This morning’s Broadcasting House on Radio Four featured something I don’t think I’ve heard before on a news programme.
Around half an hour in there was a long item on asylum seekers, and the alleged shortcomings of the information used by the government to decide on asylum claims. We heard from the Refugee Council, a couple of other asylum pressure groups, Amnesty International and a solicitor specialising in asylum claims, who all told more or less the same story.
Apparently the government immigration and asylum service doesn’t deliberately tell untruths – but ‘they’re selective in what information they choose to put in and to leave out’. You could say the same about another State agency, too – but no matter. So far, so standard for the BBC.
What was unusual about this story ? The interviews with asylum seekers at the beginning and end of the piece. The opening interviews were overdubbed with weepy strings – the sort of music you might hear in a documentary about the Warsaw Ghetto, or the Aberfan disaster.
The final interviews – of women at the Crossroads Women’s Centre in London – were accompanied by mournful piano chords.
It looks as though the Broadcasting House producer has crossed the line between news (no matter how slanted) and propaganda. How long before interviews with senior Tories are accompanied by the Benny Hill theme ?
Laban
I’m not sure that having a ‘therapist’ on the Broadcasting House to discuss whether the Conservative Party needs therapy to sort out its perceived problems of ‘identity’ and ‘self esteem’ doesn’t rank with having Benny Hill theme music introducing the piece.
Mind you, when I heard Cameron saying the other day that conservative voters had voted Labour in 1997 because they were tired of Thatcherism (whatever that is), I did wonder about HIS need for therapy. I know he’s young, but surely he can remember that Margaret Thatcher never lost an election! It was nice wet Major who did that.
Brilliant observation, Laban. Newsnight’s tendency also to use music and over-the-top graphics has irritated me for some time now. Apart from the subliminal propaganda aspect, I also think sometimes that it is to provide work for their mates and lovers from the arty farty enclaves from which the Beeb drawers so much of it direct and indirect ‘labour’; completely unnecessary and at the licence fee payers expense.
Well, their website has helpfully invited you to complain (or ‘have a whinge’ as they contemptously put it) to the email address “bh@bbc.co.uk”
I’ve noticed this listening to documentaries on the World Service. No doubt the BBC is well aware of the power of radio. A suggested image can be as effective as an actual image, perhaps even more so.
They make the propagandists of Orwell’s ‘1984’ and Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ seem amateurish by comparison.
I can forgive music on a documentary – maybe even one about a current political issue. But BH is meant to be a news programme.
The combination of Laban’s link to the Broadcasting House story • if ever there was a textbook example of unconscious irony that was it – and Go Metro’s link to the Beeb’s hagiography of Che Guevara (under the Lib Dem link) both led me inexorably to the Beeb’s own country report on Cuba. Which led me on to all the Latin American country reports. Auntie’s reporters seem to be utterly obsessed by economic inequality. In most cases it’s just prominently and emotively reported, but in some cases • Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Panama and Peru the Beeboid does not scruple to offer direct political opinion • that something must be done about economic inequality. Presumably this because the vital need to narrow economic inequality is one of those issues on which no reasonable man could disagree ?
[Brazil’s] government is under pressure to redress what some say is one of the world’s most unfair distributions of wealth. Much of the country’s arable land is controlled by a handful of wealthy families, a situation which the Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST) seeks to redress by demanding land redistribution. It uses direct protest action and land occupation in its quest.
But [Chile] faces the challenges of having to diversify its copper-dependent economy and of addressing its uneven distribution of wealth.
While the [Dominican Republic] remains one of the poorest countries in the Caribbean, it suffers from a huge gap between the rich and the poor]
Guatemalans live in one of the most iniquitous societies in the region. Poverty is particularly prevalent in rural areas and in indigenous communities.
Meanwhile, [Haiti’s] most serious social problem, the huge wealth gap between the impoverished Creole-speaking black majority and the French-speaking mulattos, 1% of whom own nearly half the country’s wealth, remains unaddressed.
[Panama] also needs to address social inequality. Elite families of European descent control most of Panama’s wealth and power, while about 40% of the population live below the poverty line.
But Peru’s development has been held back by endemic corruption and the failure of successive governments to address the problems of social and economic inequality.
Continuing from the Beeb’s country profiles of Latin American countries, a few countries get a good press :
Uruguay has a virtually homogeneous population, which consists overwhelmingly of second- and third-generation Europeans, mostly of Spanish or Italian origin. However, while it is largely free of the serious income inequality which characterises much of Latin America, the 10% or so of its population who are of African or mixed European-native American descent form a higher proportion of its poorest people.
