gaza after hamas fires rockets” the new york times 25/9/2005
“can someone remind me why i am forced to pay for the bbc license fee?”
stephen pollard is rather good.
good ol` beeb
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1577736,00.html
Following Fran’s item on Orla “38 years” Guerin, I’m reposting a link to this piece – which features some amazingly prescient writing from Martha Gellhorn (in 1960), and which readers may find a useful corrective:
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2…hange- more.html
BTW, if you’re a subscriber to The Atlantic, you can find Martha Gellhorn’s original article here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/p…196110/ gellhorn
Cheers
Kulibar Tree
Sorry, those links didn’t come out properly – here we are:
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/09/palestinians-more-things-change-more.html
and
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/196110/gellhorn
KT
Thanks KT
What a great article. Pity OG doesn’t have an opportunity to read it.
Fran
“What a great article. Pity OG doesn’t have an opportunity to read it.”
She has an opportunity, Fran, same as all of us – the question is, would she take it?
Kulibar Tree
Socialism is Necrotizing
I loved this paragraph from the linked Groaniad piece:
> …she [Beeb spokeswoman] declined to comment further, but it is believed the broadcaster believes handing over the material could compromise its journalistic independence < Almost every second of its News and Current Affairs output breaches its brief to be objective these days and exhibits its complete dependence upon the dictates of the Gramscian disciples who pull its strings. Not to mention the leftist subliminal messages oozing from every line of its drama and programmes for children. Independence my ass! And since when did it receive immunity from prosecution for witholding vital evidence of conspiracy to commit mass murder or indeed complicity in such acts by broadcasting incitement to commit them? What is Michael Grade for? The arrogance of those whom he is paid to invigilate is breathtaking and demonstrates the weakness of those responsible for national security and law and order in the United Kingdom. I wonder how this leftist organ of propaganda will fare in a few years time when Sharia law prevails? They are not only wilful and out of control, but stupid.
Webb’s outrageous piece is possibly the biggest piece of garbage that’s come out the BBC for ages. And that’s saying something.
The guy is on crack. He doesn’t even try to hide his raving left wing loony opinions. That’s how they really think. Mind-boggling.
Anyway… I just sent hin this email. Which I’m sure will be deleted unread, but you gotta try.
Dear Justin
“the dismemberment of America’s infant welfare state.” ???
What in God’s name are you talking about? You start from the false assumption that the “welfare state” is “good” and extrapolate from there. And you can’t even get that right.
And you even throw in that quasi-Marxist Charles “Lefty” Wheeler. What a pathetic leftoid windbag he is.
No wonder your article is a category five wind… blowing out every clichéd, leftoid fantasy that flits across your mind.
In fact, virtually every problem associated with New Orleans can be traced back to fifty years of a welfare-state mentality.
Oh, there should be a revolution all right. To get the poor African-Americans off the Democratic plantation. To get the idea that they are victims out of their head. To kill the idea that the government is the answer to their problems. To get them OFF welfare.
But you, in your prolier than thou, condescending BBC wisdom want MORE welfare.
Because to you, the government and higher taxes are the answer to every problem. When in reality they are the cause of many problems.
So, of course, when people are finally taxed at 100%, every problem will be solved and you’ll get your stated aim of a “workers paradise.”
Though I was wondering, is the creation of a “revolution” or a “workers paradise”, now official BBC policy? Because I can’t find any mention of either in its charter.
Richard – Great observations of yours re ‘homemade rockets’ et al.
Gotta run.
Thanks for the Justin Webb links, guys. Sorry if this bit has already been discussed, but I really think it needs maximum exposure. Talking about Americans’ reluctance to see government handing over money, Justin Webb states:
“This is undeniably a source of strength and spine in trouble times, but boy does it put a damper on revolution.”
Eh? A damper on REVOLUTION? Real Dave Spartish stuff, this….
No doubt Webb would retort he didn’t mean “revolution” in a literal sense – in which case he is guilty of using incredibly slapdash English.
In any case, his whole piece is in no way factual; it is one long left-wing rant that surely breaches any BBC rule on bias in the book.
If this had been a piece by, say, Tony Benn, in Al Grauniad, it would have been unexceptional.
After all, no one has to pay for said newspaper whether one reads it or not, on pain of imprisonment.
But coming from the self-proclaimed “unbiased” Beeb, it is a disgrace.