Lacking substantial mineral resources, Nicaragua has traditionally relied on agricultural exports to sustain its economy. But these benefited mainly a few elite families of Spanish descent, primarily the Somoza family, which ruled the country with US backing between 1937 and the Sandinista revolution in 1979. The Sandinistas began redistributing property and made huge progress in the spheres of health and education.
And Hugo Chavez gets a very pretty write up.
But lest it be thought that left wing countries can do no wrong, let’s focus on the coruscating criticism of Cuba :
Cuba has fallen foul of international bodies, including the UN’s top human rights forum, over alleged rights abuses. The UN’s envoy has urged Havana to release imprisoned dissidents and to allow freedom of expression.
“Alleged” human rights abuses, eh ?
Not quite so “alleged” however, but your actual “fact” are the doings of that loathsome old crocodile Augusto Pinochet :
The exception was the 17-year-long rule of Augusto Pinochet, whose coup in 1973 was one of the bloodiest in 20th-century Latin America and whose dictatorship left more than 3,000 people dead and missing.
Yes, well he was a very unpleasant killer, but is “one of the bloodiest in 20th-century” really in order here ? When the Beeb itself tells us :
Peru witnessed a brutal war against Maoist rebels, which claimed as many as 69,000 lives in the 1980s and 1990s. and
Paraguay and Bolivia fought over the territory in the 1930s; the war left 100,000 dead.
If it be complained that we’re talking about coups, then this
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:nGus2zDh2okJ:users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm+cuba+%22civil+war%22+casualties&hl=en
estimates Pinochet’s executions at 3,000. And Castro’s at 5,000 to 12,000.
If the Home Office country profiles are as biased as these ones, then they surely do deserve criticism.
The only consolation we can take is that such BBC news programs are hardly listened to. They are essentially vanity publishing by a small clique broadcasting to themselves for their own gratification and self-esteem. We shouldn’t have to pay them to do it. Does anyone still take Radio 4 seriously? It is as now as dumbed down as the rest of the BBC. It isn’t even good propaganda. Most of the output is too obviously lamentable for that. I suppose the Archers, Home Truths and the laughable afternoon plays provide some entertainment for the bored retirees of the home counties.
Another great post here with a BBC angle
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
The “mini-revolution” replacing
(D)HYS is nigh!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4318748.stm
CAMERA claims that “In response to complaints from a few UK activists, BBC editors have removed a tendentious, editorialized television listing for a program airing tomorrow night, “Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace.”
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2005/10/uk_activists_pr.html
Instead of the music,the BBC could be asking the asylum seekers why they chose the UK,what countries they passed through and had they any dealings with criminals to get them here>
Anybody notice how John Humphreys managed to squeeze some anti-Bush rhetoric into his appearance on the English Language test last night? How surprising.
OT
Read an article in the back of Big Issue re: Cherie Blair.
Absolute classic, she was claiming victim status as she always does, how everyone dislikes her..i couldn’t control myself, it was hilarious stuff…
Couldn’t help but feel she was trying a “jedi mind trick” manoeuvre which to the ill informed might work for a second, but to the rest of us sounded rather pathetic…for such an educated woman..
In other news i also noticed that the BBC guy Horrocks was flexing his muscles telling everyone not to disrespect each other.. Bit late that.. but someone needs to control the stupidity of many of the reporters, that is for sure..perhaps then we might see improvements?
I’m not holding my breath.
On the asylum/immigration thread, there was a report on the massed charge into Spain’s territories in North Africa, Cueta and Melina. The gist of the report was effectively that the migrants should be allowed to stay and that the rush was a result of Spain deciding to put up a higher fence to keep them out in the first place: a rather questionable line of logic, but it is the BBC after all, so reason can be put aside.
Personally, I think the only adequate soundtrack to the words of an asylum seeker would be the `Jaws` theme tune.
Ian Barnes
Cherie Blair has no Style, no Class and no Taste and can therefore not be described as being Educated.
(D)HYS “Are you affected by the Asia quake?
Among many first hand accounts & expression of concern from relatives of people in the area, the BBC finds space for these contributions
In view of the horrific size of the catastrophe what an insult it is to hear that Bush is promising $100,000 and Blair £100,000 aid packages. How much are they each spending in their war in Iraq?
Franklin Zwikel, Brussels, Belgium
Surely Britain’s pledge of $177,000 and the US’s $100,000 is an insult. Many UK and US individuals earn more than that a year.
A A Patel, London UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4321594.stm
Is A A Patel any relation to Bilal? 🙂
Dan,
Judging from the comment from Franklin in Brussels, it seems that what Justin Webb said about Americans knowing nothing about suffering in other parts of the world, actually goes for this guy in Brussels. He must have no idea how much money we’re having to spend on our own people suffering from the hurricanes. Not just Iraq. But everything is about Iraq, isn’t it? And as for what A A Patel said about people earning $100,000 a year, ha! I wish I earned that much in a year!