To Bryan ( first posting)
The BBC wesbite does mention the Israeli casualties. From the current story:
“Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told cabinet ministers on Sunday that he had ordered continuous military strikes in response to the rocket attacks on the Israeli town of Sderot, which injured at least five people.
“I have issued orders that there be no restrictions regarding the use of all means to strike at the terrorists, members of terrorist organisations, and their equipment and their hideouts,” he said.”
regards
Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online
THE NEW MINISTRY OF TRUTH
I stopped paying the license about 1 year ago and have no plans to do so again. BBC political coverage is bland, sanitised, government propaganda. The forces of sovietisation are taking hold in the UK.
Freedom loving people across the world can see what is happening and are trying to save the UK from decaying into a soviet republic.
Many of the people now in power in the UK like to believe in a soviet utopia.
As a British citizen I am depressed when I see so little resistance to what is happening in my own country. A country that has fought to preserve freedom of political expression in many other states.
The BBC, on direct orders from Downing street, has brought down a new Iron curtain in the UK and everyone’s future is in the hands of apparachicks from big business, big government and big corporate journalism.
This is an SOS message to our friends across the internet – the BBC is now The Ministry of Truth as in George Orwell’s 1984.
This organisation must be rejected by the servants of truth and justice everywhere. BBC journalists must now be seen as UK government information officers. You cannot rely on them to portray an informed unbiased account of events – especially domestic events in the UK.
The UK independent news sector is free from direct government control and can be relied on – ITN and Sky news are still independent of government.
me
The mainstream media (including Sky and ITV) have many elements that are as bad as the BBC; surely our main complaint about the BBC is that we are forced to finance it if we wish to watch TV of any kind? And that it breaches its public remit is to broadcast unbiased and factual news and not to broadcast subliminal and political messages in entertainment or educational material?
As far as I’m concerned the BBC can operate from now until doomsday. I never watch it except to see the occassional good US show not picked up by Sky or E4, like Medium.
We just need to destroy two things..
1. The immoral and illegal licence fee.
2. The BBC’s undeserved worldwide reputation for unbiased “news” reporting.
Then they can go their happy little leftoid way.
“knowing glances and smirks”
Instapundit http://instapundit.com/archives/025767.php
mentions a few others
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/09/real-question-putting-it-baldly-is.html
http://clivedavis.blogs.com/clive/2005/09/the_beebs_bubbl.html
who have taken note of BBC bias in anti-American tones. To have its dissonance strain the ears of the National Public Radio ombudsman http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4845302
is a distinguishing feat.
Socialism is Necrotizing
Interesting article re BBC obstructing the Met and protecting alleged terrorists.
I hope the Met make full use of the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 in their investigations. The BBC provides this advice to it’s programme makers:
BBC Editorial Guidelines
Section 11 – War, Terror & Emergencies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/war/theterrorismact.shtml
“The Terrorism Act 2000
We have a legal obligation under the Terrorism Act 2000 to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:
1. preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world.
2. securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission,
3. preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
It is a criminal offence not to disclose such information, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Any situation where BBC staff may be in potential breach of the Terrorism Act must be referred to Controller Editorial Policy and Programme Legal Advice”
If the programme editor(s) of BBC News & current affairs continue to obstruct the police, they should be charged under the Terrorism Act. This is serious.
Espresso
The ‘immoral and illegal’ licence fee?
Hmmnn. Immoral – depending on your philosophical viewpoint, it may be. Illegal it unfortunately is not.
It is extortionate, but not, unfortunately, extortionate enough to satisy the CPS to apply the Theft Act or any other statute that might apply. One wonders whether it would wither on the vine if enough people stopped watching or listening; if you can think of ways of dissauding the general public whose tastes are simple and apolitical not to listen to or watch the BBC output let’s have them. Unfortunately the public habit is ingrained – having evolved over the past 80 years. That’s what makes it so attractive to the neo-agitprop. And that’s why the Gramscian tutors in Oxbridge, the LSE and most of the other red brick socialist breeding grounds keep an eye open for those likely lads and lassies who will toe the line if given jobs at the Beeb, and pass on the nod through the usual channels. And why for years the Beeb vacancies have been confined to the Grungy-ad. It’s irredeemable! Much as I admire the efforts of this blog, I’m afraid it may just provide mild amusement for those who really run this country. But at least its a start. More power to all your elbows.