Denise — I, too, wish I earned that much in a year. But Patel lives in Silicon Valley, where many people do indeed earn in that range. Rents there are breathtaking.
Here’s a very short but interesting piece from the Independent (so salt to taste) about a BBC presenter’s visit to Iraq:
Iraq has been through a tempestuous time of late – and then came Jeremy Clarkson…
Mr Clarkson…has told the British military how he came under fire several times in one day.
After mortar rounds landed at a British base, the motoring journalist told a British officer “Don’t worry, this happens to me quite often wherever I go”…
Undaunted by his experience, Mr Clarkson appear to have craved further excitement. At one point during his visit to Basra he is said to have asked the British military to organise the blowing up of a car. He was told, however, that staging explosions in Iraq of all places was not a good idea.
Who needs Madrasas in Pakistan when you’ve got the BBC?
Angie, you don’t know anything about Jeremy Clarkson, do you?
Clarkson might be irritating at times, even ignorant at times, but he’s not a leftie – this somewhat disapproving Wikipedia article should give you a flavour of why lefties tend to dislike him.
N.B. Just because someone works with or is associated with the British Broadcasting Borg it doesn’t automatically mean that they’re a leftie!
As I listened to the hushed, considered, sympathetic and sombre response to the Asian earthquake on the Today programme by St James of Smug and others, I felt something was missing. By the end, I had got it – they never mentioned the word “blame”.
Indeed this was also missing from the coverage of Hurricane Stan. Quite right that the BBC should cover these human disasters in this serious fashion.
But I can remember another natural disaster recently where the BBC had a less sympathetic response, where they were all too keen to report fictitious race crimes and institutionalised racism, and where the word “blame” was used liberally, particularly in relation to the Head of State of that country. I wonder why the difference?
.
OT
re: Blair vs Blair
i found the whole tone of the “conversation” between the imaginary Blairs almost childish in nature.
Moreover, i felt that the real question we ought to be asking is:
Who is the PM? Tony or Cherie?
My udnerstanding was that she seemed to wield quite considerable influence, which i hope is not the case, as she isnt PM?
It may well explain why so many public speeches Tony makes are undermined by Cherie. Perhaps undermined is too strong, perhaps what they do, is play games, sending messages to everyone and confusing issues so no one knows what is really going on.
Either way, it was an interesting insight into British Government, and one which i must say could have been more critical.
For me the “softly softly” approach by the BBC, almost tries to make out that both parties care about the country.
What i find amazing is that in reality all they care about is their pocket.
Cherie’s speeches at £40 000 a time isnt bad use of your husband’s status..didnt mention that. Or the suicide bomber remarks, but did hint towards the general undermining of government policy, which is an understatement.
I had the misfortune to listen to Andrew Marr “interviewing” Robert Fisk this morning. No hard questions, in fact no questions at all. The Fisk was allowed to make unchallenged remarks on Israel, Iraq, Bush…
But why should I be surprised?
OT
A nice opinion piece on Michael Crichton’s new novel: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4319574.stm
The implicit suggestion that anyone who is sceptical about global warming being a problem is a loony is unmistakeable.
Mike – beat me to it by less than 5 mins!
It’s an opinion piece and identified as that, so all well and good, apart from two points:
It would be acceptable from a non-public funded body, which the BBC isn’t.
Opinion is propaganda if the only opinions published are those of one side of an argument.
Peter
Re the Marr/Fisk interview on Start The week, I was so badly hoping that Marr would say, “Come on Bob – jettison your famed objectivity just for once, and tell us what you REALLY think.”
Nick
I agree on the opinion piece, but I don’t recall any opinion piece that was saying global warming is a hoax. I get the impression that Crichton (I haven’t read it yet) has put together a quite detailed critique on the topic and the BBC couldn’t have that side of the argument out there without a counter.
I note at the same time that they don’t seem to counter everything that is published elsewhere. Perhaps that’s because they agree with a lot of it.
Mike “I haven’t read it yet”
I started it some months ago & gave up. Its hero is an “amateur” who gets dragged off to all parts of the globe in an effort to foil the eco-terrorists. You cab accept an amateur caught up in momentous events when there is no escape for that individual, but in Crighton’s plot there was plenty of opportunity to leave our hero at home whilst the spooks, special ops etc dealt with the terrorists.
As to Dame Harold’s piece – he is not given to conspiracy theories but is prepared to accept one person’s assertion as the whole truth –
Al Gore … pointed out that since the 1970s, hurricanes both in the Atlantic and Pacific have increased in intensity by about 50%.
That may be so, but I have seen other articles that show that hurricane intensity is cyclical.