Hi Paul
Nice to see you back on BBBC. You correctly point out that the injuries to Israelis are mentioned in the piece on the web. However, the placement of this info – in passing two thirds of the way down the piece – doesn’t place the stepping up of security measures by the IDF firmly in context, now does it.
And talking of context, the sequence of events in the BBC website piece starts with Israelis shooting dead Palestinians whom they were trying to arrest in connection with the deaths of Israeli citizens in suicide bombings. I think the piece should properly have started with the failure of the Palestinian Authority to arrest and question the men themselves as part of the crackdown on terrorist attacks on Israel which the Palestinians are obligated to do under the Road Map – you know, the Road Map under which Israel withdrew from Gaza.
I’d like to see the BBC referring quite a bit more to the obligation of the PA to combat the terrorists in PA territory. How about it, Paul?
BBC Radio 4’s “From our own Correspondent” is currently in blatant breach of the BBC’s Charter obligations and Editorial Guidelines on impartiality.
“From our own Correspondent” boasts it now contains:
“Personal reflections by BBC correspondents around the world”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3143512.stm
Nothiong wrong with diverse views presented in a balanced way. The problem arises when you have a correspondent (Webb for example) who, week in – week out, gives his political opinions and slanted left-wing views of the USA.
BBC Editorial guidelines are quite clear on the matter:
BBC Editorial Guidelines
Section 4 – Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion
“our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.
Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/
How does the BBC recocile the above guidelines, there to ensure Charter obligations are met, with “From our own Correspondent” and the “personal reflections”?
Sadly, at the predictable BBC, “Personal reflections = politically left-wing bias.”
Ritter
Interesting insight into to the BBC’s obligations under the law. Let’s hope Sir Ian Blair is as keen to take an interest in the potential illegal habits of Auntie Beeb as he was to enter the fray about the alleged illegal habits of an emaciated fashion model … we shall see.
off topic
NEW MINISTRY OF TRUTH
This is an SOS message to our friends across the internet – the BBC is now The Ministry of Truth as in George Orwell’s 1984. The organisation must be rejected by the servants of truth and justice everywhere. BBC journalists must now be seen as UK government information officers. You cannot rely on them to portray a truthful account of events – especially domestic events in the UK.
BBC political coverage has become bland, sanitised, government propaganda. For too long we have been listening to BBC broadcasters who know it all and are always right. They all seem to believe in the same kind of social utopia and are smug, arrogant and sometimes surprisingly ignorant.
Far from immigrants living parallel lives in Britain, it is BBC domestic journalists & broadcasters that do not report the unvarnished truth from the streets of the UK. In Leeds and Bradford, for example, local people refuse to give interviews with BBC journalists because of the poor standard of reporting.
British leaders want citizens to believe in a new corporate (soviet) utopia. In support of this the BBC has brought down a new Iron curtain in the UK. Everyone’s future is in the hands of apparatchiks from big business, big government and big corporate journalism. If this was the will of the people then fine, but it is not. The political mandate in the UK is very thin – Hitler got a higher share of the vote in 1935 than the ruling party in the UK did in 2004.
The BBC’s political position should always be to support democracy by helping the smaller, weaker opposition parties get their messages across. Instead of this it throws all its weight & influence behind the government’s agenda and this shuts down important debates on issues that matter to ordinary people. This is a major factor in the so-called democratic deficit in the UK.
Freedom loving people across the world can see what is happening and we need their support to help the UK from decaying into a soviet republic. I stopped paying the license fee about 1 year ago and have now stopped listening to BBC radio, after 20 years. I don’t trust it anymore – it is too prejudiced against America and apologises too much for terrorism and crime.
Take Radio 5 live for example – they will show little sympathy or interest in the victim of a violent crime. Most of the programme will be devoted to discussing the needs of perpetrators & what can be done to help them. Equally, those with ‘extreme’ political views are treated with contempt & will rarely even be interviewed. The presenters believe they care about their listeners but compared to shows on independent stations BBC programmes show a middle-class distaste towards ordinary people & their problems.
Fortunately, the UK independent news sector is vibrant & full of broadcasters not afraid to speak their mind. ITN and Sky news are still independent of government. Long may that continue and let us all hope that Britain’s soviet utopia phase will be short lived.
paul reynolds
yet i have watched time after time yesterday and today the bbc going through the whole story of the israeli strikes on gaza.in the last few seconds we are told that the strikes are a reaction to “home-made” rockets.
in fact 40 were fired.
paul reynolds
there is no doubt that the bbc as a whole is an example of “group-speak”
there seems to be a sort of peer-pressure to follow the party-line.
regards
I don’t understand how the statement below in bold can be true. We must be doing something wrong.