The Dame also goes heavily against bodies sponsored by Exxon. This is the usual trap of the lefty. They choose to ignore the possibilty of bias by bodies funded from the public teat. Governments have an agenda too & commission research to further that agenda.
N.B. Just because someone works with or is associated with the British Broadcasting Borg it doesn’t automatically mean that they’re a leftie!
Er, if you say so. I’m still looking for the part where I stated that he was. I just thought he was an arrogant journalistic prat who imagined he could a) order up a car-bombing, and b) thought that would be a good idea, practically and ethically. I’m especially taken with the idea that he might have wanted to stage a car-bombing for journalistic purposes.
Assuming, of course, that the Independent article is accurate.
Angie, the stuff suggested by the Independent about Jeremy Clarkson is probably based on a grain of truth – it’s the kind of boys own knockabout humourous stuff Clarkson does – and that the troops would like – but you’d have to know something of Clarkson and his programmes to know that and to appreciate, therefore, that The Independent will have spun their account to make Clarkson out in a bad light. The article tells us nothing about Clarkson or the BBC – it merely tells us that he’s persona non grata at The Independent.
Bottom line, without some knowledge of Clarkson you’re not well placed to judge the relevance of that article to the subject of BBC bias, though that is presumably why you thought it worth mentioning.
Bottom line, without some knowledge of Clarkson you’re not well placed to judge the relevance of that article to the subject of BBC bias…
Hmm, don’t know that I meant to comment on BBC bias so much as on Clarkson’s attitude, though perhaps that’s splitting hairs.
By the way, isn’t this Jeremy Clarkson also the Jeremy Clarkson who alleged that drooling halfwit American servicemen were shooting the poor, starving looters of New Orleans with helicopter gunships? Is that the sort of jolly knockabout Boys Own brand of humor Clarkson is famous for? Why, I can’t imagine what more I would need to know about him!
Ahh, finally. JPEG of Clarkson’s Sun column here. A ripping good read and free — as far as I could see — of any leftist dogma. So that’s OK then.
Having just read “the World according to Clarkson” a compilation of his 2002/3 newspaper column, Clarkson is Anti Bush-Iraq-Blair(ish) but also despises the liberal namby pamby “4×4 drivers are destroying the planet” brigade. On a left/right barometer I’d say he was more right than left. IMHO.
Angie: Hmm, don’t know that I meant to comment on BBC bias so much as on Clarkson’s attitude, though perhaps that’s splitting hairs.
Well, this is a blog about BBC bias rather than about Jeremy Clarkson, so it’s reasonable to assume the former as the context of your original post.
Angie: By the way, isn’t this Jeremy Clarkson also the Jeremy Clarkson who alleged that drooling halfwit American servicemen were shooting the poor, starving looters of New Orleans with helicopter gunships? Is that the sort of jolly knockabout Boys Own brand of humor Clarkson is famous for? Why, I can’t imagine what more I would need to know about him!
It appears so, though your quote isn’t entirely accurate or in it’s original context. Clarkson earns his living by being controversial, as he sees it, so it’s hardly worth taking offense at what he writes since that will only encourage him.
Within the confines of his TV shows though he’s generally quite entertaining (at least to non-treehuggers/non-leftoids). I don’t enjoy his newspaper columns – I usually skip over them – he used write for the Sunday Times (may still do) – but his column each week (before I gave up on it) was usually along the lines of the Sun column you have dug up – albeit with a different group on the receiving end of his vitriolic schoolboy characterisations and exaggerations each week. I expect some people find this sort of thing amusing though, just as some people, it seems, find the likes of Howard Stern amusing.
The point that I have been trying to convey though, and far too subtly it seems, is that not all of what the BBC does is bad! It’s wrong to apparently assume therefore that anything to do with the BBC is automatically bad, particularly when, as in this case, you knew nothing about Jeremy Clarkson except that he works for the BBC and that The Independent (a suspect newspaper if ever there was one) wrote an article portraying him negatively!
It’s wrong to apparently assume therefore that anything to do with the BBC is automatically bad…
Well, since we’re abandoning subtlety, let’s spell it out, shall we?
1) I don’t give a damn what Clarkson’s politics are.
2) He sounds like an arrogant prat who believes that his status as a BBC! Journalist! puts him on a plane far above that of mortal men.
3) This is yet another example of the journalistic arrogance that is rife at the BBC. This arrogance is part of what keeps the BBC’s bias bubbling along.
4) You seem to be defending Clarkson because you enjoy reading him in other contexts. Well and good, but it doesn’t absolve him of being an arrogant prat.
5) It might be helpful if you’d read what I’ve actually written. You have twice taken me to tasks for arguments I have not made.
There. I hope that’s clearer now.