BBC and No 10 try to gloss over Murdoch indiscretion
Owen Gibson and Michael White
Monday September 19, 2005
The Guardian
The BBC and Downing Street were striving yesterday to avoid reopening old wounds after Rupert Murdoch said the prime minister had criticised the corporation’s coverage of Hurricane Katrina as “full of hatred for America and gloating”.
Downing Street signalled embarrassment as well as irritation over the widespread publicity given to Tony Blair’s remark to the media tycoon, while senior BBC executives tried to play down the impact of the comments, made in a telephone call to Mr Murdoch last week.
Speaking on Friday night at a seminar hosted by former US president Bill Clinton, Mr Murdoch said: “Tony Blair – perhaps I shouldn’t repeat this conversation – told me yesterday that he was in Delhi last week and he turned on the BBC World Service to see what was happening in New Orleans. And he said it was just full of hate for America and gloating about our troubles.” Mr Murdoch, who regards the BBC as elitist and commercially unfair, has often used his newspapers to attack the broadcaster. His son James, chief executive of BSkyB, again criticised the corporation on Friday at a television industry conference in Cambridge.
Senior BBC executives yesterday refused to comment on Mr Murdoch’s speech, saying they had received no official complaint from No 10, but privately greeted it with anger and incredulity. Nevertheless, most were relaxed about its impact, given the outpouring of public support that followed the Hutton report. “It says more about Blair’s relationship with Murdoch than it does his relationship with the BBC,” one executive said.
The corporation said it had received no complaints about perceived anti-American flavour to its coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its impact on New Orleans, but eight calls of praise.
“We have received no complaint from Downing Street, so it would be remiss of us to comment on what has been reported as a private conversation. However, it would appear opportune to underline the fact that the BBC’s coverage of the Katrina disaster was committed solely to relaying the events fully, accurately and impartially – an approach we will continue to take with this and other stories,” a spokesman said.
Last week, the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, told the Guardian that relations with the government were back to normal after the tumultuous row that led to the departure of chairman Gavyn Davies and director general Greg Dyke.
Now I know that quite a few here have tried to have comments made to (D)HYS regarding the anti-US bias shown by the BBC. So after binning all of them, they claim they have no complaints.
Well Paul Reynolds you are part of this corporation (corruperation) and you definately have had complaints as indicated here and elsewhere, so your spokesman is clearly lying through their teeth.
The Gramscian Broadcasting Corporation tells a lie and you’re suprised?
End Jail for Entertainment. End the TV-Tax.
Paul Reynolds,
Thanks for pointing out that the BBC did report on Israelis injured by Hamas rockets on the website.
However, my complaint was that the World Service conspicuously failed to mention the fact through at least six hours of newscasts on Gaza which I listened to while at work.
BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston was responsible for the bland understatement about the “home-made rockets” mentioned yesterday in my original comment.
Today he upgraded it to: “A town in southern Israel was hit by a barrage of rockets from Gaza.”
Much stronger language, I’ll agree, but why still no mention of the injured Israelis?
No doubt there are millions of people on the planet who have little or no access to the internet and rely on the World Service for their international news.
The BBC practises propaganda by omission of inconvenient facts.
“The BBC practises propaganda by omission of inconvenient facts.”
Very true and of course they can always claim they are reporting the truth. It’s also difficult to uncover the facts that have been left out.
Give them more rope the BBC seems to love hanging its credibility more every day. However the BBC in opinion polls still seems to command to much trust in the public. Maybe the British public ant all bloggers. Maybe someone someday will start talking the only language the BBC understands and use things like terrorism and violent protest. Or failing that how about a working poor mother with baby in her arms tearfully explaining whot better things she could do with her tv tax money. Lets get emotive.
Do YOU know anyone with a few quid to spair to pay for the adverts before the next election?
The BBC seems to spend at least 5% of its boadcasting time advertising itself. That gives them a budget of 5%/£3000000000=still more money than my calculater can calculate.So I hope they have big pockets.
Or it might be cheaper to just vote anything but new labour at the next election if there is one. The BBC could just go back to critising everything the goverment does. A position at least most anti-state people are more comfortable.And we might at least get a tory on the telly again.